+1 (845) 317-8489 [email protected]

Be thorough, logical, fair, clear, reflective and civil.

Be thorough, logical, fair, clear, reflective and civil. 1) As Sober explains, the main objection to utilitarianism is this: the principle of utility conflicts with justice and the principle of utility may even call on us to commit fundamental injustice. Sober focuses on this objection to utilitarianism by using the “case of the lonesome stranger” and the “problem of the fanatical majority.” Explain all this. JS Mill, a famous utilitarianism, responded to such criticisms with “rule utilitarianism.” Mill argued that utilitarianism could face and overcome justice objections if utilitarianism builds into itself a rights and rules component. Explain. However, Sober claims that utilitarianism STILL fails, even when it becomes “rule utilitarianism.”

Explain. Cite Sober as you move through each of these points. 2) Deontology holds that “reason is not purely instrumental”, that “moral rules are categorical imperatives”, that true moral principles are “universal and impersonal”; and, that the moral worth of an act derives from the inner states of the agent–derives from the “motive and the maxim” from which an agent acts. Explain why deontologists hold these views, and, explain why deontologists fundamentally reject utilitarianism. Cite Sober when you draw from each section. 3) Do you agree with Sober’s view that even the rule utilitarianism of the famous JS Mill cannot solve for the problems of the lonesome stranger and the tyranny of the majority?

Fully support your position with substantive reasons. 4) Do you agree with the deontologist’s view that objective moral principles exist, and that we can reveal them through using critical, reflective reasoning? That if we use right reasoning, we will correctly take up a “moral point of view” rooted in logic and universality, while rejecting irrational impulses and prejudices and inconsistencies in our reasoning, and that doing so would reveal an objective ethical code? Do you also agree that the moral worth of an action is derived from the motive and the maxim, and not from the pain-outputs or pleasure-outputs of an action? Fully support your position with substantive reasons