The morality of social welfare systems, or the morality of crafting laws to aid American citizens in poverty, is a subject that (like myriad ethical issues) is hotly debated to say the least. For example, some opponents of social welfare institutions maintain the view that such programs "increase the reward or reduce the penalties" of poverty; thereby ostensibly making an impoverished state appealing even to people who might initially have been motivated to earn a living by conventional means. In other words, welfare programs (according to opponents) encourage otherwise productive individuals to embrace laziness, for basic human needs would be met by such institutions, eliminating the need to work at all. Those opposed to social welfare plans have also been known to claim that an "unfair burden is placed upon workers who must pay for the system." When one considers the above opposing views, it would then stand to reason that proponents of social welfare programs might maintain that it is the moral responsibility of working citizens to provide assistance and funding for programs such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the Food Stamp program, or the like.
Morality helps avoid the Tragedy of the Commons, but not the Tragedy of Commonsense Morality (26). The Tragedy of Commonsense Morality is the separation between Us vs. Them outlined in the Parable of the New Pastures (15). In order to thrive with Commonsense Morality, humans developed a metamorality that allows conflicting moralities to live together
He explains that our welfare system has resulted in a segment of our population expecting something for nothing; which, in Payne's eye, is not charitable but harmful both socially and morally. The author defines two types of assistance--a right and a wrong way to provide for the needy. The first type is sympathetic giving as exemplified by government-operated welfare programs. Sympathetic giving is providing for those who are in need without expecting anything in return. The opposite approach is expectant giving--providing for the needy, but expecting something from them as well.
“Famine, Affluence, and Morality” In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer is trying to argue that “the way people in relatively affluent countries react to a situation… cannot be justified; indeed,… our moral conceptual scheme needs to be altered and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society”(Singer 230). Peter Singer provides striking examples to show the reader how realistic his arguments are. In this paper, I will briefly give a summary of Peter Singer’s argument and the assumptions that follow, adding personal opinions for or against Peter’s statements. I hope that within this paper, I am able to be clearly show you my thoughts in regards to Singer. Peter Singer organizes his arguments into an outline form allowing a reader to take individual thoughts, adding them together giving a “big picture.” Within the first few pages, Singer shares two guiding assumptions in regards to his argument to which I stated above.
However, some critics view the extension of aid to poor countries as means of keeping the nations in economic slumber so that they can wake up from only by devising ways of furthering self-sustainability. Because of these two schools of thought concerning the topic, debate has arisen on which side is more rational and factual than the other. The non-sustainable nature of international aid, however, leaves the question of what may happen in the event that foreign aid is unavailable for the poor nations. After thorough consideration on the effects of the assistance to poor countries, it is sufficient to state that giving international aid to the poor nations is more disadvantageous than beneficial to the nations. This point is argued through an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of giving international aid to the poor countries with appropriate examples drawn from various regions of the world to prove the stance.
The limit of our Moral Duty in regards to Famine Relief In the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer argues that our conceptions on moral belief need to change. Specifically, He argues that giving to famine relief is not optional but a moral duty and failing to contribute money is immoral. As Singer puts it, “The way people in affluent countries react ... cannot be justified; indeed the whole way we look at moral issues-our moral conceptual scheme-needs to be altered and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society”(135). In other words Singer believes that unless you can find something wrong with the following argument you will have to drastically change your lifestyle and how you spend your money. Although some people might believe that his conclusion is too radical, Singer insists that it is the logical result of his argument.
Phillip Nelson argues that regulating advertising is not efficient because it creates deception. Some object to this agreement by saying that government regulations should not be limited because advertising and exaggeration mislead customer and without regulations advertising would become useless. My aim in this paper is to defend Nelson’s view on limiting government regulation by showing this objection can be met. Nelson’s view on regulations of advertising is that the government would not do an efficient job of reducing deception to customers. Nelson explains that “deception requires not only misleading information but also someone to be mislead” (156).
Jacob was introduced to the company’s policy. Their policy seemed to prohibit bribes, however he clearly realized that one of the ethical issues was inequality of materials that were exported to other countries like Brazil. In this case, the company chose to disobey the rules and provided countries in Latin American countries a lower quality of their products. This was extremely unethical because the company broke the rules and jeopardize businesses in other countries. Kant theory “believes that the best reason for acting is a sense of pure moral obligations or duty” (Bredeson, 2012, p.21).
What, if any, is our moral duty to help those less fortunate? In Famine, Affluence and Morality (1972), Peter Singer’s so-called ‘weaker’ argument for helping those in need raises many objections. This essay will demonstrate that whilst we may agree with these objections, they do not provide sufficient moral justification to reject his philosophy. **Outline arguments a little Singer argues and concludes in his weaker argument that those more fortunate have a duty to donate significant amounts of money to foreign aid agencies. If Singer’s conclusion is to be rejected, it seems one must provide a satisfactory argument for denying the second premise, for the following reasons.
In the article "The Rush from Judgement," Theordore Dalrymple argues that refraining from making judgements creates an unhealthy society. Judgements are usually evaluations of certain behaviors or ideas. Dalrmple believes that those who refrain from making judgments practice self deception. Self deception is the generally defined as the practice of deceiving oneself, which in turn hinders us from attaining self knowledge. The number one problem associated with self deception is that it has the capability of creating moral dilemmas, such that people use it as a "prophylactic against leaning from experience," according to Dalrymple.