- This topic has 63 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 3 years, 12 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Read this article: https://www.wpxi.com/news/woman-calls-police-on-kids-selling-lemonade/980486142/
And answer these 2 questions:
Would a contractarian agree with the cops’ decision not to shut the kids’ lemonade down? Why or why not?
Would a utilitarian agree? Why or why not? Based on what sized group of people?
-
A contractarian would agree with the cops decision to keep the lemonade stand open because they want to do what is morally right to achieve their self interests. The cops had a self interest of looking like good guys by supporting the kids’ lemonade stand, instead of being mean by shutting down the kids ways of having fun, and trying to make a little money.
A Utilitarian would want whats best for all individuals involved. Therefore the Utilitarian would have the kids move the lemonade stand elsewhere so that traffic does not build up. Leading to the kids still generating their money, and the people driving aren’t being affected by constant traffic due to people getting out of their cars to buy lemonade.
-
1. A contractarian would agree because both the kids and officers benefit and gain happiness. The officers gain respect from showing rational judgment towards children and also get a lemonade, while the kids get to feel happy from making money for themselves.
2. A utilitarian would also agree because keeping the stand open benefits the most people, as we know it not only made the officers and kids are happy, but the stand was popular enough to cause traffic from a majority of drivers stopping. The choice being affirmed as the right one after the picture of them together is posted online and dozens of more customers stop by the stand. -
A contractarian would agree with the cops decision to keep the lemonade stand open since they didn’t violate any agreements or break any contracts. Perhaps the cops found that there were more benefits in keeping the lemonade stand open than shutting it down. A utilitarian cares more about the greatest good for the greatest number of people, so they may not agree with the lemonade stand remaining open if an abundance of traffic was the consequence. However, if more people benefited and gained happiness from the lemonade stand then a utilitarian would agree to keep the lemonade stand open.
-
A contractarian would agree with the cop’s decision to let kids keep on selling lemonade since the kids are working for their money and the cops are keeping a positive image to their community in letting the kids do harmless work.
A utilitarian would agree with the cop’s decision to let the kids keep on selling lemonade if it brings more happiness to people that bothering the people driving their cars having to deal with a little more traffic than usual. In the end, the children ended up making several hundred dollars so this shows they did more good than harm meaning happiness came on top of the hatred from the Lemonade Stand Karen. -
A contractarian would agree with the cops not shutting down the lemonade stand because they would agree that the kids are working for their living and creating this opportunity for themselves without creating any harm to others.
A utilitarian would agree with the cops’ decision to not shut down the kids’ lemonade stand down because there is nothing implicitly wrong with running the lemonade stand and the kids are not only working for themselves but to better their community by offering a fun option of lemonade to everyone in their community.
-
A contractarian would agree with the police buying lemonade from the boys and not shutting down the lemonade stand. By being a contractarian you do what’s best for your self-interest and in turn that is morally correct according to your values. These police officers did that.
A utilitarian would also agree with the police. A utilitarian likes actions that maximize happiness and overall well being for everyone around them. You could assume that the police are utilitarians in this scenario. -
Contractarianism is a social contract theory founded on the assumption that humans are rational and self-interested, and it holds that a rational assessment of the best strategy for attaining maximum self interest will lead people to act morally. Contractarianism “demands us to act in an impartial way in a community,” and assumes that as free beings, humans have the ability to collectively agree on a social contract where each individual interest is a matter of impartial concern. Contractarianism suggests that if inequality is unavoidable in an impartial decision, it must be justified to those made worse off. The lemonade stand was not causing major disruptions, so a fair and impartial view might side with the cops and justify keeping it open. However, this does come at an inconvenience to some, so a different proposed solution might be to move the stand to a place that would cause less disturbance. I think that contractarianism could support or oppose the stance of the cops because of the different groups involved in the situation: the sellers, the drivers, and the customers.
Utilitarianism judges actions to be moral or amoral based on the consequences they produce. If something produces more good than bad, it is morally right. In the case of the lemonade stand, the “good” might be satisfied customers and profits for the boys, while the “bad” is the traffic caused by the stand. However, as determined by the police officers, the minimal traffic did not justify shutting down the lemonade stand. If the stand was stopping traffic and causing drastic delays, then shutting down the stand could be justified because the negative outcome outweighed the positive benefits for the boys and their few customers.
-
A contractarian would agree with the cops’ decision to keep the lemonade stand open because it benefits both the officers and the kids. The officers benefit by looking nice and having a good public image as well as enjoying some lemonade. The children benefit by making money from their lemonade stand and the improved success from the photo.
