According to MacAskill's principal, one must choose a more lucrative job over one which allows the individual to pursue their passion to help others. I believe that a person who craves to make a difference in the world is better justif i ed to choose a job which requires them to do the helping themselves, rather than giving others to do that work. This is due to the fact that in order for the economy to remain stable and ef f ective, one must choose a job which they are passionate about. When this occurs, workers will do their job most ef f i ciently, which results in a more pro- ductive economy. If everyone were to follow MacAskill's principal, and pursue jobs which they are not passionate about, only to make a greater amount of money; the economy would become suf fer as the ef fort workers put into their jobs will decrease, as they do not care for the job they have as much. One of McAskill's statements was that if one were to choose between a career as a petrochemical engineer, which contributes to the worlds well being negatively, or a charity worker, the individual should choose to become an engineer. He states that this individual should just work less ef f i ciently as an engineer in order to make a smaller negative impact on the world. However, I argue that this individual should choose to become a charity worker, as they are passionate about the job, and therefore will work harder. If all of society followed McAskill's principal, no individuals would pursue their passion, and therefore they would be less productive at their job. This ultimately results in an inef f i cient economy which will produce more harm to the society than benef i t.