Att rättfärdiga en betalning vid sidan om
(2011) STVK01 20111Department of Political Science
- Abstract
- Many aid agencies are working in countries where side-payments is a common
problem in the society. This makes it hard for the aid agencies workers to know how to behave in situations where side-payments are expected. Most aid agencies have a strict policy of not using side-payments, but can side-payments ever be justified if they help the aid agencies to achieve their goals? To answer this question I studied the normative argumentation of deontology and utilitarianism, and compared these two theories against each other. I created tree different situations to which I applied the theories. In two of the situations the theory of deontology justified the side-payment, but utilitarianism did not. My result was that side-payments can be... (More) - Many aid agencies are working in countries where side-payments is a common
problem in the society. This makes it hard for the aid agencies workers to know how to behave in situations where side-payments are expected. Most aid agencies have a strict policy of not using side-payments, but can side-payments ever be justified if they help the aid agencies to achieve their goals? To answer this question I studied the normative argumentation of deontology and utilitarianism, and compared these two theories against each other. I created tree different situations to which I applied the theories. In two of the situations the theory of deontology justified the side-payment, but utilitarianism did not. My result was that side-payments can be justified to help aid agencies to achieve their goals. An important aspect of this is that the answer always depends on the situation and it is hard to say exactly what is required to justify a sidepayment. The deontology theory say that it depends on the good will of the action and the utilitarianism claims that it is all about the welfare consequences. The utilitarianism is more strict when it comes to justifying a side-payment than the deontology. But both theories claims that side-payments can be justified. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/1968669
- author
- Christiansen, Malin LU
- supervisor
-
- Martin Hall LU
- organization
- course
- STVK01 20111
- year
- 2011
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Konsekvensialism, Utilitarism, Deontologi, Muta, betalning vid sidan om, side-payments, biståndsorganisation, hjälporganisation
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 1968669
- date added to LUP
- 2011-06-20 14:35:11
- date last changed
- 2011-06-20 14:35:11
@misc{1968669,
abstract = {{Many aid agencies are working in countries where side-payments is a common
problem in the society. This makes it hard for the aid agencies workers to know how to behave in situations where side-payments are expected. Most aid agencies have a strict policy of not using side-payments, but can side-payments ever be justified if they help the aid agencies to achieve their goals? To answer this question I studied the normative argumentation of deontology and utilitarianism, and compared these two theories against each other. I created tree different situations to which I applied the theories. In two of the situations the theory of deontology justified the side-payment, but utilitarianism did not. My result was that side-payments can be justified to help aid agencies to achieve their goals. An important aspect of this is that the answer always depends on the situation and it is hard to say exactly what is required to justify a sidepayment. The deontology theory say that it depends on the good will of the action and the utilitarianism claims that it is all about the welfare consequences. The utilitarianism is more strict when it comes to justifying a side-payment than the deontology. But both theories claims that side-payments can be justified.}},
author = {{Christiansen, Malin}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Att rättfärdiga en betalning vid sidan om}},
year = {{2011}},
}