In conclusion this case study is unethical according

This preview shows page 4 - 6 out of 9 pages.

In conclusion, this case study is unethical according to utilitarianism, because it does the opposite of the rule-- only focusing on the company’s benefit rather than their consumers’ by advertising their product falsely. Case Study 3 The third case study is Universal Basic Income. Universal Basic Income is basically a fair distribution of money to everyone, regardless of their economic status and background, without them making an effort to anything. This basically considered as “free money” to many people, as they really get the money without doing anything (RSA). Universal Basic Income can be done by increasing the GDP of a country by raising taxes, and can be distributed periodically (monthly or weekly). Universal Basic Income has created a lot of controversy, which will be discussed below. Some says it’s a burden, some says it’s a benefit. Universal Basic income has been applied for testing to many cities around the world. According to utilitarianism, Universal Basic Income is great. This program not just promotes equality, but also happiness to everybody. There are a lot people in poverty, needing money. People will generally be happy when they receive money. Even rich people will at least be happier if they receive money. Universal Basic Income will provide happiness to them.
There’s a proof when Muraja, a person who participated in The Finnish Basic Income Trial in Finland, states that this program “didn’t make him rich, but at least made his life more enriching.” He said that with that program, it made him easier to find jobs, which was one of the program’s ultimate goals. Universal Basic Income is a controversial program. One of the reason is because some people might worry that getting free money would make people be less motivated to work, become lazy, and unproductive. But, in fact, according to the article “ The Pros and Cons of Universal Basic Income” , a case study in 2010 in Iran showed that people actually “used their money to invest more in their businesses, giving small enterprises the chance to develop.” This shows that the predictions are actually wrong. Not many people were leaving the workforce but, instead, they were more motivated to work. This was also backed up by Jim Pugh, the co-founder of the Universal Income Project, who said that a lot of people wanted to contribute to society, and if they were given the basic financial security to start, they’ll be able to find a way to make it work.” (Keegan) In addition, Milton Friedman, the person behind the Theory of Stockholder, responded to this controversy by saying that free money increases one’s responsibility (Parker). When someone’s given money, they’ll be able to think ahead and plan about the future, hence more responsibility. Milton Friedman has also thought about this kind of program, as he proposed a similar program back then in 1939, called “a minimum standard of living.” Most importantly, Universal Basic Income brings a lot of happiness to a lot of people. As seen from above, many people were impacted in a good way. People received money, contributed to society, employment decreased, and finally resulted in big net happiness. This program would be approved in the theory of utilitarianism

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture