1. Give and explain the basic idea of the principle of utility or the greatest happiness principle.2. What does it mean to speak of utilitarianism as a consequentialist moral theory/ As a teleological moral theory?3. What is the difference between intrinsic and instrumental good? Give examples of each.4. Which of the following statements exemplify consequentialist reasonings? Can all of them be given consequentialist interpretations if expanded? Explain your answers. A. Honesty is the best policy. B. Sue has the right to know the truth. C. What good is going to come from giving money to a homeless person on the street?D. There is a symbolic value present in personally giving something to another person in need. E. It is only fair that you give him a chance to compete for the position. F. If I do not study for my ethics exam, it will hurt my GPA. G. If you are not honest with others, you cannot expect them to be honest with you.7. What is Mill's argument for the difference in value between intellectual and sensual pleasures?

1. Principle of utility

The right acts or behaviors promote happiness or pleasure while the wrong ones appear to produce unhappiness or pain. For example, we are satisfied when we perform some acts that fulfill our biological functions such as eating or having sex. We also experience pleasure when we do certain intellectual activities like reading or playing guitar. Conversely, we experience unhappiness when these functions are left unfulfilled. [1]

2.As a consequentialist moral theory, utilitarianism states that actions should be judged according to their consequences. For instance, most people would agree that lying is wrong. But if telling a lie would help save a person’s life, consequentialism says it’s the right thing to do.[2]

3. Intrinsic good is something good in itself, not because it leads to something good. An example of this is happiness. Something is instrumentally good when it is useful for producing something else that is good. An example of this is money. It is not good in itself but because of what we can do with it.[3]

4. a. Consequentialist, if the reason it is the best policy is that it generally has good consequences.

b. Not on the face of it. It implies that one has a right to the truth regardless of the consequences.

c. Not on the face of it. It is because the act of giving money is good itself as the donor is happy to do something good. However, it can also be a consequentialist argument. It implies that it is the consequences of giving the money that is important.  d. Not on the face of it. It seems to imply that the symbolic value is worthwhile in itself. However, it could be developed into a consequentialist argument if the results of this symbolic expression were stressed.

e. Not on the face of it. Matters of fairness are usually contrasted with concerns about results.

f. Consequentialist. The bad results to the individual's GPA.

g. Could be consequentialist, if it means that the results of my lack of honesty with others will be that they will not be honest with me. On the other hand, it would be non-consequentialist if it meant that as a matter of fairness, I should not expect that others be honest with me if I am not honest with them.

7. Mill argued that intellectual pleasure is higher quality than sensual one.[4]

References:

1.http://faculty.msj.edu/whiter/UTILITY.htm#:~:text=The%20principle%20of%20utility%20states,utility%20is%20a%20teleological%20principle.&text=Many%20utilitarians%20believe%20that%20pleasure,%2C%20more%20or%20less%2C%20quantified.

2.https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/consequentialism#:~:text=Consequentialism%20is%20an%20ethical%20theory,the%20right%20thing%20to%20do.

3.https://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/intrinsic.html#:~:text=Intrinsic%20good%20is%20definable%20in,%2C%20Good%2Din%2Ditself.&text=You%20can%20find%20out%20what,a%20nonsense%20answer%20is%20reached.

4.https://www2.bellevuecollege.edu/artshum/materials/phil/Payne/winter2005/265/Utilitarianism.htm

sir frederic attributed inaccuracies to schemas. memory reconstruction is one part actual events and one part personal schema, which can result in inaccuracies when memories are reconstructed.