Distant rains fall on deaf ears here

The circumstances in which we are liable for our omissions are in fact demarcated by the maxim of positive duty, which says we must assist others in serious trouble, when assistance would immensely help them at minimal inconvenience to ourselves.

Our non-neighbours are included in this principle by virtue of the fact that there is no basis for ranking the interests of one person higher than another. An argument along the lines that "I am more important than you" is inherently discriminatory and morally vacuous.

The last reason is the most fundamental. Contemporary moral discourse is framed in the language of rights. We like rights. They are individualising claims and seem to give us a protective sphere. But rights are nonsense. They are an illustration of the fact that as a species we seem to be more greedy than smart or kind.

Despite the dazzling veneer of rights-based theories and their influence on present day moral and legal discourse, such theories cannot provide persuasive answers to central issues such as: What is the justification for rights? How can we distinguish real from fanciful rights? Which right takes priority in the event of conflicting rights? Such intractable difficulties stem from the fact that contemporary rights theories lack a coherent foundation.

Rights appeal to those who have a "me, me, me" approach to life. Hence, we just make up rights as we go along and give priority to whatever right happens to coincide with our self-interest.

The emptiness and absurdity of rights-based theories is highlighted by the fact that against this backdrop we have convinced ourselves that our right to keep our excess food outweighs the right to life of people in the developing world, who are dying daily in their thousands of malnutrition. It is only once we erase this indecent belief that world poverty will be history.

This can only occur if we abandon the notion of rights as the mainstay of moral discourse and make consequences the main moral building blocks. What matters most is maximising flourishing, not adding to the ever increasing catalogue of rights, that can only be enjoyed by many at the conversation level.

It is only once we abandon the doorstep phenomenon and the immorality of rights and adopt the maxim of positive duty that we will move towards a fairer world. But history suggests the human species can never do this.

Our wiring is too rigid, meaning that in the end we really only care about ourselves and those around us. If that's the case we need to accept that we are far less compassionate and principled than most of us believe.

We are probably incapable of universal compassion. In the end, we are a self-interested species which dishes out the occasional dose of compassion when it suits or when the media gives us the signal.

Still there is a message to be learned, other than to stop reading morality books; next time you want to move someone, try to make them feel sorry for you, don't bother trying to appeal to their sense of fairness.