Facebook Pixel Code
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.

MacAskills Strong Claim

This is a preview of the 5-page document
Read full text

The argument is generally based on the charity sector as compared to the paradigm ethical careers, rasons why charity work is viewed as the most ethical career choice. This is therefore justified by the positive effect one has on the world and the community by pursuing such a career and also if the career can make a difference and if it can make the world a better place when it is pursued (William, 2013). Mrally controversial careers can sometimes be very lucrative than morally innocuous career but very will wish to pursue such a career making their wages to be greatly high.

Tese morally controversial careers differs from reprehensible careers and they includes careers such as working for a company involved in the arms industry, wrking for petrochemical company, sme careers within the finance sector like the ones involved in the speculating on wheat thereby increasing price volatility and disrupting the livelihood of the global poor. Aso there is the reprehensible career which includes working as a hit man, dug dealer or a child trafficker and tend to reason typically much stronger against this reprehensible career and for this reason they are considered typically illegal whereas the morally controversial careers are not.

O pure consequentialists grounds it is most unlikely that a moral sensitive individual could actually bring themselves to pursue such a career and by doing so could impair their ability to influence others to also pursue philanthropy as a vocation and indeed risks sullying the whole idea. To other non-consequentialist reasons against pursuing philanthropy through morally controversial careers are also considered; vctim- which based on the idea that some careers involve harming others like a person who is working in a biochemical company which emits CO2 to the environment which thereby harms the general population; also there is the agent- cantered which is based on the idea that some careers a violation of the workers integrity as in the case of a person who get a job in a company dealing in the manufacture of chemical weapons.

Uder these two circumstances the reasons do not hold and therefore the two are sufficiently that strong claim is well supported (William, 2013).

I harm based reasoning, McAskill argues that one might think that the pursuit of philanthropy through a morally controversial career is analogous to the classic Transplant counterexample. ..

This is a preview of the 5-page document
Open full text
Close ✕
Tracy Smith Editor&Proofreader
Expert in: Philosophy, Gender & Sexual Studies, Archaeology
Hire an Editor
Matt Hamilton Writer
Expert in: Philosophy, History, Social science
Hire a Writer
preview essay on MacAskills Strong Claim
WE CAN HELP TO FIND AN ESSAYDidn't find an essay?

Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples

Contact Us