(9) A recent psychological study[1] suggested that humans…

Question Answered step-by-step (9) A recent psychological study[1] suggested that humans… (9)   A recent psychological study[1] suggested that humans intuitively think of vision according to the long-discarded “Emission Theory” of vision: sight works by means of invisible “beams” of light projecting from the eyes, opposed to collecting photons from the environment (i.e., the correct “Intromission Theory” of vision). Unless the “Emission Theory” was correct, are there any grounds on Utilitarianism that there is still some kind of “harm” in observing people with perfect, everlasting secrecy & stealth and without their knowledge—like in the film The Truman Show?  (10)                       If Utilitarianism is true, then any kind or amount of “bad” actions can be neutralized or even rectified by enough countervailing good actions provided there’s an overall greater net sum of utility as a result—and the “balancing” good and bad acts may be entirely unrelated. If you were a non-egoistic Utilitarian, what would you accept as appropriate “moral” compensation by the murderer of your best friend or lover? A hundred million trees planted? a billion-dollar donation to a charity? the end of hunger in your state for at least one year? something else?  (11)                       On Utilitarianism, you are responsible for all the utility you actively produce with your “positive” actions of “commission” as much as you are from the disutility from your inactions—i.e., “negative” acts of “omission.” Since there are putatively an infinite number of things you failed or didn’t do (opposed to what you, in fact, did and do), does Utilitarianism necessarily make every moral agent a moral monster, how “saintly” they are?  Arts & Humanities English MGMT 332 Share QuestionEmailCopy link Comments (0)