However, I think a utilitarian may disagree with the cops’ decision to keep the stand running. If the stand made more people happy than it did frustrate drivers, then they would support the decision. But if traffic from the stand upset more people than it made happy, they would not support it. A compromise that a utilitarian would certainly support would be the kids selling lemonade at a location that does not cause traffic. -
Honestly, if I was thinking like a Contractarian, maybe taking the lemonade stand down would give me some kudos with the chief, but on the other hand, I feel like they gained more by letting them be, let them have their stand, look good among the community for which they protect and gain some friends in the process. So much of what goes on in the media today is so negative and it is nice to see some nice and positive actions being done by police. So much of what you hear about the police in the media today is nothing but the dark side but they don’t seem to focus on the good they do as if there was a plan in mind to take down the police force. I am a realist and I like to know what is going on so that I know what I’m talking about.
On the other hand, the Utilitarian comes off as a selfish one who seeks to cast out harm and downfall on others for a sense of self pleasure. some one like this would seek to take the stand down, make false claims about the stand or the people running it and come up with BS laws that claim one must pay taxes for such business. What ever happened to the old America. where people were nice to each other, rather than putting people down whenever they had the chance. Another claim the Utilitarian would make is the fact that the lemonade was creating traffic in the street and therefore disrupting the callers privacy of the street tenants or what not. All kinds of things come to mind when you think about it. Positive or negative things. we can’t all win. In this case, I feel that what the officers did, was the right thing to do. Good for them! -
1. A contractarian would agree with the cop’s decision to keep the stand open and buy some lemonade for a few reasons. It could be seen that this action between the children and cops is a mutually beneficial one, similar to a contract. The children get money and media attention, while the cops get good public recognition for doing so. This can also be seen as a breach in contract by the officers choosing to disregard Karen’s complaint, since they have chosen to be under contract with the city and its citizens. This Karen also seemed to be irrational in her complaint so this contract between the officers and her can be void as well.
2. A utilitarian would agree with the cop’s decision also. In this context, two out of three parties involved had a happy or beneficial resolution to the dilemma at hand. That being said, the pro’s of their decision outweigh the con’s, resulting in a just decision. -
A contractarian would agree with the police’s decision because they would act according to what benefits them the most in their ideals and beliefs. If the police thought that the kids weren’t harming anyone else and it would burden them physically and morally to have to shut their business down, then a contractarian would agree that the police were acting accordingly. At the same time, a contractarian would think that the police also acted in self-interest since they got good press coverage on the good deed that they did, instead of having the media hate on them for following what the woman wanted to be done.
A utilitarian would also agree with what the police officers did because they believe in maximizing happiness and since it would have made more people happy to see the police being friendlier and allowing the kids to continue their lemonade stand since it doesn’t harm anyone else. It would also maximize the kids’ happiness because they’ll be able to make money and continue what they wanted to do. Overall, a utilitarian would agree with the police because shutting down the lemonade stand would only make the Karens happy, whereas not shutting down the lemonade stand made the kids happy as well as most of the whole community. -
A utilitarian would have probably made a compromise to make everyone happy. They may arrive at a conclusion such as having the stand open every other weekend. That way the kids can have their stand and the people who complained don’t always have to deal with it. This should satisfy both parties.
A contractarian would look at the rules that are in place. He would see if any rules are being broken and try to follow those. If it is socially unacceptable to sell lemonade, he would shut it down. Since the operation is not breaking any rules and it is socially acceptable for the kids to sell lemonade, the contractarians would likely agree with the cops to leave the stand open. -
Would a contractarian agree with the cops’ decision not to shut the kids’ lemonade down? Why or why not?
A contractarian would agree with the cops because a contractarian is primarily self-interested. They believe that a rational assessment of the best strategy for attaining the maximization of their self-interest will lead them to act morally. The cops assessed the situation and attained that they would look like model leaders if they supported the kids. Therefore, it benefited their self-interest to support the kids.Would a utilitarian agree? Why or why not? Based on what sized group of people?
A utilitarian would agree because the cops and kids beliefs outweigh one angry citizen. A utilitarian would support the group with a majority. However, if the amount of people involved were to grow, they might try and make a compromise so all parties involved could peacefully adjust. -
1. A contractarian would agree with the cops’ decision not to shut down the lemonade stand because the fundamental role that cops play in society is to protect citizens and since there was no threat they should be allowed to act freely. Also, the children are engaging in a contractual barter system where they are receiving payment for the goods they provide which checks out with regard to the beliefs of contractarians.
