Forms of Utilitarianism (ANSWERED)

QUESTION

Answer the following questions, drawing upon the assigned readings and resources and using specific examples from those readings and resources to illustrate and explain your thoughts. In answering these questions, please follow this format:

write out the question and then provide your response.
when you reference (name) a theory, cite your source using the APA in—text citation style.
you must cite sources and provide bibliographic reference at the end of the assignment. The Shaw & Barry text is your primary resource in this course.

Assigned questions:
1. Shaw and Barry distinguish two different forms of utilitarianism. What are these two forms. Briefly describe each and use examples.

2. What do economists mean by the “declining marginal utility of money”?

3. Robert Nozick presents his entitlement theory as a function of three basic principles. What are these three basic principles? What ethical theory are these principles most closely aligned with?

4. Two main features of John Rawls’s theory of distributive justice are particularly important. What are these two features? Describe them.

5. What is the MAXIMIN rule for making decisions?

6. What is the role of the “veil of ignorance” in Rawls’ theory of distributive justice?

7. According to Shaw and Barry, deciding what sort of economic arrangements would best promote human happiness requires the utilitarian to consider many things. What are the five considerations mentioned by Shaw and Barry?

Make sure that you have adequately dealt with all the subtleties of the particular theory. The answers to these questions can be found in the text but merely quoting from the text or paraphrasing the text will earn minimal credit—the answers should be in your own words and should involve some explanation and discussion of what these concepts mean.

ANSWER

Shaw and Barry Distinguish Two Different Forms of Utilitarianism. What are These Two Forms. Briefly Describe Each and Use Examples.

Utilitarianism is a consequential theory for what it maintains, i.e., morally right actions and obligations are selected based on the consequences they produce. Through this nature of utilitarianism, two forms arise based on morality. Barry and Shaw discuss these two forms of Utilitarianism, and they include Act and Rule utilitarianism.

According to Shaw and Barry, act utilitarianism asks that everyone consider the consequences of a particular action in a particular situation for those affected. Therefore, it considers an action right if it contributes to the overall well-being the same way an agent would have performed. For example, terminally ill patients may need that they are relieved of their pain by lethal injection or instead assisted suicide. Although this action has ethical and ethical consequences, it contributes to the overall well-being in the same way another doctor would have performed. If the action did not contribute to the well-being, it is wrong, at least according to act utilitarianism.

On the other hand, Shaw and Barry describe rule utilitarianism as a form that maintains a utilitarian standard to ensure that moral codes are applied as a whole as opposed to individual actions. In other words, utility is paramount in rule utilitarianism because the overall happiness is evaluated rather than an individual’s happiness (Fisher and Pappu, 2006). For example, individual citizens are entitled to have large quantities of money, property, and other possessions, provided they do not gain these at the cost of others. They should not exploit or violate other people’s rights to acquire them.

What do Economists Mean by the “Declining Marginal Utility of Money”?

Economists define the marginal utility of money from an income point of view such that a poor person is compared to their wealthy counterparts with regard to the worth of money. This definition implies that the next dollar received by a person is worth less to a wealthy person than it is to a poor person.

According to economics, utility means the value an individual will likely gain from consuming or experiencing goods of all kinds. Therefore, a declining marginal utility is defined as “the more of that good that an individual has, the less valuable having more of it will be to that individual” (Greene and Baron, 2001). For instance, money can exhibit declining marginal utility such that increasing your wealth from $5,000,000 to $5,000,100 may not earn utility like an increase of wealth from $5,000 to $6,000 would earn. The utility earned from the former increase in wealth will be less than that of the latter because the utility cannot experience declining marginal utility itself.

Robert Nozick Presents his Entitlement Theory as a Function of Three Basic Principles. What are These Three Basic Principles? What Ethical Theory are These Principles Most Closely Aligned With?

