GROUP 3

1.) The first formulation of the categorical imperative, the "Universal Law," and the
Golden Rule may appear similar, but they differ in their underlying principles.
The Universal Law formulation of the categorical imperative states that we must
act in accordance with maxims that can be willed to become universal laws. In other
words, before acting, we must ask ourselves whether we would be willing to have
everyone else in a similar situation act in the same way, regardless of personal
preferences or interests. This formulation emphasizes the importance of
consistency and impartiality in our actions.
On the other hand, the Golden Rule instructs us to treat others the way we would
like to be treated. While this rule can encourage empathy and kindness towards
others, it relies heavily on personal preferences and subjective interpretations of
what is "good" or "right." It does not provide a clear framework for determining
whether a particular action is morally permissible or not, as it may differ depending
on individual preferences and cultural norms.
In summary, while both the Universal Law formulation and the Golden Rule
emphasize the importance of treating others well, the Universal Law formulation
places greater emphasis on consistency, impartiality, and a clear framework for
determining moral principles.

2. The second formulation of the categorical imperative, also known as the

"Means/Ends Principle," is focused on the idea that people should be treated as
ends in themselves, rather than merely as a means to an end. This means that we
should not use people as tools to achieve our own goals or objectives, but rather
we should respect their inherent dignity and value as human beings.
To treat someone as an "end" means to recognize their inherent worth and to
respect their autonomy and agency. It involves acknowledging that they have their
own goals, desires, and interests that are worthy of consideration and that they
should be treated with the same respect and consideration that we would want for
ourselves.
On the other hand, to treat someone as a "means" means to use them as a tool or
instrument to achieve our own objectives, without regard for their own desires,
interests, or well-being. This is different from treating someone as a "mere means,"
which involves using them in a way that violates their autonomy, dignity, or
humanity.
For example, suppose that a person needs to borrow some money and approaches
their friend for help. If the friend agrees to lend them the money but only on the
condition that they work for free for a month, then the friend is treating them as a
means to their own end (getting free labor) rather than as an end in themselves.
However, if the friend lends them the money without any such condition,
recognizing their inherent worth and autonomy, then they are treating them as an
end.
Another example is the case of a physician who performs medical procedures on
patients without their informed consent or against their will. In such a case, the
physician is treating the patient as a mere means, as they are not respecting their
autonomy and dignity as a human being. However, if the physician informs the
patient of the risks and benefits of the procedure and obtains their informed
consent, then they are treating them as an end in themselves, by respecting their
autonomy and agency.
Overall, the Means/Ends Principle highlights the importance of treating people
with respect and dignity, acknowledging their autonomy and inherent value as
human beings.

GROUP 4 UTILITARIANISM
4-5 The moral code "seek pleasure and avoid pain" is often associated with the
ethical theory of hedonism, which holds that pleasure and pain are the ultimate
determinants of what is good and bad, right and wrong. According to this view, the
moral goal of life is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.
However, there are several criticisms of this moral code. One criticism is that it fails
to account for the complexity of human experience, and the fact that there may be
situations where pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain can lead to negative
consequences for oneself or others. For example, seeking pleasure at the expense
of others' well-being or engaging in addictive behaviors that may lead to harm in
the long-term.
Furthermore, this moral code may be seen as overly individualistic and selfish, as it
emphasizes personal pleasure over the well-being of others. It does not provide
any guidance on how to balance personal pleasure with responsibilities to others
or the larger community.
In summary, while seeking pleasure and avoiding pain can be important
considerations in moral decision-making, it is not a comprehensive or universally
accepted moral code. Other moral codes, such as the principle of treating others
with respect and compassion, may be more widely accepted and provide a more
balanced approach to ethical decision-making.

6-10
Suppose there is a small village that is facing a severe water shortage. The only
source of water for the village is a nearby river, but the river has become
contaminated and is making people sick. The village has a limited budget, and the
cost of purifying the water is too high for them to afford. As a result, many people
in the village are suffering from illnesses and even dying.
In this scenario, a utilitarian approach would suggest that the village leaders should
prioritize the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This means that
they should weigh the costs and benefits of various solutions and choose the one
that maximizes overall well-being for the community.
One potential solution could be to appeal to a neighboring town or city for
assistance in purifying the water. This may involve some cost to the neighboring
community, but it would greatly benefit the people of the village by providing them
with clean water and reducing illnesses and deaths. Another potential solution
could be to launch a fundraising campaign to raise the necessary funds for water
purification equipment, or to seek government aid.
By taking a utilitarian approach, the village leaders would prioritize the well-being
of the entire community over individual interests or preferences. They would seek
to maximize overall happiness and minimize suffering, even if it requires some
sacrifice or cost. This approach aligns with the utilitarian principle that actions
should be evaluated based on their consequences, and that the best action is the
one that results in the greatest overall happiness for the greatest number of
people.