Examples Of Act Utilitarianism

Act Utilitarianism is the treatment of each type of moral situation as a unique situation, therefore bring the maximum amount of happiness to everyone that is affected by the act. The agent in these types of situations must determine what is the right things that should be done for this exact situation in present time. The agent must not be bogged down by past experiences, as that will affect the judgment of what to do in this particular situation. While this type of utilitarianism is good in a variety of situation, especially in situations that rarely happen so they require a conclusive determination in judgment, it is hard for people to judge each individual act on an individual basis. It is impractical to have to judge every single action
This means that people are rewarded for the efforts they put into their actions. Higher wages and extra incentives for lots of work are trademarks of a Utilitarian reward system. With these types of incentives in place in a working environment, more people are likely to do these types of jobs based on the preconception that they will have a way to make a better living through their hard work. For example, the military offers hazard pay for deployments into areas that are considered hostile. People that would otherwise not want to go to a dangerous location are incentivized to go through the promise of extra payment. However, a Utilitarian system gives headway to a higher outlook on production rather than hard work. Employees that are not keeping up in terms of quality of work, but are festive and likable, are more likely to be rewarded than someone that has a monotone attitude but produces higher quality work. The bias displayed gives a negative connotation in which the method of who should be rewarded and how much is blurred
It provides people more than just the basic human rights, but it also provides many individual rights that are independent of what Locke and Nozick proposed. For example, everyone is guaranteed a wage in which they can live on from the government. Rawl believed that this type of economic distribution of wealth would provide a clear positioning into a just society. While the wealthy would not like the idea of losing their money, the idea of the Veil of Ignorance come into play. If the rules were decided without the preconception of how wealth distribution would affect a certain individual, it would beneficial for them to support it because they would have the possibility to benefit from the action (Revel 7.10.2). The Difference Principle is a good measure in terms of making sure that everyone is taken care of, but it is a very liberal thought process that many consider unjustly infringing on their rights. The conservative right would be in strong opposition to this type of process because they believe in the idea of bringing yourself up by the bootstraps and working for what you have. While many rich individuals would promptly share their wealth with others (i.e Bill Gates), there would be multiple others that would rather hoard their money (Revel