Our Moral Responsibility to Provide Monetary Aid to Pakistani Villagers Essay

In this essay, I get out argue that the theory of functionalism presents resilient, compelling blood lines that exemplifies why we have a incorrupt obligation to donate m atomic number 53y to help the Pakistani villagers affected by recent floods. Though the argument put forth by h geniusst Egoists in favor of donating notes to the Pakistanis is convincing, it lacks the quantitative validation that functionalism provides. The Perspective of an honourable Egoist Ethical self-assertion is a consequentialist moral theory that says from each one soul ought to pursue his or her own self-seeking exclusively (EMP 69).A persons only moral duty is to do what is ruff for him or herself, and he or she helps others only if the correspond of helping profits the individual in some way (EMP 63). On the surface, it appears that it is not in a persons best self-seekings to donate money to help villagers in Pakistan. The sponsor experiences monetary loss and the diminution of personal monetary wealth, and exp displaces time, energy, and effort in the donation-transaction process.He or she receives neither public acknowledgement nor donor recognition. at that place be, however, intangible benefits that the relentr may reap as a depart of his or her deed, such as the satisfaction that he or she receives from adult monetary charge to the Pakistanis or the happiness that he or she experiences for performing in accordance with his or her values. It is in the shewrs self-interest and, therefore, his or her moral duty to give monetary aid to those plagued by the Pakistan floods.The facts that an Ethical Egoist would consider to be important are the consequences to him or herself because Ethical egocentrism is a consequentialist moral theory that revolves around the self. Consequentialism contends that the decent thing to do is determined by the consequences brought about from it (Class Notes, 10/05/2010). In this case, the virtuously relevant facts that the Ethical Egoist is primarily concerned with are the intangible benefits and advantages that he or she would receive from giving.The Ethical Egoist would also consider the actual and implicit be of giving aid, as they are consequences brought about from helping the Pakistani villagers. The argument put forth by Ethical Egoism is sizable because it is compatible with commonsense morality. To reiterate, Ethical Egoism says that alone duties are ultimately derived from the one fundamental principle of self-interest (EMP 73). According to Hobbes, this theory leads to the Golden Rule, which states that we should do unto others because if we do, others result be to a greater extent likely to do unto us (EMP 74).In this case, if we do not give to others, other people will not give to us. Thus, it is to our advantage to give to others. The Utilitarian Argument Classical, or Act, Utilitarianism maintains that the morally right act is the one that yields maximum happiness for all sentient beings impartially. Utilitarianism requires us to consider the worldwide welfare of society and the interests of other people. Giving money to help the villagers in Pakistan generates positive consequences and diminishes the negative effects of the floods.Specifically, donations for disaster relief results in the handiness of medicines to treat sicknesses, the provision and distribution of cooked meals, hygienics kits, and clothing, and the reconstruction and restoration of homes and schools. In short, giving money relieves great suffering of the flood-affected Pakistanis, enhances the symmetricalness of happiness all all over misery, and endorses the maximum and greater good of society. Therefore, the morally right thing to do is to donate money to help 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 consequences to all people impartially. In this case, they include the circulation of food, clothing, medicines, and the restoration of villages. Providing monetary aid ultimately produces the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness for society. The Utilitarian argument for donating money is good because it provides calculable validation.In other words, the utility of the pass receivers is quantifiable and tangible (number of meals, hygiene kits, water tanks provided, number of homes rebuilt, etc. ). This tangibility clearly illustrates that the utility of the receiver exceeds the marginal cost to the giver and produces the greatest amount of happiness over unhappiness. Why the Utilitarian Argument is Stronger There is an epistemic problem that weakens the argument given by the Ethical Egoist. We do not know just now what the consequences will be.We expect that the intangible benefits include self-satisfaction, enjoyment of giving, and happiness from providing financi al aid, and we estimate that the costs consist of the actual donation payment and all related opportunity costs however, we do not know on the dot what the consequences will be and the extent of the results. It is, thus, difficult to gauge whether donating to charity is rattling in the givers best self-interest exclusively because the associated costs may be very great (the giver may end up poorer or the donation-transaction process may be stressful both(prenominal) situations would not be to his or her advantage).The immeasurability and intangibility of the benefits also weakens the argument. Ayn Rand, an Ethical Egoist, responds to this expostulation and asserts that it is completely moral and permissible to offer aid to others even when one does not anticipate any tangible return personal reasons for whirl aidreasons consistent with ones values and ones pursuit of ones own lifeare adapted to disengage the act (Gordon Shannon, 10/16/2010). Rand says that personal reasons, s uch as values and pursuit of a flourishing life, are adequate to justify the act.We run, however, into a problem just because we have a moral acknowledgment to give aid, does it mean we are morally required to give aid? Rand provides a moral justification, but not a moral authority this makes the argument put forth by Ethical Egoism weak. musical composition Ethical Egoism provides a convincing argument and response to the objection, the Utilitarian argument is stronger because it buffers against the epistemic problem and provides quantitative, calculable validation. The problem of epistemology does not halt to or weaken the Utilitarian argument because we know what the consequences will be, found on present initiatives.Plan UK has provided cooked meals to over 250,000 people, shelter for 230,000, water tanks, hygiene kits, and medicines for thousands of families (Plan UK). We know how the money will benefit the Pakistani villagers and we can measure the amount of happiness and good that entails the act of giving aid to others. To restart Ethical Egoism says that we ought to pursue our own self-interests exclusively. The morally right act is the one that benefits the self. There is, however, an epistemic problem. We do not know what the consequences will be or the extent of these outcomes.Donating to charity may not benefit the self. Utilitarianism, however, avoids the problem of epistemology and immeasurability. Therefore, Utilitarianism is the stronger argument. Conclusion In this paper, I have presented the theories of Ethical Egoism and Utilitarianism, delved into the morally relevant facts, and reflected on why each argument is good. I illustrated why Utilitarianism is stronger by appealing to a weakness of Ethical Egoism. Thus, the Utilitarian perspective that we have a moral duty to donate money to help Pakistani villagers is a better argument.