Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Short note on non-monetary incentives
Offering incentives for charitable acts
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Short note on non-monetary incentives
Committing charitable acts is one deed that many people out there ponder. However, getting someone to participate in an act of kindness is at times a struggle. Thats why it is common to use incentives such as a grade boost or even things such as being printed as a donor in the newspaper. Because funding for charities is highly competitive, incentives are used in a moral way to create brand recognition, hook potential donors and retain them in the long term. Since all human beings are motivated to do good and in my view are acting in good faith by taking these incentives as they are usually quite small in comparison to the donation they are making so the result is still a great act of giving even in the case of those who are motivated more by self-interest, one could argue that the incentive helps move the person doing the good deed into an act of selflessness. In both cases the donors feel reward in multiple levels from personal joy to more public notoriety, but in all cases those human emotions and validations do not breach moral code.
The use of incentives are debatable whether or not they should be used or not, however it is proven that in some cases it does work. With teenagers if a teacher says that we will get a grade boost by donating money, or time it it PROVEN (word choice) that we will feel more obligated to participate knowing that it will in some way benefit us. As much as we are being selfish and only thinking about how the outcome will benefit us, we still are committing a good deed. And should’t it just be about what the outcome is rather what gets you to the outcome. In the long run, you still end up helping and being kind even though you are doing it only because of the incentive. An incentive is defined as a th...
... middle of paper ...
...the story attached.
The practice of offering incentives for charitable acts is very common because it is an effective way to get people to donate time and/or money. Although I grant that the idea that incentives are morally wrong because people are acting out of self interest rather than out of wanting to do the right thing, I still maintain my view that self interest is a natural part of being a human and it is inevitable that we will take into consideration how things will benefit ourselves as well as others. The exchange of donations for grades or any other kind of reward is what I may argue ethically and morally correct because humans are not only motivated to do good, but we are also acting in good faith by taking the incentives because normally they are minimal in comparison to the donation they are making so the result is still greatly an act of kindness.
You shouldn’t be doing things just to get rewarded for it. This trains us to think that we only should do the things that would make us look good rather than do things all the time to help out the world. We could probably make a much bigger difference in the world if we change our
Judith Lichtenberg successfully conveys her moral theory with many questions regarding her topics of abstractness, the sense of futility and ineffectiveness, overestimating our generosity, distance, the relativity of well-being, the power of shame, and the drops in the bucket. Using these practical and philosophical ideas she explains why we as a people should search to discover the obstacles that are preventing us from giving more, rather than the finding our charitable obligations and the amounts we should be giving. She leads us to the ideal of motivation and tells us to pay less attention to obligation, because without X being moved to do an act, does it really matter what the act was if X never induces the action?
Is it more unethical to give only when you get something in return, or to not give at all? Giving is always beneficial, and charitable donations can always be put to good use. Whether or not the donator gets something in return does not change the fact that their donation is helping others. While incentives should not always be employed to inspire people to give, generally, the end results and donations justify the incentives used.
How much money is one morally obligated to give to relief overseas? Many In people would say that although it is a good thing to do, one is not obligated to give anything. Other people would say that if a person has more than he needs, then he should donate a portion of what he has. Peter Singer, however, proposes a radically different view. His essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” focuses on the Bengal crisis in 1971 and claims that one is morally obligated to give as much as possible. His thesis supports the idea that “We ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility – that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift” (399). He says that one's obligation to give to people in need half-way around the world is just as strong as the obligation to give to one's neighbor in need. Even more than that, he says that one should keep giving until, by giving more, you would be in a worse position than the people one means to help. Singer's claim is so different than people's typical idea of morality that is it is easy to quickly dismiss it as being absurd. Saying that one should provide monetary relief to the point that you are in as bad a position as those receiving your aid seems to go against common sense. However, when the evidence he presents is considered, it is impossible not to wonder if he might be right.
This chapter's main idea is that the study of economics is the study of incentives. We find a differentiation between economic incentives, social incentives and moral incentives. Incentives are described in a funny way as "means of urging people to do more of a good thing or less of a bad thing", and in this chapter we find some examples public school teachers in Chicago, sumo wrestling in Japan, take care center in Israel and Paul Feldman's bagel business of how incentives drive people and most of the time the conventional wisdom turns to be "wrong" when incentives are in place.
People perpetrate seemingly selfless acts almost daily. You see it all over the news; the man who saved that woman from a burning building, the mother who sacrificed herself to protect her children from the bomb blast. But how benevolent are these actions? Are these so-called “heroes” really sacrificing themselves to help others? Until recently, it was the common belief that altruism, or selfless and unconditional kindness, was limited primarily to the human race. However, within the last century, the works of several scientists, most prominently George Price, have provided substantial evidence concluding that altruism is nothing more than a survival technique, one that can be calculated with a simple equation.
