Exam One

"How does Kant determine that we have a duty not to commit suicide?"(HLS 803, 2022)

"Suicide treats oneself as a mere means, not as an end in oneself" (HLS 803, 2022)

Categorical Imperative

"...an unconditional moral obligation that is binding in all circumstances and is not dependent on a person's inclination or purpose. A requirement, applies to everyone regardless of their goals or preferences With categorical imperatives, there is no "if"; there is just the command: Do X." (HLS 803, 2022)

"Which of the following best expresses a contrast between virtue ethics and deontology?" (HLS 803, 2022)

"Unlike deontology, for virtue ethics, specific situations and circumstances must be taken into account in moral reasoning" (HLS 803, 2022)

Egalitarian triage

"...applies the utilitarian principle that everyone's interests count equally, prioritizing who to save on the basis of need and probability of success alone, without taking people's status or potential future contributions into consideration. (This is the familiar model of dividing victims into those who will likely survive without treatment, those who will likely not survive even with treatment, and those who will likely survive with treatment, and focusing resources on the latter in order to maximize lives saved with the resources available.)" (HLS 803, 2022)

kingdom of ends

"...is an ideal: a hypothetical world in which everyone is always treated as ends in themselves, as beings whose boundless inherent worth comes from their autonomous ability to choose to act on duty. In other words, a kingdom of ends is an ideal world in which everyone follows the categorical imperative." (HLS 803, 2022)

Subjectivism

"...the view that moral claims are not objective assertions of fact, but statements of subjective individual preferences. If it is the case that morality is evaluated in relation to feelings, and if it is the case that some individuals feel no sympathy for murder victims and thus do not condemn murder, Kant worries that morality lacks any legitimate foundation at all." (HLS 803, 2022)

Absolutism

"...the view that moral rules and duties may never justifiably be violated. Kant argues that an absolute ethical foundation must be derived a priori, from pure reason alone, because reason (as Kant understands it) is universal. Reason is the faculty that allows us to understand that x + x = 2x and that two contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time. Such truths apply universally: everyone who reasons correctly will come to the same conclusions. So, for Kant, in order to establish morality on a firm foundation, moral knowledge cannot be derived from human nature, experiences, or feelings: it is found only a priori, in pure reason alone." (HLS 803, 2022)

Deontology (duty-based)

"A non-consequentialist theory, meaning that an action's moral worth is evaluated independently of its expected good and bad consequences: rather, an action's moral status is determined by the nature of the act itself and by the motive behind it. Some actions are intrinsically right or wrong, and we have a moral duty to perform or not perform those actions, regardless of the consequences." (HLS 803, 2022) "In Kant's deontological (i.e., duty-based) ethics, duties and rights are closely connected. Rights imply correlative duties: where others have rights, we have duties not to violate those rights, and where we have duties, others have rights to be treated (or not treated) in certain ways. That we have a moral duty not to lie entails that others have a right not to be lied to; that others have a right to life entails that we have a duty not to kill them; and so on." (HLS 803, 2022) (ok i could be wrong but feel like this is such a weird theory like HUH? Especially when compared against utilitarianism. Consequences to your actions matter idk man. If I tell the truth, and as aa result my BFF dies, Kant says I'm all good. I'm in the clear morally and nothing should be on my conscience. Boooo that is so wack)

Humanity Formula

"According to Kant, a person is defined as a rational being. Being capable of rational thought means you are capable of autonomy: the ability to be self-determining, to set their own goals and purposes. Autonomous beings are capable of intentionally choosing to act on the basis of their own motives rather than being blindly subjected either to their own non-rational impulses or to impersonal, unchosen laws of nature." (HLS 803, 2022) "Because persons have the dignity afforded by autonomy, they have priceless intrinsic worth: their value lies not in what they can be used to achieve, but in what they are. Kant holds that each rational being views their own existence as an end in itself—they do not think of themselves as things that can be used. Since everyone thinks of themselves this way, that we ought to respect rational beings is a universal and objective principle, not contingent and subjective. Thus, the concept of a person as an end in itself with dignity and intrinsic value worthy of respect grounds the second formulation of the categorical imperative: "So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as means only"' (HLS 803, 2022) don't use people. Treat people as people because they have inherent value, not as objects or a way to get something you want

