How broadly ought we to extend our circle of ethical concern?

Question

What will be an ideal response

Answer 1

First separate the ethical question and the factual question. As a question of fact we might ask a person who they most often take into consideration when making ethical decisions. Most of us would say we take into account how their decisions will affect those who are the closest to us—our family, our friends, our co-workers. But "everyone who lives in my town," "everyone who goes to school here," and "everyone in the nation" are seldom answers one hears. Perhaps we ought to hear about those larger circles of affected people more than we do. That is the ethical question. Whom ought we to take into consideration, given that our choices can have a significant impact on the lives of a great many people we may not know or may seldom, if ever, think about? In desperate times, when danger is all around and things are out of our control, it makes psychological and practical sense to constrict the circle of ethical concern. Smaller is safer. And from the ethical perspective, we cannot hold people responsible for things they cannot control. The battlefield is often a test not only of courage but of ethics. If you have not served as a soldier in combat, it is difficult to appreciate what that experience is like or how profoundly it can affect a person. But more, much more, can reasonably be accomplished and ought also to be expected of communities and individuals who have resources. In a land of plenty it is not unreasonable to propose that the community has an ethical obligation to provide shelter, safety, food, health care, education, the opportunity to find meaningful work, to those in need, and to further guarantee basic human rights, including freedom of thought and expression and equal treatment under the law, to all the members of the community.