Name: WENNIE JANE VALIENTE

Course & Year: BSCRIM2

Subject & Code: ETHICS/ GE266
Instructor: Miss. Phoebe M. Nierras

ACTIVITY 1

Instructions: Read carefully and answer the following questions briefly.

1. let us imagine that a man planted a bomb in your school, and it will explode in
two hours unless the police are able to find it. Due to time constraint and the
impossibility of evacuating the school, is it legal for the police to use torture to
draw information from a suspected bomber?
Answer:
-No that is not a legal to use torture because according to Article III, the Bill of
rights section 12 to (2). No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any
other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention
places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
2. Based on your answer in number 1, what if the man who planted the bomb will
not say its location unless his two-year-old child is tortured? Will it be legal for the
police to torture the two-year-old child, if doing so reveal the location of the
bomb?
Answer:
-No, that is not a legal for police to use a torture because as you can see that is a
two-year-old baby, there is no belong to the article III bill of rights to tortured any
child. Many ways that can find the suspect or to reveal where location for that
planted bomb.
3. Let us say that you have a friend, who likes to sing in the shower because he
believes that he is a good singer. But you know he is really an awful sounding
singer. Should you tell him the truth, even if it will ruin your friendship and his
self-esteem? If you think it is wrong to lie in this instance, do you think there is a
moral duty to tell the truth despite the consequences?
Answer:
-No I don’t need to tell them that she has an awful voice, I don’t have the right to
say that word because that is not my life and she has their own way if what she
makes happy on her life. I must prefer to cheer them up nor than to judge. I will
always say that don’t judge the book by its cover. We must happy that she can sing
even if not very well. We teach them what the technique we use when we sang. So
that I don’t need to tell her the truth that is my opinion.
 ACTIVITY 2

Instruction: Read and answer the following briefly.

1.Go to the website and read the case:

https://la.utexas.edu/users/jmciver/357L/QueenvDs.PDF and answer the question
below:
a) Imagine that you find yourself in dire circumstances that forces you to kill
an innocent person in order to prevent any innocent from dying. Considering
the principle of utility, what do you think is the right thing to do?
Answer:
-For me if considering the principle of utility, the right thing to do is not to
kill someone or your buddy for you to get some food. If we don’t have food
we must find ways even if a hard situation not killed with someone, because
that is a big problem that you committed a crime. Considering the principle
of utility, I think it is morally wrong because they caused death to an
innocent person just to save themselves. Killing an innocent person means
they are not innocent anymore. In the case of The Queen v. Dudley and
Stephens, if we are going to consider the principle of utility, it is obviously
morally wrong. They killed the boy to avoid dying in the sea and for their
own satisfaction.

b) If we are the judge, how should we judge the action of Dudley and
Stephens?
Answer:
-If I am the judge, Dudley and Stephens surely violated the Kantian principle
that a person should never be used as a means to an end. Dudley and
Stephens were sentenced to the statutory death penalty with a
recommendation for mercy.

c) Was it morally justified or morally wrong?

 Answer:
-For me, It is morally wrong because they commit a crime.

2. Consider discussing the following case: if fifteen thousand informal setters live
next to a nuclear factory in a country torn by civil war, to are task to bomb the
nuclear factory, and if you do not bomb it, it will produce nuclear bombs that can
annihilate one hundred thousand innocent civilians in another country. Will you
bomb the nuclear factor?

Answer:
- I think bombing the nuclear factory is not a right decision. If bombing it will save
one hundred innocent civilians in another country, it will still affect many people
and not just those fifteen thousand informal settlers because of its radioactive
materials that will be released into the environment. The shock wave can directly
injure humans by rupturing eardrums or lungs or by hurling people at high speed. I
think bombing the nuclear factory is not the only solution to prevent the bombing
of the other country.

3. Considering the principle of utility, when the only way to prevent harm to large
number of people is to harm a smaller number of people (like Duterte’s War on
Drugs), is it always permissible to harm a smaller number in order to prevent harm
to a large number?
Answer:
Yes, it will be considering the principle of utility, even if a harm a smaller number
than to prevent harm to a large number, I will choose smaller number to harm
because we don’t have the other choice. We only chose the part that not a biggest
harm to people. No. If the case is Duterte's war on drugs, I think it is okay to harm
the smaller number of people if those smaller number of people are the ones who
do, sell, or take drugs. But, if those smaller number of people are innocent people,
then it is not right to harm them just to prevent harm to a larger number of people.
4. According to Jeremy Bentham’s principle of utility, we should always do
whatever will produce the greatest amount of happiness. Is that right? Suppose we
have to choose between building a sport’s stadium and building a hospital. Should
we build the biggest stadium in the country because there are many sports fans
compared with sick people? What do you think?
Answer:
- - Yes, we should do whatever will produce greatest amount of happiness but not
only for ourselves. We should also consider the other people. We should not be
selfish and be happy without thinking other people's happiness. I think, building a
hospital brings more happiness to us than the sports stadium. Why? Because
hospitals bring us more happiness by seeing our loved ones get healed. Happiness
in watching sports is only temporary than seeing your family and friends to get
healed from their illness.
 ACTIVITY 3

Instructions: Read and answer the following questions briefly.

