Reference no: EM133404823
Assignment:
-Explain the central arguments for virtue ethics (Aristotle), deontology (Kant), and utilitarianism (Mill).
-Apply each of the theories to a scenario to "test" the feasibility of their normativity.
-Formulate objections to (Aristotle), deontology (Kant), and utilitarianism (Mill) and consider possible solutions.
Q: Consider the following scenario: A burning building, relatively structurally sound, is engulfed in flames, with 4 small children trapped inside. There are two people who must decide how to respond to the situation: Granny -- an 80-year-old misanthropic, pyrophobic, Luddite, who saw her mother burn to death in a fire when she was younger. She's in relatively good health, although she uses a cane. She has a cell phone for emergencies, but she hates it. Clark Kent -- a 30 year, world-renowned firefighter who is on his way back from the latest firefighting championships. He has all his gear with him but, like Wolverine in the X-men, has loads of superpowers, so he rarely needs it.
Explain, thoroughly, the relevant aspects of Aristotle's and Mill's theories. In other words, what would Aristotle and Mill think is (morally) at stake in this scenario?
Explain how Granny and Clark Kent should both respond to the situation of the burning building from both Aristotle's and Mill's perspectives. Would Aristotle require both Granny and Clark Kent to do the same thing? Why or why not? Would Mill?
Make an argument explaining which philosopher gives the better moral guidance and which gives the worst. What's something that you would change to ameliorate the "worse" theory? Be sure to thoroughly explain your assessments.