Week 11 — The Greatest Happiness, Tested

Assignment 10 of the term — credit this week's sentences to their authors, key two arguments for validity, run act and rule utilitarianism on a costly promise, weigh three objections fairly, and explain utilitarianism to someone new to philosophy.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into exact, well-reasoned work. You remain the author. The coach asks questions, checks the reasoning you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. This week you learned consequentialism and utilitarianism, Bentham on pain and pleasure, impartiality, Mill's Greatest Happiness Principle and his higher and lower pleasures, act and rule utilitarianism, the justice, rights, and demandingness objections, and Singer's drowning child. In Week 2 you learned standard form, validity, and the valid forms, including hypothetical syllogism and modus ponens, and in Week 10 you met ethical egoism. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Philosophy Workshop practice the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is where you put them together.

The task

You will use this week's pinned sources: Dataset C's two quotations (Q5 from Bentham and Q6 from Mill, both English originals), Dataset J, the theory-matching set (illustrative), and Dataset B, the argument set (illustrative). The premises of Datasets B and J are written for teaching and are not claims the course endorses; the course keys Dataset B's arguments for validity only, never for soundness, because the premises are open questions. The everyday cases below were written for this assignment; they are illustrative and describe no real person or place.

Part A — get the sources right, then reconstruct. A post on a study-group forum reads: "Mill opened his book by saying pain and pleasure are our two sovereign masters, and Bentham's Greatest Happiness Principle says to do whatever makes you happiest. Mill agreed with all of it." Do three things:

• Correct the post. Say whose book opens with the sentence about two sovereign masters, and quote that sentence exactly; say whose Greatest Happiness Principle is and quote it exactly; say why "do whatever makes you happiest" misstates utilitarianism, and which view it describes instead; and say where Mill parts from Bentham.
• Key argument 3. Write Dataset B's argument 3 in standard form ("If an act maximizes happiness, it is right. If it is right, we ought to do it. So if an act maximizes happiness, we ought to do it."), name its form, key it for validity with a one-sentence reason from the definition of validity, and name the premise a critic rejects.
• Reconstruct the drowning child. Write the reasoning of Singer's pond case in standard form, using Singer's principle as the first premise, mark any premise you add as "(added)", name the form, and say whether it is valid. Then say, in one sentence, what Singer says about whether the principle depends on utilitarianism.

Then work this problem, showing your reasoning:

1. Bentham's An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation was printed in 1780 and first published in 1789. How many years separate the printing from the publication?

Part B — run the theory, then weigh it. Work this problem first, showing your reasoning:

1. Bentham's Principles was first published in 1789, and Singer's "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" dates from 1972. How many years separate them?

Then do three things:

• Run both forms on a costly promise. You promised a neighbor you would feed their cat for a weekend, and then a paid job comes up that would take you out of town. Say how an act utilitarian and how a rule utilitarian would each approach the choice, and say which of these statements from Dataset J fits the act utilitarian's reasoning and which theory it is keyed to: "A broken promise is wrong if breaking it causes more misery than keeping it."
• Weigh the three objections. State the justice objection, the rights objection, and the demandingness objection, each in its strongest form with an example of your own, and give a reply from the utilitarian side to each.
• Name the disagreement. End with one plain sentence naming exactly where utilitarianism and its critics disagree.

Explain it to a non-expert

A coworker who has never taken philosophy says, "Utilitarianism means doing whatever makes me happy, right?" Write a 3–5 sentence message in everyday words that explains what utilitarianism says, why counting everyone equally is different from doing what makes you happy, and one honest limit or open question about the theory. Explain any term your coworker might not know.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a roommate who asks what a thought experiment is for. Model answer: "A thought experiment is an imagined case that tests an idea, the way a crash test checks a car without a real crash. You picture the case, notice what you think should happen, and ask whether the idea agrees. If it does not, the idea may need changing. One limit: our reactions to imagined cases can be wrong, so a thought experiment is a test, not a proof."

Use that pattern for your message to your coworker, with your own explanation of utilitarianism.

Reflect on your revision

After you revise, answer one of these two options in 2–4 sentences; they carry the same weight:

• (a) Which change made your sourcing or one of your reconstructions more exact, and which definition or pinned quotation showed you it was needed?
• (b) Which change made your statement of one of the objections or replies stronger, and what had you left out at first?

