John Stuart Mill Essay Example for Free

John Stuart Mill Essay British philosopher, John Stuart Mill, served many years as a member of parliament and worked diligently to bring forth liberal ideas. Amongst these ideas was the distinction of utilitarianism, or the act of doing what is right for the greatest number of people. Yet, just discussing the idea of right versus wrong for the masses was not enough, Mill’s determined there were two forms of utilitarianism; act, the direct form, or sanction, the indirect form. Much like formal logic with deductive and inductive reasoning, act and sanction utilitarianism strive for the same goal but have different ways of reaching it. Both forms of utilitarianism are seeking to find the best possible outcome for the largest number of people and using that as a measure of right versus wrong, yet by examining the differences of act utilitarianism and sanction utilitarianism, it will become clear that sanction utilitarianism is superior and more easily attainable. Focusing on act utilitarianism, this direct form works in maxims, expanding the contrast between right and wrong. â€Å"An act is right and just in its consequences for human happiness are at least good as any alternative available to the agent† (9). Thus, it is your duty to do the optimal act in a situation because anything other than the best act is a wrong act. Furthermore, Mills also comments that it is considered a â€Å"righteous† act if the consequences are just as good or better than any other action. Staying within the ideas of right or wrong, or when decisions seem to commonly be referred to as â€Å"black or white,† there is also an ideal of proportions to consider. Remember that the act is right is if brings happiness to the most people, but one is incapable of pleasing every person in every situation. Thus, Mills refers to the â€Å"Proportionality Doctrine† to tell what makes an act right or wrong. The Proportionality Doctrine states that acts are right if they promote happiness, or acts are wrong if they promote sadness. In act utilitarianism, each person is held to a duty to always make the best choices and perform the best actions. What that does though is â€Å"imply that I do wrong every time I fail to do the very best action, even when the suboptimal act that I perform is a very good deed. That may seem harsh and overly demanding† (11). Act utilitarianism is very demanding, having to always do the best thing all the time. What direct, or act utilitarianism implies is that if you fail to do the most optimal act then what you did was wrong, which is not always the case. In contrast to act utilitarianism, sanction utilitarianism allows gray space in between the black and white ultimatums. Mill’s writes: â€Å"because it makes the rightness and wrongness of conduct depend upon the utility of sanctioning that conduct in some way, we might call it sanction utilitarianism† (11). Here, Mill’s almost accepts that there are situations that will never be distinguished as exactly right and exactly wrong. Yet, Mill’s also struggles to let got of act utilitarianism since there usually are only two options. Thus, indirectly, an act is right if and only if its optimal to apply sanctions to its omission, whereas applying sanctions is right if and only if it is optimal is a direct action. â€Å"The only difference is that whereas sanction utilitarianism ties rightness and wrongness to praise and blame, act utilitarianism does not† (12). There are four kind acts that fall under sanction utilitarianism: 1. Wrong of forbidden acts are those whose performance it is optimal to blame 2. Permissible acts are those whose performance it is not optimal to blame 3. Obligatory acts are those whose omission it is optimal to blame 4. Supererogatory acts are permissible acts that are especially expedient (11) Here, these four actions seem to take on new meanings: while of course forbidden acts are optimal to blame negative reactions on (they are forbidden for a reason), it is now possible to see that the blame has a purpose behind it since the act caused proportionally the most damage. Unlike act utilitarianism, sanction utilitarianism is clear about which acts are sanctioned and which ones are not. In comparison, both forms of utilitarianism tend to seek the best possible outcome for he highest number of people, yet they have varying degrees of severity. People feel that when it comes to act utilitarianism, if you are not doing the best action each end every second, then whatever else you do is considered wrong. Living with the constant