Homelessness Ethics Case Study

Today Homelessness is a major issue in America. There have been many arguments about whether homeless people should be allowed to stay on the streets or whether they should be forced in shelters. There are three moral theories that are looked at when given an issue. These theories include: utilitarianism, deontology, and natural rights ethics. These ethical dilemmas play a major role in our deciding factor today whether homelessness is acceptable in our society.

In a given case study, homelessness is looked at in New York City. There are nearly 50,000 homeless people living on the streets of New York. A woman at the age of 59 named Nellie Smith had gone through difficulties in her life which caused her to become homeless. She had lost her

Utilitarianism can seen as “Ends often justify the means”. In the essay, A Critique of Utilitarianism, Bernard William says, “One value to a particular discomfort to utilitarianism is justice...but I shall be more concerned with something rather different from integrity”(279). Williams disagrees with utilitarianism because it sometimes requires us to do something that we know is wrong (279). He gives an example of a man does not accept a job offer because he believes it is wrong. The man has a view of a utilitarian, he believes not accepting the job will have a better effect on a large amount of people. However accepting the job would put his family in a better financial position and if he doesn’t take it then someone else will anyways. Williams feels that the man should have accepted the job even though it didn’t follow his morals (282). Utilitarianism is doing what is best for a large amount of people. The key goal is perceived as happiness or absence of pain for the greater number of people is what matters the most. For utilitarians, happiness of many is more important than happiness of an individual. Such as, laws should benefit as many people as possible, even if some individuals rights and happiness is

Deontology focuses on our ethical duties as individuals. Immanuel Kant states, “Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good, without qualifications, except a good will” (1). Kant feels that we must always follow our duties even in tough situations. Sissela Bok disagrees with Kant and goes against his view. She says, “According to Kant, we ought to always do our duty no matter what the consequences. This means that it is always wrong to lie, even to save someone's life” (331). Bok believes it is okay to lie in order to save someone's life. Deontology can be thought of as “ends do not justify the means”, although Bok disagrees with Kant, Deontology is always following your duties which means you cannot lie even to save someone's life. Doing our duty is not that which serves our desires. For example, there are both imperfect and perfect duties. Perfect duties consist of keeping our promises, not lying, and preserving our life. These are duties we observe always. On the other hand, there are imperfect duties such as helping others and sharing resources. These duties can be seen as duties we observe as much as possible. Sometimes deontology is viewed as a self centered theory because you are focused on your own happiness, not the happiness of the society. A deontologist often follows their morals and ethics and will focus on the happiness of each