According to act utilitarianism, if it produces more net utility (or "happiness") to give money to famine relief, even though i had promised to payback a friend with that money, then i ought to give the money to the relief fund. true or false?

True

Explanation:

The philosophy of utilitarianism suggests that utility or happiness can be simply achieved by doing good. In simple words, the more good is done for the sake of good rather than the sake of pleasure, the more the happiness. Utilitarianism suggests that there is more to morality then following rules and therefore, in this scenario, giving money to the famine relief might not bring any personal gain or pleasure to the individual but will be an act of kindness or good. Hence, according to act utilitarianism, giving money to the famine relief will produce more utility or happiness than fulfilling a promise.

i am confused, what is the question? i can you out if you put it into more depth.

answer; no longer than a reasonable period of time;