"Which of the following is an expression of the categorical imperative?"(HLS 803, 2022)

"Act as both legislator of, and subject to, universal law in a kingdom of ends Treat persons as ends in themselves, never merely as means Act only on maxims that can be willed as universal laws"(HLS 803, 2022)

Universal law formula

"Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law" (Fundamental Principles, second section). (HLS 803, 2022) "Maxim- a rule I take as authoritative for myself for guiding my actions. To determine if an action is morally acceptable, we must state the maxim behind it, and then determine whether or not that maxim would work as a universal law." (HLS 803, 2022)

How does Zack characterize rights (in general)?(HLS 803, 2022)

"As entitlements to government assistance, deontological (the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action), safeguards against abuse of government power." (HLS 803, 2022)

"Which of the following best characterizes the relationship between virtue ethics and moral evaluation?" (HLS 803, 2022)

"Virtues themselves are moral norms" (HLS 803, 2022)

Save the Greatest Number vs Save All Who Can be Saved

"At first blush, SGN may appear to be a straightforward application of the principle of utility, maximizing good by maximizing the number of lives saved. But on closer analysis, SGN doesn't actually maximize the number of lives saved. Saving the greatest number in a situation where a disaster is already underway will fail to save those who could have been saved had the disaster been better prepared for, or avoided altogether, through better planning. SALL avoids this problem because applying it hinges on sufficient preparation planning. Both SGN and SALL are utilitarian principles at their core, but SALL does a better job of applying the principle of utility to disaster planning. If more lives are saved through better preparation, utility is maximized to a greater degree." (HLS 803, 2022)

Efficiency triage

"Emphasizes maximizing good results beyond immediate lives saved and prioritizes treatment for those who are critical to achieving further goals beyond the immediate crisis. In Zack's analysis, egalitarian triage is ethically and socially preferable because it is more fair—but efficiency triage could be more practical in responding to a crisis, doing more good in the end." (HLS 803, 2022)

"Which of the following best articulates Zack's view about the permissibility of exceptions to moral rules in disasters?" (HLS 803, 2022)

"Exceptions may be permitted if what counts as an acceptable exception is broadly promulgated and widely accepted" (HLS 803, 2022)

"Which of the following best captures Mill's response to the concern that utilitarianism prioritizes expedience over principle?"(HLS 803, 2022)

"Following moral principles is the most expedient way to maximize happiness overall" (HLS 803, 2022)

Humanity formula four duties

"If I were to commit suicide, I would use myself as a means to end my suffering rather than respecting my own priceless intrinsic worth. If I were to lie to someone in order to get money, I would use her as an instrument for my own ends, treating her as a money-dispensing machine rather than as a person who deserves the respect of being fully informed before she chooses what to do with her money. If I were to fail to develop my talents, I would fail to respect the full scope of my own worth. If I were to refuse to help someone in need, and whom I have the ability to help, I would fail to respect that his autonomously-chosen ends are just as important as my own." (HLS 803, 2022)

Hypothetical Imperative

"If you want y, then do x."

"What is Bernard Williams's argument about the Traveler Jim scenario?" (HLS 803, 2022)

"Jim has the moral right not to become a person who has committed murder" (HLS 803, 2022)

Mill's view on what it means to maximize pleasure (measuring pleasure, quality/quantity)

"Pleasures can be ranked from lower-quality to higher-quality. The quality of pleasure, not just the quantity, matters." (HLS 803, 2022) In my silly little dumb opinion, Mill had more nuance or at least seems to make utilitarianism much less black & white, which was his goal if I'm not mistaken. It's like he refined Bentham's original thoughts. Utilitarianism was very misunderstood so he tried to clarify because critics were sUPER misunderstanding his takes.

