I was reading a philosophical book on ethics and started to question: "Is there some point, possibly indeterminable, at which an individual has done all she is required to do? At this point, does she have the option to decline to do more and is still morally affable?"
If a person responds "yes" to these questions, then she is giving up on a better tomorrow. She has determined that she has done her best to help those she can. She has decided that she no longer has an obligation to help feed the hungry or promote the end of human trafficking. She believes it is not her job to give a portion of her wealth to her neighbors whom cannot afford their basic bills. She reasons that because she has given ten percent of her wages to her congregation, she has no responsibility to support the local charity. Her choices and actions are no longer aimed at promoting the general good.
But if a person believes that there is no such point, then it seems she is setting herself up for a life of disappointment and failure. The world will never be perfect nor will every individual be happy. Therefore, one's work for a better world will never be finished. Furthermore, every minute she takes to watch her favorite TV show, every penny she spends on a mere disposable desire will be in opposition to her moral requirement. That minute could have been used to volunteer at a soup kitchen; that penny could have been spent on aids research.
Is there some kind of moral limit? And if so, how do we determine where it is?
My own opinion.....
ReplyDeleteThere are certain "keywords" you use that impact how one answers this question.
"required" - by what or who's standard?
"obligation" - see above
"responsibility" - see above
"a life of disappointment and failure" - it all depends on your viewpoint.
A person's faith and religious conviction will guide them. You and I may both have the same desire to make the world perfect, and we might both do the same things to that end. But your conscience says that you've done all you can. And mine tells me that I can do more.
I believe that you follow your heart. I might give 10% to the church, more to my neighbor, some to the homeless and hungry, and so on. But if I put $10.00 in my savings account each week when I could be giving it to a worthwhile cause, and my religious conviction allows me to do this, then I'm morally affable.
You, on the other hand, might do all of the same. But your heart tells you to hand over that extra $10.00 to a worthwhile cause. And you know what......we're both right.
The same applies to our use of time. You might spend every spare second trying to make the world a better place. And I might spend a lot of my spare time doing the same, but my conscience allows me to go to a ballgame, or ride my bike, or whatever. Either way, we are both morally affable.
God gives each of us conviction. Deep down inside we just "know" what we're doing is right.
So for me, there is no right or wrong stand on this issue.