Utilitarianism, Deontology and Global Charity

Utilitarianism, Deontology and Global Charity

Global charity is a massive industry involving billions of dollars every year. It takes the form of aid directed mainly towards developing countries whose citizens cannot depend on economic systems for support. This includes war-torn countries and those ravaged by disease and natural disasters such as famine, floods, and earthquakes. Countries with better economies feel the need to contribute to the welfare of the people living in such developing countries because of various reasons, key among them their moral obligation. However, this is accompanied by moral problems that arise despite their best intentions. Proponents of both utilitarianism and deontology are convinced that charity is indeed essential but have different ideas on what should motivate it and how such projects should be executed.

Howard Kahane (1973) explains the principles that underlie the giving nature of people. He explains that it is a survival tactic for people to behave selfishly from an evolutionary perspective. In his explorations of sociobiology, he explains that people are usually more willing to help out when it serves them. This is the selfish nature of humans, which is aimed at propagating their genes. He also explains that according to theories of egoism, a person acts to fulfill their desires. Egoism allows a person to lend a helping hand when it serves to fulfill their selfish desires (Kahane, 1993). People also tend to help when they are likely to get help in return, which is the principle of reciprocity. In regards to global charity, we can begin to understand what motivates efforts towards helping others, including to fulfill personal desires and in the hopes of getting help in return.

Singer discusses the phenomenon of global aid with regard to the Bengal famine and the efforts that were made to alleviate the suffering that was encountered in those periods. Because of the increased globalization, he indicated that it becomes less of an issue to decide who to donate to since people so far away are just as accessible as those near us (Singer, 1972). He brings to our attention that people in affluent countries believe that donating small amounts of money each in the hopes that their combined efforts will have a huge impact cannot be justified. He argues that if it is possible to avert a disaster without making unrealistic moral compromises, then we ought to do so. While those who give are celebrated, those who do are not reprimanded (Singer, 1971) He insists that not giving is morally wrong even though it is not considered to be so because it allows suffering to continue unrestrained.

Utilitarianism is a moral principle that focuses on maximizing happiness and reducing suffering. Proponents of this principle argue that any action that produces pleasure or reduces pain is morally right. Acts that inflict pain or result in the reduction of pleasure are considered morally wrong (Mill, 1895).In this regard, utilitarian principles support the idea that pain should be alleviated and all forms of suffering eradicated. Utilitarian principles require a person to contribute to the wellness of their fellow human beings as long as the cost to them is not too high or are within reasonable limits. Furthermore, a person should avoid causing suffering or denying pleasure because this is considered immoral.

Concerning global charity, utilitarian principles suggest that we should be more than ready to contribute to the welfare of those in society that need it the most. In order to achieve this, we are expected to evaluate the problems at hand and figure out which has the most benefit to those in need. By providing relief to those who require it, global charity allows us to alleviate suffering and increase pleasure, which is in line with the principles of utilitarianism.

According to the film Poverty Inc. by Matheson Miller shows us that global charity does indeed alleviate suffering to an extent. The film shows numerous instances where foreign aid to African countries has been beneficial but then reminds us of the damage that can occur when these countries become dependent on it. The utilitarian principle is thus conflicted here. While the intentions of aid are pure, the charity may indeed damage the communities it is intended to help, along with the economies of their countries. For example, the donation of clothes has allowed millions of people access to clothing, which does indeed alleviate suffering and increase pleasure. On the flip-side, these donations have damaged the textile industries of these countries, preventing these countries from being self-sufficient in that regard.

Mill (1895) discusses this issue of actions intended to help to have undesirable consequences. He explains that focusing on the alleviation of suffering alone is not sufficient. Poverty Inc. (2014) shows us how dependence on aid prevents African countries from realizing their full potential. He explains how indulgence in immediate pleasures can prevent one from realizing that there are indeed higher pleasures that can be attained. This is true for receivers of global aid, which, upon enjoying the quick fixes that it offers, fails to consider that they can work towards improving their condition to a point where assistance is no longer needed. There is, therefore, a need to not only view the alleviation of suffering and addition to pleasure as the only aims of global aid. Instead, as the film suggests, efforts to help should look beyond the immediate relief to avoid doing more damage (Poverty Inc., 2014).

Deontology has a more relative and subjective view of the morality of giving. Proponents of deontology argue that morality is determined by the social and cultural situations around a matter and that there established moral rules should be a reference point when determining the moral legitimacy of an issue. Benedict (1934), in her writings on cultural relativism, explains that something morally right in one culture can be morally wrong in another culture. What this means is that people decide what is ethically right or wrong based on their cultures and the prevailing conditions in that specific situation, and taking into account their set of moral rules.

Deontology’s dependence on moral rules and duties can influence which charities a person is allowed to donate to. Because a person’s beliefs are crucial to their determination of whether an action is right or wrong, they will have an affinity to those charities that are aligned to their beliefs while. The same person will be against contributing to a charity that is contrary to their beliefs. For example, a devout catholic will easily devote their time and money to a charity that is pro-life because they believe that life is sacred and begins at birth. The same individual will be against donating to a charity that is pro-choice because they believe that abortion is wrong. In this way, deontological definitions of right and wrong can influence a person’s choice of charities to which they will contribute.

Deontology benefits from reason because it requires one to act in a way that anyone else in the same circumstances would reasonably do. It does not require the calculations of possible benefits that should arise from a good deed. It demands that a person do the right thing (within reason) despite the immediate or delayed consequences. This allows for people to consult their beliefs before acting (Benedict, 1934). The importance of this is that it will enable people to invest in charities whose immediate benefit may not be apparent. For example, a person may decide to donate to cancer research even though they are unlikely to ever benefit from a cure during their lifetime. They do this without needing to calculate the risks versus the rewards involved in such an act. The person is motivated by their belief that cancer research is important work and that donating to a cause of that nature is the right thing to do. This is contrary to the utilitarian theories, which require a person to quantify the benefit that will arise from their actions.

People are encouraged to contribute to charity in their various capacities because it is the right thing to do. The film explains how people are motivated to help out those who require making donations. Campaigns to mobilize people and solicit donations usually focus on bringing to light the sufferings being endured in poverty-stricken countries and explain that the target of such campaigns is to alleviate that suffering. This targeting of people’s morals allows these organizations to raise the funds that they need.

Utilitarian views seem to be fixated with the outcome of the act of giving to justify it. Deontology, on the other hand, focuses on the morality of the act of giving without much consideration for the consequences that may follow. I believe that deontological views are superior because they pay more attention to the moral aspect of giving and contributing to charity. When donating to charity, it is vital for people to not only consider the consequences of their actions but also to consider the moral implications of the same.

References

Benedict, R. (1934). A defense of Ethical Relativism. Journal of General Psychology, 10, 59-82.

Kahane, H. (1993). Sociobiology, Egoism, and Reciprocity. Moral philosophy: A reader, 3.

Mill, J. S. (1895). Utilitarianism. Longmans, Green and Company.

Miller, M. M. (2014). Poverty Inc. Passion River Films.

Singer, P. (1972). Famine, affluence, and morality. Philosophy & public affairs, 229-243.