In Famine, Affluence, and Morality Peter Singer uses the term of “obligation” in the same sense that one would use “ought” or “duty”一or that which should be done. By using these concepts interchangeably, Singer argues that there is no room for distinction between what we should do and what should be done but is okay not to do. He proves his point through the principle of “if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it” (p.231). For Singer, oughts are something we must always do if it is within our capacity and if it does not cause extreme harm to ourselves or our people.
Immanuel Kant defines moral obligation in his work Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals through the “categorical imperative.” A categorical imperative “declares an action to be objectively necessary in itself without reference to some purpose-that is, even without any further end” (p.531)一in this sense he agrees with Singer’s definition of obligation as categorical imperatives are commands that must be followed based on pure reason. Kant formulates the moral aspect of these obligations through different formulations. “The Formula of an End in Itself” is one which requires one to “act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end” (p.536). Another formulation is “The Formula of Universal Law” states that an action can only be an obligation or duty if we are “able to will that a maxim of our action should become a universal law” (p.535), maxim being the motive behind the action. While Singer claims that obligations are required to be fulfilled whenever possible (to a reasonable degree), Kant claims that obligations are only moral and “ought” to be done if they abide by these formulations.
Works Cited
Kant, Immanuel, and H.J. Paton. “B. Kantian Ethics.” Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2016, pp. 527–542.
Singer, Peter. “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 1, no. 3, 1972, pp. 229–43. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265052. Accessed 9 Dec. 2024.
