Ashford-University PHI 208 Homework Help

Get help for Ashford-University PHI 208 Week Homework Help. Please carefully read and think about the entire prompt before composing your first post. This discussion will require you to have carefully read and thought about the excerpt from Mill’s Utilitarianism, as well as the instructor guidance and related material. Imagine that you are a standing next to a railroad track, and careening down the track is a runaway train. In the path of the train are 5 workers (let’s suppose they cannot escape the path of the trolley; perhaps they are on a bridge high above a ravine). You know that if the train continues on its path, it will certainly kill those 5 workers. However, you see that there is a sidetrack, and on the sidetrack is a single worker. Let’s also suppose that you know that if the train goes onto the sidetrack, that single worker would be killed.

Lo and behold, you discover that you are standing next to a lever that can send the train onto the sidetrack. What would a utilitarian say is the right action here? Give the reasoning by referring to John Stuart Mill’s arguments found in this week’s reading, and be as precise as you can. Do you agree with that? Instead of standing next to a lever that can switch the train to another track, you are standing on a bridge overlooking the track, and next to you is a very fat man. Suppose you can give that man a little push, and over he goes. Let’s suppose (however unrealistic – we’re just imagining here) that he’s large enough to stop the train, thus sparing the 5 workers; but his own life will be lost in the process. Should you throw the fat man over the bridge? What would a utilitarian say is the right action here? Give the reasoning by referring to John Stuart Mill’s arguments found in this week’s reading. Do you agree with that?

Did you provide a different answer to the second scenario than you did to the first for either of the questions? If so, explain what accounts for that difference. If not, why do you thing most people would want to give different answers to the two? Please carefully read and think about the entire prompt before composing your first post. This discussion will require you to have carefully read and thought about the excerpt from Mill’s Utilitarianism, Peter Singer’s (1989) “All animals are equal”, and Tom Regan’s (1985) “The case for animal rights”. Both Tom Regan (1985) and Peter Singer (1989) draw upon the idea of “speciesism” to argue that the way that animals are commonly used and treated in our society is immoral. Explain what they mean by speciesism, and how that supports either argument. Explain whether or not you agree with either the idea that certain ways of treating animals differently than humans is speciesist, or the conclusions they draw from that, or both.

For example, is it true that there is a way of treating animals differently than humans which is comparable to things like racism or sexism, or is our treatment of animals based on something different than speciesism? If it is speciesist, is speciesism itself wrong? Finally, do these claims call for changes in the way that we live our lives? You should make extensive use of the assigned text(s) in supporting your answer. After watching the videos “Drones are Ethical” and “Drones are Not Ethical,” and taking note of the different considerations they make, identify one argument made in the videos that is clearly a utilitarian argument, and explain what makes it utilitarian. Also identify an argument that would not be a utilitarian argument (this can also be an argument for or against the use of drones). Explain how this sort of argument differs from a utilitarian one (you do not need to identify what kind of argument it is instead, just to point out how the considerations are different than utilitarian ones). Discuss with your peers whether the arguments they make are utilitarian or not, and the strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches.