Option #3: For this option you must show that you have understood the concept or image of moral sainthood as described by Wolf (pp. 462-81), and the basic principles of Mills utilitarianism (pp. 225-42) or Kants deontological ethics (pp. 191-203 & 217-24).
First: Identify and describe Wolfs two conceptions of moral sainthood. Specifically, what kind of ideals does each represent? Second: Does she think either of these images correspond to the ideals of Kants deontology or Mills utilitarianism (choose only one, not both). Why or why not? [Please note: She considers various angles here, so read thoroughly and carefully, and be very specific.] Third: Do you agree with her analysis and conclusions regarding Kant or Mill? Why or why not? [To support your position, 1-2 citations (no more, no less) from either Kant or Mill is required here.]

Respond to each part of the question (yes, all three), providing a thesis statement or identifying your main idea in a brief (3-5 short simple sentences) opening paragraph. Other than this, there should be no unnecessary, fluffy or flowery introductory informationjust get right to the point.
Your complete essay should be 4-5 paragraphsno more, no less. This includes a brief opening/thesis paragraph to be followed by a single-paragraph response to each of the three parts or a 2-paragraph response to the first part and a single paragraph for the second and third parts. Be sure to maintain focus and organization by responding directly to each part in the order in which the question is written.
Show that your response is reading-based by providing citationsnamely, page and/or paragraph numbers. Because every option requires a compare/contrast response between two philosophers, you must have at least two page/para citations for each philosopher or from each reading for a total of no less than four citations but no more than six overall.
Make sure that you use simple in-text citationsusing only the authors name, page and paragraph numbers in parentheses placed at the end of the sentence where they are most relevant or best correspond to what you are saying. For example: (Camus, p. 670, para 2).
Do not quote, not even a little bit. If you are tempted to do so, stop! Think about how you might explain or describe that particular passage, claim or concept strictly in your own words. If you get stuck, reach out to me via phone or email.
Do not rely on or use any outside or unassigned sourcesnot only does this run the risk of plagiarizing, it is likely to cause greater confusion for you.