Compare how we see persons under Kant’s theory with how we view them under utilitarianism.
May 17, 2021 Comments Off on Compare how we see persons under Kant’s theory with how we view them under utilitarianism. Uncategorized Assignment-help

‘ Moral philosophy . You must answer questions 6 and 8, then any other three for a total of five questions. It must be 2-3 pages PER question —————— 1. For Hume, “the willful murder is vicious” is just like “the lemon is sour” or “the Grand Canyon is beautiful.” Explain what I mean when I say this. Name two advantages to this approach to moral predicates. Make a serious criticism. 2. Utilitarianism holds that the right thing to do is to promote the greatest utility (or greatest happiness) for the greatest number. Rehearse the various considerations that lead the utilitarian to this conclusion. Name at least two strengths to the theory. 3. What is the “rights criticism” of utilitarianism? How is Rawls’ argument, his distinction between justifying a practice v. justifying a move within the practice AND the appeal to “publicity” something of a counter to this criticism? 4. Kant thinks all persons deserve respect. Why? Compare how we see persons under Kant’s theory with how we view them under utilitarianism. Name (and rehearse) an advantage of either one of these theories over the other. 5. What is the CI test? Why does Kant think that by obeying this test you are sure to act rightly? Take up and criticize either formulation of the CI test. 6. What is it to understand a thing functionally? Give an example or two. What follows about evaluation under a functionalist conception? (b) Aristotle applies a functionalist argument to persons. Exactly what is his argument, and how it is different from a standard functionalist conception? Say something in favor of this argument, or criticize it. 7. Describe the connection between virtue and wisdom. Virtue and feeling. Virtue and habit. Virtue and happiness. 8. Under the VI we imagine hypothetical parties ignorant of their race, gender, conception of the good, and talent, choosing the basic principles of society. Further, we also imagine them “risk averse” or judging alternatives by the “max-min.” What does this mean? What is the connection between the max-min, ignorance of talent, and the difference principle? How does this argument express a Kantian conception rather than a utilitarian one?