Limiting the Scope of Moral Obligations to Help

Abstract

Two studies compared the judgments of U.S. and Indian students regarding the obligation to save someone’s life by donating bone marrow. Indians were more likely to consider donation to be morally required, even when the needy person was a stranger “on the other side of the world.” Both groups limited obligations to help out-group members, but Americans also limited obligations to help in-group members from the same town. Indians regarded donating more highly when it arose from duty, whereas Americans regarded donating more highly when it went beyond the requirements of duty. Both groups distinguished acts and omissions and treated special obligations as agent general. Although Indians tend to perceive greater obligation, norms in both cultures limit the scope of obligations.