Reading 🇬🇧 English B2

What We Owe to Strangers

The question of our obligations to people we have never met and never will meet is among the most important in ethics, and the one most consistently evaded.

Video-lezione in arrivoIntanto leggi il testo qui sotto. Iscriviti al canale per riceverla appena esce su YouTube con audio e sottotitoli.
Iscriviti

English · livello B2. Leggi il testo in inglese e allena la comprensione. Il video con audio e sottotitoli sincronizzati è in arrivo sul canale YouTube.

Read the text

The question of our obligations to people we have never met and never will meet is among the most important in ethics, and the one most consistently evaded. Our moral intuitions are calibrated for face-to-face interaction — for the recognition of the other person as a specific individual with a specific face and a specific need in front of us. These intuitions do not scale. They did not evolve to handle the situation of a person in a wealthy country trying to reason about obligations to people on another continent whose names they do not know.

Consequentialist ethicists — those who hold that the right action is the one that produces the best outcomes overall — have argued most forcefully that the obligations to distant strangers are extensive. Peter Singer's argument runs as follows: suffering and death from lack of food, clean water, and basic medicine are bad; we can prevent some of this at modest cost to ourselves; therefore we are obligated to prevent it. The physical distance between us and the person suffering is morally irrelevant — what matters is the capacity to help, not proximity.

This conclusion is more demanding than most people find comfortable, and philosophers sympathetic to its general direction have developed various ways of moderating it: agent-relative permissions that allow us to give weight to our own projects and relationships, threshold requirements that limit obligations to a level psychologically sustainable over time, collective action frameworks that shift emphasis from individual giving to institutional change.

What is perhaps most significant about this debate is not the specific conclusions but the prior move: the recognition that morality does not stop at the border, that the suffering of people we do not know and will never meet is not morally different in kind from the suffering of people we can see. Once that recognition is accepted — even without accepting the most demanding conclusions — it changes something fundamental about how one stands in relation to the world.

Suggerimento: leggi il brano una prima volta senza fermarti, poi una seconda volta ad alta voce insieme al video. Ripetere ad alta voce è il modo più veloce per fissare pronuncia e vocaboli.

Continua a imparare

Nuove lezioni di lettura, grammatica e attualità ogni settimana. Iscriviti al canale per non perderle.