International Justice - Moral Obligation
Introduction
Considering the nature of moral obligation as a moral principle, philosophers argue that this principle is related to religious doctrines or rational philosophical reasoning. As such, referring to the moral principle, Kant stated “Two things fill my mind with ever-increasing wonder and awe: The starry heavens above me and the moral law within me” (Josephson, 2011, para. 12). Based on this philosophy people are obliged to themselves to seek to respect their moral principles, even if they are conflicting with the law – imposed principles and norms (Josephson, 2011). In this case, equalizing resources and economic opportunities across international borders should be a moral obligation for those who seek equality in all its forms, as it represents a moral principle for them.
Sustaining Paragraphs
The adepts of moral obligation as moral principle consider their principles to be above the law and in this respect they even break the law for pursuing their principles. The inquiry in this case is whether equalizing resources and economy across borders represents a moral principle. For answering this inquiry, we should look again into rational philosophy. Sterba claims that moral principle favors morality over egoism and morality is perceived as a non – arbitrary compromise between selfishness (following the self - interest) and altruism, which leads to the idea that morality is a conflict estate between altruism and selfishness (2013, p. 2).
Following this rationale, there can be stated that the quest for equality in terms of resources and economic opportunities across borders is guided by self – interest goals. Therefore, moral principles, which define moral obligations, represent in fact a self – interest, which, following Kant’s philosophy, individuals should strive to achieve as a personal goal, regardless the consequences.
Looking at the visible discrepancies between Western countries and third world countries in terms of economic opportunities or available resources, one can express a humanistic approach that we are all equal by birth and therefore we should all share the same amount of resources and to benefit of equal opportunities. While I agree with the fact that too much consumption of the resources, more obvious in the Western countries leads to waste and it disadvantages the third countries’ populations because of an unequal distribution of resources, I cannot condemn the modernized countries for having economic opportunities. Opportunities are created, not waited for and they should not be an index of the equality. Plus, the economic advances represent the results of the individuals’ development and their adaptability to the environment for developing competitive advantages (Henry, 2008, p. 138).
Conclusion
I consider that is not moral and not ethical to consume more than needed, depriving the disadvantaged people from across international borders of the resources that they ought to have access to. It is a moral obligation to stop consuming in excess and to stop wasting valuable resources. Therefore, as far as we possibly can, we should make it our moral principle to define the equal access of resources across international borders a moral obligation, however, avoiding a conflict estate with the existent laws. Regarding the economic opportunities, on the other hand, people are free to seize or to create them throughout the globe. The economic world implies the existent of economic agents and anybody can become an economic agent, of s/he can sense the economic opportunities. Therefore, I do not consider a moral obligation to equalize economic opportunities.
References
Henry, A, 2008. Understanding strategic management. New York: Oxford University Press.
Josephson, M, 2011. 3 sources of moral obligation. Retrieved on 11 May 2012 from < http://josephsoninstitute.org/business/blog/2011/02/3-sources-of-moral-obligation/>.
Sterba, J, P, 2013. From rationality to equality. Oxford: Oxfrod University Press.