2. A staunch utilitarian would likely disagree with their decision on the basis that by slowing down traffic the children were impeding regular citizens from being productive. Since the kids are unlikely to be paying taxes on the revenue they make they would be seen to be negatively impacting the commuters who are all active members of society which benefits everyone.
-
1. A contractarian would agree with the cops decision to allow the kids to continue the selling of their lemonade. The cops believe that no one is getting hurt and the cops are not needed in a scenario like this so the only thing left to do is buy lemonade.
2. A Utilitarian would want to make everyone happy in this situation, if the issue was traffic a Utilitarian solution could be having the cops direct traffic so the person who complained about the traffic would be happy and the kids can still sell their lemonade also remaining happy. -
A contractarian would say the lemonade stand was not causing major disruptions, so they would support and justify keeping it open. The lemonade stand was not threatening anyone and the police officers determined that it was a safe operation and their presence was not needed.
A utilitarian would say that the stand was stopping traffic and causing drastic delays, but shutting down the stand would not result in the majority of the people being happy. Thus, one would offer a compromise that the stand can either be relocated to a location that would not delay traffic, or the police could assist in the directing of traffic in order for everyone to be happy in the situation. However, solely closing the stand would not result in the majority in being happy which is the result ulititarians would want.
-
Would a contractarian agree with the cops’ decision not to shut the kids’ lemonade down? Why or why not?
While everyone else thinks that a contractarian would agree, I’m going to differ and say that maybe they wouldn’t agree to keeping the stand open because of the morale obligation to not create traffic. This is a very minor example and issue, however we know not to cross the road when cars are coming or else we could cause an accident or a slow down, so why should it be okay for a lemonade stand to create a slow down.Would a utilitarian agree? Why or why not? Based on what sized group of people?
A utilitarian would want to keep the lemonade stand open for the end result of 1. the community getting some lemonade and 2. the kids making some money off of it. A utilitarian cares more about the end result and wouldn’t mind a little traffic back up for this outcome.
-
A contractarian would most likely agree with the police officers’ decision to keep the lemonade stand open because neither the children selling the lemonade or the stand itself were causing any harm according to a police officer’s role. The cops allowing the stand to remain open benefited the officers by making them feel better as well as the children because they are able to sell their lemonade.
A utilitarian would attempt to try and find the best solution to benefit everyone in the situation so they may not agree with the decision to leave the stand open. On the contrary, the utilitarian may agree with the decision because the stand benefitted more people being there rather than not. One angry citizen does not outweigh the children’s lemonade stand.
-
In terms of both contractarian and utilitarian both would agree with the cops’ decision on letting the kids still do their business. If we look at the contractarian side of things the cops were acting selfishly and by letting the kids continue doing business then they would get good publicity from the press. On the utilitarian side, in the long run, what the cops did was morally right because they allowed the kids to keep their business going in order to make money that would soon benefit the family. The benefits that come from the children outweigh the displeasure of other citizens.
-
Contractarian would agree with the corps because social contract theory shares the core assumption of egoism that we are self-interested and rational agents. Since the kids business was impeding traffic, this is against traffic law, therefore they should be shutdown.
Utilitarian’s will disagree because their philosophy is based on Consequence, since selling the lemonade cost a negative consequence (traffic congestion) of many cars, it outweigh the benefits positive Consequence(few hundred dollars).
-
Would a contractarian agree with the cops’ decision not to shut the kids’ lemonade down? Why or why not?
A contractarian would agree with the cops decision because the cops acted morally through rational assessment of the best strategy. They realized that the children did not do anything wrong and helped to encourage the children’s entrepreneurial spirit.
Would a utilitarian agree? Why or why not? Based on what sized group of people
A utilitarian would agree with the cops decision not to shut down the kids because the cops moved the lemonade stand that held up part of traffic which involved everyone within the area. Because of the relocation, the traffic was eased down and the kids were still able to do their lemonade business.
-
Yes, a contractarian would agree. Contractarians believe that each person’s interests are a matter of impartial concern and that each person should act impartially as a member of the community. The police responded to the call of a public nuisance, determined little to no harm was being done, and acted accordingly by participating as members of the community instead of shutting down the stand.
