Explain Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle, the “doctrine of swine” objection, and Mill’s response to the objection, including the distinction he draws between different kinds of pleasure and the role of “competent judges”.

Choose one of the following topics and write a paper of approximately 1000-1500 words in response.  Be sure to answer all parts of the question and to include in-text citations and a works cited page (any standard format is acceptable). Optionally, if you want to write on a different topic related to Mill’s Utilitarianism or the well-being readings, you can propose an alternative topic to me. 1. Explain Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle, the “doctrine of swine” objection, and Mill’s response to the objection, including the distinction he draws between different kinds of pleasure and the role of “competent judges”. Is Mill’s response wholly satisfactory? Describe an objection that someone (possibly yourself) might make and evaluate whether it is successful or whether Mill has an adequate response available. 2. Describe hedonism as a theory of well-being and the experience machine objection to hedonism. What is the best response that a hedonist could make to the objection? Explain why it does or does not succeed. 3. The philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson describes the following case: “You are to imagine yourself to be a surgeon, a truly great surgeon. Among other things you do, you transplant organs, and you are such a great surgeon that the organs you transplant always take. At the moment you have five patients who need organs. Two need one lung each, two need a kidney each, and the fifth needs a heart. If they do not get those organs today, they will all die. . . . The time is almost up when a report is brought to you that a young man who has just come into your clinic for his yearly check-up has exactly the right blood-type, and is in excellent health. Lo, you have a possible donor. All you need do is cut him up and distribute his parts among the five who need them. You ask, but he says, ‘Sorry, I deeply sympathize, but no.’ Would it be morally permissible for you to operate anyway?” First, based on Mill’s discussion of the Greatest Happiness Principle in chapter 2 of Utilitarianism, how would he answer this question? If more information about the case is necessary, then describe what kind of information is relevant and why. Second, does the answer change once we take into account what Mill says in chapter 2 about the proper use of secondary principles in moral reasoning? Explain Mill’s account of the role of secondary principles and its implications (if any) for this case. 4. In chapter 3 of Utilitarianism, Mill considers the possibility of someone who “says to himself, I feel that I am bound not to rob or murder, betray or deceive; but why am I bound to promote the general happiness? If my own happiness lies in something else, why may I not give that the preference?” (27). Explain Mill’s distinction between internal and external sanctions and how he uses it to respond to this objection. Also describe at least one objection that someone might make to Mill’s argument. Is it successful? Explain.