Here's the Student Guide for Mill and Utilitarianism

sorry for the delay on the turn-around on this one, but it's been a week of distractions (friend in town from Turkey, important departmental lecture, a slew of friends' birthdays, etc..). at any rate, here are the goods:

STUDENT GUIDE – J. S. MILL AND UTILITARIANISM
Below is a list of questions and considerations for you to keep in mind while reading Utilitarianism.
1) What type of moral theory is utilitarianism (deontological or consequentialist) and what exactly is the significance of this?

2) Student should be able to clearly define the Principle of Utility—or Greatest Happiness Principle—and characterize the various aspects of this principle.

•how is utility defined?
•how is happiness defined?
•how is pleasure defined?
•what are the different kinds of pleasures discussed?
•what are the different aspects of each of these different pleasures?

3) According to Mill, what are the two hindrances to happiness? (see pg. 13)

4) Student should be able to discuss the relationship between the Principle of Utility and Education.

5) What is the relationship between Utility and Justice according to Mill?

Writing asignment #2 Anjanette Broadway

I do not believe in getting an abortion unless it is absolutely necessary. If it is against that woman's health, I think she should do it. What is a right to life? Every human being have a right to life. The government has the right to protect this law. I am against this procedure myself, because I do not believe in taking another's life. Life begins at conception, it is up to that individual to decide on what she should do. It is so many against abortion, but the belief is in that individual. I will not do it myself unless it was a do it or harm myself seriously. Abortion is a terrible thing, it is a little life growing inside of you. It is against all morals to commit that particular thing. The bible says thou shall not kill. I do not think we are thinking of that child's rights, when we do that to a life being developed inside of that woman. Some say, well if it is right at very beginning, it is ok. I do not think, we have the right to take life like that. I believe it should be illegal, unless life or death situation from either the mom or child. It can be legal and illegal. Abortion goes against a lot of morals and considered immoral at all times, by most people. I think if the mother has to do it that is different. Life should not be taken by another human being. That is wrong regardless of how you put it. That is all I have to say about that situation. A very touchy subject to me. I think about, what if someone else got an abortion before I came. I would not be here today if had not been for someone birthing me.

Writing asignment #1 Anjanette Broadway

Brazil is a great city of values. Hunger is just like a disease, that have attack the land. It is a magnificient to see a city,try to cure hunger. The city of Belo has 2.5 million people and that is the best thing the government could have did. I believe every one should have a right to eat and not starve. It is a pitiful thing for people to be starving in any country or city. People deserve to eat. I know hunger is not cause by a shortage in food, because we have plenty to pass around in most states. Why should someone be hungry? What is the answer to that question? Brazil need to inspire some more cities to feed all citizens. That is an excellent task to take on . Food as a right sounds good to my ears. Some people can not help that, they are hungry. People fall to bad times in their life. Who give us the right to turn someone down who is trying to eat? I believe everyone should have a right to eat. I will help someone who need something to eat. God enable me to eat and sometimes it looks very slim, but he still provides. I will feed the hungry. I think that is one of the best things Brazil could have done. It is a wonderful thing to not have to go through pure trouble just to get something to eat. Some places have so many questions you have to answer just to get something to eat.I have one thing to say about this article,it is wonderful.

Link - Writing Assignment 2

     Fundamentally, the right to life is the right to not be harmed. To be put even more simply, it could be described as the right not to be killed. As with most rights, this applies only to humans. Where a difference in interpretation arises is at the definition of human. The definition comes under scrutiny in many circumstances such as capital punishment, terminal illness, and abortion.
     The definition of humanity is most debated when discussed in regards to abortion. For many, life begins at the point of conception, granting an unborn fetus the status of a human. Others do not grant humanity to anything less than a late-stage fetus or birthed infant. For the purpose of a standard abortion, the mother is allowed to determine her own morality. However, the bill mentioned in the assigned article would give hospitals the right to insert their own set of morals, possibly denying abortive procedures to emergency patients. In such an instance, a hospital would be placing the life of a child at a higher value than that of the mother. The problem is that we, as a society, are obliged to leave decisions such as this up to the discretion of the mother. Any third party interjecting its views into the situation appear to be using the mother for their own means. By heroically denying an abortion to a woman, hospital staff and politicians are able to feel good about themselves for having fulfilled their moral values. Unfortunately, their personal satisfaction would be gained at the cost of the mother's hopes, dreams, and ideals. So far as I am concerned, the value of a child's life is left to the mother. If she decides that her child's value supercedes hers, so be it. Until then, hospitals and government shouldn't treat pregnant mothers as a means for their own morality, but rather as a autonomous human with her own beliefs.