"In what ways does Zack distinguish between safety and security?" (HLS 803, 2022)

"Safety entails protection from all threats, while security entails protection from threats from human agents" (HLS 803, 2022) "Safety is generally taken to be a civilian responsibility, while security is generally taken to be a matter for the military and police" (HLS 803, 2022) "Safety requires preparation for likely threats, while security emphasizes response to known threats" (HLS 803, 2022)

Fairly Save All Who Can Be Saved, with the Best Preparation

"The "BP" in this principle is crucial: the better prepared we are for disasters, the more people will be saved, eliminating the need to resort to problematic after-the-fact triage measures that bend commonly accepted moral rules governing normal life. That said, it is a reality that even the best possible preparation cannot account for all eventualities, and it is inevitable that when the unforeseen happens, not everyone will be saved. In such situations, a utilitarian approach might advocate for an efficiency triage model. Zack, though, resists this conclusion, holding that when all else fails, determining who lives and who dies must be done fairly. The "F" in FSALLBP entails that when we are saving all who can be saved in a situation in which not everyone can be saved, we are not justified in deciding who lives and who dies based on unfair criteria such as remaining life years or perceived social worth."(HLS 803, 2022) "There is no reason we cannot adequately prepare for predictable disasters so that we can fairly save all who can be saved."(HLS 803, 2022) Things like social class, status, etc. shouldn't be factored in when saving people. That's what is happening in the United States with covid in areas that are experiencing crisis care- if there was only one ventilator, and it was between myself and a disabled person, I would get the ventilator. Bad! Not good!

"According to Kant, what is the only thing that is good without qualification" (HLS 803, 2022)

"The good will. the good will is the will that is motivated by duty alone, not by a well-meaning desire to achieve a good or pleasant result." (HLS 803, 2022)

Consequentialism

"The moral value of an action is determined by whether its consequences are good or bad. Focused on the end result of an action. A moral obligation to do whatever would bring about the best consequences. Assess all courses of action, weigh the god and bad that might come from them, and choose the one that has the best result." (HLS 803, 2022)

Autonomy Formula

"Thus phrased, the autonomy formula might sound similar to the first version of the categorical imperative, but there's an important difference. The universal law formula tells me how I ought to act; the autonomy formula tells me who must tell me how I ought to act if I am to be moral: me myself." (HLS 803, 2022) In order for my actions to have moral worth, they must stem from moral principles I autonomously determine for myself. (HLS 803, 2022)

Actions can be

"To unpack the concept of being motivated by duty, Kant discusses different ways in which motives, actions, and duty can be related. Actions can be: - Opposed to duty, - In conformity with duty, or - From duty." (HLS 803, 2022)

?Using the first formulation of the categorical imperative, how does Kant determine that making a false promise in order to get money is wrong?"(HLS 803, 2022)

"Universalized, the maxim would contradict itself" (HLS 803, 2022)

"According to Zack, what central question about the role of government does social contract theory suggest in the context of disasters?" (HLS 803, 2022)

"What does the government owe citizens in situations when the government is temporarily disrupted" (HLS 803, 2022)

What could Mill respond with when critics say ultimate happiness, a life without pain, is unattainable and Utilitarianism is an unrealistic idealist theory?

"While pain is not unavoidable, it is possible to live a life with a greater balance of pleasure over pain. To the extent that we work to achieve that balance—not just for ourselves, but for as many people as possible—we do what utilitarian morality requires. We may not be able to completely eradicate the evils of the world that produce so much widespread suffering and pain—poverty, disease, war, and so on—but we can reduce them, and, Mill argues, we can reduce them to a vast degree. Most of the major sources of human suffering, he claims, are within our means to control. We could, if we so chose, adjust social priorities and arrange social institutions such that access to the means of happiness—subsistence, education, health, and so on—were available to all." (HLS 803, 2022) "In pursuit of these goals, Bentham and Mill worked for social reforms that were radical for their time, such as abolishing slavery, decriminalizing homosexuality, liberating women, and making education more widely and equitably available for all, without regard for race or sex."(HLS 803, 2022) (love to see it)

Rule Utilitarianism

"a utilitarian theory asserting that the morally right action is the one covered by a rule that if generally followed would produce the most favorable balance of good over evil, everyone considered" (HLS 803, 2022) Rule utilitarianism has a lot more nuanced and is less intense feeling than Act utilitarianism.

