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. compare at least one deontological theory with one african communitarianism theory regarding their views on rights afforded to foreigners and non-human animals refer to chapter 8 in Bilchitz et al to answer
In chapter 8 of Bilchitz et al., the arguments of deontology and African communitarianism are presented with regards to our obligations to foreigners and non-human animals. Deontology, represented by Immanuel Kant's moral theory, emphasizes the importance of universal moral principles and the intrinsic value of individuals. On the other hand, African communitarianism, as espoused by Kwasi Wiredu, prioritizes community relationships and the interconnectedness of social entities.
When considering our obligations to foreigners, deontology argues that individuals have inherent worth and dignity, regardless of their nationality or status. Kant's categorical imperative, specifically the principle of treating others as ends in themselves rather than as means to an end, highlights the importance of respecting the autonomy and humanity of all individuals. Therefore, deontological ethics would suggest that we have a moral duty to uphold the rights and well-being of foreigners, as they are entitled to the same moral consideration as any other person.
In contrast, African communitarianism focuses on the communal relationships and shared values within a society. Wiredu's philosophy highlights the interconnectedness of individuals and the importance of promoting harmony and solidarity within the community. From this perspective, our obligations to foreigners would be based on the principles of hospitality, reciprocity, and mutual respect. While African communitarianism may prioritize the welfare of the community over individual rights, it still emphasizes the value of fostering positive relationships with outsiders.
Turning to our obligations to non-human animals, deontology argues that all sentient beings have inherent moral worth and deserve to be treated with respect. Kant's theory of moral consideration extends to animals, as he believed that cruelty towards animals could lead to a desensitization to suffering and undermine moral principles. Therefore, deontological ethics would advocate for the protection of animal rights and the prevention of harm to non-human creatures.
In contrast, African communitarianism places a stronger emphasis on the relationships between humans and the environment, including non-human animals. Wiredu's philosophy sees nature as interconnected with human beings and emphasizes the interconnectedness and interdependence of all living entities. This perspective would suggest that our obligations to non-human animals are based on promoting environmental harmony and understanding our role within the larger ecological system.
In considering which perspective provides the most convincing explanation for our obligations to foreigners and non-human animals, it is important to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. Deontology offers a strong moral foundation for advocating for the rights and welfare of all individuals, including foreigners and non-human animals. However, African communitarianism provides a holistic and interconnected view of ethics that emphasizes the importance of community relationships and environmental stewardship. Ultimately, a combination of both perspectives may offer a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of our moral obligations to all beings, human and non-human alike.