Link - Writing Assignment 1

     What the city of Belo Horizonte has accomplished in regards to food allocation is truly awe-inspiring. The various groups and committees that comprise the local government have firmly embraced their role as dutiful protectors of the people. The government saw that the general welfare of its people was being threatened by a lack of access to quality food. The resulting programs enacted by the government sought to maximize happiness not by giving food away, but by enabling local farmers to sell quality goods at low prices to the people who need it most. This arrangement is beautiful, bordering on utopic.
     Food, one of the most basic human necessities, is something I never considered as a human right. Rights always seemed to be something much loftier, often something based in principle rather than reality. But really, if my government has made sure I have the right to carry a weapon, could it not also insure that I have the right to not die by starvation? Personally, I would love for the access to food to be considered a basic human right. Such a right would communicate an intense sentiment of goodwill between a government and its people, something to the effect of, “Hey, you're not just another taxed citizen. You're a person who belongs to a community that wants you to be happy and healthy.” In America, I feel like this could work on a very small scale. Unfortunately, capitalism seems too important to the mindset of American society and economy for a program such as this to have any hope of functioning on a nationwide scale. In small numbers, it is easy to feel a sense of duty towards each other. But in large groups, people lose their humanity and become numbers and statistics.

Writing Assigment #2/Kolicia Baskin

Every woman has a right to live and it is just ridiculous that there is a bill trying to be passed that would give hospitals and doctors the ability to turn women away. If a pregnant woman comes in and is having complications, she should be able to make the decision whether or not to save her own life or her child’s life. To say that a woman could be refused help or be transferred to a facility that “may” or “may not” assist is nonsense. Living is a right that we all have and it is a right that was given to us from the day we entered the womb. Now, if complications arise during the pregnancy and decisions must be made, like the aforementioned, that decision should be made by the woman carrying the child. We all have a right to live and should be able to make our own decision on what to do in a situation that may ultimately end our life. Me being a woman, I want to know that if I am pregnant and have complications I can go to any hospital to get the treatment I need. That means that I also can make my own decision because I have the right to, terminate my pregnancy if it means saving my life. Everyone has there own moral values and some may feel it is more moral and choose to save their baby’s life over there own. In any case, each woman should have the right to make the decision on whether she wants to abort her pregnancy or not. We all have individual rights and there should not be a question on whether we will or will not be provided medical care. If there is a bill that is trying to be passed that says let a woman die instead of having an abortion, what will be next? If you don’t have any money then you can not be seen, or if you have had an abortion then you will be turned away. These are questions that one should not have to be concerned with or worried about. We should all feel comfortable with knowing that we can go to any health facility and be taken care of no matter what situation we are in. Every woman has a right to live and there should not be any stipulations or limitations to whether or not her life should be saved if there are complications with her pregnancy.

writing assignment 2/ T. Nicholson

I think everyone should have a say if they want to live or die. I can’t believe that someone would even want to promote the abortion bill. I personally think this is very demented for someone to make such a choice on an individual’s life. I believe everyone has a right to life. A right to life simply means the right to live or the right to not be killed by another human regardless of the substance of the material or context. If this bill was passed, the doctors wouldn’t do anything to save the mother’s life due to pregnancy problems. The thought of that alone just seems irrational and would clearly eliminate the legal rights of women. Women should have individual rights when it comes to such a touchy subject. Now if a woman chooses to die in order for her baby to live, that is fine because it is her choice. The situation is different when the mother wants to live and the baby would kill her if it was born. The mother and baby rights are not equal. The abortion bill seems to read, “Out with the old, in with the new.” As dark as that sounds, it seems as if this is what the bill would apply if passed. I think women regardless of the circumstances of their term have a right to abortion. I am not saying that the mother couldn’t give the baby to a family member or an adoption agency, but it should be the mother’s choice if she wants to bring life into the world. It is the woman’s body not the government. I think babies have a right to life but only when the baby is viable and not in the embryo stage. Under all circumstance I think the government should not intervene with the mother’s choice. Both the mother and the baby have a life, but why should the government act as if it should decide who lives or dies. I agree with the pro-choice view on abortion rather than the pro-life view. To me it seems that pro-life viewers are forgetting that the women are alive too, and they believe that the baby has a right to life because the embryo is a person. I know religion plays a part in there views, but it seems like they are giving themselves power, even though God made humans with free will in the beginning. I think the bill should be thrown out because the idea is just crazy and should not decide what a woman should do with her body based of irrational views.

