Length: A minimum of two (full) pages (double-spaced, normal margins, normal size font, etc.) per question.
You cannot answer these questions well in fewer pages than that—and may, indeed, require more.
Answer all of the following questions. Make sure that your answers are clear, thoughtful, and thorough—and
that you always explain and defend them.
[Please note: The questions that I ask in these prompts are very specific, and your answers must
address those questions. This is not an opportunity to write broadly or vaguely about these
authors or how you feel about their views. You must make sure that you carefully and
thoroughly discuss and debate the specific questions asked in each prompt.]
1. We don’t study relativism as a moral theory because it seems that relativism cannot work as a moral
theory. Yet utilitarianism (at least of the “act” variety) seems to make right and wrong relative to a
particular situation (so, e.g., lying might be wrong in one case, but right in another). How is
utilitarianism not just moral relativism in disguise? (Note:In answering, you’ll need to think this through carefully, and make sure to explain what relativism says and how utilitarianism works.) [30pts.]
2. According to Mill, almost no human being would be willing to give up his or her capacity for thought in
order to secure even a lifetime of simple physical pleasures. Intellectual pleasures are so much better
than simple physical pleasures, he thinks, that we would never voluntarily surrender the capacity for the
intellectual pleasures. Is Mill right about this? Argue carefully for your position, making sure to take
the role of “competent judges” into account. [35pts.]
3. Singer is a utilitarian, yet Mill, one of the founders of utilitarianism, once wrote, “The great majority of
good actions are intended not for the benefit of the world, but for that of individuals … and the thoughts
of the most virtuous man need not on these occasions travel beyond the particular persons concerned …;
private utility, the interest or happiness of some few persons, is all he has to attend to” (p.371). Given
this, do you think that Singer, in his essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” has taken utilitarianism
too far? (Note that this question is primarily about Singer’s view, and the extent to which you believe
other utilitarians must agree with him—the quote from Mill is merely providing context.) [35pts.]
Do You Know That our Professional Writers are on Stand-by to Provide you with the Most Authentic Custom Paper. Order with us Today and Enjoy an Irresistible Discount!