Philosophical Approach in Career Choices - Term Paper Example

Replace ability, Career Choice, and Making a Difference Life is a composition of few decisions that are more valuable than the choice of career one pursues. For that reason, the career one takes determines how that individual most of their time. In addition to that, the career is usually forms the crucial determinants of whether one is happy or lives a miserable life. Most university level educated individuals make choices with reference to their area of specialization. In addition to that, this area of specialization is always a livelihood generating approach. This is solely because of their level of education. Contrary to that, ethics on career choices do not include a philosophical approach for quality outcome. This is unfortunate and results in many uninformed decisions. Philanthropy simply means caring for other people’s suffering in the society. This is evident when an individual engages in activities like fundraising for churches or fund drives for education support. In addition to that, philanthropists make personal appeals to other wealthy members to take part in these activities to help the less fortunate in the community. The extent to which an individual can engage in philanthropic activities is proportional to ones career. There are careers that involve harming the community at some point in time, but lucrative in the way they pay. These careers enable an individual to contribute greatly to the community. If the person does not undertake the career, most of the time they offer good salaries, possibly another individual would take the chance, inflict the harm to the community and still the community does not gain anything. For this reason, it is acceptable for one to have the career, even though the harm will be felt, there are a few activities that will benefit the community. The trolley problem is a test on morality and thoughts. The best experiment on the trolley problem is the tactical bombing, where military attacks rebellious combatants and hit them including loyal civilians. It is permissible to destroy an enemy but incurring further expenses like the killing of innocent civilians. The trolley problem usually presents controversy in decision-making, but a risk has to take effect in order to achieve an objective. The objectives are tricky but necessary in all scenarios. (a) The strong claim has it that it is jurisprudent good to pursue philanthropy through a high paying though morally controversial career than to pursue philanthropy through a high paying career though it is morally innocuous (William, 2014, pg.4). That is, the engagement does not include risks of moral standards in the second case. MacAskill argues in favor of the strong claim by introducing obvious conditions, which the reasons on basis of harm or integrity do not conceptualize. The conclusion is not universal truth. It is not always true that anyone who is ready to pursue philanthropy should just venture, these individuals must consider the concentration in those types of careers. They should then give their thought on whether or not to get in. in addition to that, there are other charity careers, which need consideration, as they are equally important for economic drive. This conclusion is virtually on how the morally higher world is counter intuitive today and incomprehensive to the clear inequalities. Currently fifty percent (50%) of income and more than eighty five percent (85%), (Rominger, 2012, pg. 312) of the world’s wealth is under the richest people of the world, who make about ten percent (10%), (Rominger, 2012, pg.312) of the global population. This is alarming as the world’s population is increasing extremely fast, with improved education, medical technology and response to calamities. In addition to that reason, the few rich individual do not distribute the wealth and power but retain that and continue oppressing the poor. The above scenario is a description of the world’s prevailing wealth distribution situation that everybody should focus to change. MacAskill’s conclusion does not refer to this though; it aims at a world where such observation is not in effect. It is worth to identify the problem that reflects in the world as a whole and consider the extent of the damage it is causing on the population. In most countries, attention is a priority to more visible problems like gender inequality and the HIV-AIDS pandemic. Not many individuals realize the number of millions of hours wasted for choosing the wrong careers and which results in suffering to a great number of people in the world. The people, who make at least twelve thousand dollars ($12000) in a year, (Jane, 2013, pg. 33), are the richest proportion accounting for just ten percent of the world’s population. The fact that the dollar rules all market values, gives confirmation to the reason that these figures indicate purchasing power and the influence of these power parity in poor countries in enormous. The World Bank has it that 1.4 billion people live below the poverty line, that is this population uses less than 1.25 dollars in a day (Leonid, 2013, pg. 259). (b) It is evident that people tend to pursue philanthropy by engaging in morally controversial careers (William, 2014, pg.14). Most individuals see this as being analogous with basis on the classic transplant counter example. The classic transplant example takes into account the permissibility of killing one individual in order to save five other people who have different malfunctioning organisms. The example presents controversy in that the actions will go against the interest of one person in order to satisfy five other people. For both common sense and consequentialism, it is ethical to pursue any of these paths. This is because it incorporates causing harm on an individual. In most cases, pursuing philanthropy though a morally controversial career, does not conclude like the classical