1. The utilitarianism of Bentham seems to argue that the interest of a few persons
can be sacrificed if it benefits a greater number. In this case, is it more preferable
to build a church rather than build a firing range (say because there are more
churchgoers than soldiers in need of firing ranges). Do you agree?
Answer:
-Yes I will agree, because that is very important when it comes of church, we are
praying god all what we want, without god, we can’t express what we felt. In
church, we meet a lot of people, we find a good friends and etc. The Church helps
us to maintain organization, teachings, and to create a support system for members.
By establishing a church, the Lord ensures that the correct doctrines are taught.
The Church provides members with revelations, standards, and guidelines that help
us live as Christ would have us live. I probably choose church because they provide
space for us to socialize with others, and often are used to bless our surrounding
communities as our doors are open for other groups to utilize the space. We thank
God for these physical spaces that allow us. to worship and do the work of God's
Kingdom. And it gives us strength every time.
2. Is every good commensurable? Can we have weighed different goods using a
common scale, or is it possible that the value of some goods, such as love or hope,
is not comparable with the value of other goods, like money?
Answer:
- Commensurability shares a common standard of measurement or simply means
"common measure". If both goods can be measured in the same unit of
measurement, then it is considered commensurable.  
      Not all goods are commensurable. For example, a distance measured in
miles/meters and a volume of water measured in gallons are not commensurable. 
On the other hand, time measured in days and time measured in minutes are
commensurable because a day is a constant number of minutes (1440). Love and
hope can never be compared with money because they do not share a common
standard of measurement, therefore it is incommensurable.
 

-Yes it is not comparable, money cannot be compared to love and hope because
with love we learned how to love a person, thing or animal. For me, it cannot be
compared to money. Money is nothing or useless when it comes to love, many will
say that money is more important than love, but we can’t live without money and
love. Money can’t be taken to death and love is to end or even to death.
3. Do you think that pleasures should be counted- even objectionable pleasures,
like the pleasures that terrorists derive from being fundamentalists?
Answer:
-No, happiness cannot count, because through happiness not counted but its
priceless. Happiness is one of source that everything can heal the problems over
the sadness situation. Moral responsibilities are defined by Bentham in terms of
pleasurable and unpleasant consequences. Although it is ethically wrong, we
should do it since it promotes pleasure over pain. Yes, it is correct. This, I feel, is
due to the fact that fundamentalists have their own concept of pleasure that others
do not. Because people's minds work in a similar way as pendulums. Terrorism's
general goal is to erode the public's sense of security in locations they are most
familiar with. With this structure, you can surely encode and compare various
delights, but you can only analyze the values qualitatively because there is no final
baseline/reference for determining a preferable value in them. It's considerably
more difficult to determine if something is objectionable or not since you have to
rely on two sets of moral norms (Agent + Observer). We'd like to think there's a lot
of overlap between the two sets, but that's rarely the case. You'd have to examine
whether there's any consensus on what both of you find objectionable inside this
overlap.
4. John Stuart Mil revises Benthamite utilitarianism and its common calculus by
referring to a hierarchy of pleasures. But who or what pleasures are considered
higher or more preferable?
Answer:
-Considered higher preferable because the higher pleasures are those unique to
being Human. only human beings can appreciate the Arts, The Sciences and great
thought. Thus it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. even the
small Humane joys of a Socrates that is discontented are better and higher than
those of a mere porcine. no matter how bad the pig is satiated.
5.Mill argues that the determination of the better pleasure is dependent on the
decision of a majority of people who experienced both pleasures. But does it mean
that the majority really aims at higher pleasures?
Answer:
-Actually pleasure is a standard which is fundamentally hedonistic in nature and
life consists of more than just pleasure. There is also pain, suffering, struggling,
and sacrifice in life which exists when things go bad or when you are striving to
achieve a rather difficult yet worthwhile goal(s).

Finally, what if the majority wants to oppress minorities and enslave them
financially for the pleasure of the majority? Individual rights get trampled by the
majority so there has to be a bill of rights to prevent that from happening. In
conclusion, the majority can often be very wrong, especially for minorities who get
oppressed.
6. When listening to the Philippine government’s argument in favor for the anti-
terror law, to what extent do you think are these based on utilitarian grounds?
Identify three arguments and demonstrate why these are utilitarian.
Answer:
- utilitarian grounds extent on how and depends on the situation. The terrorism
generally is to destroy the public's sense of security in the places most familiar to
them. Also, there are some arguments regarding on governments in favor for the
anti-terror law, we can see that they're with the happiness of the majority, that
produces higher number of people. Other country has used law like Philippines anti-
terrorism, to save Filipino democracy, governments around the world, it is a
utilitarianism that puts forward that a virtue to improve one's life better by increasing
the good things in the world and minimizing the bad things. Major targets
sometimes also include buildings or other locations that are important economic or
political symbols, such as embassies or military installations.

