The primary value that motivate Machelle and Tim is good. First of all, I want to explain what is value. Value is the motive power behind one’s action (Landauer & Rowlands,2001). In this case “food bank”, shows Aristotle’s thinking in his book Nicomachean Ethics, that “Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason, the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim” (Aristotle, 2012). It means the aim of people’s action and choice is good. For example, in this case study, Michelle banned the donation to provide unhealthy food is caused by good. Tim said Michelle’s choice is not correct is also caused by good. However, Tim and Michelle, their good is from different points of view on “food bank”.
Michelle’s good is concerning about her clients’ health, Tim’s good is concerning about the development of Neighborhood House. Michelle as the director of Neighborhood House, she has responsibility to provide chance for local residents to learn cooking skills. She realized these free nutrient-poor foods are harming her clients’ health after her clients told her they need to eat better. Her clients use these unhealthy foods regularly, which means if she does not close it, her clients will rely on these foods. This phenomenon would not improve Michelle’s clients’ cooking skills, instead worsen their quality of life. Therefore, I think good motived Michelle cares about others, its why she banned donation. On the other hand, Tim as one part of neighborhood house thinks Machelle’s decision is not appropriate. In Tim’s view, Michelle’s decision would decrease the number of donation. If lack donation, Neighborhood House cannot continue to develop and help others. As the article mentioned, many local residents they do not have money to buy nutrient-rich foods. The donation’s foods provide basic energy for them. For those people, they do not care that they need to eat better, they only care do they have food to eat. Moreover, Machelle refused donations that means “food bank” have to close in some day. It does not help Neighborhood House to continue to help local presidents Therefore, good leads Tim to consider other’s situation and his workplace situation, which motivated Tim to against Michelle’s decision.
I think Michelle does not follows from the values that I have attributed to her. If we stand on the view of people who cannot afford healthy food, Michelle’s decision is not motivated by good for these people. Because her decision causes these people’s life more difficult, these people cannot get free foods anymore. Moreover, good could be classified into external goods (fortune, luck and reputation), good of soul (rational, wisdom and justice) and good of the body (health and beautiful looking) (Aristotle,2012). Aristotle thinks good of soul is the truest good. If good of soul is the standard of good, Michelle’s decision does not meet the standard. She refused the donation is not rational. She only considers some clients’ health. But ignore other clients’ surviving condition. This action is not good for institution’ s development, maybe donators would not provide donation materials anymore. Moreover, her decision is caused by Michelle’s clients told her that they need to eat better. I think she as director of Neighborhood House, making this decision is want to satisfy her clients and ignore the development of Neighborhood House. On the contrary, I think Tim’s argument follows the value that I have attributed to him. Because I think his action matches the good of soul. The first is wisdom. Tim firstly recognizes Michelle’s intention, and tells the bad sequences. It is a more persuasive way to change Michelle’s mind. At the same time, we can see he has stood at Michelle’s view to understand the decision. these are embodiment of wisdom. Secondly, Tim’s argument is rational. He considers the bad consequences (low donations, bare shelves) outweigh Michelle’s reasons. We can see Tim rationally to weight the advantages and disadvantages. Moreover, Tim as Michelle’s associate, he can ask Michelle to change her mind, which is a brave action. All things above shows the goods of soul and matches the standard of good. Therefore, I think Tim follows the primary value that I attributed to him.
I think there is a solution to reconcile their values. Michelle’s wants to ensure her clients’ health, Tim wants to keep the donations. I think their intentions are reasonable and have conflict. However, if they can persuade donators use the money to provide healthy food for “food bank”, it not only solved the conflict between their intentions, but also ensured client have a healthy diet and did not decrease the donations of Neighborhood House. Moreover, if they advertised this solution is providing healthy food for people who cannot afford it, would attract more donations. For persuading Tim to consider this solution, I will tell him this solution would not lower donations, instead it would attract more donations. For persuading Michelle, I will tell her the bad sequences is caused by her decision (I believe she does not want to Neighborhood House in danger), then tell her the advantages of this solution, like providing healthy food and attracting donations.
In conclusion, I think Michelle and Tim have same primary value—good. However, I think Michelle does not follows the value, because her decision is not rational. Tim follows the value, he is rational, wisdom and brave. For reconciling their value, I suggested them to persuade donators provide healthy food and advertising this to attract more donations.
Reference
Aristotle. (2012). Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (Bartlett,R., & Collins,S, trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Landauer.J and Rowlands.J, 2001. Values. Retrieved from http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Ethics_Values.html