transplant example. The conditions that up holds this include giving all victims’ benefits and foreseeing the unintended side effects and disregard their possible existence. Typically, pursuing philanthropy through a morally controversial career is, these careers are usually lucrative but scarce. The number of job seekers for these jobs is high as compared to the jobs availability. For that reason, if an individual opts not to pursue a morally controversial career, another person will willingly get in. this means that, in pursuing morally based careers it is sometimes in the best interests of the victims one is harming. For instance, consider taking a career in an energy company that handles petroleum-refining processes. The industry adds to the problems of the surrounding people by harming them with increased emission of carbon (IV) oxide. This gas increases temperature levels hence the overall global warming experienced. The career is lucrative but has harming effects to the people its products are serving. Somebody who has a chance to pursue this career is set to get a good salary hence give much to the community. For that reason, nobody can let that chance slip off because the company is emitting poisonous gases. If the person decides not to take the career, they have contributed in purportedly releasing of low carbon (IV) oxide gases, so the total effect of the gas is negligible. This is because the gas does not only contribute to pollution and global warming to the nearby surroundings but to the whole world at large. In addition to that, failure to take the career results into more harm to the people, as the contributions by that individual to the community is negligible. For the reason that, the individual values philanthropy, they may take the career and focus on reducing the emissions in addition to contributing much towards their philanthropic missions. This is because they understand the extent of harm those emissions cause to the people. If they are able to reduce the emissions and still contribute philanthropically, then the people are better off with such an individual. It is therefore inconsiderable to pursue a morally innocuous career because they can be less lucrative. The reason here is the harm-based thought against morally controversial careers and their adverse effects to the larger part of the community. Informed community members would base their argument for an individual to take the job rather than keeping off the opportunity, especially when the individual can reduce the emissions and still contribute to the community. In that sense, the community will face less harm and again be better off. In some cases, it is not always that pursuing philanthropy through a morally controversial career means that the individual has interests of all those they affect. For even if the individual is able to doles harm in his entire career than if a replacement for their services comes, they still can change those ones to be harmed. For that reason, it is prudent enough for an individual to pursue philanthropy through a morally controversial career as in most instances the harming is not intentional but a foreseen although an intended side effect of the resultant actions. (c) The trolley case is an example of moral controversy (William, 2014, pg.19). In this example, there is option of redirecting the train so to avoid running over five people but kill one person in the other end. It is ethically preferable to switch the tracks to do away with one person rather doing nothing and sacrificing five people at the expense of one individual. The reason that it is permissible to switch the tracks to harm one and save five people illustrates that no one can change who gets the final harm in such a scenario. Another case is that of typical bombing (William, 2014, pg.20), where one has the option of ending a battle early by bombing an armory factory base without thinking about the possibility of killing civilians in the process. This becomes unintended side effect. It is ethically correct to bomb and end the war rather than doing nothing. In both cases, the reason why one opts to cause the harms is that there is a good reason that comes with that. For the above cases, philanthropy through a morally controversial career is as well analogous. Consider a philanthropist who works as a financial trader. It is purely true that, that individual can cause global financial crisis hence affect the poor people negatively. This could not be intended harm on the poor, as their intention is to make money and donate towards their philanthropic activities among the poor. There is an option of this individual to make money through pursuing careers that do not have harming effects and as well donate to the community. Since this person intends to make more money to feel valuable to the community, the harm they cause is foreseen but unintended side effect. If that individual chooses not to speculate these harming effects to the majority poor with the course of their actions, financial markets are more competitive than most product markets. It is likely that another individual will speculate and still proceed, so the harm will come by anyway. There community and majorly the poor will suffer a double-sword. This is because they will not benefit in any way, as the person who is has a philanthropic heart does not have the necessary logistics. For that reason, it is ethical to pursue philanthropy even through a morally controversial career. Works Cited Jane, Austen. Pride and Prejudice. New York: Penguine Books, 2013. Print. Leonid, Grinnin, Ilya Illyin & Andrey Korotayev. Globalistics and Globalization Studies: Theories, Research & Thing. Volgograd: UlchitelPublishers, 2013. Print. Rominger, Dale. Notes from 39,000 Feet. Bloomington: Xlibis Corporation, 2012. Print. William, MacAskill. Replaceability, Career Choice, and Making a Difference. Cambridge: University of Cambridge, 2014. Publication. Read More