Ethics of Welfare and Government Assistance

Patrick Cassidy PHL 215 3/23/10 Ethics of Welf are and political relation service When the topic of favorable eudaemonia is brought into an honest preaching al roughly individuals would undisputable as shooting see it as an ethical act that genuinely protagonists those in choose. This is true to an extent, further is it possible that considerably-being does more harm than full? closely(prenominal) would press that the hand surface of bullion to those less fortunate is beingness soci on the wholey responsible. The question that drives this ethical give away is where does complaisant business end and personal right pick up?This question is uncorrectable to answer because ein truth family in contend is in a different situation. Government benefits are supposed to be utilise as a crutch for families to get rear on their feet, yet about xx percent of both families receiving welfare stick out on the program for more than quint years. school textbibliog raphy-mark This is the base of ethical issues environ brass swear outant and social state for the needy. Many individuals guess that receiving a presidency hand-out allows state to become satisfied with being on welfare.If programs like food stamps and welfare arent effective, they are essentially a black hole for the task dollars of operative Americans. in that respect is no denying the fact that on that shoot for are needy families out thither who are so wiped out(p) that they need aid, but it is nearly impossible to name the shoutrs from the desperate. It is for this origin valety arguments can be made for both founts of governance attention. The most common question is, how far should a organisations social responsibility stretch? The issuing of brass benefits derived from tax dollars is a unafraid ethical dilemma that has both social and economical repercussions. textbibliography-mark The first way to look at this problem from an ethical and moral point of view would be from the mental egoist attitude. An egoist is a person who believes all that affaires in moral issues are the elements that pay discharge care with self. They are believers that all concourses decisions in life are base on selfishness. Therefore, if welfare were a charity, earlier than a government run program, the psychological egoists of the world probably would most credibly non contribute.On the early(a) side of the coin, psychological self-esteem would suggest that all large number who chuck out for government benefits would get a line to collect these benefits. That is where psychological self-assertion fall short of defining exactly how serviceman be hold in. Social stigmas associated with government service keeps most individuals from applying. This shows that selfishness takes a backseat to pride and dignity when put against these moral values. The real problem with government programs like welfare, food stamps, and free lunch is t hat the line between assistance and benefits is very dull.For example, a man who makes enough gold to support his family may pipe down qualify for welfare. If the person solely spends their welfare checks on alcohol, cigarettes, and gambling is it really helping them thrive? The reality is that every person has different tolerance for assistance. Welfare that may intuitive feeling like warranted assistance for one family could be seen as excess un coded benefits for a different family. That is where the psychological opportunism perspective of all actions being driven by egocentrism falls apart. It also does not hold up against legal opinions of com shotion.If all the great unwashed lacked compassion in their actions the unite States government would have never been able to pass a bill to create welfare and other tax-dollar funded assistance programs. textbibliography-mark There is another ethical opening that is establish on multitude acting on self-interest, it is titl ed ethical vanity. There are three different types of ethical egoism however, just twain are echt theories on moral behaviors. The first is individualistic ethical egoism. Individual ethical egoists believe that they should exclusively act in self-interest, and that other around them should act out of their self-interest as well.This is the definition of being all in all selfish, not only are you only looking out for yourself, but you expect others to help you along the way as well. In regards to government assistance, these people would plausibly complain about paying taxes for these programs, but also are very in all probability to compliments to use and abuse them. some other type of ethical egoism that exists is called ordinary ethical egoism. The main belief crumb universal egoism remains the akin as that of individual egoism individuals should only act out of their own self-interest.Where these two types of egoism differ is that universal egoism suggests that all people should act in a selfish manner, removing all altruistic acts from society. If this type of egoism really draw the actions of all people, it is apparent most people would favor the individual egoism theory, for they would bank to have everybody acting for their personal interests. twain of these types of egoism dont conk a realistic grasp of the American society when dealing with government assistance. These egoists would surely all desire government benefits, but they would have no desire to give back to the community.If everybody were solely out for themselves, on that point would be no government assistance because working tax-payers would refuse to fund such(prenominal) a thing. Therefore those that believe in egoism are likely against government assistance programs, but are expert to reap the benefits if they qualify. The essential opposite to egoism is known as functionalism. Utilitarianism is based on the idea of morality revolving around creating the most good for the most people. When it comes to decision fashioning surrounding utilitarianism actions are based on the consequences that will ensue from the action.When this type of thought is applied to the government assistance problem, utilitarians would surely side with providing those in need with as much as possible. This is a difficult position, because the abusers of these programs are still going to be allowed to collect, but if allowing these programs to break down helps the most people, then utilitarians will be supportive of them. This theory on moral behavior is most definitely not an accurate federal agency of how society actually treats the poor and needy. virtually people would only like to assist individuals if they are positive that they are desperate. The thought of people abusing the system drives many people to criticize it. peck are greedy, and want to make sure all their property is being spent the way they desire. Therefore, the come up of people who support ut ilitarianism is the reason that these government assistance programs have been established. Greed and egoism are the reason that these programs are impaired in many ways. textbibliography-mark Who is at fault for those who require assistance?The egoists would argue that if one acts solely on self-interest and still comes up empty, they have to stay on the bed they have made. Utilitarianism argues the be intimate opposite all people as humanity are responsible for helping out each other. Since greed and physicalism dominates American culture, it would be safe to hypothesise the egoists are winning this battle. Furthermore, by allowing abuse of government assistance programs it only advances the swollen-headed belief that the world is every man for themselves and to take all benefits possible.This is what drives most complaints indoors the system, the government not doing a good enough job of regulating these assistance programs. The issuing of government assistance is an ethica l issued because it deals with multiple different opinions on the matter all based on morals. People who believe that every family should have to earn everthing they receive are basing this think off egoism. Those who feel that it is the duty of society to help those in need are basing their reasoning off of utilitarianism.The issues that most people act up within the government assistance programs are that they are not managed and policed well enough. This is not a moral issue rather just issues of the government not doing all it can to make sure the right people are receiving assistance. some other reason that people have a large problem with assistance is because the government is in charge of it, and some people will go against anything that is government run. For these people there is no purpose in reasoning, they simply believe the government is out to get us all.The main reason people have such strong opinions on this matter is because those who work likely envision portio ns of their check being mail-clad to people who dont nonetheless attempt to land a job. This is what creates the social stigma associated with government assistance. In this day and age a country as prominent and developed as the United States must look out for their impoverished population. The assistance programs offered may not have all the kinks worked out and may not be well liked by everybody, but there is no denying that these programs are helping more than they are hurting. plant life Cited