For something to be both morally relevant and invariably relevant, it means that the subject, in this case generosity, cannot change in its importance. This means that if we give a value system to acts, a certain act will always have the same value points. To put this into more concrete terms, if generosity has a value of positive points, it must always have positive points if it is invariable relevant. For something to be morally relevant, it has to be important in determining whether an action is moral or not. As an example, take Cans Around the Oval. If I were to donate food to the program, I would be generous; I would have +100 points. But what would happen if the food I donated was expired, taking this further, what would happen …show more content…
The ubiquity thesis is a generalist view and a particularist is going to have a problem with the thesis. Kagan, in his The Additive Fallacy, points out one problem with a factor always being counted the same in the decision of the moral outcome of an action. The problem he points out is that it is impossible for a fundamental moral principle (factor) to be universal. He goes on to say how the ubiquity thesis says that the effect the factor has must be universal and for the effect to be universal, the role must be universal. To illustrate what he means by this, Kagan gives the example of a chemical reaction. Oxygen plays a role in chemical reactions but the effect of that role changes depending upon whether oxygen is present or absent. Oxygen 's presence would mean that the chemical reaction results in fire and its absence would mean that there is no fire. The role of oxygen stays the same in chemistry, but its effect varies depending upon its presence in the reaction. To apply this to the moral outcome of actions, Kagan is saying that factors have a universal role but not a universal effect in the outcome. To give another example, take generosity again, but this time towards a spoiled child. According to Kagan, generosity still plays a role in the outcome but the effect is different because the situation was different. Kagan is not denying that generosity and other factors have an effect on the moral outcome, he only disputes that generalists say they have a universal or invariable effect on the
In Barry H. Corey’s book, Love Kindness, the underestimated, devalued virtue of kindness is explored. Kindness is a powerful, gentle strength that is often underestimated and devalued. Living a life of kindness is not for the meek or the prideful for this is a humbling, bold, and whimsical way of being. Love and kindness are difficult to separate because kindness is a result of love in its most authentic state. Love and kindness are the keys to moments of vulnerability. In that moment of authentic love and kindness barriers are demolished and people are reached in their brokenness.
One day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich is not a book about a superhuman. It is not a story about someone who is weaker and more desperate than everyone else. It is not a tale of greatness, nor is it about extraordinary faults. Instead, Aleksander Solzhenitsyn chose to center his story around Ivan denisovich Shukhov, an average, unnoticeable Russian prisoner.
Now, against Unger’s Pretty Demanding Dictate, there might be conflicting views proposed by the defenders of Murphy and Cullity. Murphy and Cullity would both agree that Unger’s Pretty Demanding Dictate is too demanding on us and therefore should have a limit at which point we become free from moral obligations. However, each author holds a different reason for supporting this over-demanding objection; Murphy argues for fairness as a constraint on moral obligation while Cullity argues for self-interest as a constraint.
The concept of potential donators having a personal connection, which increases their odds of donating and can be created using incentives, as well as the evidence that tax breaks raise the amount of financial donations to charities and non-profits, both serve to help build a compelling argument that incentives are not only beneficial, but necessary, to help people ethically donate. While incentives can sometimes be unfair to others, generally they are not. Overall, it shouldn’t matter why people give, as ethically, giving is always
The book The Mask of benevolence by Harlan Lane, has opened so many thoughts, feelings, and questions. I don't know if the book hit me harder because I am pregnant or because I am caring and feel everyone should have the right to be treated equal even if they are not the same. There is many things in the book that have caught my attention and made me really think about my own life and the life's of other people and others thoughts about themselves or others. What the cochlear implant has done and not done for people.
By the late eighteenth century, the ideological formulation of the newly reformed Nation was in transition as Americans attempted to maintain order and instill proper codes of conduct. In A Model of Christian Charity by John Winthrop we see carnal love represented as separate parts of a Puritan society, “love” being the only act capable of keeping the bonds of society rigid. This would not only be necessary for the survival of the Puritan people but as evident in “Money & Morals in America: A History” by author Patricia O’Toole, “If they [Puritans] succeeded in loving one another, Winthrop promised, God would bless them in all ways. If they turned their hearts away from heaven, they would perish.”(O’Toole 6). In later decades to come, The Coquette by Hannah Webster Forster dealt with the freedom and oppression unfettered passion and pleasure created for heiress Eliza Wharton who is ultimately left vulnerable and at the mercy of others because of of her radical choices. The central character Eliza Wharton, becomes a martyr of carnal sin and Winthrop's anti-thesis by willingly positioning herself as the juxtapose of the Puritan ideal whom regarded marriage and family life as the moral institution based upon set standards in which neither humility, poverty nor charity was as vital to either the performance or the perception of a holy life.