A utilitarian would agree up until a point. Utilitarians believe that actions whose negative consequences outweigh the positive consequences are wrong, and actions whose positive consequences outweigh the negative consequences are right. If only a few people were impacted negatively by a brief slowdown in traffic, I think the benefit to the kids running the stand outweighs their irritation. If the stand were to cause a major slowdown for a large number of drivers or a traffic incident, then utilitarians would view it a wrong.
-
1. Yes, a contractarian would agree with the cops’ decision. The cops were on-site and determined that the kids selling the lemonade were not a threat to the community in any way (surprise surprise), nor was their lemonade stand being an impediment. As such, the cops allowed the kids and their lemonade stand to carry out business (the result of the cops’ rational assessment), which a contractarian would agree with because following the cops actions and supporting the kids aligns best with their self-interests.
2. Yes, a utilitarian would agree with the cops’ decision. In this case a utilitarian would side with the majority, that being the cops and kids versus the one unhappy citizen. If however, there were to be more angry Karens and a growing/larger opposition to the lemonade stand faction, then a utilitarian would follow suit and support the majority in shutting down the kids’ operation. -
Would a contractarian agree with the cops’ decision not to shut the kids’ lemonade down? Why or why not?
Would a utilitarian agree? Why or why not? Based on what sized group of people?
The Kantanian contractarianism bases social contract on a natural equality of moral status which makes each person’s interests a matter of impartial concern. It demands each person act in accord with universalizable personal policies as a member of the community. Since the only thing the lemonade stand really did was cause traffic, then the contractarian would agree with the decision to not close up the lemonade stand.
Utilitarianism is the prescribe actions that maximize happiness and well-being for all affected individuals. A utilitarian may disagree because the traffic group may be more than the 2 kids. SO the well being of a larger group is being affected by the lesser number of individuals.
-
A contractarian would agree with the police’s decision to keep the lemonade stand open because it was in their best interests. Keeping the stand open gave the police the look of good guys and they defiantly benefitted more from it than if they decided to close it down. This was the result of the cops rational assessment that the minor disturbance in traffic was not worth shutting it down. A utilitarian would also agree because keeping the stand open benefitted more people than it hurt. It was the cops, kids, and the majority of people that wanted it open vs one angry person. If it created such a large traffic disturbance that caused the majority of people to be angry, a utilitarian probably would’ve wanted it shut down.
-
A contractarian would likely agree with the cops decision to allow the boys to sell lemonade because it is in their best interest to aid to the reputation of the police force rather than hinder it in the eyes of the civilians, especially in recent times. By doing a “good deed” and landing on the news they did something that was in their individual best interest, while also doing something in the interest of the kids involved; allowing them to sell their lemonade, to make a couple bucks and have fun doing it.
A utilitarian might have handled the situation differently, although it was in the best interest of most, it would have been in the best interest of all if they just moved the stand to avoid traffic, and then everyone would win. That’s probably what I would do if I were the cops, however, I myself have sold many a lemonade on the street as a kid and didn’t think anything of it. -
A contractarian would agree with the cop’s decision to keep the lemonade stand open on the basis that it was a fair and rational stance to take. There was no true violation of any implicit or explicit contracts and overall inside the system, helping out the kids, is better than the alternative, not allowing the kids freedom.
For a utilitarian they would also agree with the cop’s decision to keep the lemonade stand open, the ultimate good of it outweighs the ultimate bad. If in the case that it was a busy street or perhaps a highway, and that the kids were inconveniencing a large amount of people, that is causing more bad than good they may say that the lemonade stand needs to be shut down. But given that it causes very few inconveniences in the now, the good of helping children, the good of supporting the youth, and the reward of lemonade on fair trade outweigh the bad it is currently causing. -
The contractarian would agree with the actions of the officers because in the end the children along with the two police officers get lemonade and are supposedly happy. The officers receive lemonade, the kids get money and in turn get respect shown from people who see them support the lemonade stand.
The utilitarian would also stand in solidarity with these officers because in keeping the stand open, it will benefit the majority, it made more people happy and satisfied after the officers left, with the stand being popular enough to cause traffic also. The ultimate good for the majority of people dominates over the minor inconvenience of having traffic in a small road.
Aloha,
Kalani Asano Jr. -
A contractarian would agree with the police in this scenario by allowing the children to keep the lemonade stand open. They would do this because it is morally right and both parties would gain from the lemonade stand. A contractarian would look at what rules the children are violating and the public image of the police. The children would make some money by selling lemonade and the police would look better in the public’s eyes.
