ost a 200 – 250 word response to the following questions:
A) J. S. Mill claims that what makes our action right or wrong is the amount of pleasure and pain our action brings about. If we do what generates the most pleasure sum-total we do what is right. Assuming we accept that all that matters for our happiness is the amount of pleasure we have, why does Mill state that unsatisfied Socrates (in terms of pleasures) is still better off than a satisfied fool? [100 words]
B) Kant claims that protecting your own life is a duty-toward-oneself (moral obligation) each of us has. But Kant seems to think that when you run away from a danger out of your inborn instinct to protect your life, you do not act out of duty to protect your life (you act out of instinct). Therefore, protecting your life out of instinct does not have any moral content.
Why would Kant think that protecting your life out of instinct does not count as a fulfillment of your moral obligation to protect your life (what is the difference between acting out of duty and acting out of instinct)? [150 words]
Reply to the bellow students point by addressing a point, problem or offering an alternate perspective. Your reply should be 100 – 150 words in length.
What Does It All Mean, Thomas Nagel, 87, Oxford Publishing
Voices of Wisdom, 8th edition, Kessler, Wadsworth Publishing.
Pages for wuestion below
Kessler: R. Blatchford, â€œNot Guilty,â€ pp. 495-499
Nagel, â€œRight and Wrong,â€ pp.59-75
Kessler: J. S. Mill, â€œWhat Utilitarianism Is,â€ pp. 116-122
Kessler: I. Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, pp.109-114&Î½Î²ÏƒÏ€; &Î½Î²ÏƒÏ€; &Î½Î²ÏƒÏ€; &Î½Î²ÏƒÏ€;
NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
The post phil101 discussion question 3 appeared first on The Nursing Hub.