Investigate the concept of utilitarianism. Which example best fits the philosophical idea?(1 point) Responses If it makes me happy, then it doesn’t matter if it makes everyone else unhappy. If it makes me happy, then it doesn’t matter if it makes everyone else unhappy. We either all succeed, or we all fail, no in-between. We either all succeed, or we all fail, no in-between. The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many. The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Answer 1

Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy that suggests that the best action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or utility. This means that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its consequences for all affected, specifically in terms of the overall good or happiness produced.

Among the options provided, the statement that best fits the philosophical idea of utilitarianism is:

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

This statement emphasizes the utilitarian principle that actions should be evaluated based on their impact on the greater good or the collective happiness of a larger group. Utilitarianism advocates for maximizing happiness for the most people, rather than prioritizing individual desires or the needs of a small number of people at the expense of the majority.

Answer 2

Identify which of the following examples reflects a way Adam Smith thought the government should be involved in the economy.(1 point) Responses The government decides to limit how many flowers any individual person can buy because supply is limited. The government decides to limit how many flowers any individual person can buy because supply is limited. The government decides to prohibit box companies from selling their boxes to another country overseas. The government decides to prohibit box companies from selling their boxes to another country overseas. The government builds a road from a city to a major seaport and charges a fee for cars to drive on that road. The government builds a road from a city to a major seaport and charges a fee for cars to drive on that road. The government decides to let businesses set new policies about international trade.

Answer 3

Adam Smith, often regarded as the father of modern economics, is known for his advocacy of free markets and limited government intervention in the economy. He believed that the best outcomes in an economy would arise from allowing individuals and businesses to pursue their own self-interest in a competitive marketplace, which he famously described in his work, "The Wealth of Nations."

Among the options provided, the example that best reflects Adam Smith's thought on government involvement in the economy is:

"The government builds a road from a city to a major seaport and charges a fee for cars to drive on that road."

This example illustrates a situation where the government plays a role in providing infrastructure, which is a necessary service that can facilitate commerce and trade. While it involves some level of government intervention, it aligns with Smith's idea of creating a conducive environment for economic activity, as infrastructure is critical for enabling free markets to function efficiently.

Answer 4

Which of the following offers the best comparison between Hobbes’s and Locke’s perspectives on the divine right of kings?(1 point) Responses Both saw the divine right of kings as unnatural and bad. Both saw the divine right of kings as unnatural and bad. Hobbes supported the divine right of kings as absolute monarchs. Hobbes supported the divine right of kings as absolute monarchs. As Christians, both accepted the divine right of kings. As Christians, both accepted the divine right of kings. Locke supported the divine right of kings because it gave people more freedom.

Answer 5

The best comparison between Hobbes’s and Locke’s perspectives on the divine right of kings among the options provided is:

"Hobbes supported the divine right of kings as absolute monarchs."

Thomas Hobbes, in his work "Leviathan," argued for a strong central authority (an absolute monarch) to maintain order and prevent chaos, which he believed was the natural state of humanity without such authority. He supported the idea that the ruler's power could be seen as derived from divine right, as it justified having an absolute sovereign to impose order.

In contrast, John Locke had a different view; he did not advocate for absolute monarchy and believed that government should be based on the consent of the governed. Locke argued against the divine right of kings, asserting that political power should be limited and that individuals had natural rights that the government must respect. Therefore, the statement correctly reflects Hobbes's alignment with the divine right of kings while contrasting Locke's position.

The other statements do not accurately represent the philosophical positions of Hobbes and Locke regarding the divine right of kings.