PHIL 27 PAPER 
Act-Utilitarianism V.S. Deontology: Jimmy’s Fund Ethics can be seen as an understanding of the nature of dilemmas that arise from imperatives human beings hold as moral agents. It serves as a guide to how best we may deal with conflicts in regard to duties and obligations or with potential outcome. The ethical theory of act-utilitarianism places the locus of right and wrong solely on the consequence of choosing one path of action over another as it weighs a ratio of benefit to harm. Thus, the moral act would be the one that brings about the most positive result. On the other hand, the theory of deontology focuses on an autonomous adherence to moral obligations and duties; defining the right act as one that lives up to moral standard, regardless of the nature of outcome. Now, consider the case of Sidney Farber’s creation of Jimmy’s Fund, a children’s cancer research fund. This situation deals with public deception as Farber changed the name of his charity’s face from Einar Gustafson to Jimmy and neglected to use his last name. Despite this fact however, the charity managed to raise more than $231,000 and set the foundation for future research funding campaigns (Mukherjee 99). When viewed through a utilitarian standpoint, the public’s deception is disregarded as the end benefit outweighs the harm. This act, however, is not justified through deontology due to the fact that the standard of lying as wrong was violated, thus the ends of the action do not justify the means. The act-utilitarianism account is superior because, unlike deontology, it provides within itself an empirical solution to ethical dilemma as long as there is an equal consideration of all interest in the balance of potential benefit and harm. In mere consideration of the outcomes, act-utilitarianism moves beyond the scope of our own interests, and takes into account the interests of others, in this case the public. According to philosopher John Stuart Mill, the intentions of an action are to be