1. Are there areas of our lives where we use utilitarian thinking?

Where in your life are

you most concerned with doing what is right not just for yourself but for others? Why
have you placed the needs of others before your own in those instances?

Yes. Utilitarianism, as far as I know, is a philosophical position or theory regarding how we

should evaluate a wide range of subjects that involve individuals making decisions. Actions,
laws, regulations, personal qualities, and moral standards are all things that may be assessed. In
general, we should select the option that will give the best overall results, regardless of what is
being reviewed. We should select the alternative that "maximizes utility," i.e., the action or
policy that creates the greatest amount of good, in utilitarian terms. Utilitarian thinking may be
used to a variety of situations. It may be used to moral reasoning as well as any other logical
decision-making. It may be used in a variety of circumstances, as well as for discussions
concerning the interests of various individuals and organizations.

According to my personal experience, I used utilitarian thinking when my nephew celebrated

his 7th birthday and I was in charge of purchasing his cake. Most of our family members favor
the chocolate flavor, but the only problem is that I cannot eat chocolates. In this scenario, as a
utilitarian, I should select the flavor that will provide the maximum pleasure to the entire group.
If the majority of my family members enjoy chocolate and I am the only one who does not, I
should select chocolate. This will result in "the greatest happiness for the greatest number," as
Bentham famously put it.
In this scenario, it is important that I pick chocolate even if I am unable to consume it.
According to the utilitarian technique, you must weigh everyone's interests equally. Some
people's interests, including your own, should not be prioritized above others.

2. How might the utilitarian support or oppose the death penalty? 10 points

It may appear intuitive that a utilitarian would reject the death penalty since it would cause
the perpetrator great anguish. However, this suffering is reasonable if the benefits outweigh the
disadvantages. Because it functions as a deterrence to future criminals, capital punishment can
help lower crime rates. When offenders are sentenced to death, they are unable to conduct more
crimes, which promotes society's safety. The relatives of the victims would also be comforted,
and the execution of the offender would provide closure. Lastly, if capital punishment was the
most beneficial means to make society a happy place for the majority, a utilitarian would support
it.
In addition, Supporters of death punishment argue that it is a particularly effective deterrence
for potentially violent offenders for whom the possibility of imprisonment is insufficient.
Opponents, on the other hand, point to evidence that shows the death penalty is not a more
effective deterrence than the alternatives of life in prison or long-term incarceration.
 3. Sexual Morality & Ethical Theories. 10 points
Suppose that two gay men or two lesbian women wanted to get married,
A. What kind of argument could a Utilitarian give on the subject?
B. What kind of argument could a believer in Divine Command give?

Marriage is, in essence, a cultural universal. However, how different cultures see marriage
depends on a variety of elements such as recognized conventions and mores, sex roles, gender
roles, human rights interpretation, religion, procreation and lineage continuation, and so on. As a
result, there are several forms of marriages. Marriage, on the other hand, is primarily an
institution that recognizes interpersonal interactions, most commonly sexual ones. It shows a
socially and legally acknowledged marriage of two persons - one, the husband, and the other, the
wife: assuming male and woman.
Same-sex marriage is a worldwide phenomenon that has sparked moral, theological, and
legal concerns. Its moral standing and rationale have been a source of heated dispute. Same-sex
marriage opponents argue that it is immoral and unnatural, while advocates argue that it is not
immoral in the sense that it is protected by human rights doctrine.

A. What kind of argument could a Utilitarian give on the subject?

Such a relationship would not be regarded useful from the standpoint of utilitarianism.
Despite the fact that maximizing of advantages and avoidance of unpleasant experiences may be
unquestionable in such a circumstance, it is clear that a gay and lesbian couple is unable to have
children, rendering their marriage pointless. Such a family, on the other hand, may adopt
children and thereby alleviate their pain.

B. What kind of argument could a believer in Divine Command give?

A Divine Command believer would find such a union undesirable since it lacks the
mystery of delivery and defies God's Commandments. A gay and lesbian partnership is likewise
not justified from the standpoint of Kantianism since it does not generate any moral worth and is
unrelated to the deontological idea of internal obligation.