The concept of impartiality It is all too easy to assume that the word impartiality must denote a positive, unitary concept — presumably a concept closely linked with, if not identical to, morality. This, however, is simply not the case.
The Concepts of Beneficence and Benevolence The term beneficence connotes acts of mercy, kindness, and charity. It is suggestive of altruism, love, humanity, and promoting the good of others.
In ordinary language, the notion is broad, but it is understood even more broadly in ethical theory to include effectively all forms of action intended to benefit or promote the good of other persons.
The language of a principle or rule of beneficence refers to a normative statement of a moral obligation to act for the others' benefit, helping them to further their important and legitimate interests, often by preventing or removing possible harms.
Many dimensions of applied ethics appear to incorporate such appeals to obligatory beneficence, even if only implicitly.
For example, when apparel manufacturers are criticized for not having good labor practices in factories, the ultimate goal of the criticisms is usually to obtain better working conditions, wages, and benefits for workers.
Whereas beneficence refers to an action done to benefit others, benevolence refers to the morally valuable character trait—or virtue—of being disposed to act to benefit others. Many acts of beneficence have been understood in moral theory as obligatory, as determined by principles of beneficence that state moral obligation.
However, beneficent acts also may be performed from nonobligatory, optional moral ideals, which are standards that belong to a morality of meritorious aspiration in which individuals or institutions adopt goals and practices that are not obligatory for everyone.
Exceptional beneficence is commonly categorized as supererogatory, a term meaning paying or performing beyond what is obligatory or doing more than is required.
This category of extraordinary conduct usually refers to high moral ideals of action, but it has links to virtues and to Aristotelian ideals of moral excellence. Such ideals of action and moral excellence of character need not rise to the level of the moral saint or moral hero.
Even moral excellence comes by degrees. Not all supererogatory acts of beneficence or benevolent dispositions are exceptionally arduous, costly, or risky. Examples of less demanding forms include anonymous gift-giving, uncompensated public service, forgiving another person's costly error, and complying with requests to provide a benefit that exceeds the obligatory requirements of ordinary morality or professional morality.
Saintly and heroic beneficence and benevolence are at the extreme end of a continuum of beneficent conduct and commitment. This continuum is not merely a continuum mapping the territory beyond duty. It is a continuum of beneficence itself, starting with obligatory beneficence.
The continuum runs from strict obligation grounded in the core norms of beneficence in ordinary morality through weaker obligations the outer periphery of ordinary expectations of persons, such as great conscientiousness in attending to a friend's welfare and on to the domain of the morally nonrequired and exceptionally virtuous.
An absence of this sort of beneficence constitutes a defect in the moral life, even if not a failure of obligation. The continuum ends with high-level acts of supererogation such as heroic acts of self-sacrifice to benefit others.
Beneficence is best understood as spread across this continuum. However, there is considerable controversy about where obligation ends and supererogation begins on the continuum.
A celebrated example of beneficence that rests somewhere on this continuum, though it is hard to locate just where, is the New Testament parable of the Good Samaritan. In this parable, robbers have beaten and left half-dead a man traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho.
A Samaritan tends to his wounds and cares for him at an inn.Oct 14, · Yes I think there is a moral obligation to turn down a come on from a married person.
It may seems like the married person making advances is all in the wrong but you're equally at fault if you're willingly hurting another human being (the spouse).Status: Resolved. QUESTION: What are moral values? ANSWER: Moral values are the standards of good and evil, which govern an individual’s behavior and choices.
Individual’s morals may derive from society and government, religion, or self. When moral values derive from society and government they, of necessity, may change as the laws and morals of the society change.
His theory therefore makes nonmaleficence central to the nature and theory of moral obligation while denying that beneficence has any place in the theory of obligation. However, the mainstream of moral philosophy has been to make both not-harming and helping to be obligations, while preserving the distinction between the two.
The Ethical Field of Moral Philosophy. words. 1 page. The Importance of Moral Obligation to One's Spouse. 1, words. 3 pages. A Distinction Between Moral Obligation and Moral Capacity. words. 2 pages. Each Individual Ought to Value the Sanctity of Life Above the Quality of Life.
words. Importance of Morality. It is commonplace in the business world for moral obligation to be deemed irrelevant, especially when an agreement does not amount to an enforceable contract. However, fulfilling business promises is an important element of trustworthiness, as well as ethics.
Children are not the only ones harmed. When one parent is deported the health of the remaining parent suffers, sometimes even shortening the remaining spouse’s lifespan.