1. Does the fallibility of the system—the fact that “minority reports” suggest that some few of those treated as murderers had a “possible alternative future” in which they would not actually have committed the crime— make that system morally unjustifiable according to Act Utilitarianism?
According to Act Utilitarianism, the act that makes the greatest happiness to the group will be morally permissible. In fact, a person who is criminal will be judged by his ability to hurt other or committing a crime. The consequence of arresting the potential murderer will help to maximize victim and their family’s utility. Otherwise, if we choosing to refraining from arresting, murderer will be happy; and the victims …show more content…
4. Would a society’s proposal to use the precrime system pass Kant’s Categorical Imperative Procedure’s “contradiction in conception” test? Would it pass the “contradiction in the will” test? Explain carefully.
Kant has identified the Perturbed Social World where all citizens will follow rules and regulations. If everyone follow the precrime system and all will live securely and peacefully, then this system has passed the “contradiction in conception” test. There are no effects on their lives and everyone is protected. In fact, there is fallibility in the precrime system where people are detained for accusing of murder, which makes it failed the “contradiction in the will” test. According to Kant, it is not morally justified for us to live in the society where we don’t get to choose the right to act and would be accused for a murder that does not happen. There will be 2 contract behaviors occur. One is people is fear of being detained; the second is no fear of being punished for the immoral actions.
5. From an Act Utilitarian perspective, do the benefits of the precrime system (reduction in murders, increased feelings of personal safety) outweigh the burdens