Our Moral Responsibility to Provide Monetary Aid to Pakistani Villagers Essay
In this essay. I will reason that the theory of Utilitarianism nowadayss resilient. obliging statements that exemplifies why we have a moral duty to donate money to assist the Pakistani villagers affected by recent inundations. Though the statement put away by Ethical Egotists in favour of donating money to the Pakistanis is converting. it lacks the quantitative proof that Utilitarianism provides. The Perspective of an Ethical Egoist Ethical Egoism is a consequentialist moral theory that says each individual ought to prosecute his or her ain self-interest entirely ( EMP 69 ) .
A person’s merely moral responsibility is to make what is best for him or herself. and he or she helps others merely if the act [ of assisting ] benefits the person in some manner ( EMP 63 ) . On the surface. it appears that it is non in a person’s best opportunisms to donate money to assist villagers in Pakistan. The giver experiences pecuniary loss and the decline of personal fiscal wealth. and expends clip. energy. and attempt in the donation-transaction procedure.
He or she receives neither public recognition nor donor acknowledgment. There are. nevertheless. intangible benefits that the giver may harvest as a consequence of his or her title. such as the satisfaction that he or she receives from giving pecuniary assistance to the Pakistanis or the felicity that he or she experiences for moving in conformity with his or her values. It is in the giver’s opportunism and. therefore. his or her moral responsibility to give pecuniary assistance to those plagued by the Pakistan inundations.
The facts that an Ethical Egotist would see to be of import are the effects to him or herself because Ethical Egoism is a consequentialist moral theory that revolves around the ego. Consequentialism contends that the right thing to make is determined by the effects brought about from it ( Class Notes. 10/05/2010 ) . In this instance. the morally relevant facts that the Ethical Egoist is chiefly concerned with are the intangible benefits and advantages that he or she would have from giving.
The Ethical Egoist would besides see the existent and inexplicit costs of giving assistance. as they are effects brought approximately from assisting the Pakistani villagers. The statement put away by Ethical Egoism is good because it is compatible with commonsensible morality. To repeat. Ethical Egoism says that “all responsibilities are finally derived from the one cardinal rule of self-interest” ( EMP 73 ) . Harmonizing to Hobbes. this theory leads to the Golden Rule. which states that “we should ‘do unto others’ because if we do. others will be more likely to ‘do unto us’” ( EMP 74 ) .
In this instance. if we do non give to others. other people will non give to us. Therefore. it is to our advantage to give to others. The Utilitarian Argument Classical. or Act. Utilitarianism maintains that the morally right act is the 1 that yields maximal felicity for all animate existences impartially. Utilitarianism requires us to see the general public assistance of society and the involvements of other people. Giving money to assist the villagers in Pakistan generates positive effects and diminishes the negative effects of the inundations.
Specifically. contributions for catastrophe alleviation consequences in the handiness of medical specialties to handle illnesss. the proviso and distribution of cooked repasts. hygiene kits. and vesture. and the Reconstruction and Restoration of places and schools. In short. giving money relieves great agony of the flood-affected Pakistanis. enhances the balance of felicity over wretchedness. and endorses the upper limit and greater good of society. Therefore. the morally right thing to make is to donate money to assist the Pakistani villagers.
Similar to Ethical Egoism. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist moral theory. though this theory is concerned with the greater good of society. Therefore. the morally relevant facts for a Utilitarian are the effects to all people impartially. In this instance. they include the circulation of nutrient. vesture. medical specialties. and the Restoration of small towns. Supplying pecuniary assistance finally produces the greatest balance of felicity over unhappiness for society. The Utilitarian statement for donating money is good because it provides calculable proof.
In other words. the public-service corporation of the receiving systems is quantifiable and touchable ( figure of repasts. hygiene kits. H2O armored combat vehicles provided. figure of places rebuilt. etc. ) . This tangibleness clearly illustrates that the public-service corporation of the receiving system exceeds the fringy cost to the giver and produces the greatest sum of felicity over unhappiness. Why the Utilitarian Argument is Stronger There is an epistemological job that weakens the statement given by the Ethical Egoist. We do non cognize exactly what the effects will be.
We expect that the intangible benefits include complacency. enjoyment of giving. and felicity from supplying fiscal assistance. and we estimate that the costs consist of the existent contribution payment and all related chance costs ; nevertheless. we do non cognize precisely what the effects will be and the extent of the consequences. It is. therefore. hard to estimate whether donating to charity is really in the giver’s best self-interest entirely because the associated costs may be really great ( the giver may stop up poorer or the donation-transaction procedure may be nerve-racking ; both state of affairss would non be to his or her advantage ) .
The immeasurability and intangibleness of the benefits besides weakens the statement. Ayn Rand. an Ethical Egotist. responds to this expostulation and asserts that it is wholly moral and allowable to offer assistance to others even when 1 does non expect any touchable return ; “personal grounds for offering aid—reasons consistent with one’s values and one’s chase of one’s ain life—are sufficient to warrant the act” ( Gordon Shannon. 10/16/2010 ) . Rand says that personal grounds. such as values and chase of a booming life. are equal to warrant the act.
We run. nevertheless. into a job: merely because we have a moral justification to give assistance. does it intend we are morally required to give assistance? Rand provides a moral justification. but non a moral authorization ; this makes the statement put away by Ethical Egoism weak. While Ethical Egoism provides a convincing statement and response to the expostulation. the Utilitarian statement is stronger because it buffers against the epistemological job and provides quantitative. calculable proof. The job of epistemology does non use to or weaken the Utilitarian statement because we know what the effects will be. based on present enterprises.
Plan UK has provided cooked repasts to over 250. 000 people. shelter for 230. 000. H2O armored combat vehicles. hygiene kits. and medical specialties for 1000s of households ( Plan UK ) . We know how the money will profit the Pakistani villagers and we can quantify the sum of felicity and good that entails the act of giving assistance to others. To sum up: Ethical Egoism says that we ought to prosecute our ain opportunisms entirely. The morally right act is the 1 that benefits the ego. There is. nevertheless. an epistemological job. We do non cognize what the effects will be or the extent of these results.
Donating to charity may non profit the ego. Utilitarianism. nevertheless. avoids the job of epistemology and immeasurability. Therefore. Utilitarianism is the stronger statement. Decision In this paper. I have presented the theories of Ethical Egoism and Utilitarianism. delved into the morally relevant facts. and reflected on why each statement is good. I illustrated why Utilitarianism is stronger by appealing to a failing of Ethical Egoism. Thus. the Utilitarian position that we have a moral responsibility to donate money to assist Pakistani villagers is a better statement.