In various occasions, graduates have been faced with challenges of deciding the field of career to pursue. After earning relevant training from the institutions of higher learning, many people find it hard to venture into professions due to the high level of qualifications and experience that is required by the employers (MacAskill 269). Graduates are usually advised to make an informed decision before settling for a particular career because their choice will be influential in different aspects of life. It is unfortunate that only a little research has been performed on these philosophical works. Therefore, most students have been forced to endure undesirable career paths due to lack of proper guidance when making initial decisions on the best courses to pursue.
In order to justify these claims, various explanations have been put forward as a basis of guiding aspiring students on the most important considerations of career choice. Some of which include; the graduate’s dilemma, the financial discrepancy argument and the weak claim. Others are harm-based reasons, common-sense view and integrity-based claims.
On the basis of these principles, graduates can be guided to achieve the best options in their lives, by positioning them in career opportunities that are convenient and directly applicable to the course for which they were trained for. Sometimes, professionals are engaged in a dilemma of deciding the best decision to take among the available job openings (MacAskill 269). In most occasions, graduates tend to prefer opportunities that offer higher income even if the associated deductions might be high.
The common sense view theory
This theory explains some ethical beliefs as paradigms. The central paradigm largely influences charity sector careers. Equally, certain private sector jobs, for example, those which are found in the social enterprises of a vast cooperation and public sector jobs such as those related to state-school teaching are also considered to be ethical career choices (MacAskill 270). Charity work is viewed as the most ethical career since one is judged by the positivism and the contribution that he/she brings in the world. When people take part in charity work, they influence several lives that are in need of the services and help given out to the society. The career in charity work are seen to be very important in human lives because they directly make a difference in people’s way of living (MacAskill 271).
The weak claim
In the establishment of the weak claim, it is argued that charity work as an ethical career is not the best in solving the world’s problems or even in making a suitable difference in people’s lives (MacAskill 271). Several discussions and arguments have been fronted to show this for example the graduate’s dilemma supported by the fungibility argument, the uncertainty argument, the replaceability arguments as well as the financial discrepancy argument.
Graduate’s dilemma argument
Under this argument, it is seen that many graduates face a dilemma in choosing the kind of work or job career they are to pursue. For example, a graduate with two different job offers, one from a well-paying private sector and the other one from an averagely paying public charity sector (MacAskill 271). In some occasions one prefers to earn high income and use certain amounts of his income in distributing and giving back to the charity.
In other scenarios, certain individuals prefers going for a low-paying charity job to save people’s lives such as being a nurse or a doctor in a public hospital. Many arguments support that a graduate having two job offers should choose a lucrative job offer and use a portion of his money in giving back to charity such as contributing to the educational needs of poor children. Such arguments include, the fungibility argument, the financial discrepancy argument, the uncertainty argument and also the replaceability argument (MacAskill 271). In the financial discrepancy argument, whenever people choose a lucrative job they could pay for someone in charity work as well as pay for someone else.
This is more philanthropic than choosing a low paying career. Equally, in the fungibility argument, it is argued that money is a fungible resource which can be used to do any project. It supports philanthropy in that a philanthropist only chooses to fund things he/she fully believes in. When one chooses a charity work, he is more limited to do other causes he believes in than when he secures a more profitable source of income (MacAskill 271). In addition, the uncertainty argument claims that there is need to choose a career that is flexible to pursue other dreams. One’s best paying job would not be the best paying job in many years to come hence it is needful to consider the uncertainty argument.
In the replaceability argument, it is argued that if one chooses a public sector charity job, leaving the well-paying private sector job, then it means that one will acquire similar job opportunity left and this replacement makes the philanthropy idea not used accordingly. Most careers in charity work are very competitive and many people apply to get them. When one misses out an opportunity, another individual happens to grab it. The difference in this argument is the value each individual would put in place in the same job if either of them acquired it. It is better therefore for one to choose a lucrative job and become a philanthropist by giving donations to people than being unable to give donations to the needy for having a poor career.
