The issue of moral community is a hotly debated topic by philosophers, especially in the field of ethics. It is paramount to realize that moral community refers to the beings that are held in high regard by an individual as opposed to a community or grouping of the people who act in a moral way. The “beings” in this context refers to the issues that a person has to consider their rightness before acting in a way that could affect them. For example, a person about to hit a wall may not be concerned whether it is right to hit the wall. Unless the wall is special or easily destroyed, most people do not hold the wall in high regard. However, an individual asked to hit another person will have to question the “rightness” of the action. In this case, another person is a part of the moral community while a wall is not. Therefore, an ethical consideration will be warranted before such an action is carried out. This paper will explore the accounts of Kant and utilitarianism approaches to the moral community with an emphasis on the attributes that make one a member of a moral community and consequently deserving of moral consideration.
The Kantian approach makes two basic presumptions about human morality; if humans are rational, then they have to be autonomous, and any rational being has to have access to an enduring single moral code because of the rationality regardless of differing backgrounds. Kant states that reasons should be “well able to distinguish, in every case that occurs, what is good or evil” this means that reason, even in the absence of experience or education should allow differentiation between wrong and right in every case. Kant’s approach imposes a duty that must be obeyed by rational agents; an individual should only act in a way that agrees with the universal law.
The Kantian duty applies to how a person is expected to treat other people, (moral community members) as rational beings with the capability of observing the universal law. This formulation means that members of the moral community are fellow rational agents. Kant argues that they should be only regarded as rational agents as opposed to the individuals with varying desires, interests, and objectives. He hypothesized a moral ideal of the “kingdom of ends” where everybody is a rational being and can easily grasp the universal law on his or her own. This effectively negates the need to the external law as every individual will be obligated by the duty to treat members of the moral community in accordance with the universal law. The Kantian approach therefore clearly indicates that members of a moral community are analogous to the members of the kingdom of ends. If an individual is a rational being then by deduction, they are also members of the moral community and consequently deserve moral consideration.
Utilitarian thinkers have broadly analyzed the concept of moral community due to the inherent nature of utilitarianism demanding greatest happiness for the members. The focus of this section will be John Stuart Mill and Peter Singer, the two utilitarian thinkers who have explored the concept of the moral community to the greatest depth.
Mill raises the argument that “all that is of value in the world is happiness” and freedom from any suffering. He later clarifies happiness as pleasure that includes the pleasures of the intellect, that he considers more valuable and desirable than others. Mill’s theory is notable for its lack of concern with the motivation of an action if the achieved result is promoting happiness. For example, if the motive of an individual’s actions is selfishness or even greed, but the result is increased happiness for another person then Mill would approve. Mill argues that the actions of a person must be “in harmony with the interest of the whole” and increase the happiness of the whole. The “whole” in this case can be considered synonymous with the moral community. As such, Mill postulates that it's rare for an individual to affect a large grouping of people or people far away from the individual. The individual should consider all the beings affected by an action before moving forward; this effectively makes the “whole” to be people affected by the decision. Therefore, a moral community, according to Mill is made of people who will be affected by a particular action.
Singer, on the other hand, places a greater emphasis on the scientific explanation and justification for utilitarianism than Mill. He explores evolution as the reason for moral actions among humans and as the source of rationality. He regards rationality as simply an evolutional endowment as opposed to a special quality among humans. Nevertheless, he acknowledges that as a result of the inherent morality, humans should act to increase happiness and alleviate suffering. Singer agrees with Mill’s conception of an idealistic person who does not require relationships or institutions to act in a moral way. Singer highlights that evolution equipped humans with the capacity to love the people and perhaps animals in the immediate vicinity; this begins with familial and expands to larger communities. Therefore, the moral community as evolutionary determined is simply the people in the immediate vicinity who consequently deserve moral consideration.
In conclusion, the moral community as expounded by Kant includes all human beings because of their rationality. The Kantian approach includes any being capable of rational thought included in the moral community. Utilitarian Mill argues for including in the moral community anyone who would be affected by the result of an action. Singer, also a utilitarian claims that due to the evolutionary bearings of morality then the moral community is the people in the immediate vicinity of an individual.
Works Cited
Conning, Andrew Scott. "Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap between Us and Them." Journal of Moral Education 44.1 (2015): 119-121. Print.
Kuhlik, Lauren. Ethics and Agency: Conceptualizing Moral Community. Thesis. Middletown: Wesleyan University, 2011. Online. <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.650.6609&rep=rep1&type=pdf>.
Stanford Department of Philosophy. "Kant's Moral Philosophy." 6 April 2008. Stanford University. Online. 7 May 2016. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#GooWilMorWorDut>.
