This assignment requires 1800 words minimum, composed in your own words. Quotations fromthe book are permitted (and they can help you make your paper better) but they do not counttowards this word requirement. Your paper must be double-spaced, 11 point font size, on aregular 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 forevery child to be vaccinated against bad diseases like measles and mumps? Be sure to explainhow you imagine a world in which that moral rule is the rule for everyone. In that imaginedworld, would everyone prefer that this rule is followed by everyone? Based on your answer tothat question, describe how you reach your final answer: would Kant agree, or disagree, that itis morally right for every child to get vaccinated. Then describe how you would explain topeople against child vaccination, using only reasoning based on Kant’s ethics, why their opinioncan’t be morally right.

Second, describe how John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian principle – “the greatest happiness for thegreatest number” – would be applied to this problem: Should there be a law that requires allparents to make sure that all their children receive vaccinations to prevent bad diseases likemumps and measles? Be sure to describe how your answer – “Yes, that law is the utilitariananswer” or “No, utilitarianism does not support this law” – is supported by considering thelong-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 onlyreasoning 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 theparents reject child vaccinations on religious grounds. Does that small society (for example, anisolated community in a rural area, or a small country somewhere) have the right to be leftalone about having no child vaccinations? Should a larger country, that thinks that childrendeserve protection from diseases, threaten that small society (with crippling economicsanctions, or sending in the army) in order to force it to allow vaccinations? Where would alarger country get the right to impose its own morality on the small society? Does it have thatright? 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 forevery child to be vaccinated against bad diseases like measles and mumps? Be sure to explainhow you imagine a world in which that moral rule is the rule for everyone. In that imaginedworld, would everyone prefer that this rule is followed by everyone? Based on your answer tothat question, describe how you reach your final answer: would Kant agree, or disagree, that itis morally right for every child to get vaccinated. Then describe how you would explain topeople against child vaccination, using only reasoning based on Kant’s ethics, why their opinioncan’t be morally right.

Second, describe how John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian principle – “the greatest happiness for thegreatest number” – would be applied to this problem: Should there be a law that requires allparents to make sure that all their children receive vaccinations to prevent bad diseases likemumps and measles? Be sure to describe how your answer – “Yes, that law is the utilitariananswer” or “No, utilitarianism does not support this law” – is supported by considering thelong-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 onlyreasoning 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 theparents reject child vaccinations on religious grounds. Does that small society (for example, anisolated community in a rural area, or a small country somewhere) have the right to be leftalone about having no child vaccinations? Should a larger country, that thinks that childrendeserve protection from diseases, threaten that small society (with crippling economicsanctions, or sending in the army) in order to force it to allow vaccinations? Where would alarger country get the right to impose its own morality on the small society? Does it have thatright?