Charity is not something that can be forced

The Charitable Argument for Freedom of Choice in Charity

The paper includes a charitable argument that supports the motion by stating that “charity cannot be forced.” Charities are an important part of any community because they aim to help those who are in need, beginning with small donations that have a large impact in a given community. Giving to charity helps to make society a better place to live by providing services and goods to people who might not otherwise be able to afford them. However, whether people are willing or not willing to do personal charity, they should have the freedom to choose whether or not to help others. Furthermore, there is no right obtained by forcing people to care for others, and it does not make them better people. The natural processes which involve exercising of freedom of choice and conscience hold a better chance of building someone to a better person.

Utilitarianism

The theory of ethics defines Utilitarianism as the state in which state that the morally of an individual is right when the person gives a best possible outcome in a particular situation. According to Peter Singer, there is the need for individuals to have a basic which is not far from the abilities of the average person since if people do not uphold morality, there will be a downfall in communities (Global Justice : A Comparative Study On The Theories Of Peter Singer, John Rawls, And Henry Shue 26). Policies to force charity would involve attempt which would bring coercion in an independent country. Individuals should also not be subjected to the obligation of giving aid unless there is a need for reducing malnutrition or starvation. Singer also argues that it is our duty to reduce the suffering associated with lack of food, medical care, and shelter. If we are in a position to preventing something bad from happening without sacrificing anything which can be comparable to the moral importance we ought to do it. Sacrificing in this scenario means that the action does not facilitate the happening of anything bad or failing to promise some moral good which may be capable of causing bad things which could have been prevented. For example, individuals can reduce death and suffering by giving to famine relief, and in the end, the cost of there is morally irrelevance reduction in the living standards.

People Obligation for Charity

The argument is applicable both to long-term development and immediate emergency to famine. Singer demands that people must always make best choices morally without considering anything less. The case limits people freedom as it supports the giving to charity compulsory. The developed nations are obligated to help the developing countries. On the other hand, O’Neill Onora complaint that is giving right food to aid to the starving populations, the concern should be taken where growth in population will occur and will result in a significant number of unhappy people as time pass (Onora, 12). The people will be unhappy since the policies they are asked to follow should be optional and when they are made compulsory, there is more harm than good. Also, countries which do not employ any effort to reduce the population growth giving them aid will result in catastrophe. In applying Kantian’s element of beneficence to the vulnerable. The people who are starving requires our help not only for survival but up to the point where they can be able to support themselves and have a life of their own. Additionally, the Kantian’s guiding rule promotes granting people autonomy as a crucial element regardless of the prospect of an increase and also when decreasing in happiness occurs. This guideline gives a clear reason as to why charity should not be forced.

Why Charity Cannot Be Forced

Charity cannot be forced since a problem may arise and it may result in confusion between being an activity which people choose freely for being something that one is obligated. Since charity is the act of giving it should be a voluntary thing one wants to do without the relation of being commanded to doing so but an act expressing one willingness to do it. Forcing people to perform charity may in some cases result to inevitable diminishing on the society’s total amount of wealth, and eventually, nothing changes to those who need welfare assistance in the long term. In some cases, employers may take a step further to force for charity since they want to be counted as the individuals having large donations. Some companies pressure their employees with the intentions to earn a bragging right and to display on their donations on websites. The act enables them to be trending and also marketable where they are listed in newspaper and magazines. Some employees are not interested in such donation and if asked they say that they would prefer doing the donations themselves directly at their own time. Additionally, some companies are more interested in being recognized than even their value for employees. For example, a man was employed by a particular company, and he used to be called to a meeting which even the human resource would ask him to explain the reason he was not giving. Eventually, he lost his job, and one of the reasons he thinks contributed to that was a failure to donate though he did not know how to prove such a case. Other companies give a day off to employees who have participated in donations.

Benefits of Not Forcing Charity

The advantage of not forcing charity is that people will enhance freedom of choice. Kantianism element of justice which mainly state that people should never be deceived or coerce will be applicable in daily lives. Another benefit of not forcing charity is that it will promote the autonomy of nations at large. However, the charity has positive sides; it requires us to perform against our best interests as described by Singer. Charity eliminates favor of those who are closest to us without the aim of things which will benefit us but with an objective of helping others. This means that a person who is near to us who we experience contact with, we are likely to assist them but this is not to say that we ought to help them rather than helping the other person who is far.

Conclusion

In conclusion, every individual should have moral guiding principles and regulations that one can logically adopt. Utilitarianism which is the most influential moral theories which explain that we should act so as to promote happiness to a large number may be useful in measuring before and after the act of charity. People should of give to the needy in the communities to who are struggling with the basic needs to prevent suffering associated with the lack such as death. The giving should be at the appropriate time when the needy most need the goods and services to avoid the subject individuals from becoming lazy. Finally, charity should always be observed as a voluntary act where people are not obliged to perform, but they do it out of their willingness.

Work Cited

Global Justice : A Comparative Study On The Theories Of Peter Singer, John Rawls, And Henry Shue. 2014,.

onora, O’Neill. Moral Famine And World Hunger. Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall, 2013,.