writing assignment 1/ T. Nicholson

I think all humans have a right to food, regardless where the individual is located geographically. The Brazil city Belo Horizonte, is a fine example of how other countries should go about to end hunger in their countries. In 2009, America spent over 4.3 billion dollars on food stamps. What does that tell you? There are a lot of people who need assistance in this country. Food stamps are a assistance program for those who can’t afford to buy food with their current income due to individual reasons. Even though America has this program, there are thousands of Americans who are poor and don’t eat like they should. I would like to appeal to the golden rule, which is derived from Kant’s principle of fairness. The golden rule put simple is to treat someone the way you would want to be treated. If you were without money and hungry, wouldn’t you want to eat? Any rational person would say yes to this question. The job market isn’t looking so well and many people are not only losing their jobs, but they are also losing their homes. Even though America is the land of opportunity, many people don’t get a chance to experience the favorable circumstances that the land/America is supposed to offer. America is supposed to be the country were all can achieve their goals, but this is an unrealistic truth. I think the Brazil city also appealed the principle of utility. Mill’s principle of utility is to promote the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people, or the least amount of unhappiness. In the Brazil city, the leaders of the city made a choice to end hunger for the people and made some foods cheaper or free. This choice was for the people and caused much happiness for them. If a similar plan was implemented in United States, I don’t see why people wouldn’t be happy if they were getting actual food instead of a EBT card, unless they were selling some of their food stamps for money. The city of Belo spent 10 million dollars or 2% of it’s budget for a city of 2.5 million people. I don’t see why that would be a problem for us cities who have so much more than this city. I personally think this could work and save the country money that could go towards debts that United States owe. This would create happiness for the greatest amount of people if implemented. I think it would save money for the country as well as decrease petty crimes. I think the city of Belo definitely sets an example that other countries should follow to get rid of poverty and give people their right to food.

Writing Assignment #1/ Kolicia Baskin

Food as a right is a very touchy subject and she be carefully focused on. I think that what the people of Belo Horizonte are doing a wonderful job and when I read the article it put me in the mind of the Principle of Respect for Persons, which states that we should act such that never treat another person merely as a means to your own ends, but always as an end in themselves. Basically to treat others the way one wants to be treated. This city took their food issues into their own hands so that they could cut down on the hunger issues in this city. After reading the article, I really started to think of how the United States differs from this city in many ways. While this city banned together to find a means of eliminating hunger by producing more fresh foods and restaurants that provide food/dinner at very low cost, the U.S already has systems set in place for those who are less fortunate. There are food stamps, WIC, child support, section 8, and many more programs for those who are struggling. These systems that we have in place are set to help those who are in need and also to help provide in aiding less hunger so that children and families do not have to go without or be homeless. So while I think that what that city did for their people is truly great and amazing, I really just do not see the strategy used being something that would work in the United States. We are a free country that allows one to be able to get up and apply for jobs, apply for government assistance, or (as much as I hate to say it) not do any of those and live homeless.
The cost of how much it took to end hunger in this country is also something I found to be very interesting. Around $10 million annually or less than 2 % of the city budget is how much it took to end the city hunger. I find that this is a large number and just to know that that is all it took to change this cities hunger is amazing. I am glad to know that there are places that take hunger seriously and want food to be a right. When I think of this city the principle of utility comes to mind, to act so as to promote the greatest amount on happiness for the greatest number of people. This city exercised this principle by strategizing to come up with the best solution to stop hunger so that everyone can achieve the greatest amount of happiness.

Writing Assignment Two/Bedel

The “right to life” is not anything that someone else should have a say about other then the person’s life that is at stake when it comes to a pregnant woman. Women should not have to fear for their lives when going into a hospital because of pregnancy complications. If the toll must be paid of one life or another, the one the woman is carrying, that is her choice. She has provided care for this child from her own body up until this point, and if she chooses her life over her unborn child’s, that is her decision. Hospitals are meant to help those who come to them hurt and afraid, it is the very doctor’s oath to do so, so no woman should be left to die. In regard to the mother’s rights verses the child’s rights, it depends on the situation and how far along the pregnancy is and what danger is presented. If the mother is not in any danger, I do not believe abortion should be allowed. If she does not want, or cannot afford to care for the child, that is what adoption is for. This is where the baby needs the government’s protection. However, as I stated before, if the mother is in danger of death then she should be able to get an abortion. The child has a right to life, just like the mother does, and if the child can be born without putting the mother in danger then that child has that right. This is the only time I believe the government should be able to supercede the right of the mother. The fact that the government would be able to place restrictions on a hospital, better yet, a doctor’s ability to save a life, is ludicrous. The woman is the one walking into that hospital, looking to further her life, and should not be turned away because the government has decided her life is less valuable than her unborn child. She is the one with free will, she is the one who has come into this social contract we have by living in this country, and she has the right to feel secure and protected by her country. She is not cattle, not a “baby machine”, she is an individual who has the right to continue her life and look for protection from her country. This would be over stepping our individual rights and leaning towards a more communist country, which is against everything America stands for. This is nothing other than poor, simple, biased foolishness.