Page 262 #1, 2, 3, 6

Page 303 #1, 2, 3

1) Hedonistic calculus is determining course of action through calculating how much pain or
pleasure will be delivered through it. An example of its usage could be in the situation of
stealing something. Will having the item outweigh the possibility of being caught/ the
consequences of being caught? Its advantageous in that it applies mathematical
reasoning to a moral dilemma, and its easy to use so long as you can add and subtract. A
problem with this method is that all the numbers created and their weightings are
completely subjective to whatever you assign. It also creates the need for a lot of
variables to have assigned numbers.
2) I believe Bentham would agree if it was a matter of national security. The deaths of
civilians in a terrorist attack would far outweigh the pain of a few people attempting the
terrorist attack.
3) Higher pleasures are things inherently better than lower pleasures. It basically says that
the best things in life are those that you have to work for. Simple indulgences are
frowned upon. The problem is that which pleasures are higher or lower is subject to
debate. Mill had his test based on level of intellectual indulgences in reality. This
basically means that physical pleasure was ousted in favor of more intelligent pursuits.
6) People are more willing to accept utilitarianism in a time of crisis. This does not make it
acceptable outside of a crisis because there would be no need for it because there is much
more room to have less than survival worthy people in society. A time of peace and a time of
crisis are completely different. A normal country wouldnt create a million person army to
fight nothing. Necessity dictates acceptability of normally unacceptable policies.
1) Actions are morally good if they are done with intentions of good will. Kant says good
will is an intention of doing good regardless of the consequences of it. This is a loose
statement in that good will is based on perception. If one deems a race impure then they
may try to eliminate them from the bloodlines. For them, it is good will for their race
because they are purifying it. It is clearly not morally good (based on either type of
universalism). Other than the extrema of the statement, it is true. If somebody
accidentally wrongs you with the intentions of good, it may be annoying and disruptive,
but morally they are sound.
2) Any rational being has some sort of goal in their life, something they strive towards.
Under that statement, no persons ends outweigh anothers. Therefore, there is no reason
for any person to be thrown away to achieve something else.
3) According to Kants reasoning, lying is bad if it has malicious intent. Lying in order to
protect something is allowable. Lying to grandma to protect her from whatever would
distress her would be considered good.