DQ1: 350 words
Utilitarianism is a school of ethical reasoning based fundamentally on the notion of trying to bring about the greatest good when one makes an ethical choice.
1.Do you take this to require some conception of what “the good” means, such that it can be identified, measured, and/or calculated in a way that is consistent across time, place, and people?
2.Is there any such “good” that has these characteristics, as you see it? If so, how can it be defined.
3.What do you see as the meaning of “good” for Utilitarian ethical calculations?
DQ2: 350 words
Peter Singer argues that there is no ethical justification for denying ethical consideration to animals. Consider his reasoning and the basis of his claim that “all animals are equal.” (You need to read and listen to what he has to say in order to comment.)
1. Can you think of a reason why our ethical consideration should include all humans regardless of their level of cognitive ability, yet denied to non-human animals simply because they have lower levels of cognitive abilities (though still higher in some cases than those of human infants and some mentally disabled humans)?
2. What critical questions might be posed regarding your way of drawing the line between the types of beings that should get ethical consideration and those that should not?