Topic 1: Kant on the lying promiseKant offers two different explanations for the immorality of lying promisesand suicidebased on the following formulations of the categorical imperative: (a) the formula of the universal law of nature and (b) the formula of humanity as an end in itself. Pick either the act of the lying promise or the act of suicide, and answer this question: Do you think Kant offers a good explanation for why a lying promise or suicide is immoral on the basis of(a) or (b)? (Pick (a) or (b), but not both.)Your paper should do the following four things:(Reconstruction)Explain how Kants deontological ethics focuses on acting from the motive of duty and not on consequences. Then, explain the meaning of either (a)the formula of the universal law of natureor (b)the formula of humanity as an end in itself. In doing this, you should connect (a) or (b) to Kants formulation of the categorical imperative.(Reconstruction)Briefly reconstruct/explain the case of the lying promise or suicide as Kant presents it. Support your reconstructionwith quotes from the text that you also explain in your own words.(Reconstruction)ReconstructKants explanation of the immorality of the lying promiseor suicideon the basis of (a) or (b). Support your reconstructionwith quotes from the text that you alsoexplain in your own words.(Analysis)Analyze Kants explanation of the immorality of the lying promise or suicide. This analysis should state whether you thinkKant offers a good or badexplanation of the immorality of the act, or if you think there are both good and bad elements to his response. You should offer two reasons (they can be related), fleshed out in two separate paragraphs, for your agreement or disagreement with Kants explanation. oFeel free to draw upon any of the authors weve read in this part, e.g., Mill.Topic 2: Mill on objections to utilitarianismIn chapter 2 of Utilitarianism, Mill responds to the following objections: (a) that utilitarianisms focus on pleasure is misguided because not only is pleasure something more suited for non-human animals than humans,but also because happiness is unobtainable. (The two areconnected: Mills answer to the worry about non-human animals might lead someone to think the type of pleasure he is interested in is unobtainable.). (b) That utilitarianism sets too high a standard for humanity because it asks us to act with the greatest happiness in mind, and, relatedly, that there isnot enoughtime to calculate and weigh the effects of any action in relation to the general happiness before taking that course of action.Do you think Mills responses to the objections against utilitarianism are effective?(Pick (a) or (b)but not all of them.) Your paper should do the following four things:(Reconstruction)Explain what it means for utilitarianism to focus on consequences,not motives/reasons for acting. Then, explain the main principle of utilitarianism, namely, the greatest happiness principle.
PHIL240: Introduction to Ethics | SecondEssay TopicsPaul Franco 4(Reconstruction)Reconstruct/explaineither the components of objection (a),orthe components ofobjection (b) as Mill presents the objection with quotes from the text that you also explain in your own words.(Reconstruction)Reconstruct/explain Mills response to either (a) or (b) with quotes from the text that you also explain in your own words.oIf you choose (a), you should explain Mills distinction between higher and lower pleasures, and whyand howhe thinks higher pleasures areobtainable.oIf you choose (b), you shouldexplain the distinction between subordinate rules of morality and the fundamental rule of morality, and how that helps in letting people contribute to the general happiness in ways that are not too difficult.(Analysis)Analyze Mills responseto the objection that you chose. This analysis should state whether you think Mills responseseffective or ineffective, or if you think his responseaddresses some things effectively and other things ineffectively. You should offertwo reasons (they can be related), fleshed out in two separate paragraphs, for your claim about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of Mills response. oFeel free to draw upon any of the authors weve read in this part, e.g., Kant.Topic 3: Comparing Kant and Mill on the binding force of moralityKant thinks that the binding force of moral rules is grounded in rationality. Specifically, he thinks that acting on maxims/reasons that cannot be universalized is rationally inconsistent. Mill thinks that the binding force of moral rules is grounded in natural, sympathetic social feelings that all humans have. Who do you think offers a better account of the binding force of morality: Kant, with his focus on rationality, or Mill, with his focus on feelings of attachment to other people? In answering this question, you should use a concrete example of some moral duty both Kant and Mill would agree upon, e.g., being honest, and think about how they would explain why we ought to be honest. Your paper should do the following three things (the first two things involve two steps):(Reconstruction)Explain how Kants deontological ethics focuses on acting from duty, and not on consequences. oNext,show why Kant thinks violating a moral rule like Be honest (you can choose another, if you want) involves acting irrationally. To do this, youll explain why, say, reasons for lying cannot be made universal (think of the four-step test here). Support your reconstruction with quotes from the text that you also explain in your own words.(Reconstruction)Explain what it means for utilitarianism to focus on consequences, not motives, and explain the main principle of utilitarianism, namely, the greatest happiness principle. oNext,show why Mill thinks violating a moral rule like Be honest (you can choose another) best produces happiness and involves going against our natural, sympathetic feelings. Support your reconstruction with quotesfrom the text that you also explain in your own words.(Analysis)Analyze the two viewsabout the binding force of morality. If you think Kant is better than Mill, give reasons for why you disagree with Mill, and why you prefer Kant. If you think Mill is better than Kant, give reasons for why you disagree with Kant, and why you prefer Mill. If you think the two views both have benefits and drawbacks, then explain your reasons