True morality arises from benevolence. Benevolence provides the benchmark for evaluating morality, including justice, fairness, honesty, and equality. Humans are endowed with the ability to evaluate their actions as moral or immoral depending on whether those actions reflect feelings of humanity and a natural concern for others. Moreover, these feelings are closely associated with consonant values, principles and virtues that can induce or reinforce such feelings. Hume asserts that benevolence serves an ultimate utilitarian function, such that these feelings promote good will toward others, as well as the approval and happiness of society. In other words, while what is deemed fair or equitable may depend on one's perspective, what is humane and caring (i.e. the caring approach) is ultimately what results in the least harm and the greatest benefit to others. Other sociomoral issues can be assessed based on this distinction. For example, capital punishment may be considered, in a justice-based approach, to be justifiable in order to apply equal treatment (i.e. death) to someone who has committed murder. However, in a benevolence-based approach, capital punishment is not considered moral because such action is inhumane and results in great harm (and perhaps suffering) to an individual with little benefit to others (especially when compared to other non-capital alternatives). ). Life imprisonment, for example, offers a less harmful but still punitive and beneficial alternative to others and society (e.g., protection and security). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essayA final example provides insight into how social actions previously considered acceptable can transform over time and result in strong moral evaluations. In the United States, cigarette smoking was considered socially acceptable (even desirable) by many people, particularly because such actions were considered an individual right (a rational argument based on justice). However, as research has accumulated on the negative health problems associated with nicotine, and particularly as research has demonstrated that passive smoking poses equal or greater health risks, public opinion on smoking has changed. The clear and demonstrated health risks and problems posed by smoking in public places have a caring basis, such that smoking in public is now considered immoral. In other words, although individuals may have the right to smoke following a logical rights-based argument, the lack of humanity and obvious health risks of smoking suggest that such behaviors are considered immoral. In fact, research suggests that people who smoke (regardless of where they choose to smoke) are generally considered immoral rather than moral. In such cases (consider alcohol consumption as well), arguments based on benevolence outweigh arguments based on justice in moral evaluations, especially as new information and understanding is gathered regarding the harmful or inhumane consequences (as compared to the benefits) of such actions. , adopting a caring approach in itself does not always lead to easy resolutions of moral dilemmas. As noted earlier, the challenge posed by moral dilemmas.