Friday, January 28, 2011
Jan 26th ethical dilemma question #3
3. There are many needy people in the world who could benefit from your help. If you were to volunteer one evening per week, you could reduce need and thereby increase the sum of happiness. But if you were to volunteer all of your evenings, then you could produce even more happiness. Should you volunteer all of your spare time to helping the needy? Would it be wrong not to do so?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No. To be able to help others I need to help myself first. Spending every minute volunteering would throw my life out of balance, affect my relationships, and keep me from fulfilling other obligations and responsibilities. The stress of taking more on than is reasonable may/probably will cause emotional and physical problems. Then I won’t be able to help anyone.
ReplyDeleteWe volunteer as much as we can, but you still need time for you and your familys needs. One can only do so much. This is why we should all shoulder the help so no one person gets burned out. If this happens then they are no good to anyone. I will do anything to help people, but my family will always come first.
ReplyDeleteArrgh. If their happiness depends on me then sign me up. I'll volunteer everyday of my life, Dagnabbit! Take everything I have and give it to the poor and needy. Let them feed on my carcass like the swine they arrgh. If it'll increase the global happiness.
ReplyDeleteNo but seriously, Is doing good with a bad attitude doing good? How about through coersion? I know!! You give me your wallet and I'll take care of the poor for you, and since you're now poor I'll take of you too ;) All to increase the happiness of the proliteriate not to mention their bureaucratic benefactors.
OK, so here's what I really think. Service to others is the highest virtue, but it cannot be reduced to utilitarian numbers. It must be filled with compassion that flows from love that bestows dignity on the one being served. God help me. This goes against my selfish instincts.
Well said Clint!
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I can say what I mean here but I'd like to put a twist on this question.
Should society aka government take responsibility to lift from poverty all the members of the society who cannot or do not provide for themselves? Should the society through the agency of government devote resources to raise the quality of life of all of its members whose living conditions fall below a certain level.
First, organize time around family. Family also have "needs" i.e. aging parents. Second, organize time for self. Caregivers -- no matter if volunteer, family, or firned need to remember to have some time for themself. Then, decide on the number of nights a week, from the remaining time, one could volunteer. It is the law of diminishing return.
ReplyDeleteIt would be very good to volunteer time to help the needy, but one would have to find the right balance between his/her personal commitments, family, and the needs of others. One should not feel guilty if every night could not be given; giving part of one's time and realizing that is all one can afford is enough. Each person has to figure that out for him/herself. One has to have some time to oneself, or it will zap one's energy and not be a positive giving.
ReplyDeleteBentham argues that moral behavior is at its root personal. As we compute what is the best action to take, Bentham would have us take others into account, but not to any greater extend than our own interests. The principle of utility tells us that our action should bring the greatest pleasure to us in comparision to all the other pleasures available. What this means is personal and will be different for everyone
ReplyDeleteI'm going with Ellen on this one. VERY nicely written. At some point you become a less effective volunteer and others are depending on you - family, work...
ReplyDeleteAwesome response, Clint.
ReplyDeleteSome people are called to volunteer. However, you can't make it your life. There comes a point when you truly have to think of yourself over others. This time the benefits may not outweigh the cost.
The selfish side of me asks if I am the only one volunteering, thereby increasing the sum of happiness, or is this some sort of mandated volunteerism in the community? Most of us have probably volunteered at some point in our lives. We probably put forth more effort and got more out of it from the cause that was closer to our hearts rather than if someone forced us to do something. We are also busy, not just as educators, but as adults, family members, etc. It is important and essential to our physical and mental well-being to take some time for ourselves and not constantly give, give, give. I think once a week would be fine but not every night.
ReplyDeleteI skimmed quick definitions of 3 consequentialist theories. An ethical egoist would help the needy in order to feel personally good; an ethical altruist would help the needy at personal sacrifice; and a utilitarian would help the needy if it would benefit everyone - self, family of self, and the needy. Therefore, I agree with Jay's concluding statement.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think it is necessary for one to volunteer all of their spare time. Yes, helping others is important, but it cannot come at the expense of your own personal life all the time. Most people have families that have to be taken into consideration. Yes, volunteering all my time to help strangers in need would increase the sum of happiness for those I would be helping, but the happiness at home would be decreased due to time away from my family.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Jay... what produces happiness for one, may not be the same for another. One person may be completely content volunteering all of there time, but for me volunteering all of my spare time may increase the sum of happiness for the people I am helping, but it would also decrease the sum of happiness in the lives of those closest to me, as I would be neglecting them, as well as myself.
ReplyDeleteBecause of this I feel that if a volunteer was unhappy doing the volunteering, then it really would not benefit those they are supposed to be helping, thus actually decreasing the sum of happiness.