Act Utilitarianism

In order to solve the crisis above, it is mandatory to review the pros and cons of different kinds of communications. Electronic communications are fast, they are cost-effective and quite convenient. However, these attributes enclose intrinsic disadvantages. The technology that helps people to keep on the go also may invade privacy and cut into valuable time meant for other social activities. Devices such as cell phones with mobility technology and portable computers facilitate communication at all times. This allows one to work and visit sites in public locations, such as trains and other social gatherings. This has enabled people to stop traveling long distances to work and may do so from home. The technology also encourages productivity, for instance, a person intending to

Looking at this dilemma from the stance of an act utilitarian, I would want to come to a conclusion that would result in the best outcome for the highest number of people. The outcome should ensure happiness for the majority of employees. Proposal one may result in retaining all of the company’s employees, but none would be paid for six months. If you tack on the probable additional pay cut after the six-month period, it becomes an undesirable option. Employees working for a failing or financially unstable company are already distressed at work. Continuing to work for the company without pay puts additional stress on them and their families, and could even force some employees to quit. Quitting from a job instead of getting laid off has even

Ever since that day, standardized tests scores have poorly diminished along with social skills of peers. As opposed to exam scores, suicide rates are increasing excessively and diseases amongst teenagers are becoming immensely frequent. Let it be resolved that devices should not be permitted at school. The subsequent essay will rigorously discuss: the effects of BYOD on a student’s academic performance, the health conditions that could potentially develop due to this trend, and why this policy escalates suicide rates and cyber bullying.

With this particular scenario while assuming that act utilitarianism is correct, the neighbor behaved morally. The neighbor ended the mean, nasty man life because she had a plausible evidence that this man would kill someone. Based off of her knowledge of this man and his murderous reputation, she killed him to protect herself and everyone else in the world from this dangerous man; therefore, she did this to maximize the happiness for everyone, including herself, from the dangerous man. The act utilitarianism doctrine does deem this scenario correct morally but the rule-utilitarianism doctrine deems it morally incorrect. The laws put forth by the United States Constitution states that murdering someone unless under extraneous circumstances

We need to come to terms with the fact that in reality, there is no stopping this widespread takeover of cell phones worldwide.

Act-utilitarianism would be the approach to ethics, where the good is whatever the results in the greatest amount of utility or benefit, or satisfaction in the interest, of the greatest number of people related to the action being considered, for that particular occasion/or act. This is a on-time only consideration, and thus is why its called 'act', the one-act; act-utilitarianism.

In modern day society one must decide if it is morally wrong to download music, textbooks and movies that are protected by copyright from the internet. Strictly from the utilitarian point of view one can debate that it is morally right to download files protected by copyright from the internet. Not all utilitarian will agree with this opinion. However, through this analysis one should see how it is possible to allow it under the act utilitarian point of view and possible arguments.

Act-utilitarianism is the view that the rightness or wrongness of an action is to be judged by its consequences, that is the maximisation of utility - whether or not said action is good or bad (Smart 2000). In the scenario presented, an act-utilitarian would suggest that one is morally permitted to pull the lever and kill one in order to save five lives. However, this moral theory does not compare with the majority of people’s instincts– this suggests that act-utilitarianism is problematic and does not allow for society’s general intuitions.

Cell phones have become a debatable topic for a long time now and people want to use them whenever they want to. Many school officials want to use jammers to block off cell phone use during school hours. This might not be the right choice because of serious issues such as a fire, intruder, anything involving an emergency. “A Sunset Park middle school

According to the Federal Communication Commision using cell jammers is a violation of federal law.It violates section(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 333 which prohibits operations of any such device.The violation of this law could lead up to $16,000 to $112,500 per violation which is called

Ramesh Sharma’s “Cell phones in the classroom” is an informative article that discusses the benefits of technology in the classroom. The argument of whether or not cell phones belong in the classroom proposes many downsides. However Sharma addresses these issues and provides tips on how to use cell phones positively in the classroom. Sharma explains that cell phones not only benefit the classroom, but can help people in other jobs around the school. Sharma focuses on the logic side of the rhetorical triangle, which is logos. She provides many straight-forward facts and statistics that help the reader see the positive points of the argument. The article includes steps on how to effectively work cell phone use in the classroom. Sharma explains that cell phones can be used for quizzes, group work, and online polling. Sharma states that when used correctly, cell phones can be a very useful classroom tool that would help expand education. According to Sharma, cell phones will provide a beneficial learning opportunity and help the students enhance their learning experience. Overall, Sharma effectively uses logos and the rhetorical triangle to support her argument and persuade her readers to allow cell phones at school.

1. Utilitarians believe that “one should so act as to promote the greatest happiness (pleasure) of the greatest number of people” (Angeles 326). However, within the utilitarian community there are major splits in how we are to determine which action brings us the greatest amounts of pleasure. Today I will be focusing on two ways to determine which actions bring the greatest amount of pleasure to a situation: act and rule utilitarianism. I will define both act and rule utilitarianism, give a situation where both can be applied, and respond to an objection of utilitarianism. I will also be discussing why I believe act utilitarianism helps more people than rule utilitarianism, in turn, becoming ‘superior’ to rule utilitarianism.

A utilitarian argument, in the strict sense, is one what alleges that we ought to do something because it will produce more total happiness than doing anything else would. Act utilitarianism is the moral theory that holds that the morally right action, the act that we have a moral duty to do, is the one that will maximize “utility” happiness, welfare, well-being Act utilitarianism is not to be confused with egoism. The egoist really only cares about his own happiness. Act utilitarianism says that everyone’s happiness counts equally.

All types of horns (some are extremely loud) in automobiles, factories, industries, painting of cars, loudspeakers, amplifiers which generate loud noises and when it is played in residential area, it is prohibited.

In his essay Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill espouses the ethical philosophy of utilitarianism. According to Mill, utilitarianism “holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” Happiness for the utilitarian is pleasure and the absence of pain. The end goal for a utilitarian then is what Mill calls the Greatest-Happiness Principle, meaning the greatest happiness for the greatest number. That is, when determining the rightness or wrongness of an action a person need only take into account how much pleasure and pain that action will produce. If the amount of pleasure is greater than the amount of pain then that action is right and should be done, if pain outweighs pleasure then that action is wrong and should be condemned.