Skip to main content

Contemporary Ethical Approaches to the Practice of Assistance and Foundational Accounts of Moral Duty

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Responsibility in an Interconnected World

Part of the book series: Studies in Global Justice ((JUST,volume 13))

  • 644 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter examines debates among researchers and practitioners concerning the ethical basis of the practice of assistance. There are two dominant approaches evident in the literature– deontological, or duty-based approaches, and consequentialist, or out-come based approaches. The former are more dominant in the humanitarian space, with the latter traditionally evident in the development space. In this chapter, an examination of debates concerning the tensions between these approaches is examined, with a particular focus on the humanitarian domain. Here it has been argued that traditional duty-based approaches are particularly problematical and not fit for purpose in the complex moral circumstances of contemporary assistance. Three reasons are offered in defence of this claim: (i) they cannot give sufficient consideration to the outcomes of action; (ii) they are essentially rigid and conservative; and (iii) they can result in harmful outcomes. Further, it has been argued that a shift towards approaches that lend greater weight to outcomes is required. This chapter examines this proposition. It examines both duty-based and outcome-based approaches and finds much greater common ground between these ethical frameworks and their conceptualisation of assistance than is widely assumed in the characterisations that have informed some of these debates. Through a comparative analysis of contemporary characterisations and foundational moral accounts, this analysis clarifies the points of conflict and distinction between these moral approaches that yield different substantive accounts of what a moral duty to assist would entail within each framework.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 19.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 29.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, for example, Riddell 2007: Chapter 8; Barnett 2011, and Barnet and Snyder 2008.

  2. 2.

    However, as Barnett remarks, these norms are not part of ‘humanitarianism’s original DNA’ (Barnett 2011: 5). For this, according to Barnett, we would need to examine religious practice, beliefs, and ideas of salvation.

  3. 3.

    Duties of virtue are sometimes described as duties of charity but I avoid using this term as it carries thick religious and faith-based meanings that this particular account of moral duty does not entail.

  4. 4.

    Brian Barry (1991, 1995), in his analysis of the distinction between perfect and imperfect duties, describes perfect duties as ‘rights-based duties’ and imperfect duties as ‘goal-based duties’. Perfect duties are correlatives of rights, such that, if an agent has a right, then specifiable others have a duty to act in certain ways or avoid certain acts. If a rights-based duty is violated, then specifiable others can be coercively required to act. Imperfect duties, on the other hand, are ‘goal-based’, aiming more broadly at goals, ends, or outcomes. Act-types are not clearly specified and are not correlated with particular rights.

  5. 5.

    See https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/about-iasc for further details.

  6. 6.

    I take this weaker claim from Onora O’Neill’s (1996) Kantian account of the duty to avoid systematic injury, and the sometimes unavoidable occurrence of gratuitous injury.

  7. 7.

    The original formulation of this approach is attributed to Former UN General Secretary Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Barnett and Snyder 2008: 150).

  8. 8.

    It is important to note that this approach does not restrict imperfect duties to ‘internal’ constraint, meaning that imperfect duties can be enforced through legal mechanisms and instruments if this is what is required to maximise a particular value, such as utility or happiness.

  9. 9.

    For an exposition of both of these positions see for example Peter Jones (1994) Rights.

  10. 10.

    For an extensive discussion of the limits of the duty of beneficence see Barbara Herman’s ‘The scope of moral requirement’, (2001).

  11. 11.

    Daniel Statman develops this point in a rich, eloquent, and thoughtful essay entitled ‘Who needs imperfect duties’ (1996).

References

  • Anderson, M. 1999. Do no harm: How aid can support peace or war. Boulder: Lynne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. 2004. “Do No Harm”: Reflections on the impacts of international assistance provided to the occupied Palestinian territories. Report. Cambridge, MA: Collaborative Learning Projects.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. 2011. Empire of humanity. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M., and J. Snyder. 2008. The grand strategies of humanitarianism. In Humanitarianism in question, 143–171. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M., and T. Weiss. 2008a (eds.). Humanitarianism in question. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M., and T. Weiss. 2008b. Humanitarianism: A brief history of the present. In Humanitarianism in question, 1–48. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, M.W., P. Pettit, and M. Slote. 1997. Three methods of ethics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, B. 1991. Humanity and justice in global perspective. In Liberty and justice: Essays in political theory 2, 182–210. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, B. 1995. Justice as impartiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman, B. 1984. Mutual aid and respect for persons. Ethics 94(4): 577–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herman, B. 2001. The scope of moral requirement. Philosophy and Public Affairs 30(3): 227–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herman, B. 2008. Morality unbounded. Philosophy and Public Affairs 36(4): 323–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and the ICRC. 1994. The code of conduct for the international Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and Non- Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in Disaster Relief. URL, http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/code-of-conduct-290296.htm.

  • Jones, P. 1994. Rights. New York: Palgrave Macmillan press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. 1964. (Gregor, M. Gregor translation and introduction). The metaphysics of morals: The doctrine of virtue. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. 1996. The metaphysics of morals. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. 2002. Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, O. 1996. Towards justice and virtue. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reiff, D. 2002. A bed for the night: Humanitarianism in crisis. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riddell, R. 2007. Does foreign aid really work? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubenstein, J. 2008. The distributive commitments of international NGOs. In Humanitarianism in question, 215–234. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapcott, R. 2010. International ethics. Malden/Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidgwick, H. 1901. The method of ethics, 6th ed. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinnott-Armstrong, W. 2006. Consequentialism. In Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy. URL http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/.

  • Statman, D. 1996. Who needs imperfect duties. American Philosophical Quarterly 33(2): 211–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN General Assembly Resolution 46/182. 1991. URL, http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/46/a46r182.htm

  • Weiss, T. 1999. Principles, politics, and humanitarian action. Ethics and International Affairs 13(1): 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Murphy, S.P. (2016). Contemporary Ethical Approaches to the Practice of Assistance and Foundational Accounts of Moral Duty. In: Responsibility in an Interconnected World. Studies in Global Justice, vol 13. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31445-7_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics