The argument is generally based on the charity sector as compared to the paradigm ethical careers, reasons 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). Morally controversial careers can sometimes be very lucrative than morally innocuous career but very few people will wish to pursue such a career making their wages to be greatly high. These morally controversial careers differs from reprehensible careers and they includes careers such as working for a company involved in the arms industry, working for petrochemical company, some 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. Also there is the reprehensible career which includes working as a hit man, drug dealer or a child trafficker and the non-consequentialists 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. On 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. Two other non-consequentialist reasons against pursuing philanthropy through morally controversial careers are also considered; victim- cantered which is 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. Under these two circumstances the reasons do not hold and therefore the two conditions are sufficiently common that strong claim is well supported (William, 2013).In harm based reasoning, MacAskill argues that one might think that the pursuit of philanthropy through a morally controversial career is analogous to the classic Transplant counterexample
ReferencesMacAskill, William. Replaceability, Career Choice, and Making a Difference. UK: Oxford University, 2013.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples