Clarification on Certain Concepts Found in J. Rachel's Philo Book

I am having difficulties understanding certain topics of ethics and I have put them in question form below: I need the answers to those questions to help me to prepare for my exam.. The answers will be very rewarding in helping me to understand the topics of Ethcis that we have covered in our class better.
(our book " The elements of Moral Philosophy" by James Rachels)

These are the questions that I find diffuclt to answer and I would appreciate it if you could provide short answers ( maybe one paragraph, that will allow me to understand the answer fully) in order for me to get rid of the confusion and better understand my topics and also better prepare for my test. The answers that you provide will be used as a study guide for my upcoming exam.

1. What does it mean to say that moral reasons or motives depend on God? What is the problem with this view?
(Fear of punishment and hope of reward are the motives for morality?)

2.What is Classical Utilitarianism? Why, according to this view, nonhuman animals are entitled to equal moral concern.

3.Utilitarians hold that the rightness and wrongness of actions depend only on their consequences. What is one of Rachels' criticisms of this view.

4. Rachels considers and rejects, the argument that ethical Egoism is compatible with commonsense morality. He says there are " two serious problems" with this argument. what are these problems?

5. One of the arguments in favor of " Psychological Egoism" is "The Argument that we always do what we most wanted to do". What are Rachels' two criticisms of this argument?

6. What are the differences between ethical egoism and Psychological egoism ?
(Psychological Egoism is concerned with how people do behave. Ethical Egoism is a theory about how we ought to behave... what are some other differences?)

© SolutionLibrary Inc. 9836dcf9d7

Solution Preview is that they come from God, we say also that they depend on God for their legitimacy.Those who think that morality is derived indirectly from God would be those who claim a sort of natural law morality. God has set things in motion in a particular way, and our job is to understand and act accordingly.The other, non-God group would say that you can't base morality on God because, in part, God cannot be proven to exist. Morality needs a foundation that isn't an appeal to something not everyone believes in. In addition, basing morality on God means that morality does not have intrinsic worth (see Kant's first and second books of the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and Plato's "Euthyphro"). Relating to intrinsic worth, basing morality on God also means that moral motivation is consequence-based. As you wrote, fear of punishment or hope for reward.

2.What is Classical Utilitarianism? Why, according to this view, nonhuman animals are entitled to equal moral concern.

Classical Utilitarianism is simply the traditional (or original) theory of Bentham and Mill (and has its roots in Greek Hedonism).
Remember that the Greatest Happiness Principle is the guiding concept of Utilitarianism. At least in terms of Bentham, no distinction is made between QUALITY and QUANTITY of happiness - it's simply a case of 'the more happiness for everyone, the better.' In this sense, there is no distinction between human and non-human ...