Can You Form A Quick List Of People Who’d Benefit Because ✓ Solved

Can you form a quick list of people who’d benefit becaus

1. Identify individuals or groups who benefit from the KDCP settlement and those who may be negatively impacted. Analyze the situation from a global utilitarian perspective; what conditions would make the settlement ethically justifiable?

2. Evaluate the impact of free courses on recipient happiness, and contrast this with the feelings of students who had to pay. Consider the perspectives of those who might feel unfairly treated as a result. Can a utilitarian argument be made against the free classes? Could the College Board have enhanced the settlement by ensuring the terms, including free classes, remained confidential? If the public learned of the free classes, should the College Board mislead the public by denying their inclusion in the settlement?

3. Discuss the implications of potentially canceling the SAT scores of students who benefited from KDCP classes that utilized stolen materials. How might rule utilitarianism support score cancellation, and how might act utilitarianism argue for score reinstatement?

4. Evaluate the salary of the College Board CEO from a utilitarian viewpoint. Outline arguments for significantly reducing his pay. If given the chance without consequences, would a utilitarian steal from his bank account? Justify your response.

5. Consider the motives behind the College Board's requirement for free classes for underprivileged students. Construct a case for this action as altruistic versus as a self-serving, egoistic strategy.

Paper For Above Instructions

The KDCP settlement presents a complex scenario involving various stakeholders, each with different interests and perspectives. Understanding who benefits and who suffers requires comprehensive analysis through a utilitarian lens, which seeks the greatest overall happiness for the greatest number.

Beneficiaries of the KDCP program include underprivileged students who now have access to preparation courses that might otherwise be financially out of reach. Additionally, the College Board could leverage this as a marketing tool to improve their public image, portraying themselves as socially responsible and caring. Conversely, those disadvantaged could be the students who have already paid for the course, feeling that their efforts and sacrifices for funding are undermined. Furthermore, students who are working under challenging conditions to afford such education may feel angered at what they perceive as inequality in opportunities.

From a utilitarian perspective, for the settlement to be seen as ethically viable, it would need to lead to an overall increase in happiness across the affected parties. This requires not only improving conditions for those receiving free courses but also compensating in some way those who feel slighted. A balanced approach would involve not disclosing the settlement's specifics publicly, allowing for an atmosphere of equality and fairness. The potential reputation improvement for the College Board must not come at the expense of harming previously paying students’ financial sacrifices.

Regarding the impact of free classes on student happiness, it is essential to recognize that while some may rejoice in opportunities offered without charge, those who have paid may suffer feelings of resentment and unfairness. This sentiment is particularly poignant in educational environments, where competition and financial burdens impact mental health and wellbeing. A utilitarian argument can be made against free classes if it delineates a significant division among students, causing them to feel alienated. Extrinsic rewards, such as paying for one’s education, can create pride and self-respect that might vanish when others receive the same without effort.

Should the College Board consider keeping the terms of the settlement confidential, it might quell tensions between different student groups and promote a more unified educational environment. Inadvertently revealing these terms could lead to wider dissatisfaction and anger among paying students and their families, undermining the intended positive aspects of the free classes.

Concerning the potential cancellation of SAT scores for students benefiting from KDCP classes using stolen materials, one must examine both the rule and act utilitarianism perspectives. Rule utilitarianism may support score cancellation to uphold academic integrity; maintaining this standard serves societal values and could corral future dishonest practices. However, act utilitarianism, which looks at individual cases, might serve a more compassionate purpose by reinstating those scores as doings so reflects empathy towards students who did not know they were caught in unethical practices.

Regarding the salary of the College Board CEO and the question of utilitarian ethics in potentially lower compensation, a utilitarian might argue that a substantial reduction could lead to increased funds available for the student programs that help disadvantaged individuals. Redistribution of wealth in this context could foster greater overall happiness and societal benefit. However, the question remains: would a utilitarian steal from this individual if it didn't attract consequences? This question probes the morality behind immediate satisfaction versus the respect for property and the greater social ramifications of such an action. Most utilitarian principles would argue that harming another for personal gain—no matter how justified—leads to negative overall consequences for society, thus making the act unjustifiable.

Lastly, while the College Board’s initiative might initially appear altruistic, it is vital to discern the underlying motives. Advocating for free classes can indeed align with altruistic values—fostering accessibility and equity—yet it can be argued that this move can also serve as an egoistic strategy aimed to enhance their public image at little financial cost. Discerning this duality encourages rigorous exploration of corporate responsibility in education and the motivations aligning with such initiatives.

References

• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Smart, J. J. C., & Williams, B. (1973). Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge University Press.
• Singer, P. (1979). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Gert, B. (2005). Morality: Its Nature and Justification. Oxford University Press.
• Kymlicka, W. (2002). Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. Oxford University Press.
• Rachels, J. (2003). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw-Hill.
• Shafer-Landau, R. (2015). The Fundamentals of Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Feinberg, J. (1973). Social Philosophy. Prentice-Hall.
• Broome, J. (1991). Weighing Goods: Equality, Uncertainty and Time. Blackwell Publishing.