Nozick’s theory focuses on the entitlement of all society members to the distribution of holdings. The entitlement theory maintains that any deserving or entitlement to something should be according to the justice of acquisition, justice in transfer, or rectification principles. The principle of justice in an acquisition refers to the initial holding. This accounts for how people acquired the property in the first place, what type of these things can be held, and so forth (Davis, 1976). On the other hand, the principle of justice in the transfer is how one can get holdings from another, not excluding gifts and voluntary offers. In this principle, wills and inheritances are considered. The principle of rectification of injustice includes rectifying ownership that happened through unjust means through victim compensation. For instance, if an individual or organization builds property on land that was meant for other people without following the lawful and right process, the victim can get their land back through the rectification principle. When assessing the utilitarianism theory, its aspects with regard to property ownership, and what makes ownership acceptable, it is closely aligned to Nozick’s entitlement theory.

Two Main Features of John Rawls’s Theory of Distributive Justice are Particularly Important. What are These Two Features? Describe Them.

The main features of John Rawls’s theory of distributive justice are equality and fairness. Rawls states everyone has equal liberties that can never be taken away, in what he calls the first principle of social justice. In this regard, distributive justice is in the form of fairness. On the other hand, the equality feature lies under Rawls’s second principle, which infers that society cannot avoid inequalities. Since inequality results from social class, inherited characteristics, and personal motivation, society can only seek ways to reduce them where it has the ability to act.

What is the MAXIMIN Rule for Making Decisions?

The maximin rule resulted from Rawls’s perspective on benefits under the Distributive justice theory. Rawls argued that the maximin rule is a cognitive anchor for distributive decisions to some extent. The maximin rule for decision-making can therefore be defined as a strategy in game theory that involves a player making a decision that leads to the best out of the worst outcome (Kameda et al., 2016).

What is the Role of the “Veil of Ignorance” in Rawls’ Theory of Distributive Justice?

As described by Rawls, the veil of ignorance is a moral reasoning device that imparts impartial decision-making by halting access to potentially biasing information to decision-makers on who can benefit more or least from the available holding options (Huang, Greene, and Bazerman, 2019). The veil of ignorance aims to ensure fairness in the sense of ensuring people’s concerns for personal benefit translate to fair arrangements for every member of society. For example, the veil of ignorance can lead to people rejecting slavery because the convenience of the practice goes to the slave-owners, and suffering goes to the slaves. Since the veil of ignorance will provide a curtain to such aspects of convenience, people will not choose between being a slave or slave owner because they have rejected the whole concept of slavery.

According to Shaw and Barry, Deciding what Sort of Economic Arrangements would Best Promote Human Happiness Requires the Utilitarian to Consider Many Things. What are the Five Considerations Mentioned by Shaw and Barry?

Shaw and Barry mention five considerations that promote happiness in humans through the utilitarian theory. These factors include the type of economic ownership, which is in three forms; private, public, or a mixture of both public and private. Secondly, there are general arrangements of production and distribution, where there are planned, pure laissez-faire, and regulated markets. The type of authority arrangements in the units of production is also a factor in deciding what sort of economic arrangements promote human happiness. Authority arrangement types can be a worker-controlled or managerial prerogative. Lastly, Shaw and Barry mention the material incentives with regard to their range and character. Humans are motivated by material incentives, which are likely to regulate the most economical arrangements.

References

Davis, L. (1976). Comments on Nozick’s Entitlement Theory. The Journal of Philosophy, 73(21), 836-844.

Fisher, J., & Pappu, R. (2006). Cyber-Rigging Click-Through Rates: Exploring the Ethical Dimensions. International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising, 3(1), 48-59.

Huang, K., Greene, J. D., & Bazerman, M. (2019). Veil-of-Ignorance Reasoning Favors the Greater Good. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(48), 23989-23995. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1910125116

Kameda, T., Inukai, K., Higuchi, S., Ogawa, A., Kim, H., Matsuda, T., & Sakagami, M. (2016). Rawlsian maximin Rule Operates as a Common Cognitive Anchor in Distributive Justice and Risky Decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(42), 11817-11822. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1602641113