Abstract

Contemporary ethical and political discourses frequently refer to the moral force of needs as justifying access to resources and rights to goods. Can needs make normative claims on anyone, and if so, how? What obligations do moral agents have to respond to the needs of other people? As finite creatures, humans inevitably experience need. Certain kinds of needs, namely fundamental needs, must be met if individuals are to avoid the harm of compromised agency. Fundamental needs involve agency-threatening events or circumstances to which another must respond in order to cultivate, sustain or restore the agency of the one in need. I establish that fundamental needs have moral significance through an argument demonstrating the good of agency. I develop a robust account of agency, one that moves beyond the traditional identification of agency with rational capacities, to incorporate both emotional and relational abilities. Following the Kantian duty of beneficence, I then argue that our mutual and inevitable interdependence gives rise to a duty to care for the fundamental needs of others. Next, drawing upon care ethics, I suggest that moral agents are obligated not only to meet fundamental needs present in others, but also to do so in a manner indebted to forms of dignifying care. It is not enough that we meet the needs of others. How we do so carries with it the conferral or denial of dignity and inclusion in a moral community. Finally, I demonstrate the applied ethical import of the foregoing theoretical account by discussing practices of caring for the fundamental needs of elderly individuals, who are often relegated to the margins of agency. Specifically, I consider two cases: recommended rationing of healthcare resources for the elderly and filial obligation