Rañon, Quisha Nicole

BENEFICENCE
Beneficence, from the Latin word beneficentia, means “kindness, generosity,” and this
principle refers to the moral obligation to act in a manner that will benefit others. However, in
trying to exert a positive effect, a risk of harm may exist, and therefore the principle of
nonmaleficence must be taken into consideration as a net benefit over harm. Thus, these
principles consider the balance of risks versus benefits, benefits over burdens. It refers to acts or
personal traits of kindness, generosity, and charity. It makes you think of altruism, love,
humanity, and doing what is best for other people. In everyday language, the term "benefiting or
promoting the good of other people" is very broad. In ethical theory, it is even more broad to
effectively include all norms, dispositions, and actions that are meant to help or benefit other
people. The language of a principle or rule of beneficence refers to a moral obligation to act for
the good of others, often by preventing or removing possible harms. This is often done by
helping them to achieve important and legitimate goals. Even if only implicitly, these appeals to
obligatory goodness seem to be found in many areas of applied ethics. Many acts of kindness
have been thought of in moral theory as obligatory because of principles of kindness that say that
people should do good things. People can do good things from non-obligatory, optional moral
ideals. These are standards from a morality of commendable aspiration, which is when people or
groups set goals that aren't required for everyone.

How beneficence conceptualized ?

It is clear from the history of ethical philosophy that there are several ways to
conceptualize beneficence. Several major ethical theories have adopted these moral ideas as
essential categories, while presenting conceptual and moral interpretations that are markedly
distinct from one another. The moral-sentiment theory of David Hume, in which benevolence is
the central "principle" of human nature in his moral psychology, and utilitarian theories such as
those of John Stuart Mill, in which the principle of utility is itself a strong and very demanding
normative principle of beneficence, are both good examples. For these authors, beneficence is a
concept that is related to the heart of morality. Other thinkers, like as Kant, have given
 Rañon, Quisha Nicole

beneficence a less prominent position in morality, although they nevertheless see it as having a
vital role in it.

Hume’s Theory

Hume's moral psychology and virtue ethics emphasize the importance of benevolent
impulses in the pursuit of moral excellence. He contends that natural kindness is responsible for
a significant portion of what he refers to as the birth of morality. One of his most important
themes is his defense of kindness as a fundamental tenet of human nature, in opposed to
psychological egoism ideas. Hume's most essential moral principle of human nature is
benevolence, but he also uses the word "benevolence" to refer to a set of virtues centered in
friendliness, generosity, and love aimed toward others. Hume sees benevolence in a variety of
forms, including friendship, generosity, and compassion. Although he refers to both benevolence
and justice as social virtues, only benevolence is a defining feature of human nature. In contrast,
rules of fairness are normative human practices that enhance public usefulness. In Hume's ethics,
the qualities of kindness and justice are therefore remarkably dissimilar.

Kant’s Theory

Kant says that everyone has a duty to be good, which means that they should help others
as best they can, and not try to get anything in return. Benevolence done out of a sense of
friendship is "unlimited" to him, but when it comes from a sense of duty, there aren't any
unrestricted demands on people, so he thinks of it as "limited." Kant, on the other hand, isn't very
clear or precise about the boundaries of good deeds. As long as we are obligated in some way to
give up some of our own well-being for the benefit of others, it is not possible to set an exact
limit on how far this duty extends. We can only say that everyone has a duty to be good, but only
if that person has the ability to do so. No one has a duty to be good that is too big or too small.

Mill’s Theory

John Stuart Mill argues in Utilitarianism that moral philosophers have left a trail of
unconvincing and incompatible ideas that may be logically united by a single criterion of
beneficence that permits us to discern objectively what is good and wrong. He considers the
utility principle, sometimes known as the "maximum pleasure" concept, to be the fundamental
underpinning of morals: Actions are good in proportion to how they promote happiness for all
 Rañon, Quisha Nicole

creatures, and incorrect in proportion to how they create the opposite. This is a basic beneficence
principle, but it has the potential to be highly demanding. According to Mill and later utilitarians,
an action or practice is right as compared to any other action or practice if it results in the
greatest possible balance of good outcomes or the least possible balance of negative
consequences.

