Case Link:… (No less than 650 words)1. The Ethical Theory for the Argument : UtilitarianismARGUMENT should be at least1 page, longer is much better, must follow ARGUMENT OUTLINE for the theory your team chose. (Full sentences & paragraphs, no bullets). Follow that outline exactly. Also, never begin the ARGUMENT with a summary of the facts of the case. Notice please, the paragraphs directly before the argument are summary of the facts of the case. Summarizing again would be redundant. You have to see your Contribution to the paper as an integrated part of the whole paper. Also, never say “I believe”, etc. This is a team paper, a team voice, not your individual view.Instruction for the case to use UTILITARIANISM—- Promotes consequences that bring the greatest benefit AND the least harm overall. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. Consequentialism examines the ethical results of an action, not the ethical mindset that caused the action. Utilitarianism always discusses consequences of actions. More Instructions are in the document. Also, you must FOLLOW THE ARGUMENT OUTLINE to write your argument. UTILITARIAN (ARGUMENT section of OUTLINE)1. DEFINE UTILITARIANISM: Utilitarianism promotes consequences that bring the greatest benefit and the least harm overall. (just copy and paste definition)2. State very generally, in one sentence, if the action of the case promotes overall benefit or overall harm. 3. List all groups who benefit (a sentence)4. Write a paragraph for each group explaining how they benefit and why5. List all groups who are harmed (a sentence)6. Write a paragraph for each group explaining how they are harmed and why7. Weigh overall benefit against overall harm

Unformatted Attachment Preview

In utilitarianism you must weigh the benefit & harm to everyone who
might get benefit or harm. Utilitarianism is not just about sheer numbers.
Everyone who experiences consequences counts. Each person counts
as one person. The benefit to that person might be sacrificed for overall
benefit of everyone, but that person does get counted. Even guilty
people count, or rather, utilitarianism
does not consider guilt or innocence. Utilitarianism does not discount the
benefits & harm to people just because they are to blame.
“SOCIETY” does not get counted.
Act Utilitarianism, and rule if it is ethical, is about real flesh and blood
human beings & animals, maybe the trees & earth too, but not about
society. The abstract concept of society is often used to blur the reality,
make the people count less. Utilitarianism is tough to swallow at times in
the ways the individual seems sacrificed for overall good. It is even
tougher if real people are discounted in the name of an abstract society.
As is, we are dividing all the real people into groups. Bentham would
have liked us to be able to point and consider every single real human
being. Well, we’ll have to group, but we do not have to ever make it
about society.
When it comes to money, utilitarianism rarely makes a call one way or
other unless money goes from rich to poor. Only time money is a benefit
is if it goes from rich to poor. Only time money is a harm is when it goes
from poor to rich.
In a competitive environment, you can never discuss the benefit to any
company while ignoring the harm to its competitors. You can never
discuss the harm to a company unless you discuss the benefit to its
competitors. In a competitive market economy, money just changes
hands, balancing out: company x gets $$? Then Company y loses $$.
But there are rare exceptions to this general rule that benefit/harm to
companies cancels out. If a company has a monopoly that is not harming
anyone, then they have no competitors. Facebook currently has such a
monopoly. But be careful. You must still consider that those who work in
these companies get very little value for, say $100. compared to that
$100. in the hands of poor people. The one hundred dollars just means
more in their lives. There is a point at which you have so much, a few
hundred dollars means nothing to you, but it means very much to a poor
Utilitarianism only looks at real consequences of real actions.
Privacy is not a consequence. Privacy is an abstract concept of a certain
philosophical view, namely, rights. Only the consequences of loss of
privacy can be harms, but then, you must frame the loss outside of the
abstract conceptual view of rights: data breaches can have
consequences and only those possible consequences count, such as
losing your money, ridicule, losing your job, identity theft, spouse asking
for divorce, being stalked. Those are real consequences, they count
under utilitarianism. Privacy is just a state of being isolated. Isolation can
be a benefit but it could also be a harm. There is nothing
inherent about privacy that makes it either a consequence or a benefit or
a harm. Just be careful that you do not slip into rights mentality when you
try to show benefits & harms. Never assume something is a benefit
because it sounds ethical. Instead you have to discuss real harm.
People are often disgruntled. Indeed, given nothing to be disgruntled
about, people will invent something. Utilitarianism cannot control for
“upset” or “disgruntled”. Instead, stick with more direct & controllable

Purchase answer to see full