Final answer:
A utilitarian might support giving everyone an 'A' by focusing on the greatest happiness principle and considering both short-term relief and long-term consequences for students of all performance levels, including how it affects their motivation and the academic standard.
Step-by-step explanation:
A utilitarian might argue in support of option a, which is giving everyone an 'A' on the exam, by considering the greatest happiness principle. This principle suggests choosing the action that produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In the case of cancelling the exam, a utilitarian would weigh the happiness of the students, considering how those with 'A' grades may feel about this lack of differentiation for their efforts, as well as the relief and happiness of those with lower grades. The utilitarian would also consider the long-term consequences and whether this action would lead to an overall decline in academic performance due to the removal of incentives.
According to Act Utilitarianism, which focuses on the consequences of individual actions, the choice would be evaluated based on the specific situation and the amount of utility produced by giving everyone an 'A'. Rule Utilitarianism, on the other hand, involves following a rule that will maximize utility in the long run. This might involve considering the importance of keeping incentives in education to maintain a high academic standard over time.
Students with 'C' or 'F' grades before the change might feel relieved and happy, but their motivation to improve may be dampened, affecting their actions moving forward. The highest-performing students with 'A' grades might feel demotivated, as their hard work would not be specially recognized, which could lead to a decline in overall effort and performance. The utilitarian calculus in this situation is complex and would require a careful consideration of both immediate and long-term utility.