Analysis Of Mark Caskill's 'Doing Good Better'

Better Essays
Mark Macaskill argues in his book “Doing Good Better”, that we ought to donate towards charities that are effective. However, he proposes that it is not morally justified to give to a cause that is close to one’s heart, insofar the charity the agent chooses to support is due to subjective reasons. Problematically, if we were to listen to MacAskill, there could be dire consequences from adhering to the QALY methodology. This essay aims to argue otherwise, because the individuals who are donating towards a certain cause do so for the sake of the cause itself. Arguably, these individuals are not aiming to be an effective altruist. Rather, the agent donates their resources to a certain charity after an experience, because feels a sense of urgency …show more content…
Due to the agent’s state of bereavement, they would desire to donate a sum of money towards a charity organization that battles cancer. Insofar the agent desires to end the suffering and death that is caused by cancer. However, MacAskill refutes this idea, and proposes that the agent ought to use their grief toward ending suffering on a grand scale, regardless of dilemma caused it. this is because we ought to be focused on ending an avoidable premature death, and/or suffering. He our reason for donating to a certain charity is because we are swayed by our emotions to donate towards a specific charity due to a personal experience/hardship. As MacAskill quotes, “it seems arbitrary to raise money for one specific cause of death rather than any other. If that family member had died of a different illness, it would have been no less tragic” (42). Significantly, the emotional response should not be the leading motivation for out attempt to try and make the world a better place. This is because we wouldn't be as effective in doing so, rather we ought to aim at being efficient with the resources we wish to donate since we ought to desire at relieving suffering and avoidable deaths. In effect, the ought to be set on creating greatest effects with the limited resources they have (every dollar that can potentially benefit someone). Therefore, MacAskill argues it is wrong to donate valuable …show more content…
An example to demonstrate this, is that there are two groups of people we can help with the resources at hand. There is group A, whom we are partial toward. Then there is group B. However, group B is a larger group of individuals. MacAskill would assert we ought to give the resources towards the larger group of individuals since it will generate a larger surplus of QALY’s. Yet in doing so would require that we disregard the partial attraction to group A. MacAskill would further argue that it is necessary we are impartial to the situation, and hold everyone in equal value. In effect, in trying to be an effective altruist, it requires we repress subjective values are irrelevant to the situation that will relieve suffering. In effect, in becoming an effective altruist, our subjective values must be considered irrelevant to situations that aim to effectively and efficiently relieve suffering. If we were to act on behalf of our values and help group A, we have done the wrong action and let many suffer or potentially die. This is because we chose to do the lesser good, which would be morally impermissible. This is because we would be privileging a certain group of individuals, which would mean we are treating group B unfairly. Since there is an irrelevant factor of experience that weighs on the agent’s decision of who

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Ayn Rand defines selfishness as someone who is concerned about their own interest which opposite to altruism is enabling people to feel guilty later on. She claims that people should not have to do things for others and gain happiness. They should focus on themselves and do things that make themselves happy so that way they can gain self-respect for making the right decision. So, if Kevin calls Ambulance he should not have to feel guilty later on for putting Tom’s future at risk. Instead, He would gain self-confidence for doing what he thought was best for…

    • 1186 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Since those who are financially secure and comfortable are not the reason for the impoverishment of others, morally requiring them to aid the impoverished would only become an unnecessary burden (Narveson, 243). To conclude his argument, Narveson states that people who are able to sustain themselves should not be obligated to aid the less fortunate unless they are responsible for their impoverishment, or if the need for aid becomes severe (Narveson,…

    • 2077 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    William MacAskill argues in his book “Doing Good Better”, that we ought to donate towards charities that are the most effective. However, he also asserts that it is not morally justifiable to give to a cause that is close to one’s heart, insofar the charity the agent chooses to support is due to a subjective reason. He proposes this, because the charity may not be as effective and efficient as another one we could support with the same resources. Problematically, if we were to listen to MacAskill, there could be counterfactual consequences in adhering to what he proposes. In effect, this essay aims to argue against MacAskill, and assert that it is permissible to donate to a charity that is close to one’s heart.…

    • 1719 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Earlier in his essay, Arneson also draws attention to the “nervous cooperator” and the “reluctant cooperator”, who are both dissatisfied by the fact that can people can freeload off benefits that they are helping to provide. When freeloading becomes an option the “nervous cooperator” becomes apprehensive about the fact that they might be feeding into a scheme that is likely to fail; on the other hand, the “reluctant cooperator” does not wish to comply with a system where they will be “exploited by free riders”. The latter also being a common problem with charity; Peter Singer addresses this is The Life You Can Save, we do not want to give more than our fairshare, and if everyone else does not donate, why should I? However, in terms of voluntary acceptance of political obligation the matter is even harsher. Because my obligation creates a non-excludable public good, why should I help fund something that benefits others if they do not care for the scheme?…

    • 990 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    People think if they donate organs that they or their family will need to fund the cost. Although all the cost will fall to the recipient not the donor. People are afraid it will affect their own medical treatment. But the surgeons involved will be different from those saving you. Since the donor does not get to choose who their organs go to, with the exception of kidney and partial lung transplants, this may be a concern for people that feel uncomfortable with their organs going to someone of a different gender, religion, class, faith, etc.…

    • 1041 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    While Singer’s arguments prove that people should do these tasks for the greater good of humanity, he does not form a pragmatic conclusion ensuring that your charitable donations are being broken down within the company correctly. With this being said, the donated money is not being used to…

    • 999 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    There are many ways on finding alternatives to incarcerations for nonviolent crimes but I disagree because a person receiving shame punishment won’t help them change their behavior and will negatively affect future decisions. Shame punishment will most likely not help an offender because it will make them feel like they are a bad person. I believe this is true because if a person has to display to the public what they have done, they will feel humiliated and know people will see them as bad even after one…

    • 1518 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    I feel unpremeditated outcomes should have less bearing when appraising the morality of a decision, unless said outcome was a glaring omission. Similarly, as with moral absolutism, human individuality renders the practical application of consequentialism extremely difficult, as it requires individuals to consider the needs of others as having the same value as their own (Smart and Williams, 1973). Whilst being idealistic in theory, in practice individuals are much more likely to act egoistically, in that they value their own interests and desires first and other second (Moseley, n.d.). To summarise, whilst consequentialism is somewhat idealistic, it would require humanity to be all-knowing in their decision-making and completely altruistic, thus the practical application of the theory is…

    • 1036 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Simulating Murder Summary

    • 837 Words
    • 4 Pages

    On this note the experimenters responded that people who do perform such actions of harm lack empathy towards the victim. Killers lack the moral compass that supposedly is integrated on everyone. Perhaps is their egotistical nature or their unwavering confused thoughts justified their actions as morally right. Is it ok to murder someone, even if that person potentially planning on creating an atrocious act. We can bring self-defense into play to justified killing someone but not for the better good of saving other people’s lives.…

    • 837 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The greater moral evil rule is the name Arthur gave to Singer’s main principle; people are morally obliged to prevent suffering, if the price is a suffering of less value. According to Arthur, focusing on the greater moral evil rule implies that we are not viewed as equals. From an objective point of view, no one has a unique status nor a greater level of suffering, suffering is still suffering. Prioritizing the suffering of someone else implies that we are not equal because you are treating them as inferiors. Furthermore, by not getting to buy the extra things you do not need, you would be giving up part of your happiness, according to…

    • 2138 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Decent Essays