Write an essay in response to exactly one of the following prompts.
Prompt 1
One objection to utilitarianism is that it reduces the value of human action to the satisfaction of base,
animalistic desire. Mill considers and responds to this objection. After explaining utilitarianism, reconstruct
both the objection in question and the argument Mill uses to respond to it. Be sure to include all the
premises to which Mill appeals in his response (though you need not label them explicitly as premise 1,
premise 2, etc.). Is Mills argument in response to the objection valid? Is it sound? What do you think is
the best objection to any one (but only one) of the premises? Does the objection ultimately defeat the
argument Mill gives in defense of utilitarianism, or is there a compelling response that can be given on
Mills behalf? Defend your claims about the failure or success of these objections/responses with
arguments of your own.
Prompt 2
In his Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Peter Singer claims that if we can prevent badness without
compromising certain moral values, then we are obligated to do so. He considers and responds to an
objection from the relative number of capable but inactive agents, invoking an example of a drowning child
(p. 577). What, exactly, is this objection? What is Singers response? [Note: only discuss the objection as
it pertains to the drowning child case, not as it pertains to the If everyone in circumstances like mine gave
5 pounds argument. Also, notice that Singer does not give an explicit line of reasoning, but rather
leaves much of the argument underlying his use of the example implicit. Part of your job will be to make it
explicit.] Is his reasoning in defense of his response sound? What do you think is the best objection to his
response? Does this objection ultimately defeat Singers claim? Defend your claims about the failure or
success of these objections/responses with arguments of your own.

*Times New Roman 12 pt. double spaced and use page numbers please