In some societies, people are discouraged from accepting offers placed by companies that engage in morally controversial career. Working in a petrochemical firm or an organisation dealing with the production firearms can be labelled an opportunity that is contravening the societal beliefs and practice (MacAskill 274). The community might not understand the enduring pains of education and perseverance that one has to undergo in order to achieve a degree entitlement. Even though graduates might differ with the traditional beliefs and unjustified claims of the community, it might result in rejection and disassociation with friends. It becomes difficult to endure a situation where a person earns a substantive income, but cannot help people in the society due to their strong stand against the immoral financial source (MacAskill 274). However, with the advancing level of civilisation, individuals who are earning high income with their morally controversial career have started philanthropy foundations that aim at improving the lifestyles of the poor and orphaned children. Philosophers have been encouraged to continue educating the public and persuading graduates to pursue their careers and achieve life-time dreams by venturing into well-paying jobs irrespective of their societal opinions.
According to the claims raised in the harm-based principle, it is not recommended to injure one individual just to make others happy. For instance, facilitating an induced death process to an admitted patient just to rescue the life of another honourable person in the society can be categorised an impermissible action (MacAskill 274). Due to the harm involved, non-consequentialism explains that it is not recommended to victimise another person, while trying to improve the welfare of others. Similarly, the common-sense intuition criticises any philanthropic action derived from a morally controversial career.
In their defence, organizations that involve in harmful activities are always quick to defend their activities by proposing a lucrative compensation to the affected individuals (MacAskill 275). When a graduate is offered an opportunity to work in a manufacturing company that releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the accompanying financial remuneration may be lucrative. However, an individual’s life is endangered and the environment is also polluted from the continued activities of the firm.
In particular instances, unintended side-effects may occur whenever any foreseen consequence is not prevented in good time. Even though most graduates might be interested in pursuing philanthropy, they are still discouraged from venturing into the morally controversial careers (MacAskill 276). Due to the influence of conflicting ethical issues, it can be difficult to engage in active professional development that may assist an individual to gain a substantial amount of income. Some of the foreseen activities that may result in unintended activities can be explained in the aspects of the aspects of trolley case and tactical bombing.
In the trolley case, philosophers argue that is commendable to twist a railway line and stop the track of an oncoming train than to relax and watch it run over five helpless people on the rails. From the analysis of this literature, it brings an implication that graduates should be cautious enough to prevent a calamity from happening (MacAskill 276). Since they are learned people who understand various dynamics in the society, it is possible for them to analyse situations and forecast the probability and extent of harm that arise from a career. A similar explanation can be derived from the tactical bombing case in which philosophers argue that it can be easier to end a looming war by simply destroying the factory in which firearms and ammunitions are prepared (MacAskill 276). It is reasonable enough that the environmental and demographic harm that is likely to result from such actions is less as compared to the destructions from a civil war. Therefore, it is ethical enough to implement this principle since it has a significant good than side-effects.
Integrity Based reasons.
Agent-cantered paths are also used to certain career in life. These are generally gotten from facts about an individual pursuing a job vacancy. A person’s integrity is very vital in acquiring a job in any institution (MacAskill 278). Person with good integrity always land good jobs than individuals with bad integrity for example, it is viewed as the most respectable thing for a musician to produce descent educating songs than to produce filthy pornographic songs. The integrity of such a musician with respectable hits is very good than the rest who produces dirty songs for the consumption by the public. In addition, an individual who is concerned about conserving an environment would never accept any job offer from a chemical manufacturing company even when the job offer is very tempting despite the good salary and all the allowances since the integrity of such a person is hugely affected (MacAskill 278). Integrity considerations are vital before choosing any career. It shows how someone believes in a cause.
Conclusion
Therefore, it has been established that most graduates remain in an unresolved dilemma after completing their regular career training in the institutions of higher learning. Whenever they are exposed to conflicting opinions about salary choices, graduates will always prefer job opportunities with a lucrative pay, even if it is unethical to the society. As a result, most people have ended up in morally controversial careers since they are in the search of livelihood. However, philosophers are advising that individuals should be considerate in deciding the type of career paths to follow. By use of sample cases like the graduate’s dilemma, harm-based reasons and the fungibility argument, it has been established that people are more focused in finding careers that can facilitate their quest for philanthropy. Every individual is aiming is only aiming for a lucrative position that may be useful in accumulating more financial resources within the shortest time possible. However, philosophers have criticised the high quest for money by using illustrations presented in the trolley case and tactical bombing case. In both instances, it is argued that it is preferable to prevent a foreseen calamity that to prepare for the unforeseen outcome.
Work Cited
MacAskill, William. "Replaceability, career choice, and making a difference." Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 17.2 (2014): 269-283.