TOPIC:
Philippine anti-terrorism law triggers fear of massive rights abuses
-The 2020 Anti-Terrorism Bill is an upgrade of the Human Security Act of 2007,
which the military says is
outdated and insufficient to fight modern-day terrorism, which involves online
recruitment and planning
of terrorist activities.
 ACTIVITY 4

Instructions: Read carefully and answer the following questions:

1. John Stuart Mill thinks that educating children properly with appropriate laws
and public opinion can prevent people from developing questionable and
objectionable desires Do you agree?

Answer:

- Yes, I agree that children should be educated properly with the appropriate laws
and public opinion. Children do not vote and do not participate in political
processes in the usual sense. Children's voices go unnoticed on many crucial topics
that touch them now or will influence them in the future if special attention is not
paid to their thoughts - as voiced at home and in schools, in local communities, and
even in governments. Educating the children with these would help them construct
healthy criticisms in the future and this would lead to the prevention of people
from creating and providing questionable desires towards things

2. Are some pleasures objectionable? If as culture tolerates dog eating, should it

be allowed or not?

Answer:

- Some pleasures are objectionable. Any pleasure that has the potential to
jeopardize the happiness of a large number of people is unacceptable in the long
run. Notably, utilitarianism advocates the measure that benefits the majority of
society the most, regardless of the consequences for the minority. I understand that
many people would disagree with my response, but I believe that eating any form
of meat is unethical. What gives humans the authority to choose which animals
will be our companions and which will be our food? Pigs are even smarter than
dogs, which isn't to say that intellect should matter. They are also capable of being
nice and loving. So, dog eating should not be allowed.
3. If a group of friends derive pleasure from being sexist comments, should it be
tolerated?

Answer:

- No, being sexist shouldn't be tolerated. This prejudice and discrimination might
be hostile and overt, or appear to be benign but be detrimental in subtle ways.
Many countries who perceive them to be tolerant, on the other hand, perpetuate a
mix of sorts, resulting in an ambivalent sexism system. All forms of sexism are
damaging to society's health. Understanding how sexism develops and then
challenging sexist attitudes and actions at all levels — from the internal to the
institutional — is critical to ending.

4. John Stuart Mill, a utilitarian, says that we should protect individual rights
because, in the long run, that is the best way to increase the sum of happiness. Is
that true? Is that really the reason why you should not imprison and torture
innocent people?

Answer:

- Yes. Protecting each individual's rights would be the key for everyone to live in
peace. This would be a bridge to happiness. As the law says, we should not deprive
one's life without due process and torturing someone's life would be one of the
causes why lives are taken away from them.

5. Does utilitarianism sacrifice individual rights in favor of communal ones? Can

the prospect of constructing a dam and benefitting or urban settlers tolerable at
the expense of indigenous claims to ancestral domains?

Answer:

- human rights are usually said to be inalienable and universal, and some even
believe that they are absolute. Such attributes are necessary in order for human
rights to protect all humans at all times. Perhaps the greatest difficulty with
utilitarianism is that it fails to take into account considerations of justice. We can
imagine instances where a certain course of action would produce great benefits for
society, but they would be clearly unjust. Human rights are usually said to be
inalienable and universal, and some even believe that they are absolute. Such
attributes are necessary in order for human rights to protect all humans at all times.

6. John Stuart Mil denies that utilitarianism sacrifices individual rights. He thinks
that the principle of utility is the very foundation and basis for the justification for
protecting individual’s rights. Was Mill right? If yes or no, make your point.

Answer:

- Mill defines utilitarianism as a theory based on the principle that "actions are
right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce
the reverse of happiness." Mill defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of
pain. Even granting the validity of some of my concerns, a utilitarian could respond
that the urgency of our situation prevents any major economic or political overhaul.
This, however, seems like a false choice and curiously narrow view of the problem,
and it stubbornly elides the inherent limitations of such an approach. We cannot
adequately respond to our situation without drawing on substantive commitments
that both allow us to see our situation in its larger moral and political context and
help to make proper sense of the many goods and values at stake. In my opinion
Mill is wrong in his belief that the principle utility is the very foundation basis for
justification for protecting individual rights. For instance, according to the
newspaper article of NDTV "A teacher was arrested in Chhattisgarh's Koriya district
for allegedly molesting a school girl, police said on Wednesday.