Paper details:

Format: 8-10 pages (this does NOT include your cover page or your bibliography). Papers should be double spaced, standard margins, 12 PT Times New Roman font. Don’t forget to CITE your sources throughout the paper. WHEN IN DOUBT, CITE! Prompt: In this paper, you will describe what you think is the ideal account of consequentialism. You should answer these questions (please write your paper in the form of a standard paper/essay, i.e., don’t number your answers/don’t answer the questions like you’re writing an essay exam with multiple questions.): (1) Is rule consequentialism or act consequentialism preferable? If you think act consequentialism is preferable, answer these two questions: is maximizing, satisficing, or scalar consequentialism preferable? Is actual or expected consequentialism preferable? If you think rule consequentialism is preferable, answer this question: is it conformity with rules or internalization of rules that matter? (2) What do you think is “the good”? (E.g., is it pleasure, is it satisfied preferences, satisfied desires, or is it some “objective list” that includes things like relationships, knowledge, etc.?). (3) Is agent-neutral consequentialism or agent relative-consequentialism preferable? (4) Keeping in mind what you answered in response to the above three questions, answer this: what is the criterion of right action, according to your account of consequentialism? Be as specific as possible. [Your answer to this question should be just ONE sentence long. It should begin with something like this: “According to my account of consequentialism, rights acts are those that…” (5) What moral principle should be used as a decision procedure? (If your decision procedure principle is different from your principle of right action, explain why. If it’s the same, explain why.) After you put forth your ideal version of consequentialism, then answer this: (6) What does your account of consequentialism imply about the moral treatment of farmed animals? Does it imply that all farming should be abolished? Just Factory farms? No farms? (7) What is the best possible objection to your account of consequentialism? Play devil’s advocate and think of the best objection. Don’t just consider and respond to an obviously bad objection! (8) What is the best response to that objection? In all of your answers, you should define key terms. Pretend that you are writing your paper for someone who doesn’t know much about consequentialism. For instance, when talking about rule consequentialism, define it. If you talk about preferences, define them. In answering questions 1-5, you should do your best to defend your positions and explain why you took the position you did, perhaps by showing why the major alternatives are problematic. For instance, if you think act consequentialism is preferable to rule utilitarianism, you should say something about why rule consequentialism is (more) problematic. Sources/Materials: When relevant, you should draw on course sources. If you don’t engage with the course readings, I will deduct at least 5 points from your final grade. That being said, you are welcome to engage outside sources, but course readings should be given priority. For this assignment, you are just defending what you think is the best version of consequentialism—and it’s possible that the best version of consequentialihkzsm is still a deficient theory!