This assignment requires 1800 words minimum, composed in your own words. Quotations from the book are permitted (and they can help you make your paper better) but they do not count towards this word requirement. Your paper must be double-spaced, 11 point font size, on a regular 8.5 x 11 paper size with 1” margin. Your name must be at the top, followed by this title: Paper 3 for PHIL 101 Section __ (add your class’s section number – either 002, 101, or 555).

In your paper, you have to accomplish these three objectives:

First, explain how Kant’s categorical imperative applies to this question: Is it morally right for every child to be vaccinated against bad diseases like measles and mumps? Be sure to explain how you imagine a world in which that moral rule is the rule for everyone. In that imagined world, would everyone prefer that this rule is followed by everyone? Based on your answer to that question, describe how you reach your final answer: would Kant agree, or disagree, that it is morally right for every child to get vaccinated. Then describe how you would explain to people against child vaccination, using only reasoning based on Kant’s ethics, why their opinion can’t be morally right.

Second, describe how John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian principle – “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” – would be applied to this problem: Should there be a law that requires all parents to make sure that all their children receive vaccinations to prevent bad diseases like mumps and measles? Be sure to describe how your answer – “Yes, that law is the utilitarian answer” or “No, utilitarianism does not support this law” – is supported by considering the long-term consequences. How would the whole country be affected, one way or the other? Then describe how you would explain to people who are against child vaccination, using only reasoning based on utilitarianism, why their opinion can’t be morally right.

Third, describe what Kwame Appiah would probably say about a small society where all the parents reject child vaccinations on religious grounds. Does that small society (for example, an isolated community in a rural area, or a small country somewhere) have the right to be left alone about having no child vaccinations? Should a larger country, that thinks that children deserve protection from diseases, threaten that small society (with crippling economic sanctions, or sending in the army) in order to force it to allow vaccinations? Where would a larger country get the right to impose its own morality on the small society? Does it have that right? In your paper, you have to accomplish these three objectives:

First, explain how Kant’s categorical imperative applies to this question: Is it morally right for every child to be vaccinated against bad diseases like measles and mumps? Be sure to explain how you imagine a world in which that moral rule is the rule for everyone. In that imagined world, would everyone prefer that this rule is followed by everyone? Based on your answer to that question, describe how you reach your final answer: would Kant agree, or disagree, that it is morally right for every child to get vaccinated. Then describe how you would explain to people against child vaccination, using only reasoning based on Kant’s ethics, why their opinion can’t be morally right.

Second, describe how John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian principle – “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” – would be applied to this problem: Should there be a law that requires all parents to make sure that all their children receive vaccinations to prevent bad diseases like mumps and measles? Be sure to describe how your answer – “Yes, that law is the utilitarian answer” or “No, utilitarianism does not support this law” – is supported by considering the long-term consequences. How would the whole country be affected, one way or the other? Then describe how you would explain to people who are against child vaccination, using only reasoning based on utilitarianism, why their opinion can’t be morally right.

Third, describe what Kwame Appiah would probably say about a small society where all the parents reject child vaccinations on religious grounds. Does that small society (for example, an isolated community in a rural area, or a small country somewhere) have the right to be left alone about having no child vaccinations? Should a larger country, that thinks that children deserve protection from diseases, threaten that small society (with crippling economic sanctions, or sending in the army) in order to force it to allow vaccinations? Where would a larger country get the right to impose its own morality on the small society? Does it have that right?

Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.