The 'Universe of Obligation' is "the circle of individuals and groups toward whom obligations are owed, to whom rules apply, and whose injuries call for amends." (Accouting for Genocide, Helen Fein, Free Press, 1979, p. 4)
As you study these texts, please consider the following questions:
1, What do each of these texts suggest about the extent of our obligation? Who is in your universe of obligation?
2. What do we owe to those inside our universe of obligation? What do we owe to those outside of our universe of obligation?
3. How do we prioritize among our different obligations?
- What about this text do you think is wise? What about it is troubling?
- According to this text, what should we do when these binaries overlap - for example, how would you decide between a Jew who lives far away and a non-Jewish neighbor?
- How does this text define or shape the universe of obligation?
- What might "for the sake of peace" mean?
- How does this text interact with the previous text?
- How does this text define or shape the universe of obligation?
- What does the author of this text claim “troubles [him] deeply” about the positions he cites? What does he propose as an alternate reading of the law?
- How does this text resolve the tensions between the first two texts? What problems or questions remain?
- How does this text define or shape the universe of obligation?
Original |
---|
David Hume noted that our sense of empathy diminishes as we move outward from the members of our family to our neighbors, our society and the world. Traditionally, our sense of involvement with the fate of others has been in inverse proportion to the distance separating us and them. What has changed is that television and the Internet have effectively abolished distance. They have brought images of suffering in far-off lands into our immediate experience. Our sense of compassion for the victims of poverty, war and famine, runs ahead of our capacity to act. Our moral sense is simultaneously activated and frustrated. We feel that something should be done, but what, how, and by whom
|
1. Do you agree with Sacks that media exposure to people suffering far away has increased your feeling of empathy and/or compassion for those people? What are some advantages and disadvantages of our greater exposure to distant suffering?
2. How are we meant to respond to these changes? Has our responsibility increased?
3. What are your answers to Sacks' questions in the last line?