DSST Business Ethics Study Guide sm

Among other changes to its original opinion the ninth

Info iconThis preview shows pages 6–8. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Among other changes to its original opinion, the Ninth Circuit altered its opinion with respect to the admissibility of expert testimony and the use of Daubert challenges during a motion for class certification. Wal-Mart again filed for a rehearing en banc. On February 13, 2009, the Ninth Circuit granted Wal-Mart's petition for rehearing en banc on the class action certification. [7] As a result, the December 2007 Ninth Circuit opinion was no longer effective. [8] Conservative commentators have criticized the lawsuit as an abuse of the class action mechanism. [9][10][11] Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all sentient beings. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. Utilitarianism is often described by the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number of people" [1] , and is also known as "the greatest happiness principle". Utility, the good to be maximized, has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure (versus suffering or pain), although preference utilitarians define it as the satisfaction of preferences. It may be described as a life stance, with happiness or pleasure being of ultimate importance. Utilitarianism can be characterized as a quantitative and reductionist approach to ethics. It can be contrasted with deontological ethics (which do not regard the consequences of an act as being a determinant of its moral worth) and virtue ethics (which focuses on character), as well as with other varieties of consequentialism. In general usage, the term utilitarian (Katrin Joost) refers to a somewhat narrow economic or pragmatic viewpoint. Philosophical utilitarianism, however, is a much broader view that encompasses all aspects of people's lives. Act v rule Main articles: Act utilitarianism and Rule utilitarianism Act utilitarianism states that, when faced with a choice, we must first consider the likely consequences of potential actions and, from that, choose to do what we believe will generate most pleasure. The rule utilitarian, on the other hand, begins by looking at potential rules of action. To determine whether a rule
Background image of page 6

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
should be followed, he looks at what would happen if it were constantly followed. If adherence to the rule produces more happiness than otherwise, it is a rule that morally must be followed at all times. The distinction between act and rule utilitarianism is therefore based on a difference about the proper object of consequentialist calculation — specific to a case or generalized to rules. Rule utilitarianism has been criticized for advocating general rules that will in some specific circumstances clearly decrease happiness if followed. Never to kill another human being may seem to be a good rule, but it could make self-defense against malevolent aggressors very difficult. Rule utilitarians add, however, that there are general exception rules that allow the breaking of other rules if such rule-breaking increases
Background image of page 7
Image of page 8
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page6 / 28

Among other changes to its original opinion the Ninth...

This preview shows document pages 6 - 8. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online