Jim has the responsibility of filling a position in his firm. His friend Paul has applied and is qualified, but someone else seems even more qualified. Jim wants to give the job to Paul, but he feels guilty, believing that he ought to be impartial. That's the essence of morality, he initially tells himself. This belief is, however, rejected, as Jim resolves that friendship has a moral importance that permits, and perhaps even requires, partiality in some circumstances. So he gives the job to Paul. Was he right according to Utilitarianism? quizzez

According to Utilitarianism, he was right.

Explanation:

Utilitarianism defends the principle that our actions should aim to maximize the happiness of all who are involved in the situation. Having that in mind, let's analyze the case we have here.

Jim could very well give the job to the other applicant, who seems to be more qualified. He would tell himself he was being impartial and, for that reason, that he was doing the right thing. However, his friend Paul would probably feel betrayed. Seeing Paul unhappy is very likely to make Jim unhappy as well. Thus, out of the three people involved, two would be sad with this decision.

On the other hand, if Jim were to give Paul the job, perhaps the other applicant would be sad. Still, Paul would certainly feel happy and grateful for his friend's loyalty. Seeing Paul happy would most likely make Jim happy as well. He is not acquainted with the other applicant, but Paul is a part of his life, so his feelings have more of an impact over Jim. In this situation, out of the three people involved, two would be happy. Thus, we can conclude choosing Paul is the right decision for Jim to make.

anyone me i need

the awnser is that is tru your

lol bye