Let us start with a small thought experiment here
Your route to work takes you past a shallow pond. One morning you notice that a small child has fallen in and appears to be in difficulty in the water. The child is crying in distress and it seems is at risk of drowning. You are tall and strong, so you can easily wade in and pull the child out. However, although you'll come to no physical harm if you rescue the child, you will get your clothes wet and muddy, which means you'll have to go home to change, and likely you'll be late for work.
In this situation, do you have a moral obligation to rescue the child?
Most people will agree that it is "yes"
Okay, now suppose that there are other people walking past who would equally be able to rescue the child but are not doing so. Does the fact that they are not doing what ought to be done mean that you're no longer obligated to save the child?
Most people will answer this as "No". Some people being immoral does not have any effect on my personal morality and obligation.
Degree of Uncertainty:
Let's imagine that there is some uncertainty attached to the situation.
You know you're not going to come to any harm if you attempt the rescue, but you can't be sure that your efforts will make any difference to how things turn out. It is important to be clear about the precise situation here. You have good reason to suppose that your intervention will bring about a better outcome than would otherwise be the case, but you can't be sure about it. The question is - does this element of uncertainty mean you're no longer obliged to go ahead with the rescue attempt? Most people will say "I am still morally obliged to attempt the rescue"
Enter the Indian Scenario:
The Argument
That children are dying in some far off district in Bihar or UP and not in front of your eyes in the shallow pond is of no difference from a moral perspective. The Moot point is children are dying and we as a society and nation can save them by diverting our resources towards them. Expenditure, resources and efforts can directly save lives, if not all, atleast some of them.
There is no difference between the thought experiement and scenario in India which relates to Hungry children dying a preventable death from malnutrition and curable diseases
Your route to work takes you past a shallow pond. One morning you notice that a small child has fallen in and appears to be in difficulty in the water. The child is crying in distress and it seems is at risk of drowning. You are tall and strong, so you can easily wade in and pull the child out. However, although you'll come to no physical harm if you rescue the child, you will get your clothes wet and muddy, which means you'll have to go home to change, and likely you'll be late for work.
In this situation, do you have a moral obligation to rescue the child?
Most people will agree that it is "yes"
Okay, now suppose that there are other people walking past who would equally be able to rescue the child but are not doing so. Does the fact that they are not doing what ought to be done mean that you're no longer obligated to save the child?
Most people will answer this as "No". Some people being immoral does not have any effect on my personal morality and obligation.
Degree of Uncertainty:
Let's imagine that there is some uncertainty attached to the situation.
You know you're not going to come to any harm if you attempt the rescue, but you can't be sure that your efforts will make any difference to how things turn out. It is important to be clear about the precise situation here. You have good reason to suppose that your intervention will bring about a better outcome than would otherwise be the case, but you can't be sure about it. The question is - does this element of uncertainty mean you're no longer obliged to go ahead with the rescue attempt? Most people will say "I am still morally obliged to attempt the rescue"
Enter the Indian Scenario:
- Two million children in India die and turn into statistics every year. That's about 6,000 deaths everyday
- Malnutrition is more common in India than in Sub-Saharan Africa. One in every three malnourished children in the world lives in India
- Malnutrition limits development and the capacity to learn. It also costs lives: about 50 per cent of all childhood deaths are attributed to malnutrition.
The Argument
That children are dying in some far off district in Bihar or UP and not in front of your eyes in the shallow pond is of no difference from a moral perspective. The Moot point is children are dying and we as a society and nation can save them by diverting our resources towards them. Expenditure, resources and efforts can directly save lives, if not all, atleast some of them.
There is no difference between the thought experiement and scenario in India which relates to Hungry children dying a preventable death from malnutrition and curable diseases
Therefore there is a strong case for Charity not just as a matter of generosity towards the poor and the weak, the downtrodden and the helpless but on the moral front as a moral duty of a man witnessing the death by his ones own eyes.
No comments:
Post a Comment