Generosity is also a moral virtue. When you are generous, you are either giving too much, which makes you profligate, or you are giving too little, which would consider you a stingy person. Moral virtues lead you to happiness because of their intermediate state, that is, by reasoning.
Peter Singer, in his influential essay “Famine, Affluence and Poverty”, argues that affluent people have the moral obligation to contribute to charity in order to save the poor from suffering; any spending on luxuries would be unjustified as long as it can be used to improve other’s lives. In developing his argument, Singer involved one crucial premise known as the Principle of Sacrifice—“If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it”. To show that such principle has the property to be held universal, Singer refers to a scenario in which a person witnesses a drowning child. Most people, by common sense, hold that the witness has the moral duty to rescue the child despite some potential costs. Since letting people die in poverty is no different from watching a child drowning without offering any help, Singer goes on and concludes that affluent people have the moral duty to keep donating to the poor until an increment of money makes no further contribution.
... are given a broadly inclusive definition under Singer's argument, compose an in-ignorable chunk of the world economy. It is difficult to foresee how things would play out if the extreme altruism proposed by Singer became the norm. While the conclusion Singer produces appears to logically follow from his thought experiment, its appropriateness for actual application in the real world requires much greater justification. Nonetheless, if we hypothetically assume that the intended positive outcome will always be the result of our charity, Singer's argument still relies on several Utilitarian assumptions; namely that we consider the lives of strangers to be of equal value to the lives of our loved ones, and that we should regard the saving of a life as a greater good than marginal increases in the quality of life of a moderately healthy and financially secure individual.
We gained control of many things. But we had to let go of others” (97). In the book The Giver by Lois Lowry, no one has seen a rainbow after a storm, no one knew what colors were; what choosing was; what it meant to be an individual. Everyone lived in complete Sameness, and never learned what it meant to be an individual. By eliminating as much self expression as possible in Sameness and society, Jonas's community has rejected the individuality of a society where people are free to move society forward. In The Giver individuality is represented by colors, memories, and pale eyes.
How do humans actually behave when faced with the decision to help others? The innate desire that compels humans to help is called altruism by psychologists. Through this feeling, humans transform from a selfish jerk to a more compassionate and caring person. Some psychologists believe that this feeling stems from nature itself. Despite the fact that some altruistic acts originate from the pressures of society, altruism predominantly comes from the survival of the fittest, the feeling of empathy, and the selfish desire to benefit your own kin.
Reciprocity is symbolic of creating, maintaining, or strengthening social relationships as well as satisfying the material needs and wants of someone in need. It refers to the exchange of objects without the use of money or other media of exchange. It can take the form of sharing, hospitality, gifts, or bartering. Anthropologists identify three forms of reciprocity.
In today’s society, we are blessed with various forms of philanthropy and different ways to achieve this philanthropic culture. When many people think of the term philanthropy, they immediately think of donating money to charities and other non-profit organizations. That is not necessarily the case because an individual can do philanthropy in a variety of different ways. For instance, they can do anything from taking part in or making an organization for the less fortunate. They can even participate in any form of community service that helps ‘people in that community’. Since philanthropy is all about “civic engagement, essentially social reform and community building.” Therefore, philanthropists need to connect with people and go beyond themselves into the world of donors in order to create that community of philanthropy. In a philanthropic culture, the importance of giving is instilled in the everyday organizational life at all levels and in all areas. This invites donors to support and embraced the healing mission of an organization. A philanthropic culture establishes an understanding of how community giving can strengthen and sustain organizations. However, the drive behind a philanthropic culture is to improve the wellbeing of humanity by preventing and solving social problems. In this paper, I’ll focus on how to establish a successful philanthropy and the importance of donors to sustain those philanthropy cultural aspects.
Though Christianity was extremely different from the beliefs of the Germanic tribes, some of its values were seen as honorable in Germanic life. Christian values are repeatedly portrayed in Beowulf through the idea that the best way to live one’s life is not through possession of fine things, but through generosity. In such a warlike culture, humility is important to prevent unnecessary bloodshed, so generosity was necessary in order for the people to prosper. One of the ways that people showed this humility was by giving gifts by people lower on the hierarchy.
Saint Thomas Aquinas is one of the people accredited for having brought theology into the limelight. However, though theology existed long before the emergence of philosophers and fathers if the church, individualistic drives such as those of Aquinas brought a deeper understanding into the mysteries of theology. Modern day theology would not have gotten any bearing without the impact of philosophers and scholars who simplified the understanding of theological concepts. While it cannot be independently verified what the motivation was behind the interest in theology, it is clear that theology is what it is because of the input of the philosophers and scholars (Thomas & Pegis, 1997).