a. True or False: According to hedonism, physical pleasures are the only things intrinsically valuable. False
b. True or False: According to Utilitarianism, justice is intrinsically valuable. False
c. Questions a and b ask about what is and is not intrinsically valuable, according to Utilitarianism. Briefly explain the Utilitarian position on what is valuable by explaining your answers to questions a and b.
Both answers are false. Hedonism states that pleasure is intrinsically valuable, but they believe that all pleasures are valuable which also includes mental pleasures, not just physical. Utilitarians believe that pleasure is intrinsically valuable towards a greater number of people, whereas hedonist believe that it is valuable only to yourself. They believe that pleasure is good, and pain is not valued at all nor are the consequences which Utilitarians also disagree with. Utilitarians don’t believe that justice is intrinsically valuable because Justice requires everyone to be treated fairly. Utilitarians believe that we should do what is necessary for the good of society, even if it means sacrificing an innocent person, which contradicts justice and hedonism. 2 What is social contract theory? What are some of its advantages? What is its main drawback as an ethical theory? Social Contract Theory is when a group of rational people agree on a moral set of rules to govern their society by some sort of contract. …show more content…
If they don’t follow these rules, then they will be subject to punishment. The advantages to social contract theory rests on a common goal for harmony. By agreement for a peaceful society, everyone follows the rules because they want to, not because they fear punishment. However, the drawback to this theory is that there are limitations to the rules. One person may feel that they could sacrifice for another, believing that they are morally and ethically obligated to. Not everyone can be expected to feel the same way, especially because self-preservation is a natural human response. Another disadvantage is that rules based on morality can be interpreted differently by individuals who aren’t part of the contract. 4 What is the prisoner’s dilemma? How does the dynamic in the dilemma change when we are allowed to talk to the other person and makes some sort of contract? The prisoner’s dilemma is a situation whereas two prisoners who are separated will act or respond for their own self-interest, even at the expense of the other. For example, take two subjects who are suspects in a bank robbery. The police hold each of them in a room separate from the other and begin their interrogation. The police may not have a solid case due to limited evidence against them or the evidence is just circumstantial s they offer each a deal. They offer the first suspect a deal of walking away free if he agrees to testify against the second suspect who will do 15 years if convicted. They then offer the same deal to the second suspect. Now if both don’t talk then they will only do 3 years each. A contract would help however, natural instincts to act in their own self-interest influences their decision and each suspect will end up receiving a harsher sentence than had they worked together. 2. State the Principle of Utility. How does the utilitarian use this principle to decide