Test Two Study Questions (First Draft) 1. What is the “swine-objection” against Utilitarianism?

How does this objection arise against Utilitarianism? What are Mill’s three responses to this objection? What additional objections (that we discussed) might be still put to Mill even after his three responses are considered? 2. What is the “Slavery Objection” and how does it come to be leveled against Utilitarianism? What possible ways does Hare think that Utilitarians can reasonably defend themselves against this objection? Which of these responses does Hare choose as his own line of defense, and what are his reasons for choosing it? After reading Hare's defense, we saw that John Rawls still has a serious concern about Utilitarianism that he thinks the slave objection illustrates. What is that concern? Does Hare's defense of Utilitarianism address this concern? 3. Part 1: Kant claims that there is only one unqualifiedly good thing, viz. the good will. What does he mean by “unqualifiedly good”? How does he argue to eliminate other competing goods as potential candidates for being ‘unqualifiedly good’? Part 2: After arguing for the above claim, Kant goes on to present his “function argument” to establish the claim that “Reason’s (i.e. practical reason) proper function must be to produce a good will.” Carefully present and discuss the function argument. Note: This means to give the argument and discuss its claims.) 4. In an attempt to distinguish what types of action have “real moral worth” Kant discusses “four types of action.” Discuss Kant’s “four types of action” and explain how he uses them to argue for the claim that, “If an action is to have real moral worth, it must be done from duty.” (Do not forget to include a discussion of how he appeals to the biblical command to “love one’s neighbor” to illustrate his point.) 5. Part 1: Kant distinguishes between hypothetical and categorical imperatives. Explain this distinction and why Kant claims that moral obligation must be based upon a categorical imperative. Part 2: Kant gives us the “Universal Law Formulation of the Categorical Imperative” (FUL) and tells us that its application demonstrates that choosing to make lying promises and choosing not to be benevolent (e.g. giving to the needy) results in a contradiction. Explain what FUL is, and how its application shows that choosing to make lying promises and choosing not to be benevolent leads to a contradiction. 6. Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative is his “Formula of Humanity” (FH). He uses this formulation of the categorical imperative to answer the question of what is wrong with choosing to lie to others, as well as what is wrong with refusing to help others. What is FH and how will its proper application reveal what is wrong in the aforementioned cases?