The following journal entry is based on chapter 8 in Bilchitz et al.
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. refer to chapter 8 in Bilchitz et al for answer
In chapter 8 of Bilchitz et al, two ethical theories are explored in relation to our obligations to foreigners and non-human animals: deontology and African communitarianism. Deontology is a moral theory that emphasizes duty and rules, while African communitarianism is a philosophy that prioritizes the interconnectedness of individuals within a community.
When considering our obligations to foreigners, deontology argues that we have a moral duty to treat all individuals, regardless of nationality, with respect and dignity. This duty is based on the inherent worth and dignity of every human being. According to deontology, it is our duty to respect the rights of foreigners and ensure that they are not subject to harm or injustice. However, deontology may struggle to provide a convincing explanation for our obligations to foreigners, as it is often criticized for being too individualistic and not taking into account the broader societal context in which these obligations arise.
On the other hand, African communitarianism emphasizes the importance of communal ties and relationships in shaping our ethical obligations. In the African communitarian tradition, individuals are seen as interconnected and interdependent, and ethical responsibilities are based on the well-being of the community as a whole. This philosophy may provide a more convincing explanation for our obligations to foreigners, as it takes into account the broader social and cultural context in which these obligations arise. African communitarianism emphasizes the importance of solidarity, empathy, and compassion towards others, including foreigners.
When considering our obligations to non-human animals, deontology may argue that we have a duty to treat all sentient beings with respect and consideration. Deontology emphasizes the inherent worth and dignity of all individuals, regardless of species, and thus may argue that we have a moral duty to prevent harm and suffering to non-human animals. However, deontology may struggle to provide a compelling argument for our obligations to non-human animals, as it is often criticized for prioritizing human interests over those of other species.
African communitarianism, on the other hand, may argue that our obligations to non-human animals stem from our interconnectedness with all living beings. In the African communitarian tradition, animals are seen as part of the community and deserving of respect and consideration. This philosophy may provide a more convincing explanation for our obligations to non-human animals, as it emphasizes the interconnectedness of all living beings and the importance of respecting the inherent value of all forms of life.
In conclusion, both deontology and African communitarianism offer compelling arguments for our obligations to foreigners and non-human animals. While deontology emphasizes duty and individual rights, African communitarianism highlights the importance of communal ties and interconnectedness. Ultimately, a combination of both approaches may provide a more comprehensive understanding of our ethical obligations towards both foreigners and non-human animals.