in 1978 and proposed that profit was less important than fairness in the relationship. According to Hatfield (2011) “According to Equity theory, people feel most comfortable when they are getting exactly what they deserve from their relationships—no more and certainly no less” Exchange Theory is more concerned with under-benefit as a disadvantage but Equity Theory places a greater emphasis on both under-benefit and over-benefit. Under-benefits are likely to provoke a sense of anger and resentment and over-benefits are likely to provoke a sense of guilt. The Equity model suggests that a person would be driven to restore the equity within an unbalanced relationship by either reducing their input or increasing their outputs and it is the inability to reach balance that can lead to the breaking of the relationship. Investment theory focusses on the extent to which commitment is determined by investment in a relationship rather than solely satisfaction or reward.
Sample: I-2B Score: 5 Part (a)(i): 2 points were earned for the correct setup and the correct answer. Part (a)(ii): 1 point was earned. The student makes computational errors that limit the score. Part (b): No points were earned. The setup is nearly correct, but the computation of 10 m3 of infiltration into the surrounding soil should equal 100 m3.
There is only a 1.28% chance that b = 0, which is better than the 10 percent level required by the marketing director. d. The exact level of significance of is 0.0927. There is a 9.27% chance that rivals’ spending on advertising does not affect Vanguard’s sales (i.e., b = 0), which is just barely better than the 10 percent level required by the marketing director. e. About 78 percent of the variation in sales remains unexplained. Find additional explanatory variables that have a significant affect on S. The manager might try adding the price of its detergent and the
Of the remaining criteria we might consider, only sentience―the capacity of a being to experience things like pleasure and pain―is a plausible criterion of moral importance. Singer argues for this in two ways. First, he argues, by example, that the other criteria are bad, because (again) they will exclude people who we think ought not be excluded. For instance, we don't really think that it would be permissible to disregard the well-being of someone who has much lower intelligence than average, so we can't possibly think that intelligence is a suitable criterion for moral consideration. Second, he argues that it is only by virtue of something being sentient that it can be said to have interests at all, so this places sentience in a different category than the other criteria: "The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in any meaningful way" (175).
In this essay, I seek to critically discuss whether resolutions provide a better explanation of the weakness of the will than the traditional/ Akrasia account or not. I will achieve this by briefly explaining what the traditional account is and also what the resolution account is. Furthermore, I will explain the advantages of Holton’s approach and also give reasons why Holton’s argument succeed which will be accompanied by a rebuttal. The Akrasia traditional approach merely states that a person is weak-willed if they act against their best judgement. If one judges A to be the best course of action, why would one do anything other than A?
The various forms present two major problems; the problem of justice, and the issue of having to predict the consequences of an action. One variant within utilitarianism is Hedonistic or Classic utilitarianism. Which looks at the view ‘what is good for an individual is what tends to promote happiness or pleasure to the individual’. This holds that the only intrinsic good is pleasure, and that the only intrinsic bad is pain. Everything else is good only insofar as it creates pleasure, and bad only insofar as it creates pain.
Secondly, I believe that prosocial behaviour can be both selfish and selfless, completely depending on the person who is doing the act. Are there internal or external rewards for the act? Or is the act truly altruistic? Altruism is defined as “the unselfish regard for the welfare of others” (Myers, 9th Edition). You may wonder how this is important with regards to psychology.
He also includes its "fecundity" (will more of the same follow?) and its "purity" (its pleasure won't be followed by pain & vice versa). In considering actions that affect numbers of people, we must also account for its EXTENT. John Stuart Mill adjusted the more hedonistic tendencies in Bentham's philosophy by emphasizing (1) It is not the quantity of pleasure, but the quality of happiness that is central to utilitarianism, (2) the calculus is unreasonable -- qualities cannot be quantified (there is a distinction between 'higher' and 'lower' pleasures), and (3) utilitarianism refers to "the Greatest Happiness Principle" -- it seeks to promote the capability of achieving happiness (higher pleasures) for the most amount of people (this is its "extent"). Act and Rule Utilitarianism We can apply the principle of utility to either PARTICULAR ACTIONS or GENERAL RULES.
For utilitarian school of thought, an individual strives to do the most good, even at the expense of the minority. Utilitarianism and Kantianism find the basis of their differences in the idea that the ends justify the means. Utilitarian beliefs support this idea while Kantian philosophy rejects this. Modern ethics were devised from these two basic ethical beliefs in an attempt to combine the best aspects. Generally, the morally “right” action benefits the majority while affecting the fewest amount in a negative way.
Can you be a bad person yet do good all the time? I believe that that the assumption that a person ‘can be bad yet do good all the time’ is relative to the time and culture of an individual. I do acknowledge however that a person may argue that it is in fact possible to be bad yet do good as morality is based off perspective. Similarly I recognise that one may disagree and say that it is not possible to be a bad person that does good all the time as well. Firstly one may argue that the above statement is possible via the argument of self-deception.