Implications of Beneficence

People who work in health care are the ones who are most likely to be governed by this
kind of expectation of good. They both know that the job of health care professionals is to use
their medical knowledge to help their patients. Expectations and entitlements that are set up as a
result of this form the heart of health care ethics. According to this, the most important issues in
health care ethics are all about how to be a good person. The main things to think about are its
scope, how it should be said, how it relates to other ethical priorities, and how people can use
their authority to make decisions about it. The main reason for being a good person is to help
those who need it, so health care is a good thing to give to those who need it. As a secondary
reason, it is important not to forget this one. As long as goods of fellowship are important parts
of people's well-being, the expression of solidarity and support for those who need it is a good
thing we can and should give to them.

Problems concerning the extent of beneficence are divided into two categories in health
care ethics. First, there is the issue of determining who it applies to. Here, familiar problems
about the origin and end of life occur. Thinking of the primary tasks of health care providers as
beneficence responsibilities does not automatically resolve these challenges, but it does teach us
how to think about them. Another important question about scope is about which parts of
patients' welfare are the responsibility of health care workers, and which parts aren't. If we think
of the main use of beneficence in health care as coming from the special relationship of trust that
is built between professionals and their patients, this gives us a simple answer. Another
important question about scope is about which parts of patients' welfare are the responsibility of
health care workers, and which parts aren't. If we think of the main use of beneficence in health
care as coming from the special relationship of trust that is built between professionals and their
 Rañon, Quisha Nicole

patients, this gives us a simple answer. People who work in the health care field have a
professional duty to help their patients' medical needs. Similarly, there is a limit on the
professions that require a lot of beneficence.

How can one be Moral or Immoral?

An important argument, supported by both Kant and Mill, is that beneficence is an

"imperfect obligation." I have a responsibility to treat people well, but I have discretion
regarding when and with whom I do so; I do not have to do so all of the time. However, this
appealing concept requires interpretation and defense. It is hardly conceivable that beneficence is
constantly exercised. It is implausible to believe that beneficence is always ethically voluntary. If
I could easily save your life, it is not morally discretionary for me to do so, and if I am a nurse, it
is not morally discretionary for me to pick which of my patients to care for. Benevolent deeds
like these are ‘morally needed,' and failing to conduct them is morally wrong. Kant and Mill
should be viewed in such a manner that they can agree on this subject. Moral philosophers have
responded to this issue in a variety of ways. The idea that the broad needs of beneficence are
constrained by considerations of the total cost to an agent of aiding others is perhaps closest to
moral 'common sense.' Helping others is ethically essential while it does not have a considerable
impact on my personal well-being; once it does, it becomes optional. However, the advice of
moral 'common sense' is not a solid defense of a moral judgment in and of itself.

Beneficence advantages and disadvantages

A beneficent action is one that is designed to benefit another person in order to improve
her well-being, typically by gratifying her wants, assisting her in realizing what she values,
meeting her needs, advancing her interests, or protecting her from harm. The aim of a beneficent
actor to improve the beneficiary's well-being is a significant component of her motivation for
behaving. It is typically characterized by dependence. Those who are most in need of assistance
are often forced to rely on others to achieve their primary goals. If beneficence threatens the free
agency of dependent recipients, it poses major concerns for moral theories that compel us to
assist individuals who are unable to satisfy their own needs. The requirements for good
 Rañon, Quisha Nicole

beneficence shown here demonstrate that in circumstances of reliance, ill beneficence may be
avoided, while this demands more of agents than is often thought. Beneficence that relies on
someone else's help isn't better or worse than giving someone else's help if they don't need it or if
they can use other ways to get what they want to get. Not every time you help someone, you
have to be very reliant on them. Whether or not the person can help herself, we can still help her
or show her how much we care, even though she can help herself. There are times when
someone's kindness also makes you dependent on them, which means you can't turn them down
without paying a big price.

Is Beneficence can be attained ?

Professionals are supposed to act in a good way because they have unique and specialized
knowledge and should always and without exception use this knowledge for the good.
Beneficence, one of the professional's foundational ethics, tells him or her how to act and what to
do. It is important for professional ethics and conduct for people to keep the idea of "calling" in
mind, because professionals are held to a higher standard than the rest of us. Moral relativism is
against many ethical principles, such as beneficence, because it undermines the professional's
role as a caregiver. In all of health care, beneficence is very important. It makes sure that care is
beneficial and that the patient is safe. It's important for people in their field to look out for the
people they work with, and the rest of society as a whole. Anyone who is a professional but
doesn't understand or accept this duty is at risk of acting maliciously and breaking the fiduciary
principle of honoring and protecting.