This paper examines the procedure that were followed that it is a common sight to see on the street, children and sometimes old, physically handicapped, beggars and sickly people begging for food and some money. It critically examines these procedures in the moral dilemma with reference of applying the concepts: rule and act utilitarianism. Should we give these beggars money or not? In deciding whether we give or not, the answer for that is we should give. Why? act utilitarianism basically states that an action is moral if it produces the greatest happiness for the most people.
This reason alone the act of giving them would be a good idea, because it would benefit the most amount of people. At a first glance in the problem, by just wishing them to just go away, ignoring and disappear from our sight is directly immoral. You’re giving them pain despite the rule of greatest happiness and pleasure – utilitarianism. However in the contrary it is really right that by giving it encourages them to become lazy and to be dependent on us, but what we are looking here is our act how we respond to them.
That is our focal point giving them or not giving them by the prospect of utilitarianism in which we should act in such way that our actions produce the greatest happiness or pleasure. Whatever will be the consequences on how they used the money were out of that. If we reflect off of the act utilitarianism it is all about happiness the pleasure that is produced by the action. If we don’t give them even the smallest amount of money, we feel guilty and there is no pleasure. Here is that we will be viewed and judged as being moral through our actions.
The Term Paper on Act Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes overall happiness. It is now generally taken to be a form of consequentialism, although when Anscombe first introduced that term it was to distinguish between “old-fashioned Utilitarianism” and consequentialism. [1] According to utilitarianism the moral worth of an action ...
With this case, it was stated that is it not true that these people need the money more than we do, right here and right now? The truth is it is really true that they need the money more than we do because why would they be asking money if they didn’t need it? And see? The effect of giving them is pleasure. In terms of my own feelings, using the act utilitarianism is the better option with regards to the problem of this case than rule utilitarianism. Focusing on how we act, what are our actions, and especially the importance of the act of giving.
In rule utilitarianism, we all have different rules on what we do. For example, the rules that govern my action are really not to give them money because of believing that it encourages them to be lazy and dependent. For me, it is a pleasure. But let’s try to think about others? The majority? Where is now the happiness for the most amount of people? That’s why act utilitarianism for me is the better option. It enables me to provide a strong foundation in this problem. Finally, no matter what really is the right concept here in this particular dilemma, all things that work for good are morally right.
