In your own words describe The Principle of Benefit Maximization.

Case Study: “Benefit Maximization,” and “Equal Respect” Template for Activity 3.1

Directions:
The candidate is to read pages 14 – 16. Up until this point in the case study, we have concentrated on good ole’ school administration logic and the law. Let’s take another approach. And based on morals and ethical principles. In the 3rd paragraph on page 16, the authors propose a working hypothesis, “That moral arguments and moral discussion have a valid function in our lives and in our institutions.”
What does this statement mean to you (p. 16)? “That moral arguments and moral discussion have a valid function in our lives and in our institutions.”
The statement “That moral arguments and moral discussion have a valid function in our lives as well institutions” means that at any point in time that a subject has a clear definition of being regarded as wrong or right, it is considered ethical to make a good definition between what is wrong or right affirmatively (Strike et al, 2005). On the other hand, an opinion is only an opinion unless validated. Hence there is nothing left but a debate that gets considered substantial.
b.1. In your own words describe The Principle of Benefit Maximization. (in 1 to 3 sentences)
The principle of benefit maximum is a theory that judges decisions based on results or consequences. Thus, a benefit pays attention to the improvement of the majority that requires more reflection before deciding on the best choice to make the outcomes more favorable.
b.2. In your own words describe The Principle of Equal Respect in terms of the “Golden Rule” and its three subsidiary ideas. (Maybe 150 – 225 words)
The principle of equal respect, also known as the golden rule, stipulates that people should treat others the same way they would like to be treated. Thus, respect involves three basic principles that include subsidiary ideas as stated below;
People are equal in value. Thus, everyone is equal, and no matter how better someone else is, they will always have the same value. Unfortunately, it is a subsidiary that strips everything away from individuals (Strike et al, 2005). It only values their original self with no altercations of ‘if’ or ‘but’ regarding who they might be depicting.
People are rational and free agents. Thus we are required to respect the choices or decisions made by others whether or not we agree with their opinions (Strike et al, 2005). Although, we must emphasize people’s ability to decide with responsibility provided with appropriate content.
Treat people as ends rather than means. We should treat people right and not as instruments because we cannot devalue their personalities to please ourselves. But we should ensure that we value what people bring to the table without being particular about what we expect from them (Strike et al, 2005). It is an excellent opportunity to value who people are individual by exploiting the best of who they are and helping them grow.
c.1. After reading the “CONCLUSION” on pages 18 and 19 of the textbook, tell how one might resolve the case when taking a “consequentialist” view.
Considering the consequentialist approach based on benefit principle maximization, the case can get resolved by proceeding with negotiations or adopting the new contracts for the teachers. However, it can only occur with little speech. We can also consider Ms. Fitzgerald to air her thoughts or have a one-on-one conversation with her to comprehend her point of view or come up with our solutions (Strike et al, 2005). Third, we can also consider the involvement of the cultures of schooling where surveys can get drafted to enable staff to voice their ideas to make decisions that will ensure the environment improves. To conclude, I point out that the textbook states that equal respect requires us to value the welfare of people but also value ourselves beyond benefits (Strike et al, 2005). Additionally, we can also treat people with equal worth and value everyone’s happiness equally.
c.2. After reading the “CONCLUSION” on pages 18 and 19 of the textbook, tell how one would resolve the case when taking a “non-consequentialist” view.
In the non-consequentialist approach within the principle of equal respect, the contracts might not get approved, and the negotiations can get cleared. We may also consider issuing Ms. Fitzgerald a formal warning or suspending her for making false assertions to the public about her newspaper story. Third, I valued her voice since she did speak out to express her point of view (Strike et al, 2005). To summarize, the idea of equal respect has nothing to do with race. It’s about appreciating the worth of the people involved and treating them with dignity. Even if we pick an action that is less beneficial than others, we have rights.
c.3. After reading the “CONCLUSION” on pages 18 and 19 of the textbook, which view would you recommend for resolving this case and why?
In the case of Higgins vs Fitzgerald, I feel compelled to vote for the non-consequentialist position. Although we do not like to be exposed nor have our shortcomings exploited as human beings, Ms. Fitzgerald’s free speech in this situation respects others in truth (Strike et al, 2005). Although her right to free expression impacts the negotiations, ethically, it has the most long-term benefit for the people. In the end, regardless of the consequences, we want to make the best decision that will benefit the majority.
Reference:
Strike, K. A., Haller, E. J., & Soltis, J. F. (2005). The Ethics of School Administration. Teachers College Press.

Continue to order