Can you help me understand this Philosophy question?
1) Answer any THREE of the questions listed below. The three question response posts must have a minimum of 200 words each and must directly quote and properly cite (using MLA format) from the assigned textbook readings. I expect substantive and scholarly posts which evince an understanding of the complex chapter readings. Failure to meet the above criteria will result in a point deduction.
2) Post TWO substantive responses to other students’ posts.
PLEASE MAKE SURE TO SUBMIT5 SEPARATE POSTS: DO NOT ANSWER MORE THAN ONE QUESTION IN A SINGLE POST.
NOTE: NO LATE DISCUSSION POSTS WILL BE ACCEPTED.
QUESTIONS: CHOOSE ONLY THREE
Ch. 5: St. Thomas Aquinas
1) How would St. Thomas defend himself (if, indeed, such a defense is possible) against the charge of being “homophobic” (a word that did not exist in his time, but which is fairly common today)? Would you find his defense plausible? Why or why not?
2.) If one is not at all religious, is it still possible to take St. Thomas’ natural law theory seriously? Could it still be relied upon as a guide to living well? Explain.
Ch. 6: Hobbes
3) Compare Christ’s Golden Rule with Hobbes’ Golden Rule. Which do you think is more effective in getting people to obey the laws, and why?
4) What is Hobbes’ stance on the question of state censorship? What reasons does he give to support his view? Do you agree or disagree with him, and why?
Ch. 7: Hume
5) According to Hume, would justice be necessary in a utopian society? Why or why not? Do you think he is correct, and why?
Ch. 8: J.S. Mill
6) Explain John Stuart Mill’s theory of higher and lower pleasures: Are there any problems inherent in the theory? Overall, does Mill’s idea of higher and lower pleasures make sense to you? Why or why not?