Name of Student

Course

Name of Professor

Date

Introduction

Moral reasoning is the process that requires an individual to choose between what is right or wrong in a certain situation. In this position essay, I was supposed to choose between buying a dream phone and providing subsistence income for four families. I already have a cheap phone with a plan but was thinking to buy dream phone (galaxy S5) because there was a 50% deduction offer in the cost of the phone. The $400 which is the cost of the phone can provide subsistence income for four families in poor countries. My position, in this case, is providing subsistence income for four poor families instead of purchasing Galaxy S5, which is a luxury phone. My arguments rotate around the fact that people should change their way of thinking and their perception of morality so that they can provide help to the needy people. My first argument is that suffering and death are bad whether brought about by hunger, inadequate housing or poor medical care. My second argument is that if a person is in a position of preventing a morally bad thing without sacrificing a something of almost equal moral importance, one should do it. I will describe these two arguments in this essay putting in mind the moral reasoning so that I can justify my decision of providing subsistence income for four families with the $400.

First Argument

My first argument is that suffering and death are bad whether brought about by hunger, inadequate housing or poor medical care. Whether one should help those people who are needy does not depend on how one is close to them because the fact that they are far away from you does not lessen their suffering (Greene 360). It also follows that one cannot fail to help the needy because others capable of helping are not doing so as this still does not lessen their suffering. From the moral principle of justice, one is supposed to treat other people fairly and equally (Singer 334). In this situation, we have people who are suffering because they cannot even afford the three basic needs namely food, clothing and shelter. I would be going against this moral principle if I can decide to buy a luxury phone instead of helping them to at least meet their basic needs (Greene 367). Helping is a virtual even in the Bible. People are encouraged to assist those people in need if they are in a position to assist. People should understand that no one chooses to be born into a poor family or country, and this should provide enough motivation for them to help those in need.

Second Argument

My second argument is that if a person is in a position of preventing a morally bad thing without sacrificing something of almost equal moral importance, one should do it. In this case, I am sacrificing purchasing a luxury phone (Galaxy S5) which is of lower moral importance as compared to providing subsistence income for four families from poor countries (Singer 340). Even from the principle of utilitarianism, actions are right to the extent that they bring a lot of benefits to the largest number of people. Classical utilitarianism justifies the altruistic principle of self-sacrifice so that you can benefit other people. In this principle, some members of the society must sacrifice their personal interests in order to benefit others without benefiting personally (Greene 363). So, in my case I would sacrifice my personal interest in buying Galaxy S 5 smartphone so that I can benefit the suffering and dying people from poor countries. The principle of beneficence states that one should help himself as he help others. Honoring this principle means I should help people who are needy by donating money to them instead of buying a luxury phone while I already possess one. A good example to justify this argument is in a case where one is required to help a drowning child in a pond. One should rescue the child even it means dirtying his or her clothes (Singer 347). This argument is justified because, dirtying one’s clothes is not a substantial moral cost than the death of a child. Hence, helping needy people is a more significant moral act than buying a luxury Galaxy S5 phone.

First Objection

The first objection is that if people donate their money to the needy will deny them the moral principle of autonomy. My response to this objection is that donating money to the needy people in the society does not deny one the right to pursue his or her personal interests. People believe that according to the principle of autonomy, they have moral rights to commit one’s money and time to activities that don’t have a direct impact in helping needy people ties (Greene 364). In this case, if I decided to buy a luxury phone, I would have fulfilled my personal interests instead of assisting people who are suffering because of hunger that is not morally correct. Pursuing personal interests such as intellectual activities is very ok as it leads to personal developments and also to the development of the society as these people contribute positively to nation building. But this does not have the meaning that people are morally permitted to pursue any interest especially while such interests have been shown to have no significance social benefits. It also does not mean that people are morally permitted not to contribute towards helping needy people (Singer 336). There exist a big difference between pursuing one’s interests and being free to waste one’s money and time on luxury things such as buying a smartphone while you already have a phone. Buying luxury items should not be counted as legitimate ways of pursuing one’s interests. According to the principle utilitarianism, a good action is one that produces the greatest benefits for the greatest number of people (Singer 339). So, deciding to provide subsistence income for four families from poor countries has the greatest benefits to many people than buying a luxury Galaxy S5 phone.

Second Objection

My second objection was that people should have the right to contribute whatever they want to charity, whether they choose not to contribute at all or contribute any amount they wish. My response to this objection was that it was wrong to contribute nothing to charity or whatever amount you wish. The money that people spend on luxuries should be contributed to the needy people because they need that money to survive (Greene 368). Donating your money towards helping the needy is not simply good but it is obligatory. The distinction between what is good and obligatory may exist, but this does not apply in the case where people spend money on luxuries instead of helping the poor. People should respect the moral principle of beneficence which states that one should help himself and also other people (Singer 346). This principle explains that one should be benevolence to others who are less fortunate by providing them with goods and money. So, there is no justification for buying luxuries instead of helping the needy.

Conclusion

My first argument that suffering and death are bad whether brought about by hunger, inadequate housing or poor medical care is justified. People have a moral obligation of helping the needy because it produces the greatest benefits for the greatest number of people. My second argument stating that if a person is in a position of preventing a morally bad thing without sacrificing something of almost equal moral importance, one should do it is also justified. People should understand that providing income for four families from poor families has a more moral importance than buying a luxury phone. In conclusion, it is of more moral significance providing a subsistence income for four families than purchasing a dream phone.

References

Greene, Joshua D. “The secret joke of Kant’s soul.” Moral Psychology: Historical and Contemporary Readings (2007): 359-372.

Singer, Peter. “Ethics and intuitions.” The Journal of Ethics 9.3-4 (2005): 331-352.