Reference no: EM13733224

Part 1

1. Can you form a quick list of people who'd benefit because of this decision and others who'd end up on the losing side? Then, considering the situation globally and from a utilitarian perspective, what would need to be true for the settlement offer to be ethically recommendable?

2. As for those receiving the course for free-it's probably safe to assume that their happiness increases. Something for nothing is good. But what about the students who still have to pay for the course? Some may be gladdened to hear that more students get the opportunity, but others will see things differently; they'll focus on the fact that their parents are working and saving money to pay for the course, while others get it for nothing. Some of those who paid probably actually earned the money themselves at some disagreeable, minimum wage McJob. Maybe they served popcorn in the movie theater to one of those others who later on applied and got a hardship exemption.

< Starting from this frustration and unhappiness on the part of those who pay full price, can you form a utilitarian case against the settlement's free classes?

< From a utilitarian perspective, could the College Board have improved the settlement by adding the stipulation that the settlement's terms (and therefore the free classes) not be publicly disclosed?

< Once word got out, could a utilitarian recommend that the College Board lie or that it release a statement saying, "No free classes were part of the settlement"?

3. There was talk about canceling the scores of those students who took the SAT after benefitting from the KDCP classes that offered access to the stolen exam booklets. The students and their parents protested vigorously, pointing out that they'd simply signed up for test prep, just like students all across the nation. They knew nothing about the theft and they presumably didn't know they were practicing on questions that might actually appear on their exam day. From the perspective of rule utilitarianism, what's the case for canceling their scores? From the perspective of act utilitarianism, what's the case for reinstating the scores?

4. The College Board CEO makes around $830,000 a year.

< What is a utilitarian case for radically lowering his salary?

< If you were a utilitarian and you had the chance-and you were sure you wouldn't get caught-would you steal the money from the guy's bank account? Why or why not?

5. It could be that part of what the College Board hoped to gain through this settlement requiring free classes for the underprivileged was some positive publicity, some burnishing of their image as the good guys, the socially responsible company, the ones who do the right thing.

< Outline the case for this being an act of an altruistic company.

< Outline the case for this being an act of an egoistic company.

part 2

1. Two of the common arguments against ultimate fighting-and the two main reasons the US senator argued to get the events banned-are the following:

< They're brutal; UFC celebrates violence and hatred and injury, and therefore, it's immoral.

< Besides the bumps, bruises, and broken bones-which usually heal up-the fighters also suffer long-term and incurable brain damage. Therefore, the sport is immoral even though it might be true that in their prime, the fighters make enough money to compensate the physical suffering endured in the octagon.

How could a utilitarian defend the UFC against these two criticisms?

2. How could the concept of the utilitarian sacrifice apply to John Matua?

3. How would a hedonistic utilitarian's reaction to UFC differ from an idealistic utilitarian's reaction? Is there anything at all in UFC that might convince an idealistic utilitarian to promote the sport as ethically positive?

4. How could a proponent of monetized utilitarianism begin portioning up the experiences of Abbott, Matua, the UFC sponsors, and the spectators in order to construct a mathematical formula (like Ford did with the Pinto) to decide whether UFC should be banned?

5. Think of UFC as a business, one compared to a biotech company that pioneers cutting-edge, life-saving drugs. Now, how would a utilitarian decide which one of these two companies was the more ethically respectable?

6. Why might an altruist sign up to be a UFC fighter? Why might an egoist sign up to be a UFC fighter?

Part 3

1. How is the lottery an example of the utilitarian monster?

2. How can you set yourself up to argue in favor of or against the ethical existence of the lottery in terms of monetized utilitarianism?

3. Lotteries are about money and about fun-that is, even for the losers, there's a benefit in the thrill of watching the numbers turn up. Could the case be made that, from a hedonistic utilitarian standpoint, the lottery is ethically recommendable because it serves the welfare not only of the winner but also of the millions of losers?

4. One of Lindsay Beyerstein's concerns is that the lottery tends to redistribute money from the poor toward the rich.

< Does a utilitarian necessarily consider this redistribution unethical?

< What kinds of things would a utilitarian have to look into to decide whether the inverse Robin Hooding is necessarily a bad thing?

5. The lotteries under discussion here are run by states, and Lindsay Beyerstein is not a big fan. She calls these lotteries "a tax on idiocy" meaning, presumably, that people are just throwing their money away every time they buy a ticket. Now, one of the arguments in favor of egoism as an ethical stance is that no one knows what makes each of us happy better than each of us. So, it follows, we should all just try to get what we want and leave other people alone. How can this view of egoism be fashioned to respond to the idea that the lottery is a tax on idiocy?

part 4

1. Make the case that Seth Goldman founded Honest Tea as an expression of his utilitarian ethics.

< What kinds of people are affected by the Honest Tea organization? Which groups might benefit from Honest Tea and how? Which groups might not benefit?

< Would this be a hedonistic or idealistic utilitarianism? Why?

< Would it be possible to construe Honest Tea within a framework of monetized utilitarianism?

< Would this be a soft or hard utilitarianism?

2. Make the case that Seth Goldman founded Honest Tea as an expression of his ethical altruism.

< Altruists serve the welfare of others. How does Honest Tea serve people's welfare?

< What would have to be true about Goldman in terms of his particular abilities and skills for this enterprise to fall under the heading of altruism?

< Does Goldman sound more like a personal or an impersonal altruist?

3. Make the case that Seth Goldman founded Honest Tea as an expression of his ethical egoism.

< What are some of the benefits Goldman could derive from Honest Tea?

< Before running Honest Tea, Goldman was a big-time mutual fund manager. What kind of benefits could Honest Tea have offered that he couldn't find in the world of finance?

< Does Goldman sound more like a personal or an impersonal egoist?

< In the real world, does it make any difference whether Goldman does enlightened egoism or cause egoism?

4. In this case study, two kinds of drink manufacturers are contrasted: Honest Tea and the hypothetical drink company run by some mercenary businessman lacing drinks with bad chemicals to maximize profits.

Looking at this contrast, how could a defender of egoism claim that the best way for healthy drinks to make their way into the general public's hands (in the medium and long term, anyway) is for Goldman and the mercenary businessman and everyone else to all be egoists?

5. Assume that Seth Goldman is a cause egoist, someone faking concern for the general welfare in order to provide for his own happiness and pleasure. How could the concept of the invisible hand be introduced to make the claim that Goldman is actually doing more good for the general welfare than he would if he were a utilitarian or even an altruist?

Part 5

1. If your business is like most others, you're going to need some money to get it up and going, more money than you've got right now. That means you'll need to find a partner for your venture, someone to help you get the cash together and then run things afterward. Would you prefer a utilitarian, an altruist, or an egoist for your partner? Why?

2. Do you think the invisible hand would be in effect for your business? Just by trying to make money, do you imagine you'd end up improving people's lives? If this business works, is it even possible that you'd help others more than you would by volunteering time for a charity organization? Elaborate.

3. Assume that doing good in society and not just doing well (making money) is important to you. Within the business you have in mind, with which of these three options do you suspect you'd accomplish more general good?

< Just making money and trusting the invisible hand to take care of the rest

< Making money and donating part of it to charity-that is, to people specialized in serving the general welfare

< Attempting to do good within your business by, for example, buying recycled materials or by paying wages slightly above what people could get for the same work at other companies

4. Is there a potential cause egoism angle to your business? Could you set it up to make it seem like the reason you're running your enterprise is to help others when really you're just trying to make money? For a consequentialist, is there anything wrong with that?