By critically comparing their arguments, discuss which of the deontology or African communitarianism arguments (which you studied in chapter 8 of Bilchitz et al) provide the most convincing explanation for our obligations to (i) foreigners and (ii) non-human animals. Your answer must equally consider (i) and (ii) and, in total, should be between 400-500 words in length.
Deontology, as discussed in chapter 8 of Bilchitz et al., argues that our obligations to others are based on universal moral principles, such as the duty to respect individual autonomy and to act in ways that are consistent with the intrinsic value of all human beings. On the other hand, African communitarianism emphasizes the importance of communal values, relationships, and responsibilities in guiding our ethical obligations, prioritizing the well-being of the community over individual rights.
When considering our obligations to foreigners, deontology argues that all individuals, regardless of their nationality, have inherent dignity and rights that must be respected. This perspective is rooted in the idea of universal moral principles that apply to all human beings, regardless of their social or cultural backgrounds. Deontology would suggest that we have a duty to provide aid and assistance to foreigners in need, based on the principle of treating others with respect and compassion. This argument is compelling in its emphasis on the equal worth and dignity of all individuals, irrespective of their nationality.
On the other hand, African communitarianism might argue that our obligations to foreigners are based on the interconnectedness of all human beings and the moral imperative to promote the well-being of the broader community. This perspective emphasizes the importance of relationships and interconnectedness in guiding our ethical obligations, suggesting that we have a duty to help foreigners as members of the larger human family. African communitarianism highlights the importance of solidarity, empathy, and mutual aid in promoting the flourishing of all individuals, regardless of nationality.
When it comes to our obligations to non-human animals, deontology would argue that animals have inherent value and deserve to be treated with respect and compassion based on their capacity for suffering and pleasure. Deontology would suggest that we have a duty to avoid causing unnecessary harm to animals and to promote their well-being, based on the principle of respecting the intrinsic value of all sentient beings. This argument is compelling in its emphasis on the moral significance of animals as individuals with interests and rights that deserve consideration.
African communitarianism might argue that our obligations to non-human animals are based on the interconnectedness of all living beings and the moral imperative to promote harmony and balance in the natural world. This perspective emphasizes the interdependence of all living beings and the importance of respecting the intrinsic value of animals as part of the larger ecosystem. African communitarianism highlights the importance of stewardship, empathy, and reciprocity in guiding our ethical obligations towards animals.
In conclusion, both deontology and African communitarianism offer compelling arguments for our obligations to foreigners and non-human animals, each emphasizing different aspects of ethical reasoning, such as universal moral principles versus communal values and relationships. Ultimately, the most convincing explanation for our obligations to foreigners and non-human animals may draw on elements of both perspectives, balancing the importance of individual rights and dignity with the interconnectedness and interdependence of all living beings.