Question 1

Mill maintains that the business of ethics is to

Accepted Answer

Mill believed that the primary task of ethics is to determine what our duties are, which includes identifying morally right actions and rules that individuals should follow. He did not focus on determining the worth of agents or identifying good motives as the main focus of ethical inquiry.

Question 2

Mill maintains that, in the long run, the best proof of a good character is

Accepted Answer

Mill argues that true character is demonstrated by consistently performing good actions, rather than simply being popular or appearing self-confident. Personal happiness is a result of good character, but it is not necessarily a proof of it.

Question 3

Mill argues that, according to the utilitarian doctrine, lying is

Accepted Answer

Mill believed that lying was usually morally impermissible according to utilitarianism. He argued that lying causes harm to others by deceiving them and violating their trust, and it can also undermine the social trust that is necessary for a well-functioning society. However, he also acknowledged that there could be cases where lying might be morally permissible or even required for the greater good. Ultimately, Mill's position is that lying should be avoided whenever possible, but there may be exceptions in extreme circumstances.

Question 4

According to Mill, what is the function of secondary moral principles?

Accepted Answer

Mill argues that secondary moral principles serve as intermediate generalizations that guide moral decision-making. These principles are not exceptionless rules of conduct, and they do not determine one's virtue or vice.

Question 5

Mill claims that secondary moral principles

Accepted Answer

Mill argues that secondary moral principles are not absolute and can sometimes conflict with one another. Therefore, option A is incorrect. He does not claim that these principles are only useful to the feeble-minded, so option C is also incorrect.

Question 6

According to Mill, when should the first principles of morality be appealed to in decision-making?

Accepted Answer

According to Mill, secondary principles of morality are derived from the first principles, and when these secondary principles conflict, the first principles should be appealed to in decision-making. Therefore, choice C is the best answer. Choice A is too broad as there may be situations where the first principles are not applicable. Choice B is incorrect as the first principles should always be considered at some point in decision-making. Similarly, choice D is incorrect as happiness is a crucial aspect of Mill's ethical theory and is one of the first principles.

Question 7

Explain the Greatest Happiness Principle. Then, come up with what you take to be the most compelling counterexample to it. Ultimately, does your example show that the Greatest Happiness Principle is false? Explain and defend your response.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Explain the Greatest Happiness Principle. Then, come...

Question 8

Mill insists that we should be impartial between our own happiness and the happiness of others. Come up with a case in which partiality seems justified. How do you think Mill would respond to your case? Do you agree with his response? Why or why not?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Mill insists that we should be impartial...

Question 9

Explain the objection to utilitarianism that it is too much to demand that people always be motivated by the greatest good. How does Mill respond to this objection? Do you find his response satisfying? Why or why not?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Explain the objection to utilitarianism that it...

Question 10

Case Study
Imagine a small town in which there has recently been a rash of murders that all bear the marks of the same culprit. The police investigation has gone nowhere and the town's sense of order is starting to break down. Residents are demanding that the sheriff find a culprit and threatening to exact vigilante justice on perceived criminals until a culprit is found. Given that the real murderer is unknown, the sheriff sees that she can only prevent chaos and bloodshed by framing someone who likely is not the murderer.
The sheriff has someone in mind who could be easily framed-a local man, Jim, who has been in and out of jail for other violent crimes like assault and robbery. He has no family and no one in town would protest if he were to be locked up. Moreover, he is a believable culprit and so would be easy to frame. The sheriff is fairly sure that he is not actually the murderer, so she would likely be framing someone who, while not innocent overall, is innocent of these particular crimes. But she is not sure what else she can do to keep the peace.
-Should the sheriff frame Jim? Why or why not? What does this tell us about utilitarianism, and consequentialism more generally?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Case Study
Imagine a small town in which...

Question 11

Case Study
Imagine a small town in which there has recently been a rash of murders that all bear the marks of the same culprit. The police investigation has gone nowhere and the town's sense of order is starting to break down. Residents are demanding that the sheriff find a culprit and threatening to exact vigilante justice on perceived criminals until a culprit is found. Given that the real murderer is unknown, the sheriff sees that she can only prevent chaos and bloodshed by framing someone who likely is not the murderer.
The sheriff has someone in mind who could be easily framed-a local man, Jim, who has been in and out of jail for other violent crimes like assault and robbery. He has no family and no one in town would protest if he were to be locked up. Moreover, he is a believable culprit and so would be easy to frame. The sheriff is fairly sure that he is not actually the murderer, so she would likely be framing someone who, while not innocent overall, is innocent of these particular crimes. But she is not sure what else she can do to keep the peace.
-Does utilitarianism tell us that the sheriff is morally required to frame Jim? If so, is this a problem for utilitarianism? If not, how would the utilitarian explain this verdict?

Accepted Answer