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft Part A, Part B, and your message to your coworker before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Reply in your own words. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one correction, reconstruction, or statement of an objection or reply, even if your first attempt was strong, and then reflect using option (a) or (b).
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write your corrections, reconstructions, or message for you. If it changes a word in either pinned quotation, swaps in a familiar slogan for Mill's principle, says Mill agreed with Bentham on every point, or says whether utilitarianism is the right theory, check that against Chapter 11 before you use it.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach for an introductory philosophy course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about this week's ideas: consequentialism and utilitarianism; impartiality; Jeremy Bentham's An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (printed 1780, first published 1789) and its opening sentence, "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure."; John Stuart Mill's Greatest Happiness Principle in Utilitarianism, "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness", and his higher and lower pleasures; act and rule utilitarianism; the justice, rights, and demandingness objections; and Peter Singer's drowning child from "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" (1972). Do not write my assignment for me and do not invent work I did not show. Never invent a quotation, a philosopher's view, or a source; quote only the two sentences above, word for word; never call a Dataset B argument sound or unsound; and never announce a verdict on whether utilitarianism is the right theory.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these two problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. Part A: I correct a forum post that says "Mill opened his book by saying pain and pleasure are our two sovereign masters, and Bentham's Greatest Happiness Principle says to do whatever makes you happiest. Mill agreed with all of it." I say whose book opens with the two-sovereign-masters sentence and quote it exactly, say whose Greatest Happiness Principle is and quote it exactly, say why "do whatever makes you happiest" misstates utilitarianism and which view it describes, and say where Mill parts from Bentham. I key Dataset B's argument 3 (illustrative): "If an act maximizes happiness, it is right. If it is right, we ought to do it. So if an act maximizes happiness, we ought to do it." I name its form, judge its validity with a reason, and name the premise a critic rejects. I reconstruct Singer's pond case in standard form (P1, P2, then C introduced by "So") with Singer's principle as P1 and any added premise marked "(added)", name its form, judge its validity, and say what Singer says about whether the principle depends on utilitarianism. Part B: I run act and rule utilitarianism on a promise to feed a neighbor's cat set against a paid job out of town, and say which theory Dataset J's statement "A broken promise is wrong if breaking it causes more misery than keeping it." is keyed to; I state the justice, rights, and demandingness objections at their strongest with my own examples and give a utilitarian reply to each; and I end with one plain sentence naming where utilitarianism and its critics disagree.
PROBLEM P1: Bentham's An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation was printed in 1780 and first published in 1789. How many years separate the printing from the publication?
PROBLEM P2: Bentham's Principles was first published in 1789, and Singer's "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" dates from 1972. How many years separate them?
For P1 I must also supply the forum-post correction and the two reconstructions. For P2 I must also supply the costly-promise analysis, the three objections with replies, and the plain sentence; then a 3-5 sentence message in everyday words to a coworker who thinks utilitarianism means doing whatever makes them happy. After revising, I reflect using option (a) or (b) from my assignment page.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply, out of 100 points. Sourcing and attribution (P1): 20 if the correction credits the two-sovereign-masters sentence to Bentham's Principles and quotes it exactly, credits the Greatest Happiness Principle to Mill and quotes it exactly, says utilitarianism counts each person's happiness equally and that "do whatever makes you happiest" describes ethical egoism, says Mill parts from Bentham by holding that pleasures differ in quality as well as in amount, and works the P1 year gap; 10 if at least three but not all of those five parts are accurate; 0 if fewer. Argument reconstruction (P1): 25 if argument 3 is in standard form, named as hypothetical syllogism, judged valid with a reason, with the premise a critic rejects named; and the pond case is in standard form with Singer's principle as P1, named as modus ponens, judged valid, with Singer's note that the principle does not depend on utilitarianism; 15 if one of the two is complete and the other has one gap; 5 if at least one form is named and judged with a reason but both have gaps; 0 otherwise. Evaluation of the theory (P2): 25 if act and rule utilitarianism are each run on the promise, the Dataset J statement is keyed to utilitarianism and tied to the act utilitarian's reasoning, all three objections are stated at their strongest with the student's own examples and a utilitarian reply to each, the plain sentence names the disagreement, and the P2 year gap is worked; 15 if one of those parts is missing; 5 if two or more are missing or an objection or the theory is stated in a weakened form; 0 if no accurate evaluation. Plain-language explanation for a non-expert (P2): 15 if the message is in everyday words, says what utilitarianism holds, explains why counting everyone equally differs from doing what makes you happy, and names a limit or open question; 8 if it can be followed but omits one of those points or leaves a term unexplained; 0 if missing. Revision and reflection (P2): 15 if I show a before-and-after change plus a reflection on why it is better; 8 if only one of the two; 0 if neither.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my reply. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to check it against the definitions and the pinned sources. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word reply is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied both problems with the forum-post correction, the two reconstructions, the costly-promise analysis, the three objections with replies, the plain sentence, and the coworker message AND revised at least one part AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my correction, my reconstructions, my evaluation, and my message]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised work, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised work: the forum-post correction, the keyed argument 3, and the pond reconstruction with Singer's note and the first year gap; the costly-promise analysis, the three objections with their replies, and the plain sentence with the second year gap; your message to your coworker; and your reflection — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 11 skills — crediting each pinned sentence to its author and quoting it exactly, putting an argument in standard form and judging its validity without keying soundness, running act and rule utilitarianism on a case, stating the justice, rights, and demandingness objections at their strongest with replies, and explaining utilitarianism to someone new to philosophy — for comparable time and effort, about 75 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete Part A, Part B, the message to your coworker, and one reflection option. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion: for the correction, check each quotation word for word and each attribution against Chapter 11's record; for each reconstruction, underline any added premise and check the form's name against Week 2's list; for the promise, check that your act utilitarian weighs one act and your rule utilitarian weighs a rule; for each objection, ask whether its strongest critic would sign your statement of it and whether a utilitarian would sign your reply; and check that your coworker message keeps utilitarianism apart from ethical egoism. Write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one change you made, the definition or pinned quotation that prompted it, and one question you still have. Submit the revised work, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The correction, reconstructions, evaluation, message, revision, and reflection must be your own words. Do not ask the chatbot to write any of them or to add evidence you did not produce. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com