Sarah 's Children Need Food And Clean Water

Two different forms of utilitarianism are described in our text. The first is called act utilitarianism. According to Shaw and Barry, act utilitarianism states that we must ask ourselves what the consequences of a particular act in a particular situation will be for all those affected (p.60).

There are two main forms of this theory; rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism judges the rightness of an action by following a set of rules. These rules are set so that they provide the best possible outcome for everyone. For example, a rule utilitarian would say it’s always wrong to lie because, in general, telling the truth brings about the optimal consequences. A utilitarian applies these rules universally and without exception.

Therefore, in “The Fundamentals of Ethics” by Russ Shafer-Landau an act utilitarianism is “the version to act consequentialism that says that only well-being is intrinsically valuable, and so says that an act is morally right just because it maximizes overall well-being” (Shafer-Landau p. G-1). In more simple terms, the theory of act utilitarianism focuses on the actions that a utilitarian is making and how those actions are going to produce the highest amount of happiness. Act utilitarians also believe that their actions should be based on immediate happiness and well-being, instead of taking an action that will later on in the future result in happiness and

She does not want her husband’s money to be invested in a store that may fail. She would rather spend the money on things that the family needs, like a house with a yard and more space. Even Travis will have his own

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that judges an action on its outcomes and aims to maximize happiness. This means finding the action that generates the “greatest good for the greatest number”.

Utilitarianism is the moral doctrine that we should always act to produce the greatest possible balance of good over bad for everyone affected by our actions (Shaw & Barry, 62).

Mrs. S.’s actions were unethical because she had the chance to save her life yet she denied the acceptance of the treatment. Also, by not accepting the treatment, Mrs. S. is hurting her son by abandoning him. As stated in the case study, the son was the only family member left that she had. Therefore, by leaving her son she is leaving him to be all alone. In addition, Mrs. S. said that she would not accept it because if God wanted her time to be up, He would take her. However, God also provided her with the chance to save

Act utilitarianism is based on specific acts in different situations. Act utilitarians act in a way that will always bring the most pleasure to the most amount of people, and each person is responsible for making their own decision about what is morally right in each case (Burnor and Raley, 116-118). A rule utilitarian would say that society should follow a certain set of hypothetical rules that would lead to the most pleasure. The rules need to follow the optimific social rule, which states that if everyone in a society follows this rule, then it would lead to the most happiness. Acts that follow the rules are

Act Utilitarianism was created by Jeremy Benthem, the basic ideology being (no situation is perfect..) to generate the greatest good for the greatest number. The Hedonistic Calculus is used by utilitarian’s to calculate how much happiness it will generate by making a certain decision. If Spiderman is an act utilitarian he will save the kids because their lives far out way Mary Janes and more happiness will be generated. If Spiderman is a rule utilitarian he must calculate the quality rather than the quantity. By saving Mary Jane, Spiderman will generate the greatest quality for himself. Rule utilitarianism clearly presents many disadvantages, it also clearly portrays a sense of selfishness by an individual making decisions using rule utilitarianism. Therefore it should be considered wrong due to an individual making decisions that will make him happier and produce the greatest quality for himself. By turning a blind eye to save the greatest number of people, many would believe that the ethical decision made is considered

Next to Nathan were four children filling the yellow, blue, green, and red steps in the music area. In that section, the children had options to play multiple instruments, like shakers, various sized drums, and a triangle. To keep the creativity flowing, the children combined the music area with the two cash registers, toy clothes, and felt dollar bills, wanting to setup a retail store to sell their merchandise to me. The clothing items were $4.00 each, and the instruments were $10.00 each. By the time I

For example, there is a hunter who wonders if it is morally acceptable to kill a deer. Act Utilitarianism analyzes the effects of this one action to decide if it is moral by assigning a value to the amount of pleasure and pain each individual involved will experience. In this case the hunter and his family will experience the pleasure of having food from eating the deer, many of the neighbors of the hunter will experience pleasure by having the deer off their property, and the deer’s family will experience the pain of the loss of a family member. If the outcome is that the net value of pleasure is greater than the pain caused by the killing of the deer, it is morally right for the hunter to kill it.

In the film Sophie’s Choice, a scene set in Nazi Germany showing the relation between Nazi’s and the Jewish population depicts a situation where a mother must make a harrowing decision. A Nazi commander asks Sophie and her two children who are entering a concentration camp to move down the railway line closer to the camp. As this occurs the commander demands Sophie to pick one of her children to take into the concentration camp, with the other one being shot on the spot. If she does not decide then both of her children will be killed – she is unable to sacrifice herself in any way to save her children. She eventually gives in and unwillingly before both children are killed decides to sacrifice her daughter and spares her sons life.

I chose not to rescue the paralyzed boy, the housewife, the Jewish restaurant owner, the Irish couple, and the Catholic nun. To me, these people do not have much to offer. The paralyzed boy would undoubtedly be no help to the group whatsoever; he needs constant care and attention, which means someone would always have to be with him instead of contributing to the survival of the group as a whole. I do not want to save the Jewish man simply because the American would hate him, and the group would need the American because he has food; constant conflict is the last thing people want to deal with in this situation. The housewife also has nothing to offer except for her age. Being younger, the housewife is likely to be more able-bodied than the older people. The Irish couple are like the housewife; they do not have much to offer except their ages. Lastly, the Catholic nun does not have anything to contribute to the group other than her religion. The minister can also provide a religious aspect, so it came down to a choice between the nun and the minister; obviously, I chose the

The question states that there is a trolley, a train, speeding down the railroad tracks which you are walking beside. You realized that straight ahead there is five people tied up and unable to move from the tracks. You then noticed that you are next to a lever that you can pull and switch to a different set of tracks. However, there is one person on the other track tied up unable to move as well. You have two options: One, do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. Second, pull the lever, diverting the train onto the side track where it will kill one person. What would you do is the final question? This sadistic question was designed to test your moral values. It is studied in the cognitive science field, neuroethics, psychology, law and philosophy today. It challenges people 's beliefs, ethics, philosophical beliefs and theories of consequentialism, utilitarianism theory and the bystander effect.

Utilitarian theory was given by John Stuart Mill and it accepts the principle of utility as the standard for determining the rightness of actions. According to this theory, our actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. An act is right if it produces the best aggregate consequences for all those affected by that given act. Thus, consequences of an action are the focus of this theory and as it takes into consideration, everyone affected by the consequences of an action, it promotes equality. Since consequences of an action are the focus of this theory, the rightness or wrongness of an action can be is easily decided by examining the likely consequences of an action and comparing them with the likely consequences of an alternative action. The action with better consequences is the one that should be performed. Act utilitarianism (AU) and Rule utilitarianism (RU) are two strands of utilitarianism. Drawbacks of AU such as the limitations of human knowledge to anticipate all the consequences of our actions, inability to be impartial all the time, problem of free-riders, and lack of importance to special duties such as promise keeping, autonomy, beneficence etc. gave rise to RU. According to RU, individual actions are judged to be right or wrong according to the consequences of a universally adopted general rule describing the action to be carried out. In simple word, RU suggests that an action is