Special Obligations to Community and Family
I want to defend the idea that no special obligations arise from societal roles. We had been talking about this in class, a bit, with the case of the firefighter and the burning WTC. There were different versions: one where the firefighter was off-duty, another where he was on-duty, a third where he had retired but was still fully capable, and a fourth where he never became a firefighter, but had all the necessary knowledge and training. From these cases, I believe it is clear that the firefighter’s obligations arise from his ability to aid, and not his social role. If anyone is not convinced, then here, rapid-fire, are more cases to hopefully tip the scale: a single (so that familial obligations don’t muddy the waters) British fireman is on holiday in New York City on September 11th. (He has an obligation to aid) Now, imagine that the British fireman is on holiday in Paris on September 11th. (He does not have an obligation to aid.) Suppose that the off-duty American firefighter is in Paris on vacation (Neither does he have an obligation). In all of these cases, the obligation tracks with the ability to aid, and not the “role of being a firefighter”.
A vastly different role is that of a child. The fireman entered his role through a choice, serves his community through his role, and performs some sort of activity that qualifies him as being in that role. I believe that these are all necessary conditions for a role to be social. Being a son or daughter does not satisfy any of those. While “Being a child” is a relational role, it is familial instead of social. Familial obligations are difficult for any moral theory. Although (nearly) everyone agrees that children have obligations to their parents, parents to their children, siblings to each other, children to grandparents, and so on, these obligations often seem arbitrary and irrational. This is especially true when the family member one has an obligation towards is not a person one would normally associate with.
There are thus two questions that I have about obligations familial roles. How could such special obligations arise without any promise-making or choice, and why in the world do such obligations exist?
A vastly different role is that of a child. The fireman entered his role through a choice, serves his community through his role, and performs some sort of activity that qualifies him as being in that role. I believe that these are all necessary conditions for a role to be social. Being a son or daughter does not satisfy any of those. While “Being a child” is a relational role, it is familial instead of social. Familial obligations are difficult for any moral theory. Although (nearly) everyone agrees that children have obligations to their parents, parents to their children, siblings to each other, children to grandparents, and so on, these obligations often seem arbitrary and irrational. This is especially true when the family member one has an obligation towards is not a person one would normally associate with.
There are thus two questions that I have about obligations familial roles. How could such special obligations arise without any promise-making or choice, and why in the world do such obligations exist?
posted by Joshua Frear at
7:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home