A utilitarian would partially agree with the police in this situation. A utilitarian would look at the pros and cons of allowing the lemonade stand to remain open and make a decision based off of everyone’s views. They would want the kids to keep the lemonade stand open, but they would want them to move the stand to a safer area for people to stop so that all people would not be inconvenienced by others stopping to get lemonade. -
1. A contractarian would allow the kids to keep their lemonade stand open. The kids are not violating any rules, and the main problem is the traffic backing up as a result. As an added result, not shutting the stand down make the cops look like good guys/they get lemonade.
2. A utilitarian would agree with some aspects of the decisions. They would want whatever is best for the parties involved, which means eliminating the traffic and keeping the stand open. They would more than likely find a way to satisfy all of the needs; and if there is no way to do that, they would pick the road that would keep the most people happy. -
A contractarian would agree. Contractarians believe that a person’s interests are a matter of concern and that a person should act impartially as a part of their civic duty. The police responded to the call, determined little to no harm was being done, and acted accordingly by participating as members of the community instead of taking punitive action.
A utilitarian would agree somewhat. Utilitarians believe that actions whose negative consequences outweigh the positive consequences are wrong. If only a few people were impacted negatively by a brief slowdown in traffic, I think the benefit to the kids running the stand outweighs their negative impact. If the children’s stand were to cause a major slowdown for a large number of drivers or a traffic incident, then utilitarians would view it as wrong as it would create more harm than good overall.
-
1. A contractarian would agree with the cops on not shutting down the lemonade stand. They would agree because it follows the best interests for the cops and the kids. It was not morally wrong, and in the end made the cops look like the good guys. The cops were morally correct and in the end, made the correct decision.
2. The utilitarian would also agree with the cops decisions to not shut down the lemonade stand. This is because it was more beneficial than harmful. For one, the community could enjoy lemonade. Second, the kids were making a little money and were happy. -
Would a contractarian agree with the cops’ decision not to shut the kids’ lemonade down? Why or why not?
I think a contractarian would agree on a couple fronts. Yes, on the basis of rationality and self-interest leading to morally correct decision, but also on the basis of, “Right acts are those that do not violate the free, rational agreements that we’ve made”. People who choose to drive have signed on the invisible line agreeing to the possibility of traffic. As with the lemonade stand, capitalism exists and there is nothing against a couple young entrepreneurs getting started early. No violations on anyone’s behalf so more power to the kids.
Would a utilitarian agree? Why or why not? Based on what sized group of people?
I think it would depend if the person is a “actual consequence utilitarian” or a “foreseeable consequence utilitarian”. An “actual” would probably agree with the cops because on the surface, yeah there is not much issue and the group of people benefitting from the lemonade stand vs. the one person who complained would outweigh the one person on a comparison of morality. A “foreseeable” on the other hand, I would think, would very much disagree with the cops. What if a woman was on her way to delivery her baby and this 5,10,30, or whatever second traffic delay caused her to get t-boned a few intersections down the way resulting in a loss of her life, and that of her baby? what if that baby was going to go on to change the world (for the better of course)? Then, a “foreseeable” would absolutely disagree.
-
A contractarian would decide wether or not they agreed with the cops based on if they were affected. In the article it said that the stand was causing traffic, and if they were affected by this then they would want the kids to be shut down. If they weren’t involved they would agree with the cops to let them continue their business, as it can look negative on their self image if they want to stop children from earning money in a legitimate way. A utilitarian would agree that the kids should continue their business. Not only does this make the kids happy because they are earning money and learning life lessons, but it also brightens up everyones day when you see the smile from a child running a lemonade stand.
-
A contractarian would have shut down the kids’ lemonade stand on the basis that the economy is based upon a set of rules and there is a specific set of rules for businesses for the sake of all. If those kids want to be a business and sell a good, then they must follow the contract that is in place and agreed upon by everyone. If that contract is not followed, not even by the police, then what good is the contract for those following it?
A utilitarian could go both ways on shutting down the lemonade stand. In this case, a utilitarian would have shut down the lemonade stand as the negative effects (traffic) outweighed the possible positive effects (happiness). What matters is the number of people in the situation. If there are more people getting their days changed because of traffic than there are people purchasing lemonade, then the stand should be shut down. If it is not getting in the way of others, then it is spreading the joy of seeing kids being entrepreneurial and therefore it could stay open.
-
I think that your rationale falls under the social contract theory rather than pure contractarianism. A SCT proponent would say that there are laws in place that forbid selling food without a license, so they might shut down the stand on those contractual grounds. It sucks for the kids, but it is the law. A contractarian police officer might try to find a way to balance the needs of the kids and the complainers, seeking agreement between the two.
