Motivation Versus Consequences Case Study Assignment
Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages:5-10 Instructions:
Motivation Versus Consequences Case Study Assignment
Utilitarianism does not view motivation as relevant in determining the morality of an action. For example, martyrdom is good only if it leads to greater happiness; it is not good in itself according to utilitarianism. This is because self-sacrifice through martyrdom is not an intrinsic good. “Self-sacrifice for the good of others is powerful, but the sacrifice, in itself, is not a good.” Only the result is good, and Mill questions whether the sacrifice would be made “if the hero or martyr did not believe that it would earn for others immunity from similar sacrifices.”10 The motivation is not important in utilitarianism; it is the outcome that matters.
“Love your neighbor as yourself” is the Golden Rule, which Kant believed lacked moral content. Utilitarianism, however, requires a person to be a strictly impartial and disinterested spectator in assessing his or her own happiness versus that of others. Mill adds two conditions to the Golden Rule: (1) “The laws and social arrangements should place the happiness (the interest) of every individual . . . in harmony with the interest of the whole (as nearly as possible)” and (2) education and opinion should use their power over human character to establish in “every indi- vidual an indissoluble association between his own happiness and the good of the whole.”11
Therefore, Mill focuses on reconciling the happiness of the many with the happiness of the individual. The more a person sees his or her own happiness in ways that also enhance the happiness of others, the more likely it is that the greatest total happiness will be achieved.
Mill distinguishes utility from Kant’s ethical perspective when he says, “ninety-nine hundredths of all our actions are done from other motives (other than duty), and rightly so done.” He goes on to say, “the motive has nothing to do with the morality of the action.”12 Therefore,
38 Chapter 4 • Utilitarianism
M04_ALBA5659_03_SE_C04.QXD 10/29/10 2:45 PM Page 38
Chapter 4 • Utilitarianism 39
motives are unimportant to utilitarianism, whereas they are central to formalism. For example, a person who saves someone from drowning is morally right under utilitarianism, regardless of whether his or her motivation is duty or a hoped-for reward.
Motivation Versus Consequences Case Study Assignment
Mill also addresses Aristotle’s issue of good acts that might be committed by a bad person. Mill agrees that an action isn’t bad because it is done by a bad person and that a proper action does not necessarily indicate a virtuous character. He also concurs with Aristotle in what determines a virtuous person: “I grant that . . . in the long run the best proof of a good character is good actions.”14
Motivation Versus Consequences Case Study Assignment
RUBRIC
Excellent Quality
95-100%
Introduction 45-41 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Literature Support
91-84 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Methodology
58-53 points
Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score
50-85%
40-38 points
More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.
83-76 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.
52-49 points
Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality
0-45%
37-1 points
The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.
75-1 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.
48-1 points
There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow