Aid Underprivileged People Relating to Ethics Concerning the Needy

As I write about ethics in respects to the underprivileged and those we consider the needy, I pose two different arguments in terms of what we should and should not be doing and what we are doing and are not doing in respects to the underprivileged. We Americans could be more engaging, sensitive, proactive, smarter, and careful when it comes to those individuals who have and those individuals who have not.  It would be fair to suggest that we all share the natural resources given to us by the Lord above.  We also share in the waste, pollution and the over indulgence of more than our fair share of any of those same resources. In determining the amount of waste and resources, we must also determine suicidal policies that may share in any determining factor.  In choosing two theories, one being the utilitarian theory associated with that of the Australian philosopher, Peter Singer who wrote that, “we ought to save the lives of strangers when we can do so at relatively little cost to ourselves,” and that of the Spanish author, Manuel Velazquez, whose interest lie in the field of business ethics, and who wrote that, “Between now and tomorrow morning, 49,000 children will starve to death. The day after tomorrow, 40,000 more children will die.” I like to mix those ethics that relate to the private sector of the human existence with those of business because it is only human that those with more and who have more, morally give to those who have less, providing that those who have less are willing to do what it takes to receive and then give back from whence it came, which is from both private and business sectors.  With uncontrolled immigration, foreign aid, the loss of good paying jobs and wages and those who simply want nothing more than to be given everything, suicidal policies become a reality and death could be the only end for a country who seems to be handing out more than it is receiving. The amount that we think ourselves obligated to give, is perhaps, that which will allow us to consider any sort of reasonable giving separate from of our own significance and luxuries; Nevertheless, it is God who gave each of us, the freedom of choice. While enjoying hard earned rewards, there should be a regard for all people in respects to having equal worth and dignity, but as with all things, only to a point.  There are ways of aiding the deprived and needy that are morally better than others, one being, providing a way that will ultimately allow those in need to progress to a point where they can become the givers and not the receivers.  There will always be people who need in the world; the goal is to make need a temporary situation for the person that is salvageable and able to change his or her situation.  

According to Velasquez, “Corporate acts normally are brought about by several actions or omissions of many different people all cooperating together so that their linked actions and omissions jointly produce the corporate act,” (Velasquez, 2006).  Just as corporations make policies and require that each employee abide by those policies, while continuing to profit, in terms of making a living for themselves and their families, we as American citizens and as a voting population should demand that our political leaders create polices that will aid in helping the needy and those of whom we consider underprivileged, by the implementation of education, the teaching of life skills, and the creation of programs that will allow those individuals to move above the poverty level, whether it be health, employment, family development, etc., to become contributing citizens, giving back and helping others who may be in need, should be a primary goal.

It was John Rawls, who argued that, “Although it is unjust to impose disproportionately heavy burdens on present generations for the sake of future generations, it is also unjust for present generations to leave nothing for future generations” (Moore & Parker, 2007). To enjoy luxuries while others lack basic needs can seem an unfair observation; however, lets’ consider that no one should have to take responsibility for anyone who is not willing to work and give back that which has been given.  Just as it is fair for a generation to work hard to take care of a past generation who has worked hard, it is just as equally unfair for a generation to not work and expect the following generation to work to their benefit. 

Today there are many needy and underprivileged people, who should be given the opportunity to work and then to give back.  If we can create ways for people to benefit from programs that will uplift, then we can ultimately create ways for people to help those who are in need and give back from whence their help came.

According to journalist, Aaron Gold in the abstract, Tamara Journal of Critical Organization Inquiry, “The optimal strategy is to take a proactive approach that can discern the root causes of unethical behavior so that this knowledge could be used as a preventative countermeasure to the ever-increasing amounts of unethical behavior.”  All people should have equal worth and dignity, just as all people should be given the equal right to create a better life for themselves and their families. We have to learn to love one another and regard each other as valuable living beings that are worth saving.  What causes us to want to consider ourselves more valuable or better than one another? The optimal strategy, as Aaron Gold mentions, is not only to take a proactive approach to root causes but to take the same approach in ensuring that programs are in place to prevent the less fortunate to remain there. The real value in human behavior is the ability to overcome and then to aid those who have difficulties overcoming so that they are in a position to help the next person in line for need.

