Suppose You’re The Sole Executor Or Power Of Attorney For An ✓ Solved

Suppose you’re the sole executor or power of attorney for an estate and are

Suppose you’re the sole executor or power of attorney for an estate and are responsible for carrying out the will of the deceased. You learn that the will leaves the entire estate to a cult organization known for hate-mongering and for promoting violence and racial strife. It would accomplish more good to give the estate to an international charitable organization instead.

What would you do? What should you do if you followed the principles of classic utilitarianism? What if you followed Kant’s categorical imperative? What if you applied Ross’s theory of moral pluralism and prima facie duties?

Paper For Above Instructions

The ethical dilemma presented here pits fidelity to a deceased person’s expressed wishes against broader moral obligations to prevent harm. The executor is legally and morally entrusted with implementing a will, but when that will directs resources to a group that promotes hate and violence, the question becomes whether a higher moral law overrides a promise. Analyzing the scenario through three foundational ethical theories—classic utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, and Ross’s prima facie duties—offers distinct, sometimes overlapping guidance about the right action and the rationale behind it.

Utilitarian Analysis: Maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering

Classic utilitarianism, as developed by Jeremy Bentham and refined by John Stuart Mill, evaluates actions by their outcomes, specifically the balance of pleasure over pain. If granting the will’s provisions to the cult would perpetuate harm, fear, violence, and social strife, a utilitarian verdict would likely oppose honoring that bequest. Conversely, directing the estate to an international charitable organization that relieves poverty, advances health, and promotes human welfare would maximize overall well-being. Mill’s utilitarian calculus emphasizes frugality with consequences and the generalizable aim of increasing happiness and reducing suffering (Mill, Utilitarianism). Bentham’s earlier framework similarly grounds decisions in the greatest happiness for the greatest number (Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation). In practice, a utilitarian would weigh potentially devastating harms from funding a hate-centered group against the anticipated benefits of charity, education, and humanitarian aid from a legitimate organization, often supporting redirecting or challenging the bequest to serve a larger good (Bentham; Mill).

However, utilitarian reasoning must also account for the predictable consequences of breaking a promise. If refusing to honor the will leads to negative legal consequences or erodes public trust in fiduciary roles, a careful utilitarian would assess those harms as part of the overall calculation. Yet the core utilitarian intuition remains: actions yielding net increases in welfare, or decreases in suffering, are morally warranted. In this case, providing resources to an international charitable organization that does not promote hatred would almost certainly produce greater overall good than executing a plan that funds a hate-mongering group (Mill). The complexity arises when the bequest is legally binding; a utilitarian approach would still prioritize outcomes, which could justify seeking legal avenues to reallocate or modify the bequest in light of public harms (Singer).

Kantian Analysis: The categorical imperative and the dignity of persons

Immanuel Kant’s deontological framework emphasizes duties derived from universalizable maxims and the intrinsic worth of rational agents. The categorical imperative asks whether the maxim behind an action could be willed as a universal law and whether action treats humanity, in oneself and others, as an end and never merely as a means. A will that assigns estate wealth to a group dedicated to hate and violence fails a key Kantian test: it instrumentalizes recipients and enshrines harm within the moral law. If the executor honors such a will, the maxims guiding the action could not be universalized without endorsing violence and discrimination, thereby undermining universal moral law (Kant, Groundwork). Likewise, Kant holds duties to others that require respecting their autonomy and inherent dignity. Directing funds to a group that promotes racial strife would treat beneficiaries as means to a hateful end, contravening treating persons as ends in themselves (Kant, Groundwork).

From a Kantian perspective, the executor has a duty not to propagate harm, even if that means deviating from the deceased’s explicit wishes. The categorical imperative would imply acting in a way that could be willed as a universal practice in such cases: institutions funded to promote violence and hatred should not be supported by fiduciaries who intend to respect human dignity and moral law. Therefore, a Kantian analysis would typically support redirecting the bequest away from the cult toward a charitable use that respects rational agency and universalizable moral norms (Kant).

Rossian Analysis: Prima facie duties and moral weighting

W. D. Ross’s theory of prima facie duties posits several conditional duties—fidelity, justice, beneficence, non-maleficence, reparation, gratitude, and self-improvement—that may conflict, with the morally correct action being the one that aligns with the strongest prima facie duty in the circumstances. In this case, the duty of fidelity to the deceased’s wishes competes with duties of beneficence and non-maleficence toward potential victims and the broader public. When a bequest funds violence or discrimination, the prima facie duty of non-maleficence and beneficence toward potential victims weighs heavily against fulfilling the bequest as stated (Ross). The duty of fidelity does not automatically trump these other prima facie duties; instead, the executor must weigh which duties bear the strongest moral weight given foreseeable consequences and social impact. A plausible Rossian reading would prioritize preventing harm and promoting good, potentially overriding fidelity to the will.

In applying Ross’s framework, the executor might also consider duties related to justice (fair distribution of resources) and reparation (addressing past harms caused by hate groups). The upshot is that fidelity to a discriminatory bequest cannot be automatically taken as binding; prima facie duties may require redirecting the estate to a charitable purpose that aligns with preventing harm and promoting welfare. A careful balancing of duties could yield a conclusion that honors broader moral obligations without endorsing the hateful end proposed by the will (Ross).

Synthesis and Practical Considerations

Taken together, these frameworks converge on a morally defensible stance: redirect or contest the bequest to ensure that funds do not support hate, violence, and discrimination. A utilitarian calculus supports maximizing welfare by supporting charitable causes; Kantian ethics supports not treating people as mere means to a base end; Ross supports weighing duties and giving priority to non-maleficence and beneficence when fidelity to the will conflicts with harming others. In practice, the executor should seek legal counsel to challenge or modify the bequest, uphold fiduciary duties to the estate and beneficiaries, and identify charitable organizations with legitimate missions aligned with humanitarian aims. If possible, the estate could establish a charitable foundation or donate to multiple reputable international charities to maximize positive impact while remaining compliant with the law and honoring ethical obligations. Additionally, transparent reporting and stakeholder communication can maintain trust and clarity about the rationale for redirecting funds (Rawls; Nozick).

Conclusion

Ethical decision-making in fiduciary roles often requires balancing competing obligations—keeping a promise to honor the deceased’s wishes versus preventing harm and promoting welfare. Through utilitarian, Kantian, and Rossian lenses, the prudent course appears to be redirecting the bequest away from a hate-promoting cult toward legitimate international charitable organizations, with careful legal consideration to ensure compliance and accountability. This approach respects the dignity of individuals, minimizes harm, and aligns with longstanding moral theories that prioritize universalizable duties, the reduction of suffering, and the prudent management of resources for the common good (Kant; Mill; Bentham; Ross; Rawls; Singer; Korsgaard; Aristotle; Parfit; Nozick).

References

1. Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Mary Gregor, Cambridge University Press, 1998.
2. Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Edited by George Sher, Hackett Publishing, 2001.
3. Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Clarendon Press, 1789.
4. Ross, W. D. The Right and the Good. Oxford University Press, 1930.
5. Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971.
6. Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press, 1993.
7. Korsgaard, Christine M. The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge University Press, 1996.
8. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by Terence Irwin, Hackett Publishing, 1999.
9. Parfit, Derek. Reasons and Persons. Oxford University Press, 1984.
10. Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books, 1974.