Posted: September 10th, 2021

Philosophy 108 Exam 1, Answer both questions in Part 1, and two out of three questions in Part 2, for a total of 4 questions answered

Philosophy 108
Exam 1
Fall 2018: 2024 – Write My Essay For Me | Essay Writing Service For Your Papers Online
Due date: Sunday, 9/30/18, by 11:59 pm.
Answer both questions in Part 1, and two out of three questions in Part 2, for a total of 4
questions answered. Answers are weighted equally. The answers must be completely in your own
words. You show that you understand the material when you are able to discuss it in your own
words are able to analyze it thoughtfully and correctly. While there is no definite minimum or
maximum answer length, the target answer length that you should aim for is approximately 2
double-spaced pages per answer.
Part 1: Answer both of the following two questions:
1. Identify and explain Jeremy Bentham’s principle of utility. What is Bentham’s basis for
claiming that his principle of utility is the correct principle for determining the morality of an
action? Why is Bentham’s theory an example of consequentialism? What is the difference
between Bentham’s emphasis on the quantity of pleasure when judging actions and John Stuart
Mill’s emphasis on the quality of pleasure when judging actions? Which view, Bentham’s or
Mill’s, seems more correct to you, and why? Identify and explain what seem to you to be the two
strongest objections to Bentham’s utilitarianism. In your view, are the objections strong enough
to invalidate Bentham’s theory altogether? Explain why or why not with a well-developed, wellreasoned
analysis. Make sure all aspects of this answer are thorough and detailed.
2. Explain what Immanuel Kant means by the claim that acting for the sake of duty is the only
way that an action can have moral worth. What is the difference between acting for the sake of
duty and acting in accordance with duty? Why does Kant think that acting in accordance with
duty is not enough for an action to have moral worth? According to Kant, acting for the sake of
duty compels to follow the moral law, which he calls the “categorical imperative.” What is the
difference between a categorical imperative and a hypothetical imperative? Explain Kant’s first
two formulations of the categorical imperative. How does the categorical imperative prohibit
suicide? Identify and explain what seem to you to be the two strongest objections to Kant’s
theory. In your view, are the objections strong enough to invalidate Kant’s theory altogether?
Explain why or why not with a well-developed, well-reasoned analysis. Make sure all aspects of
this answer are thorough and detailed.
Part 2: Answer two of the following three questions:
3. Explain the Libertarian view of individual freedom. Explain what policies of Paternalism,
Morals Legislation, and Redistribution of Income or Wealth are, and explain how the Libertarian
view of individual freedom leads to a rejection of each of these types of policy. What is the
Libertarian line of reasoning that equates taxation with slavery? In your view, what is the biggest
weakness of Libertarianism? Does this weakness invalidate the theory altogether? Explain why
or why not with a well-developed, well-reasoned analysis. Make sure all aspects of this answer
are thorough and detailed.
4. Explain the key details of the contract between William Stern and Mary Beth Whitehead in the
Baby M case. Why did Whitehead break the contract? What two objections to the contract does
Michael Sandel identify? How did Judge Harvey Sorkow, the trial judge in the case, respond to
these objections, and what was his ruling in the case? What was the analysis of the New Jersey
Supreme Court concerning the validity of the contract? How would a Libertarian analyze the
validity of the contract? In your view, should the contract have been upheld or not? Explain why
or why not with a well-developed, well-reasoned analysis. Make sure all aspects of this answer
are thorough and detailed.
5. Consider the following thought experiment:
“Suppose that a team of medical researchers has been experimenting with a new medication that
promises to cure all forms of cancer in humans. In order to make the medication safe and
effective, however, they must experiment with the drug on human beings. However, it is certain
that most of the humans who take the drug in its early experimental stage will be killed instantly,
and as a result the researchers cannot find any volunteers. So, the researchers make a deal with a
small number of cancer doctors, who agree to give the medication to a total of 100 patients while
lying to them about the purpose and safety of the medication. Most of these 100 patients will die
because of the experiment, but their deaths will certainly lead to a cure for a cancer. From a
moral perspective, should the researchers and doctors go ahead with their plan?”
Analyze this scenario from the perspective of Bentham’s moral theory. What conclusion would
be drawn from this perspective? Explain how Bentham’s theory leads to this conclusion. Next,
analyze this scenario from the perspective of Kant’s moral theory. What conclusion would be
drawn from this perspective? Explain how Kant’s theory leads to this conclusion. Which of these
perspectives do you think is the correct (or more correct) way to think about this situation, and
why? What is wrong with the perspective that you do not think is correct? Make sure all aspects
of this answer are thorough and detailed.

Order | Check Discount