In the late 1960’s and into the 1970’s, the South Asian region of East Bengal (then East Pakistan, now the country of Bangladesh) was undergoing a severe famine, due to rampant poverty, a civil war and frequent cyclones. The lack of overseas help to this impoverished region was probably what triggered Peter Singer to write the article Famine, Affluence and Morality, wherein he claims that world hunger and famine can be prevented and possibly eradicated if everyone in the wealthy nations did their bit to help the sufferers monetarily. Singer further claims that duty and charity should not be as distinct as they are now, and hints at uniting the two. Upon careful analysis of Singer’s paper, one can find multiple loopholes in this proposal, and can conclude that Singer’s idea, while crafted out of good intentions, is neither feasible nor correct.
To conclude everything that has been mentioned above altruism does not exist and it is a misconception, people do acts of kindness and no matter what it is they always get a reward in return whether the reward is tangible or not. People may also think that they are not getting a reward but they are and aren’t aware of it.
Organ donation is when a donor with a healthy functioning organ gives a person who has a failing organ their organ; organ donation can occur when the donor is living, but certain organs-such as a heart-requires the donor to be deceased. Organ donation is a topic that is very important because it deals with whether people live or die, and it doesn't help that the amount of recipients for organs is greater than the amount of donors. According to Brian Hansen's Organ Shortage it's stated that about 115 people are added a day to the 80,700 people who are in need of organs, and of these people only 66 people a day actually gets organs (155). This means that the amount of people waiting for organs surpass the amount of organs readily available. There are many ideas about how to increase the amount of donors such as increasing awareness, using organs from animals, awarding organ donors with medals, and many other alternatives. Another idea to increase organ donation is providing donors or donor's families-if deceased-with incentives. Although giving incentives is a way to stimulate donation money should not be given as an incentive.
Every person has a motivating factor that makes them go to work. Some people go to work for the paycheck or the benefits, others go to work for the social aspect or experience, these are incentives. Incentives are the most common motivating factor for people to complete tasks. This is also called, work motivation. Work motivation is defined as “A force that drives people to behave in a way that energizes, directs, and sustains their work behavior” (Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Shapiro, D. L., 2004). In contrast to the benefits of incentives, incentives are commonly counterproductive because they undermine the intrinsic motivation of an individual, this is the overjustification effect.
The New York Times Magazine features a column by Randy Cohen called “The Ethicist” debating how individuals have pondered on what tactic should be used to create the greatest amount of participation in over the existence of charitable events. So as a result, the idea regarding incentives came into play to benefit both parties, but also raises a question on whether it is ethical to offer incentives for charitable acts. Including incentives in exchange for donations is not only ethical but also logical. It increases participation in charity drives and activities while not hindering the community.
However, it is deniable that incentives deliver the expected results all the time. Incentives do not always achieve its’ goals. This essay argues about the flaws in incentives due to the nature of incentives itself, discusses the effect of incentives that encourage cheating and the result of an ineffective incentive given the circumstances. Before scrutinizing the effectiveness of an incentive, it is fundamental to understand the nature of the incentive itself. According to the Freakonomics, incentives are essentially divided into three aspects: social, moral and economic.
Generally, a basic definition of altruism would be, “actions intended to benefit others,” (Kassin, Fein, & Markus, 2014, p. 423). This behavior is said to exist in a selfless form. It is meant to reflect an individual’s character and their true intentions within their heart. For some individuals, this act of selflessness may cost them to lose or give up something (Barasch, et al., 2014). However, their good deed outweighs their selfish desires. In most cases, this selflessness, “was motivated by honor, duty, kindness, goodness, compassion, or that [one] acts with integrity or because [one] is virtuous,” (Beardman, 2012, p. 547). On the other hand, for some people this act of altruism is really confused for an egotistic behavior. This type
The norm of reciprocity can cause us to behave in both negative and positive ways towards our neighbours. Entirely altruistic behaviour is rare and egoistic motivations often underlie actions which cause the betterment of others lives. Just as a chimpanzee will groom another's body with the expectation of receiving the same service in return, so do we help others in the hope of being rewarded in some fashion, be it recognition, the avoidance of guilt or the long term well being of the group t...
For something to be both morally relevant and invariably relevant, it means that the subject, in this case generosity, cannot change in its importance. This means that if we give a value system to acts, a certain act will always have the same value points. To put this into more concrete terms, if generosity has a value of positive points, it must always have positive points if it is invariable relevant. For something to be morally relevant, it has to be important in determining whether an action is moral or not. As an example, take Cans Around the Oval. If I were to donate food to the program, I would be generous; I would have +100 points. But what would happen if the food I donated was expired, taking this further, what would happen