Phil written question

Read the 2 articles and Answer the following reflection questions. Each answer should be 400-600 words long. (2x10 points each: 20 points total). 1. In the article "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," one of the central ideas behind Peter Singer's argument is that all human life is valuable, and all unnecessary suffering should be prevented. It doesn't matter if the person who is suffering is a total stranger, living on the other side of the planet: their wellbeing is no less valuable than that of one's fellow citizens or the people in one's own community. How would such a view influence the way in which nations address issues like climate change, human migration, or the spread of disease? How would holding this belief change the way we as individuals live our day-to-day lives? Do you agree with Singer that where a person is located is irrelevant to the question of whether we have a duty to help? Do you believe wealthier people and/or nations have a moral duty to work to alleviate the suffering of people in far-away countries? If not, explain why Singer is wrong. Also, explain what you think are the proper limits of an individual's responsibilities. If you agree with Singer, how would you suggest we prioritize our responses to suffering? 2. In the textbook chapter by Timmons, we learn that John Stuart Mill, one of the original proponents of utilitarianism, has some interesting views about pleasure. (Remember: utilitarians believe the right action is the one that maximizes happiness, and Mill thinks happiness is, essentially, pleasure and freedom from pain). For one, he doesn’t think all pleasures are created equally. Higher pleasures are those that engage our intellectual capacities—listening to a symphony, reading poetry, creating art, having a philosophical conversation ;) —while lower pleasures are easy to come by, but not especially profound—eating Doritos, watching the Bachelor, etc. Another idea that Mill has is that pleasure is not individually relative––not merely a matter of personal taste. Some pleasures are actually better than others. How do we know? People who are capable of enjoying both kinds of pleasure—both WWE and Hamlet, both Ariana Grande and Etta James—are in a position to competently judge these pleasures. Do you find either of these views to be compelling or misguided? Reflect on the nature of pleasure, and respond to one or both of these ideas. In your reflection, aim to 1) say something substantive and coherent (i.e. have a point), 2) connect the ideas to the real world, 3) organize your thoughts in writing, and 4) give examples to illustrate your views. Finally, 5) try to connect the ideas back to the larger utilitarian point about morality: the right action is that which results in the best outcome (greatest pleasure) for all people affected by the action.