Losing a family pet can be a difficult thing to do, especially when using the philosophy in question to make a moral decision. In this moral problem we see a family member who sees that the dog of another family member is not doing well physically, as it has been deteriorating more and more every time the person visits. Is it moral to tell the family members about the worry for the dog? And if not how much should the dog be able to die before the family takes action? In order to be moral you must tell the owners of the dog as it is immoral to keep an animal in pain, it is also immoral to take the dog to the vet and spend money on it as that money could go to making other dogs live a longer and healthier life. There is no easy decision here but in order to be moral feelings must be put aside to make sure an innocent animal no longer suffers.
This is certainly a difficult situation to be in; however, the reality of the situation is that we must think in terms of consequences. According to the philosopher, Mozi, “The business of a benevolent person is to promote what is beneficial to the world and eliminate what is harmful.” (Mozi, 16; 68) In other words, we must focus not on what makes us happy or unhappy and instead act in ways that create positive objective change either which, in this case, would be the making of a well-ordered world. As such, although the decision will be emotionally difficult, we advise that you let your family dog go. In his critique of Mozi, the philosopher Xunzi has stated that if humans act upon their desires (rather than objective goals) then the world will lead to chaos. Acting to prolong your dog’s life is to act on your desires and, while it might bring your family temporary happiness (at a financial cost), you will still eventually have to let your dog cross the rainbow bridge. This time, however, the dog might experience exacerbated pain during their extended lifespan; this is some of the chaos that Xunzi alludes to – that and the fact that keeping your dying pet alive ultimately prevents another animal that is just as worthy of a loving home of having a safe and fulfilling life. This, of course, isn’t to say that your family dog is replaceable; rather, it is to say that actions to keep it alive stem from a selfish human desire which, according to Mozi, is not the moral thing to do.
The United States is currently in a time of protest and change, all in the midst of a global pandemic that has killed far too many people. In this moral problem we see someone who really wants to participate in the protests for BLM as they are politically active, but sadly they live with their grandparents who are at risk to contract Covid-19. Is it moral to go and possibly infect your grandparents to protest the horrible things happening in the US right now? It is important to remember that Mozi wants pure impartiality and to follow the inclusive care framework, meaning that we recommend that they person does not go and participate in the in person protests to remove harmful action to their loved ones.
In this scenario, the individual who wishes to go to the protest must keep in mind ways to remain impartial when making this decision. A thought experiment that may help them with this decision is how they would advise a stranger facing the same dilemma. Under Mozi’s inclusive care framework, all individuals possess the same value. Therefore, instead of seeing the grandparents as people that are related to the individual, see them as strangers that are fearful of the virus. This may help given that it is easier to take advantage of individuals one feels more comfortable with. By detaching oneself from familial bonds, the individual can begin to recognize the merit of their action. From an outside perspective, this scenario paints an important hierarchy of pleasure. By going to the protest and defying your grandparents frail state, the result of the action is pleasure solely for the self. Moreover, I would argue that the pleasure the individual may experience from the protest is short-lived. As soon as they return home, they are reminded of the danger they have put their grandparents in. On the other hand, staying home is not only generating pleasure by potentially keeping the grandparents alive, but also from their gratitude that they will express toward the individual. I believe Mozi would argue for staying home because the individual would be acting partially as well as removing the threat of harmful action.
We arrived at this moral advice primarily through the lens of Mozi’s moral philosophy; that is, via the lens of objective consequentialism. The primary principles that we applied to the above situations were – to promote what is good in the world and eliminate what is harmful (Mozi 16; 68), and Mozi’s idea of inclusive care which means to essentially treat every human being equally, no matter what your relationship is to them (family member, stranger, or friend, etc.). By practically applying these ideas and principles to the moral quandaries above, we came to our conclusions.
For the situation involving the family dog, it is our belief that the right and just thing to do here would be to let it go. This is because allowing the dog to remain in a prolonged state of suffering not only hurts the dog, but it also harms the owners of the dog (financially and emotionally). Because they have the direct power to stop this bad situation, they should, according to objective consequentialism.
For the dilemma involving going to the protests or staying home to protect one’s family members, we decided that the just thing to do would be to stay home. This is not only to practically maintain the safety of everyone involved (which should be a duty of everyone), it also spares oneself and one’s family members from (emotional) suffering. Something else to note here is that even though the person in question would not be attending an in-person protest, there are many other ways to get involved in social movements such as donations and online advocacy. To stay home and protect one’s family is not to completely forego political activism.
To reiterate, according to Mozi’s moral theory, one has the duty to promote what is right in the world and eliminate what is harmful, and to treat everyone as equals. It is these principles primarily that we drew upon to discern our moral advice for the two specific dilemmas above.
