Questions on Hedonism, Utilitarianism, Norcross, Doctrine of Double Effect - Assignment Example

Philosophy Question Response The history of Hedonism revolves around two damaging and false assumptions: that hedonism advocates for bodily pleasures only, and that they are degrading as well as invariably sinful. In fact, some philosophers seem too convinced and appear to share this distrust rational hedonism and body regarding intellectual and spiritual joys as lasting and very much less likely to result to inconvenient and painful consequences. Mill responded to the claim that ethical hedonism is degrading to human beings by setting forth that everybody should live by the end that pleasure is the only thing that is ultimately good.

However, people should not seek pleasures on their own or for themselves. With reference to his response, it is agreeable that ethical egoism reconciles zeal for seeking pleasure with altruism. In addition, Mill shows that ethical hedonism is true by exclaiming that if utopians maximized their benefits of deferred gratification and live life according to nature, reasoning rightfully, then virtue will foster their physical health inevitably (Philip 48). Physical health is of paramount importance mainly because it is necessary for any other pleasure.

Question 2 Argument Mill argues that intellectual pleasures are superior to the sensual pleasures. According to his response, he argues so because with the manner in which he crucially claims, there are some pleasures that are more superior, qualitative, and quantitative than others. He asserts that intellectual pleasures are superior to sensual pleasures because of the fact that intellectual pleasures are mind related. Pleasures that relate to mind are more valuable and no ways in which one can counter balance them with any quantity of sensual pleasures in terms of value.

Thus, intellectual pleasures are higher pleasures, a factor that makes them vastly superior (Philip 79). On the other end, sensual pleasures are mere sensations of the body. Therefore, comparatively, intellectual pleasures and sensational pleasures are different in quality and in quantity as well. Mill goes farther to say that, whoever, whoever claims to prefer sensual pleasures in place of intellectual pleasures is less happy since it is better to be dissatisfied and happy than to have satisfaction yet you are a fool.

Question 3 Distinction between Act and Rule Utilitarianism The theory of good or value explains about valuable and good things, which include equality and pleasure. On the other hand, the theory of right action means to specify which things or actions are wrong and right. In other words, it provides rules that guide moral agents (Louis and James 55). Therefore, the difference between act and rule utilitarianism is that, whilst act utilitarianism specify good and valuable things, rule utilitarianism provides action meant to specify the right and wrong or rules of action that act as guidance for moral agents.

Rule utilitarianism is similar to the view of Kant in such a way that, Kant sets out a theory of moral principles that is fundamental to persons. Additionally, his view is values moral a person’s moral respect. In this case, value for moral respect is the rule that guides persons to do the right things. As such, rule utilitarianism is similar to the view of Kant since it also provides actions that promote good will. In case where information held by a terrorist might prove essential to saving lives of many, each theory will provide concrete grounds on why we it is important to torture a terrorist to give out information responsible for saving millions of lives.

For instance, act utilitarianism seeks to do the right thing while rule utilitarianism specifies the valuable channels of obtaining a right and beneficial result. Question 4 Norcross Referring to Norcross, utilitarianism commits us to stop eating meat produced by factory farming by arguing that purchasing and thereafter eating meat produced by factory farming is morally comparable to the act of torturing puppies at the expense of gustatory pleasure. Therefore, meat eaters who realize that might find it necessary to go ahead and become vegetarians.

Speciesism is a particular variant that incorporates the process of assigning rights, considerations, and values to different people solely under the basis of those peoples’ species membership. Mostly, animal advocates’ employs this term when arguing that membership of species lacks moral significance, is irrational and morally wrong to consider sentient beings as property or objects (Louis and James 71). Norcross responds to their claim that humans are superior beings as opposed to animals and that humans are more valuable with higher rationality hence have higher considerations than animals.

Question 5 Doctrine of Double Effect The doctrine that expounds on double effect explains that permissibility of an action whose result causes serious harm like the death of a man has a side effect that promotes some good end. Claims show that sometimes it is permissible to extract harm as a way of bringing some good end. The summation of double effect reasons that sometimes it becomes permissible to cause a merely foreseeable side effect of an event that would be otherwise impermissible to cause intentionally.

In terms of abortion, the doctrine of double effect asserts that it is lawful to abort with the intention of saving one’s life. This is because, according to the doctrine of double effect, and act may be justifiable provided it rest its characteristics on a justifiable defense (Louis and James 101). Question 6 Foot Foot has an alternative account in terms of positive and negative duties. He sets out that there are two principles that dominate the literature that explains about moral significance regarding duties.

On one end, the alternative account maintains that these principles have duties to cause no harm and duties that prevent harm. In his account, one principle maintains that, duties that cause no harm are stricter while those that prevent maintain that all duties are morally equivalent. This view handles the cases that doctrine of double effect was originally invoked to explain by settling that all duties are morally equivalent (Philip 112). Therefore, an action done aimed at resulting to greater good is dutiful and principled.

Question 7 Rawls The theory of justice is work by Rawls that explains ethics and political philosophy. It seeks to set forth a mechanism of solutions to problems related to distributive justice, which involves distribution of goods within a society (Philip 138). It utilizes a variant composed of familiar devices found in social contract whose resultant hypothesis is justice of fairness. It embodies elements of utilitarianism, deontology, social contract, theory, and egoism in a manner that bases its argument on principles of equality and liberty, aspects present in all of the mentioned elements.

Works Cited Louis, Pojman and James, Fieser. Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. New York: Cengage Learning, 2011. Print. Philip, Wheelwright. A Critical Introduction To Ethics. Montana: Kessinger Publishing, 2005. Print.