Kant expresses his beliefs regarding ethical duties to others in 448-461 of Metaphysics of Morals. Kant outlines his theories about what duties individuals have to others. Kant begins by stating that duties are divided into two categories, “duties to others in which one’s performance at the same time obligates them, and duties whose observance does not entail that obligation of other people” (Metaphysics of Morals 448). Throughout the remainder of this section, he relates multiple duties to these two categories.
Kant states his definitions of love and respect to further establish the premise for his argument. He defines love as “the maxim of benevolence; and this maxim results in beneficence”, and he defines respect as, “the maxim that limits our self-esteem by the dignity of humanity” (449). He distinguishes that the duty of love is a mutual exchange because it requires the other person to help the initiator benefit as well. In contrast, the duty of respect is one-sided; an individual exercising the duty of respect obligates only their self (450). Kant proceeds to analyze the duties of love, which include the duties of: beneficence, gratitude, and sympathy.
In describing the duty of beneficence, Kant makes an assertion that I disagree with. He states, “For every man who finds himself in need wishes that he might be helped by other men” (453). Kant asserts that if an individual states that they are not willing to help others in need, individuals have a right to not help them when they are in need. I agree with Kant that it is the duty of all men to be beneficent. However, I do not believe that every person in need wants to be helped by other men. I believe that there are many people in need who do not want the help of others. For example, many drug addicts, alcoholics, and individuals with eating disorders try to avoid the help of others. In many cases, these individuals realize they have a problem, but do not want to confront it. When reading this section, I wondered what Kant would say about individuals who avoid the help of others. Would Kant say that these individuals are excused from their duty to help others, until they get there own problems sorted out? I think that Kant would say that under certain conditions, individuals may be excused from their obligation to others due to their inability to help others as a result of their own problems. I believe that Kant would say that individuals are still required to uphold their duty to help these impaired people overcome their problems.
4 comments:
I can see why you would disagree with Kant, because there are many stubborn people in the world who do not wish for others help because they think that they don't need it because they can handle it on their own. But can't we say that people such as drug addicts and criminals are actually in need but they do not know it? Or even more so, that they are in need of our help but they do not know how to ask for it? Having said that though, I believe that Kant is alluding to those who truly need help, for those you mentioned are either examples of extenuating circumstances or not in their right mind, and do not know what they need.
Kant does assert that people are entitled to not help those who are not willing to help others but this reverts to the law of universality. Since the unwilling person’s maxim is to not be helpful to others than why should that person expect to receive help in return? This however only applies to beneficence which is a duty of love. As Kant states in the beginning of this section the duty of love are meritorious and can exist apart from the duty of respect which is owed. Therefore whether the person wants or doesn’t want to help others is based on their desire to receive help in return. When a person helps another they obligate the other to do the same. Kant might even say that not helping a person is of benefice to that person because it relieves them of their duties. The drug addict that does not help the old lady cross the street relieves her of ever giving him a penny for food to eat. The person who cannot walk the old lady across the street is excused from helping her because if they attempted to help her it would treat her like an object; hence going against the duty of respect.
Mike- I understand what you are saying. However, I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. These individuals are in fact in need, and may even realize that they are in need, but that does not mean that they want help from others.
Rosa-I agree with you. However, I raised a different question. I questioned whether or not Kant would say it is okay for an individual to receive the help of others during their time of need, and still be exempt from helping anyone else until they sort out their own problems. Is it possible for the drug addict to have no duty to the lady across the street for a temporary period until he sorts out his own problems? Meanwhile could he still be receiving help from the people next door?
I agree with Kant that every man who finds himself in need wishes for help.
It is a duty to feel sympathy toward people in need. If one could feel sympathy toward someone whose life is in disarray, then that person is in need. It is possible for someone in need not to realize that they are in need. Given the law of universality, others can feel sympathy toward them and know that they are in need and that they want help because everyone who needs help, logically wants it. By the duty of love toward one's fellow man, one must show respect and is obligated to be beneficent to the man in need (112).
The man in need of help would have a duty to feel sympathy to another in need of help, so he can understand the duty one is under to be beneficent. Because it would be his duty to be beneficent to someone else, in his time of need he would want it.
The person in need, having wished for help, is then under the duty to feel gratitude to the person who treated him with beneficence because he in fact wanted help.
Post a Comment