[meteor_slideshow slideshow=”arp1″]
1. What is utilitarianism? Suppose a man named Joe is dying of AIDS. He requests that his doctor prescribe him a lethal dose of medication in order to end his life now, before the worst suffering from AIDS begins. His family objects to this. How would Mill advise the doctor? What sort of questions would he ask? What facts would be relevant to evaluating the case and why would they be relevant?
2. In chapter 2 of Utilitarianism Mill notes that the utilitarian claims that “pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends” has been criticized on the ground that there are “better and nobler” objects “of desire and pursuit” or in other words “higher ends” than pleasure. State the main counterarguments that Mill develops against this criticism. Which side gets the better of this dispute, in your view? What reasons support your answer?
3. “Happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end.” (Mill, Utilitarianism, IV.2) “Verbally there is very general agreement; for both the general run of men and the people of superior refinement say that it [“the highest of all goods achievable by action”] is happiness, and identify living well and faring well with being happy.” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics I.4) Taking off from these passages, compare and contrast Mill and Aristotle on the good. Give special consideration to: the relation between virtue and the good, the relation between pleasure and happiness, and how Mill and Aristotle can hold there to be a single most final good while, apparently, holding that there are a variety of intrinsic goods. Say some thing about the respective methods that Mill and Aristotle follow in arriving at their ideas.
4. Suppose that you are the prosecuting attorney charged with deciding whether or not to press charges against a person who has been arrested on suspicion of committing a terrorist crime. You happen to know the suspect is innocent, but you also know you can rig the evidence and by violating the rules of criminal procedure you can bring about the conviction of this man for a crime he did not commit. You have excellent reasons to believe that securing this unjust conviction of an innocent person will deter other would-be terrorists and thus prevent many serious crimes that otherwise would occur. In other words, you know that by committing an injustice you can bring about more rights fulfillment overall and thus that committing this injustice maximizes human happiness in the long run. (Don’t worry about how you know this; just accept the assumption that you know it.) Suppose that the prosecuting attorney looks to chapter 5 of Mill’s Utilitarianism for guidance. Present some serious considerations, adduced by Mill in that chapter, in favor of the position that one should do what utilitarianism recommends when utility conflicts with justice, as in this sort of case.
5. Plasma International had a problem. Headquartered in Tampa Florida, it had profited from the world’s need for whole blood and plasma by buying blood in the southeastern United States and selling it at a reasonable price. Most of its donors, however, were people who used the money to by wine. When several cases of hepatitis were reported in the users of Plasma International’s blood, the company began looking for a new source. Using a team of medical consultants, Plasma International found the ideal donors in the West African nation of Burami. The company negotiates agreements with several tribal chieftains and was able to buy blood for beads and trinkets. The cost of buying the blood amounted to about 15 cents a pint, but the same pint was sold for about $25. When the story of Plasma International became public, it provoked a storm of criticism. How can Plasma International justify exploiting the ignorant tribes people? How can it buy blood so cheap and then sell it to people who are sick or injured and must have the blood at any price? Sol Levin, a former stockbroker in Tampa and one of the founders of the company, failed to see what was wrong, and we might imagine his argument. He was providing a needed service: supplying uncontaminated plasma and whole blood at market prices. He was giving the African tribes people what they wanted for their blood. Otherwise, they would not have had the opportunity to exchange their blood for anything. Furthermore, there was no indication that substandard procedures were used to collect the blood or that the tribes’ people were harmed medically by the donation. Finally, the blood recipients were paying reasonable prices by market standards. Justify your answer using the philosophical theories of Mill. Would you agree or disagree with Mill? Why or why not?
[meteor_slideshow slideshow=”arp2″]
A-Research-Paper.com is committed to deliver a custom paper/essay which is 100% original and deliver it within the deadline. Place your custom order with us and experience the different; You are guaranteed; value for your money and a premium paper which meets your expectations, 24/7 customer support and communication with your writer. Order Now
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]