Moral Worth

Moral Worth

Introduction

At times people are forced by circumstances to sacrifice their morals to help others when in crisis.  Sacrificing self-worth for others entirely depends on the degree of need, especially saving lives. When duty demands a sacrifice to save lives, then compromising one’s beliefs, morals, and esteem is worth it. Nevertheless, the responsibility to protect and uphold one’s worth should be given the top priority, no matter the crisis. Repeated compromise of self-worth for others may turn to be a common behavior, and when it is done more often, it developed into a character. This may erode all the morals and believes that one adhered to, resulting in loss of identity. Jacobs (98), it is essential to prioritize and protect self-worth, whatever the circumstances. One important question that everyone should ponder before sacrificing their worth is whether the risk of self-sacrifice is the limit of our moral obligations. Research shows that individuals have greater moral duties beyond selflessness. This paper, therefore, seeks to research individual obligation to others in relation to self-worth. Perhaps the decision of whether the high cost of duty that helps other people override one’s duty for moral worth depending on the circumstances of the situation that requires sacrifice.

Overview

The decision to help someone in need at the expense of one’s moral relies on the results of the assessment of the crisis. If the situation proves to be worth helping, then an individual will be obligated to help. For example, in a crisis whereby someone’s sacrifice is needed to help save a life. Several circumstances require a genuine compromise of morals, and failure to sacrifice to help the situation can be said to the neglect of duty. However, conditions have to assess if indeed they are worth self-sacrifice, and this is why this research paper provides insight into the high cost of duty, moral worth, self-sacrifice, and crisis. This will help to understand when to or not compromise one’s believes and self-esteem for others.

Definition of Terms

Cost of duty- In this research paper, the cost of duty refers to what an individual loss morally by deciding to help those in need.

Moral worth- the value of an individual in terms of believes, behavior, and character that defines their identity.

Self-sacrifice- the act of compromising personal goals, believes and morals to help others who are in need

Crisis- according to this paper crisis refers to a situation that requires immediate help or assistance from other people at a moral cost

Opposing viewpoints

Elizabeth Pybus (Jacobs, 96) argues that it is not morally praiseworthy for people to sacrifice their morals at the expense of others. She points out that no action can be referred to beyond duty, and therefore, one is obligated to ensure his or her morals are prioritized. However, Elizabeth also recognizes that it is not morally upright to assume cases of supererogatory action even though it may be morally costly. She presumes that, at times, human beings are obligated to go beyond and above their moral duty to save other people in their time of need. From Elizabeth’s point of view, even though there are costs that come with self-sacrifice, no level of cost should limit what is morally required of all human beings. Everyone has a duty to handle situations the way they come in the best way possible. Failure to help those in dare need to uphold our moral standards in its very nature compromise those moral standards we claim.  From Elizabeth’s viewpoint, no action is too costly to be our duty.

Supporting Argument

Arguing from McGoldrick’s viewpoint, supererogatory acts are morally praiseworthy even though they are beyond and above duty (Jacobs, 97). Even if they come with a cost, it should be noted that no level of cost can limit our duty. Supererogatory duties involve self-sacrifice and the risks associated. For example, a soldier in the war field may decide to throw himself on a hand-grenade to save the lives of his fellow servicemen. In this case, the soldier’s action is morally praiseworthy, even though it is above and beyond duty. The soldier decided to sacrifice himself and takes a greater risk to save others from death or a crisis situation. As Pybus states, “this is how man ought to be” sacrificing oneself in place of others is morally right and is how people ought to live just like the soldier (Jacobs, 98). In this case, one holds the responsibility to put others before and sacrifice his or her ambitions, goals, interest, or even their lives. This aligns with Elizabeth’s argument that no action is too costly to limit our duty (Jacobs, 99). Even if it involves death, the cost is worth sacrificing to provide help for those in need of our sacrifices, no matter the moral principles.

Counter Argument

Even though the duty to others in times of need is a moral obligation, people should be as brave as humanly possible. Everyone has that intrinsic moral worth, which must be respected. When people act like saints or in a heroic manner, they sacrifice everything and compromise their goals and interest because of others. Jacobs (96) pointed out that supererogatory duties are morally good but are not demanded by anyone. Everybody must ensure that his or her intrinsic morals and interests are not compromised in the process of helping others. For example, a medical practitioner who leaves his or her interest in medical practice to help others as a missionary sacrifices his or her intrinsic moral duty to help patients in the hospital. The doctor does sacrifice not only his duty but also his personal goal to save lives as a doctor.  From this point, it is reasonable to argue that it would be better if the doctor would stay in the hospital to help patients, for he or she would do it with lots of passion and interest. It, therefore, means that he or she is not the only one who suffers the risks of self-sacrifice but also the patients he or she ought to have treated in the hospital.

Supporting Argument

The high cost of self-sacrifice cannot compete with moral requirements or obligations. In one way or the other, duty has a cost, be it supererogatory acts.  Moral elements are essential and have value than limiting actions because of the cost associated. It is morally praiseworthy to save others at times of need, even though it is not within the limits of our duty. Borges (n.d) Pointed out that performing actions beyond and above our obligations is more critical than considering the cost of such acts. In support of this, the paper draws from 1912 titanic sinking whereby the engineering crew remained with the knowledge that the ship will sink, remained on board to keep the electrical power. This enabled them to send them the signal to other boats around and reduce the panic among the passengers. In the end, they managed to send distress signals to other vessels around to save passengers. It is recorded that none of the 35 engineering crews survived, for they remained in the boat until the last minute. They sacrificed their lives to save others at their very point of need irrespective of the cost. As Pybus argues, this is how man ought to be, obeying obligations belongs and above duty.

Counter Argument

Ordinary thinkers disagree with sacrificing self-worth for acts beyond and above duty. They argue that the cost is too high for an individual to bear, given that they also have a responsibility to prioritize themselves and their morals. This is on the contrary to what moral thinkers forward that the cost of self-sacrifice does not limit our actions. Jacobs (98) shows that moral thinkers suggested that people should be free to perform moral actions despite the cost involved. A crisis may force and individual to do the unthinkable to save others. Compromising self-worth for others in its very nature is a moral act.

Supporting Argument

From human moral nature, people’s conscious would always want to help and sacrifice for others when they are in need. Most religions teach concepts of self-sacrifice for others for the greater good if the situation requires. Extending to duties beyond our moral obligations is praiseworthy and aligns with most cultural, societal, and religious believes. It is, therefore, reasonable to think of a situation, analyze and assess it if it is worth sacrificing self-worth to save others. Of interest are the conditions that require actions to save lives. In life and death situations, the high cost of duty is less considered to one’s duty for moral worth.

Counter Argument

Drawing from Buddhist religion, one has a greater duty to himself or herself before others. “When he had finished making this offering, he rose from his Samadhi and thought to himself: Though I have employed my supernatural powers to make this offering to the Buddha, it is not as good as making an offering of my own body” (Gakkai, p323) this shows that Buddhist religion considers sell-worth. Other religions like Christianity also forwards self-love before others. As the bible states, love one another as you ought to have loved yourself.

Conclusion

This paper will help readers understand the importance of evaluating crises that require their self-sacrifice and compromise of moral worth to help those in need. In a nutshell, from the above analysis, it is morally praised worthy of sacrificing self-worth for the sake of others. However, such supererogatory acts are above and beyond duty; hence, no one demands them from anyone. Despite the cost, it is morally right to sacrifice for others, depending on the circumstance.