True morality comes from benevolence. Benevolence provides the benchmark for evaluating morality, including justice, fairness, honesty, and equality. Humans are endowed with the ability to evaluate actions as moral or immoral based on whether such actions reflect feelings of humanity and natural concern for others. Furthermore, these feelings are closely associated with consonant values, principles and virtues that can induce or strengthen such feelings. Hume claims that benevolence serves an ultimate utilitarian function such that these feelings promote good will toward others and the approval and happiness of society. In other words, although what is considered just or fair may depend on one's point of view, what is humane and caring (i.e. the benevolent approach) is ultimately what causes the least harm and the greatest benefit to others. others. Other sociomoral issues can be evaluated based on this distinction. For example, capital punishment may be considered justifiable from a justice-based approach in order to apply equal treatment (i.e. death) to someone who has committed murder. However, from a benevolence-based approach, capital punishment is not considered moral because such an action is inhumane and causes 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, provides a less harmful but still punitive alternative with benefits to others and society (e.g., protection and safety). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay A final example provides some insight into how social actions previously considered acceptable can transform over time and lead to strong moral evaluations. In the United States, cigarette smoking was considered socially acceptable (even desirable) by many individuals, largely because such actions were considered an individual right (a rational argument based on strong justice). However, as research accumulated on the negative health problems associated with nicotine, and especially as research demonstrated that secondhand smoke carried equal or greater health risks, public opinion on cigarette smoking changed. The clear and demonstrated health risks and problems posed by smoking in public places have led to a foundation centered on benevolence, such that smoking in public is now considered immoral. In other words, although individuals may have the right to smoke following a rights-based rationale, the inhumanity 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 these cases (also considering alcohol consumption), benevolence-based arguments prevail over justice-based ones in moral evaluations, especially when new information and understandings are gathered regarding the harmful or inhumane (versus beneficial) consequences of such actions. Of course, adopting a benevolent approach in itself does not always lead to easy solutions to moral dilemmas. As noted above, the challenge posed by difficult moral dilemmas can be attributed in most cases to the tension between different moral issues (e.g., questions of justice versus benevolence) or to judgments of humanity (or harm) toward multiple people or groups or over time (i.e. short-term versus long-term benefits.