-
-
A contractarian would support the cause of keeping the kids and cops happy by keeping the lemonade stand exactly how it was. Both parties would benefit from it, even though the traffic would not.
A utilitarian would seek the greater good and move the stand elsewhere with less traffic. The kids would make money, the cops would do whatever, and traffic would be flowing. -
A contractarian would agree with letting the kids keep the lemonade stand open because they could see that it wasn’t morally wrong of the kids to have the stand open. For the police to shut down the stand they would become the “Bad Guys” in the situation.
A utilitarian’s solution to the problem would be to mitigate the disruption to traffic, perhaps by having the police officers guide traffic around the stand or by simply moving the stand. This solution results in all involved parties happy, the traffic isn’t interrupted, the kids make money and the cops are doing their job. -
A contractarian would definitely agree with the police officers’ decision to not shut down the children’s lemonade stand because of the lack of any wrong-doings in which a moral decision to shut it down would be sound. All parties, including the Karen, will be benefiting from the stand. Cops are doing their humanitarian part, kids are making a few honest bucks, and the Karen can stop being so thirsty whilst drinking a delicious fruit drink. There is no reason to break morality or even address it.
As for an utilitarian, their actions would likely mitigate the traffic jam. They would likely assist the children to find a location better suited to avoid a small inconvenience of traffic or simply request for the police officers to cone the initial drive-through during the small time the children manned their stand.
Unfortunately, we cannot provide comfort for everyone as there always that one person, in this instance the Karen, but this solution by a utilitarian would definitely help most others. -
A contractarian would agree with the cops’ decisions because the cops were acting under their own morals and interests. They bought lemonade and allowed the kids to keep their stand going because they believed there was nothing wrong with what the kids were doing. If the cops were to shut down the stand, they would be causing the kids emotional harm and that goes against their self interests.
The utilitarian would want to keep the lemonade stand because the kids were having fun and making money from it, the cops got lemonade and liked to see the kids have fun, and the people who were buying lemonade probably enjoyed it. The Karen and the people being inconvenienced by the traffic jam were in the minority, so a utilitarian would see that the majority of the people involved were benefiting. However, if the traffic jam was inconveniencing more people than benefited from the stand or if the Karen recruited more Karens, a utilitarian would probably decide to shut the stand down.
-
A contractarian would agree with the cops’ decision to not shut down the lemonade stand because allowing the kids to remain open provides maximum utility to both parties while breaking no social obligation. From the perspective of a contractarian, the cops took the time to make a rational assessment and concluded that the community is better off with the stand remaining open even considering the slight inconvenience associated with having traffic.
A utilitarian is focussed on the outcome that produces the maximum utility for the majority. Therefore, a utilitarian would more than likely agree with the cop’s decision to keep the lemonade stand open. The basis of a utilitarian’s decision to keep the stand open in this situation completely depends on how the individual perceives the inconvenience of the traffic. From the cops’ perspective, they perceived the minuscule traffic to be less of an inconvenience than that of the overall utility provided by the lemonade stand. -
I believe that a contractarian would agree with the cop’s decision because of their morals. The cops inherently want to do what they believe is right morally and ruining those kid’s day would ultimately benefit no one in the long run. Within the community, the kids were just trying to make a buck and ultimately hurting no one I believe that a contractarian would agree because no unjust solutions were forced upon anyone.
I believe that a utilitarian would agree with the cop’s solution because the action of the cops which was morally good produced even more good in the form of the children’s profit going way past the expectations they thought they would make that day. Since utilitarian want what is best for all parties included I believe that both parties involved win, the cops get lemonade and the children get more money. -
Would a contractarian agree with the cops’ decision not to shut the kids’ lemonade down? Why or why not?
A contractarian would agree with the cops’ decision because it was morally the correct thing to do since the children were not hurting anyone or causing trouble.
Would a utilitarian agree? Why or why not? Based on what sized group of people?
The utilitarian would also agree because in the larger picture, only one person had a conflict with the stand, as opposed to everyone else enjoying it. The utilitarian view would be to weigh the effect on the amount of people on both sides, and keeping the stand up outweighed everything. -
Would a contractarian agree with the cops’ decision not to shut the kids’ lemonade down? Why or why not?
A contractarian would agree with the cops’ decision. Primarily because it should be a self interest of the police to be upstanding citizens themselves, thus a contractarian would also want to maximize their self interest to better both sides.
