Under act-utilitarianism, is a kickback scheme considered acceptable?

Under act-utilitarianism, the acceptability of actions, including a kickback scheme, is evaluated based on the consequences those actions produce. Act-utilitarianism posits that the morally right action is the one that results in the greatest overall happiness or utility for the greatest number of people.

If one were to argue in favor of the kickback scheme as acceptable, it might be based on a consideration of the outcomes it generates. For instance, if the kickback scheme provides substantial benefits to a significant number of people—such as improved services, lower prices, or increased employment—it could be justified under act-utilitarianism, as it aligns with the principle of maximizing happiness or utility.

This justification, however, is highly contextual. One must consider the specific circumstances surrounding the kickback scheme, including who benefits, who is harmed, and the overall net impact on societal well-being. Therefore, proponents of the argument might contend that in certain situations where the scheme leads to a greater good or a higher aggregate happiness, it can be considered acceptable.

In this consideration, it is essential to note that many would view kickback schemes as unethical due to their potential for corruption, exploitation, and unfair practices, which could ultimately lead to more harm than good in the