fear that your every action is scrutinized leaves those who practice act utilitarianism demoralized and deflated. It is also exhausting to have to be doing the best thing all the time and society does not naturally possess the ability to be a â€Å"hero† every waking moment. It would seem that sanction utilitarianism is more probable because it promotes a more feel good way of life. Your actions are all driven by a desire to do the right thing, but if you fail from time to time, as long as the intention was there, you are doing all right. â€Å"In arguing sanction utilitarianism, Mill’s claims that it allows him to distinguish duty and expediency and claim that not all inexpedient acts are wrong; inexpedient acts are only wrong when it is good or optimal to sanction them† (11). This means that sanction utilitarianism is more preferable and attainable than act utilitarianism when it comes to acts of duty. Therefore, a person would see this flexibility in sanction utilitarianism as a way to be seeking the righteous actions while being less demanding than act utilitarianism. Sanction utilitarianism is a superior alternative to act utilitarianism because it is flexible, forgiving and attainable. Humans are one of the most imperfect species on the planet and with highly evolved social politics; it is completely impossible to please everyone at the same time. Take into consideration the very foundation of democracy, selecting the best candidate for the job based on a populous vote. If everyone were voting under the basis of selecting the best person for the most number of people, then they would all vote for the same person. There has never been an election where a single candidate won every vote, and thus it proves that humans are incapable of behaving under complete act utilitarianism. On the other hand, it is good to hold yourself to the highest standards and expect the most out of yourself and think that you should always be doing the best thing. The flexibility of sanction utilitarianism is that individual morals and ethics come into play for each person, allowing them to wander between right and wrong finding the best outcome that may be a blend of the two. Take for instance the selection of which college to go to: your personality, likes, dislikes and more come into consideration and while the student wants to find a reputable school, they also have to find a place to call home for four years. If the student chooses the wrong location, it makes their lives miserable, their roommate’s life unbearable, and the family’s life saddened. Thus, the student had to balance every option and maybe give in on reputation for the best social fit, whereas under act utilitarianism, they would have picked a school solely on reputation alone since theoretically, that would lead them to the best possible outcome. Also, under sanction utilitarianism, if a choice is made and it turns out to be wrong, a new choice can be made to counteract the first giving sanction utilitarianism a sense of forgiveness. Combining these two ideals, flexibility and forgiveness, sanction utilitarianism reins superior over act utilitarianism because it is attainable. While both forms of utilitarianism are seeking to find the best possible outcome for the largest number of people, through examining the differences of act utilitarianism and sanction utilitarianism, it became clear that sanction utilitarianism is superior through its attainable qualities. In act utilitarianism the path for right over wrong is very demanding, requiring someone to always do the best thing all of the time. Ultimately, what direct utilitarianism implies is that you fail when what you did was wrong, which may not always be the case. Unlike act utilitarianism, sanction utilitarianism is clear about which acts are sanctioned and which ones are not, which allows someone to strive for their best but not harm them if they fail. Sanction utilitarianism is more preferable and attainable than act utilitarianism when it comes to acts of duty because a person would see the flexibility in sanction utilitarianism as a way to be seeking the righteous actions while being less demanding than act utilitarianism. While humanity is incapable of following act utilitarianism, the forgiveness built into sanction utilitarianism is preferred, since if the choice made turns out to be wrong, a new choice can be made to counteract the first. Combining these two ideals, flexibility and forgiveness, sanction utilitarianism becomes attainable for humanity and it rises in superiority over act utilitarianism.

