The paper should be 5-7 pages.
The assignment for this paper is to explore the nature of the latitude (the scope and limits) of the Kantian imperfect duty of beneficence (as presented in the Groundwork and in the Metaphysics of Morals).
Here is the problem. Kant argues that the happiness of others is an obligatory end. And, given that end, there is an imperfect duty of beneficence (a duty of providing help to others). The imperfect duty gives us some latitude for when and how much we must help. The question is, how do we figure out what that latitude is? Should we help as many people as we can? Or just a few people, whose needs are great? Should the amount of help be as much as we are able to give? If less, according to what principle? And since the end is obligatory, are we supposed to devote a large part of our lives to the happiness of others (is that what an obligatory end requires?) or something less? Do we do enough if we help only in emergencies that we encounter (or, in Kant’s terms, for “true needs”)?
It will help in thinking about this to figure out what it is about happiness that would lead Kant to think we had a duty to promote it. For example, is promoting others’ happiness important for their rational agency? If so, how? And if you think happiness is important in Kant’s theory for some other reason, what is it?
It may also help in thinking about the cases below to consider the attitude towards their own happiness a morally good person should have. What’s the upshot of Kant’s claim The Groundwork (4:399) and in the Metaphysics of Morals (6:388 ) that we have an indirect duty “to assure our own happiness”? How is that different from a duty to promote our own happiness?
The three cases below present potential moral choices for someone committed to the obligatory end of others’ happiness and the duty of beneficence that follows from it.. They raise questions about the kinds of help the duty can require, about sacrificing some of ones’ own happiness for another’s, and about managing the competing duty of self-perfection. As you work out what you think Kant’s view of the duty is, explain how it would resolve what should be done in the three cases. Remember, it is Kant’s view you are to work out, not some other view of beneficence or your own feelings about the cases.
1. Suppose that the only thing that would make George happy is owning a sailboat (something he can’t afford by himself). Is it Kant’s view that there is a duty to help get George what he most wants – what will make him happy? If you think yes, exactly who has that duty? All of us? Some of us? Anyone who knows about George’s unmet need for a sailboat? If you think Kant’s view would be that we don’t have a duty to help George get his boat, why can we ignore what would make George happy, given the obligatory end of promoting others’ happiness?
2. Martha lives in a neighborhood damaged by wildfire. Luckily, her house survived with no damage. However, the house next door is destroyed, and her neighbor has lost everything and is now homeless. Martha’s house is quite large and has spare bedrooms. Does she have a duty to invite her neighbor to move into one of the spare rooms until the neighbor’s house is repaired, even though Martha much prefers to live and work alone and has organized her life so that she can do that?
3. Theo has an extremely sick uncle who needs help on a daily basis. For Theo to provide the help, he will have to withdraw from college, losing the opportunity to acquire all sorts of skills for all sorts of ends he might have throughout the rest of his life. Theo is willing to help his uncle, but, given the circumstances, should he?
Make sure you review the discussion of happiness and the fourth examples under FUL and FOH in the Groundwork, and the discussion of obligatory ends in the Metaphysics of Morals 6:386-394 and about duties to self and others at 6:444-447 and 6:448-454.