When we think of the ways of aiding the needy and the underprivileged that are morally better than others, it has to do with the simple fact that, Americans could somehow be more active and aggressive in pushing the buttons that will aid in forcing our political figures to use many of our philosophers informative observations.  These observations can aid in moving those who are responsible and in leadership roles to develop more programs that will help us to help each other.  It is the sharing of almighty God’s natural resources, connected to that which is captured in business through corporate policies and procedures, to those great philosophers, journalists and authors such as John Rawls, Aaron Gold, and Manuel Velasquez, that will offer those informative observations, ideas and opinions on what would be considered a work in progress and an answer to find ethical ways to aid those who simply need and to those who remain deprived.

The utilitarian theory as it relates to those who we consider impoverished; those folks who require attention, affection and reassurance; this can be what is considered needy to an excessive degree.  These are the people that we consider, the needy.

  In focusing on the moral philosopher, Peter Singer and his views in addressing the obligations to aid the needy as they are correlated around his views on world poverty in particular, it is one of Singer’s best-know philosophical essays that come to mind. “In Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” he argues that ‘some people who thrive in abundance, while others starve, are morally indefensible’.  He further argues that those who are able to help should donate part of their income to poverty relief or similar organizations.  His reasoning seems sufficient, enough when he makes the mention that one who is already living comfortably and who feels the need to purchase more for one’s comfort, instead of giving to the needy, shows a lack of morality and is not the same moral importance as saving another’s life.  Peter Singer wrote that “people are dying in East Bengal from lack of food, shelter and medical care,” (Singer, 1971).   He further wrote that “it is not beyond capacity for the richer nations to give enough assistance to reduce any further suffering to very small proportions.”  It is no doubt Peter’s position that if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, morally we ought to do so.  In thinking of the advantages of utilitarianism, one could assert that utilitarianism provides a haven for people to treat everyone as equal, without special considerations.  The many things that we believe are self-sacrificing and honest are the things that we value in respects to our own moral code. In many ways, utilitarianism embellishes that idea that consequences of our actions as human beings, matter.

In thinking about the needy and the underprivileged and the many organizations, such as, the U. S. Department of Health and Human Resources, and others, that we have in place to assist those who are in need and who are deprived, we can honestly say that we are doing a pretty-good job in giving, sharing and providing. When we look at the amount of volunteers and dedicated employees, in both the private and government sector and what each are doing in terms of helping the deprived, we can identify with the idea that consequences of our actions as human beings, matter. After all, we don’t have children dying from hunger on the level that many of the third world countries have, thus allowing us to make note of the fact that our actions are mattering.

“Although Utilitarianism offers a straightforward and direct way to evaluate behavior,” According to the author, “Utilitarianism can lead to unintended consequences that bring upon more suffering,” (Mosser, K. 2013).  There are negative aspects of the utilitarianism theory as it relates to ethics in terms of the needy and underprivileged.  One could say that it focuses only on individual happiness, equating it with nothing more than pleasure.  In treating people with a means to an end one could almost equate this as a way of making people do the right things for the wrong reasons. Utilitarianism assumes, to some respects, that we all have a common human nature equipped with liked desires and thus individualism is not an option.

            The idea that we have homeless people, including children that are walking the streets hungry is sad enough, but to know that our laws are designed to avoid any kind of assistance, is even sadder.  Singer says “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;”  this, in itself,  is the answer to our grocery stores, markets and other food distributors, throwing away good food or even day old food, that could be given to the hungry.  These organizations need only to exercise their moral judgment and as Singer mentions, to thereby sacrifice anything of comparable moral importance.

In closing and in attempting to argue the pros and cons of utilitarian theory as it relates to the needy and underprivileged, and in looking at the moral philosophers, journalist and authors such as Peter Singer’s, John Rawls, Manuel Velazquez and others, on the theory, one could ultimately measure the pros being more of a benefit. In outweighing the cons and thereby making the utilitarian theory a favorable one, especially in respects to aiding the underprivileged people, one could relate these findings to ethics concerning the pros and cons of Utilitarian, but not without the views of the philosopher, Peter Singer.

References

Gold, H. A. (2009). Tamara Journal of Critical Organisation Inquiry. ¾. 177.

            Abstract retrieved August 22, 2011, from ProQuest Direct database.

Moore, B & Parker, R. (2007) Critical Thinking, (8^th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill

Mosser, K. (2013). Understanding Philosophy. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education,

            Inc.

Singer, P. (1972). Philosophy and Public Affairs, (revised edition), (1)1, 229-243

Singer, P. (1989). All animals are equal. In T. Regan & P. Singer (Eds.), Animal rights

            and human obligations (pp. 148-162). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Retrieved from http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.pdf

Velasquez, M.  (2006). Business Ethics:  Concepts and Cases, 6th Edition.  Upper

            Saddle River, NJ. Pearson Education, In