Their Eyes Were Watching God: Personal Relationships Essay -- essays r

Zora Neale Hurston, in keeping with themes dealing with personal relationships and the female search for self-awareness in Their Eyes Were Watching God , has created a heroine in Janie Crawford. In fact, the female perspective is introduced immediately. "Now, women forget all those things they don't want to remember, and remember everything they don't want to forget. The dream is the truth. Then they act and do things accordingly" (Their Eyes 1). On the very first page of Their Eyes Were Watching God, the contrast is made between men and women, thus initiating Janie's search for her own dreams and foreshadowing the "female quest" theme of the rest of the novel. "Detailing her quest for self-discovery and self-definition, it [Their Eyes] celebrates her [Janie] as an artist who enriches Eatonville by communicating her understanding" (Kubitschek 22). Janie is a Black woman who asserts herself beyond expectation, with a persistence that characterizes her search for the love that she dreamed of as a girl. She understands the societal status that her life has handed her, yet she is determined to overcome this, and she is resentful toward anyone or anything that interferes with her quest for happiness. "So de white man throw down de load and tell de nigger man tuh pick it up. He pick it up because he have to, but he don't tote it. He hand it to his womenfolks. De nigger woman is de mule uh de world so fur as Ah can see," opines Janie's gr...

Power of Suppliers Essay

Another force is power of suppliers. Power of the suppliers is important as it will affect the industry. In airline industry, the power of suppliers is quite high since there are only two major suppliers which are Airbus and Boeing hence there are not many choices to airline industry. Nevertheless, the global economic crisis has limited the new entrant and also reducing the upgrade of planes in the immediate future. However, both suppliers provide almost same standard aircraft and hence the switching to Air Asia is low. The supplier of airline companies is the fuel supplier, food supplier, merchandise supplier and aircraft supplier. Other supplier like foods supplier and fuel supplier, the term of the supply must be based on the market condition. Hence, the supplier cannot increase too much of its price or risk losing long term business with the aircraft companies. Besides that, Airasia has high switching costs. Most of Airasia’s aircraft are Airbus models. Previously, the company used Boeing models, which they lease it and the company had since phased out most of the models and replace with Airbus. If Airasia is to switch to Boeing again, then the cost will be high. This is because training cost for employees to suit the aircraft features must be provided. Furthermore, the technology used by Airbus is the most advanced, thus Airasia must rely to the Airbus’ engineers to do maintenance of the aircrafts and seek advices. if the Airbus does not to cooperate with Air Asia, Air Asia will not have no suppliers to do the maintenance. nThus, bargaining power of suppliers is strong.

Text Message Scams

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is warning of a dangerous new breed of identity theft scams known as â€Å"smishing.† Similar to â€Å"phishing† scams — authentic-looking emails that appear to be from the victim’s bank, government agencies, or other well-known organizations — â€Å"smishing† scams are text messages sent to mobile phones. While the risks of smishing scams are potentially devastating, the defense is simple. According to the FTC, â€Å"Just dont text back.† How the Scammer Sets the Trap The scarily convincing smishing scams work like this: You get an unexpected text message appearing to be from your bank informing you that your checking account has been hacked into and deactivated â€Å"for your protection.† The message will tell you to reply or text back in order to reactivate your account. Other smishing scam text messages may include a link to a website you need to visit in order to resolve some non-existent problem. What a Smishing Scam  Text Message Might Look Like Here is an example of one of the scam texts: â€Å"User #25384: Your Gmail profile has been compromised. Text back SENDNOW in order to reactivate your account.† What’s the Worst That Can Happen? Do not respond to suspicious or unsolicited  text messages, advises the FTC, warning that at least two bad things might happen if you do: Responding to the text message can allow malware to be installed that will silently collect personal information from your phone. Imagine what an identity thief could do with the information from an online banking or credit card management app. If they don’t use your information themselves, the spammers may sell it to marketers or other identity thieves.You might end up with unwanted charges on your cell phone bill. Depending on your service plan, you may be charged for sending and receiving text messages, even scams. Yes, Unsolicited Text Messages Are Illegal Under federal law, it is illegal to send unsolicited text messages or email to mobile devices, including cell phones and pagers without the owner’s permission. In addition, sending unsolicited text or voice mail or telemarketing messages using a mass auto-dialer, so-called â€Å"robocalls,† is illegal. But There Are Exceptions to the Law In some cases, unsolicited text messages are allowed. If you have established a relationship with a company, it may legally text you things like statements, account activity alerts, warranty information or special offers. In addition, schools are allowed to text informational or emergency messages to parents and students.Political surveys and fundraising messages from charities may be sent as text messages. How to Deal With Smishing Scam Messages The FTC advises not to be fooled by smishing scam texts messages. Remember this: None of the government agencies, banks, or other legitimate businesses will ever request personal financial information via text messages.Take your time. Smishing scams work by creating a false sense of urgency by demanding an immediate response.Never click on any links or call any phone numbers in an unsolicited text or email messages.Don’t respond in any way to smishing messages, even to ask the sender to leave you alone. Responding verifies that your phone number is active, which tells the scammer to keep trying.Delete the message from your phone.Report the suspect message to your cell phone service carriers spam/scam text reporting number or general customer service number. Complaints about text message scams can be filed securely online using the FTC’s  complaint assistant.