Clawson 1

Jade Clawson

Teresa Welch

Philosophy 1000

April 21, 2018

Do We Have a Civic Duty to Help Others?

What sort of civic engagements arise from the study of philosophy? Do we have

a duty to help others, or should everyone be forced to fend for themselves? What is

civic engagement? What is a duty? I want to start by defining civic engagement and

duty. “Civic engagement means working to make a difference in the civic life of our

communities and developing the combination of knowledge, skills, values, and

motivation to make that difference. It means promoting the quality of life in a community,

through both political and non-political processes” (Definition of Civic Engagement). A

duty is “a moral or legal obligation, a responsibility, and a task or action that someone is

required to perform” (Duty, Oxford Dictionary). I believe if one wishes to obtain a happy

and successful life, service and helping those in need is where the answer lies. If we

want to gain a life of happiness, we have a duty to help others achieve a life of

happiness as well. However, there are many different philosophers who have very

different opinions when it comes to determining if we have a duty to help others or not.

Some of these philosophers include, Peter Singer, Confucius, Epicurus, and Immanuel

Kant.

Peter Singer also known as “the dangerous philosopher” was famous for making

people uncomfortable by asking them awkward and difficult questions. He touched on

subjects such as abortion, suicide, infanticide, euthanasia, and poverty. Singer believed
 Clawson 2

that everyone had a duty to alleviate suffering. However, his duty may be considered a

bit extreme for some. He stated that a family of four could comfortably live off of a

$30,000 income per year and any money earned above that amount should be given to

those who cannot make at least $30,000 (Soccio, 2015). I disagree with his philosophy

for two main reasons. The first reason is that there are certain types of people who by

their everyday choices are not deserving of continual monetary assistance by those who

have achieved more. Many people would choose to never work because those making

above $30,000 would be donating their earnings to those who don’t make that amount.

For many individuals, it would be too easy to sit back and allow those who strive for

success to support them. A society that does not have to work for their earnings is a

dysfunctional society. The second reason is because it would have a huge impact on

societal motivation and achievement. If everyone who made more than $30,000 was

required to give any additional money away, it would greatly diminish or eliminate

people’s desire and drive to be successful or go above and beyond to achieve financial

success. Each individual within such a society would have to be 100 percent altruistic

for it to be successful. We know from human experience that this type of society is not

possible. Why would an individual spend the necessary time and effort to complete 12

years of school to become a doctor or spend the required time for any high paying

profession if you were only able to keep the amount of money needed for essentials. It’s

true that some would be successful simply for the joy of accomplishment, but generally

speaking, we need extra motivation to push ourselves to accomplish great things. I

believe people have a duty to help those in need who deserve to be helped. For

example, I do not agree with giving money to individuals who simply refuse to contribute
 Clawson 3

by not working or donating other talents or if they spend it unwisely on unnecessary

things. A valid example would be donating to help families or individuals who have fallen

on hard times due to circumstances that are out of their control such as injuries, illness,

or loss.

Although money can be used to help others in more ways than one, there are

plenty of other ways one can serve the community without having to donate money.

This reminded me of the way Confucius tried to produce political harmony by cultivating

moral harmony within each individual. Confucius also believed that we should put

other’s happiness before our own (Soccio, 2015). This is a very non-selfish, “chun-tzu”

way to live and I believe this is how we can help make the world a better place.

Confucius was known as one of the greatest teachers. I think he believed that teaching

others what he knew was his duty to society. Confucius was able to improve the lives of

others by giving them knowledge, skills, and important values so that they may live a

happier and a more successful life. When others are happy and successful, they impact

this world in a positive way and make a difference. By educating others, you better the

future generation and therefore, better the world for yourself. If you want to see a better

world, you a have duty to do what you can to make it so.

Epicurus believed that in order to live a happy life we only need three things. One

of those things is friends. As humans, we tend to gravitate to others who treat us with

kindness and respect and disassociate ourselves with those who treat us poorly.

Epicurus believed that happiness comes from being around those whom you care for

and who care for you. If you never help others, others may never help you and that

leaves you with unhappiness. I believe in order to have a successful happy life, you
 Clawson 4

need to help others achieve happiness. Epicurus did not think we should feel any guilt

about wanting to have a pleasurable and enjoyable life and promised that he could

show us how to accomplish this without having excessive amounts of money. Epicurus

emphasizes that we can all find a way to be happy, we just have to look in the right

place; and it starts by looking at what money cannot buy. He claimed that what we want,

is very different than what we need; and what we think will make us happy, often does

not (Soccio, 2015). I believe if you want to achieve happiness and make a difference in

the world you live in, you have a duty to help others in any way you can. This may

include donating some of your time and energy rather than money.

Immanuel Kant had a very interesting perspective when it came to determining

whether or not we have a duty to help others. He gave everyone a formula known as

the Categorical Imperative that answered all of our moral questions and helped us to

determine right from wrong. According to Kant, his categorical imperative is “a

command that is universally binding on all rational creatures; the ultimate foundation of

all moral law, and an act as if the maxim of thy action were to become a universal law of

nature” (Soccio, 2015). Kant considered the “right” to be more important than the

“good”. “Kant answers that we do our moral duty when our motive is determined by a

principle recognized by reason rather than the desire for any expected consequence or

emotional feeling which may cause us to act the way we do” (Comments on Kant's

Ethical Theory). I understand the reasoning behind Kant’s comments; however, I

disagree with him when he says that it is not moral to do good for emotional reasons or

because we are hopeful for a particular consequence. I understand that people’s

motivations are not always pure when they do a good deed, donate money, or
 Clawson 5

otherwise attempt to bring about their own happiness by helping others. However, the

outcome of these actions is often very positive. These actions can benefit people in

need, can motivate others to follow suite by replicating the good deeds, and they can

provide the person doing the act a sense of well-being and sense of accomplishment for

doing something that benefited others as well as themselves. Though it may not meet

Kant’s definition of moral duty, it can benefit society as a whole and therefore qualify as

a civic duty. The millionaire may get a healthy tax write off for donating $100,000 to the

local cancer hospital, but that money may save many families from having to declare

bankruptcy due to unpayable medical expenses. As an individual, I would take that

money with sincere gratitude and look to pay it forward at some point in the future.

“A morally and civically responsible individual recognizes himself or herself as a

member of a larger social fabric and therefore considers social problems to be at least

partly his or her own; such an individual is willing to see the moral and civic dimensions

of issues, to make and justify informed moral and civic judgments, and to take action

when appropriate” (Definition of Civic Engagement). Almost every human being on this

planet lives within a society. Some societies are very large while others may be very

small, but they are societies none the less. In order for a society to be successful and

have certain level of happiness, the members of that society must interact in a way that

benefits one another. When there are too many disparities within a society we see civil

unrest and rebellion. The inner cities of many states in the United States experience this

very problem. The overall solution to getting individuals to work together and care for

one another is not easy, but I believe we absolutely have a duty to help others and

helping others is what will help us as individuals in the long run.

 Clawson 6

References

“Comments on Kant's Ethical Theory.” Kant, www.people.loyno.edu/~folse/Kant.html#5.

When does one act from a motive of doing one's duty?

“Definition of Civic Engagement.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 7 July

2003,archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/ref/college/collegespecial2/coll_aas

cu_defi.html?

“Duty | Definition of Duty in English by Oxford Dictionaries.” Oxford Dictionaries |

English, Oxford Dictionaries, en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/duty.

Soccio, Douglas J. Archetypes of Wisdom: An Introduction to Philosophy. Wadsworth,

2015.