Abstract

Of all the ethical questions, the one of what we owe our fellow humans seems to be both the most pressing and the one around which there is the least agreement. Plausible-looking answers range from the extremely demanding claim that we are obliged to give to others until giving to them costs us more than it benefits them, to the minimally demanding claim that we are not obliged to give to others at all, but that it would be nice if we did. The minimally demanding view often combines with the view that beneficence is the responsibility of governments rather than individuals, and with the thought that we dispense with our duties by paying our taxes. The minimally demanding view, however, does not deal well with the intuitions that we have about clear cases like Peter Singer's example of our duty to save a baby who is lying face down in a pond when we can do so at little cost to ourselves. There seems, here, to be a duty of beneficence that is not reflected in the claim that it would merely be nice to help the baby; it exists regardless of the taxes we pay. Our thinking about beneficence needs to be sensitive to clear intuitions such as this. This paper is essentially a methodological consideration of the role that intuitions like the above might play in moral reasoning