Would a utilitarian agree? Why or why not? Based on what sized group of people?
A utilitarian would agree, at a community level, because in the end the kids got to keep their lemonade stand up and the cops’ didn’t look like terrible people forcing kids to take down said lemonade stand.
-
I believe both contractarians and utilitarians would agree with the police officers’ verdict to keep the lemonade stand open. Even though the children are acting in their own self-interest to make money, they are not causing any harm to the community by selling lemonade. Although the officers are also acting in their self-interest to receive good press and to serve the community, again no harm was done and more people probably benefited from the lemonade stand than suffered from it. From a utilitarian standpoint, although some citizens were negatively impacted by traffic, this effect seems insignificant in the greater view of things; the family of the children could benefit from the lemonade sales and the community itself is probably improved by positive sales and a sense of police acknowledgment.
-
A contractarian would most definitely agree with the cop and his decision to keep the lemonade stand open. The reason for this is because the contractarian wants to do what is morally good in order to reach their own goals. The cop’s own goal in this situation is to make them look like they are not all mean people. His own interest was more important and he could see a way to capitalize on it and further his won agenda.
The utilitarian would want what is most beneficial for everyone involved. I think the utilitarian would simply have the kids move the lemonade stand in order to avoid excess traffic. This would allow the kids to still make money while also preventing traffic buildup -
A contractarian would agree with the cops because it it in their best interest to look good for the general public and there is no better way of doing that than telling a Karen to shove it and help out some neighborhood kids. It is no small fact that Karen’s suck, and calling the cops on kids selling lemonade completely proves that. This was a good guy move by the police officers,
the utilitarian would want the same thing because the kids selling lemonade and the police officers supporting them supports the greater good. Karen’s tend to be very loud, but are thankfully small in number. By supporting the kids the police officers are doing everyone a favor. -
As contractarian morality calls for normative actions from authority figures paired with skepticism of the “ideal society”, it would be safe to assume that such actions taken by the officers would be deemed as agreeable. Sure, the children aren’t of legal working age due to labor law restrictions which means they aren’t old enough to own a business, let alone obtain a license to sell to costumers and pay taxes. But from the officers perspective, those children having the motivation to work towards a goal like selling lemonade is certainly a better alternative than selling drugs or getting into gang activity. This might imply a racial bias on the color of their skin, but this is simply the nature of living in poverty with limited prospects in life. Conversely, a utilitarian would certainly think otherwise due to one specific detail in the article. Since the children’s business sometimes causes traffic where it previously might not have occurred, this would be deemed as a problem. From the utilitarian point of view, it would only worsen conditions for people commuting to work as the general “collective” would be adversely effected while the children would stand to profit.
-
A contractarian would agree with the decision the cops made because it is in the cops’ best interest to look good for the general public. And telling a Karen to back off makes for a better argument because we all hate Karens.
A utilitarian might have a different approach because they believe in the greater good and the good of the whole. They might think that the traffic backed is a bad sign of where the stand is placed. Moving it to an area still close but out of the way of a traffic back up might please the whole.
-
1. Yes a contractarian would agree with the cops because there is not any wrong doing. A child’s lemonade stand does not negatively affect anyone, and by allowing the stand to stay open the cops appear to be positively supporting a child.
2. A utilitarian would also agree but not as much. The traffic being blocked can be seen as a negative impact but this is because people want to go to the stand. For that reason I believe the most they would ask is for the child to move the stand to a better location.
-
You said it fantastically.
Best Essay writing
jfk assassination -
A contractarian would agree with the officer’s decision to not shut down the lemonade stand because it seems to be the choice that is morally right. In doing this, you look good to the general public.
A Utilitarian would want the best case scenario for everybody involved. They would find a way to manipulate the situation to where all parties are satisfied, some kind of a middle ground. -
A Contractarian would agree with the cops on keeping the lemonade stand open because this is the morally correct option. The lemonade stand dose not negatively affect anyone and is great morally for the people being served but most of all the children.
A Utilitarian would want to find a better solution then the cops did, that best benefits all parties involved. This could be to open the stand at a different time to not affect traffic as greatly or to move the stand. -
A contractarian would agree with the police officers allowing the children to keep running their lemonade stand in that location.The stand is morally good for those buying the lemonade and the children serving it. A utilitarian would agree with the cops but also prefer the lemonade stand be moved to a location where it does not effect traffic as much but the children can still run their business.
-
Contractarianism suggests that people care for themselves first and foremost and that when they act in their best self interest it will lead them to act morally and follow the rules. A contractarian would agree with the cop’s decision to not shut down the lemonade stand. If they shut down the lemonade stand, they would be the bad guys in the neighborhood and sour their reputation amongst the population just because one “Karen” complained. The contractarian would want the cops to keep the lemonade stand open because that would be best for their reputations and their self-interests, instead of working for Karen’s self-interest. They don’t want to get blasted on social media by destroying some children’s hopes and dreams by the ACAB groups. By keeping the lemonade stand open not only do the cops improve their lives, but they do the moral thing and improve the lives of the people of the neighborhood.
Utilitarianism suggests that an action is moral as long as it produces the greatest happiness possible. This means that Karen is happy, the kids selling Lemonade are happy, the people getting out of traffic are happy, the cops are happy etc. A Utilitarianist would want the cops to move the lemonade stand. That would create the most happiness possible. Traffic decongests and the kids get to keep having fun. Since it’s such a small group of people I think the cops would make the right decision in moving the lemonade stand and appealing to everybody however if the numbers of participates in the dilemma increased significantly then I think a Utilitarianist would suggest something different. For example, if there were a million Karens wanting the kid’s lemonade stand to not only be moved but actively shut down then I would say the cops have to side with the Karens. Their happiness is much greater than the children so of course they would want to appease them by shutting down the stand. -
I think it is morally right if the cops allowed the lemonade stand to stay open, however that would be a major contradiction. The lemonade stand supports the kids running it and allows for other to get a nice refreshment. A utilitarian would think the lemonade stand is great as long as it doesn’t cause any disturbances in the neighborhood. In a way the lemonade stand brings people together and a utilitarian would approve of it until it is abandoned or blocks the sidewalks.
-
A contractarian would agree with the decision to keep the lemonade stand open because the kids are working for money and providing a service to the community, despite the fact that there was increased traffic. A utilitarian would agree with the cops decision because the lemonade stand is doing more good than it is harm, and there is therefore no reason to shut it down.
-
A contraction would agree that the police self-interest to keep the lemonade stand open was the right moral act. The kids were not committing a violent crime against the community. The police had a self-interest to do their job right. Police are made to protect and support the community. The cops allowing the lemonade stand to remain open supports the kids of the community.
A utilitarian would look at the net utility of each action. The consequence of allowing the lemonade stand produces the most good. It allows young children to gain entrepreneurship experience and drivers get a beverage. The downside would be a little more traffic on the street. They can fix that by relocating near a place that is not in the way of traffic. -
I think that a contractarian would allow the kids to continue selling lemonade. This is because a contractarian will act in their own best interest. In this case I think that the police would not have anything to gain by shutting the stand down. They are not hurting anyone and seem to be at least somewhat popular with the community. I think a utilitarian would not necessarily want to shut the stand down, although I do think that the buildup of traffic would prevent them from allowing the stand to stay where it is, because it is clearly causing a problem for a large group of people who are stuck in traffic.
-
A contractarian would agree with the cops decision because it brings out a sense of happiness for both the kids and the officers. The officers benefit because they are providing positive reinforcement for the kid to continue on doing harmless work that benefits the kids only. On the other hand a Utilitarian would want what is best for the majority. Meaning if traffic were to develop they would want the lemonade stand to shut down.
-
I believe that a contractarian would agree with the officer’s decision not to shut down the stand, this is because it shows that the officer has a “human side” this stand would also likely keep the children out of trouble during the days. I believe that a utilitarian would also agree with the officer, however, if it got to the point where it was a danger to those driving then the officer would have to shut it down. This at that point would be justified.
-
Would a contractarian agree with the cops’ decision not to shut the kids’ lemonade down? Why or why not?
A contractarian would agree with the cops decision not to shut the lemonade down because they believe in acting in you own self-interest. The kids are not doing anything wrong and it wouldn’t benefit the cop in any way to shut it down. Letting them stay running isn’t going to dramatically affect the community in any other way.
Would a utilitarian agree? Why or why not? Based on what sized group of people?
A utilitarian would likely not shut the kids lemonade down either. Although, I do think that a utilitarian would try to satisfy all parties and brainstorm alternative solutions. -
A contractarian would agree with the officers not shutting down the lemonade stand, as it would benefit both sides. The kid will get to continue selling lemonade for profit and the officers will look good to the public.
A utilitarian would not shut down the lemonade stand as the majority of people seem to be benefitting from the lemonade stand, versus the single individual that felt bothered enough to call 911.
-