Act Utilitarianism

"a utilitarian theory asserting that the morally right action is the one that directly produces the most favorable balance of good over evil, everyone considered" (HLS 803, 2022)

Greatest Happiness Principle

"actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness" (HLS 803, 2022)

What was Mill talking about when he touched on higher vs lower pleasures

(I was confused until I saw an example of what a lower pleasure or higher pleasure was- Lower pleasure is presumed to be like sensual pleasures etc., and higher pleasures are like intellectual and more deep. Lower pleasures aren't bad, they have intrinsic value bc it's still pleasure.) for Mill, maximizing utility is not a matter of adding up the greatest total quantity of pleasure regardless of what kind of pleasure it is. Rather, the quality of pleasure is of key importance. Higher-quality pleasures come from the exercise of the higher faculties—those "of the intellect, of the feelings and imagination, and of the moral sentiments" (Mill, Utilitarianism, chapter 2). It is these faculties that grant human beings dignity, elevating them above creatures that are satisfied with the lower pleasures arising from mere "animal appetites." Mill argues that pleasures can be qualitatively ranked by appealing to those who have experienced multiple forms of pleasure. He claims that since those who have experienced both lower- and higher-quality pleasures prefer the latter, those pleasures are more desirable and more valuable. This doesn't mean that bodily or sensual pleasures are bad: since pleasure is the only thing with intrinsic value, the only thing worth pursuing for its own sake, all pleasure is good. But pleasures generated through the exercise of the higher faculties are better. This is true even if the pursuits and activities that provide a higher level of fulfillment are accompanied by pain—which Mill argues that they frequently are. Consider, for example, the sacrifice and struggle required to achieve an educational degree. The very faculties of intellect, spirit, and moral sentiment that allow human beings to pursue and find fulfillment in pleasures higher than what animals can achieve are those that bring along with them greater suffering than animals experience. Even so, a life spent cultivating the higher faculties, with all the pain that comes with it, is qualitatively superior to a life of physical pleasure, but mental and spiritual stagnation. Mill articulates this point in a famous phrase: "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied" (Utilitarianism, chapter 2).

Disadvantages of Kant's deontology

- "On the other hand, critics argue that Kant's absolute prohibition on certain actions, such as lying (to take one example), is too extreme. That Kant would forbid us from lying even to save a life seems a bridge too far. Critics argue that such absolutism is too black and white for a world colored in shades of grey." (HLS 803, 2022) - "it doesn't give us guidance on how to formulate maxims, and how broad or narrow we make our maxim can alter the moral duty derived. For example, while Kant argues that lying is never morally justified because a maxim to lie cannot apply universally without contradiction, the case could be made that a sufficiently specific maxim can justify lying in some cases without violating the universalization test. For example, the maxim "When confronted with a would-be killer seeking to murder my friend, in order to save my friend's life, I will lie" could, arguably, be willed as a universal law without contradiction." (HLS 803, 2022)

Advantages of Kant's deontology

- "it eliminates any need to worry about circumstances or expected consequences in moral decision-making"(HLS 803, 2022) - "We don't have to carry out any kind of complicated calculus to determine the best possible outcome—a calculus we could easily get wrong. We merely have to accept as authoritative the moral law that commands inviolable duties, regardless of what may happen." (HLS 803, 2022) - "The imperative to do one's duty regardless of the outcome places morality within our control in a way that consequentialism does not." (HLS 803, 2022) - "it can account for our sense that there are actions that are intrinsically wrong and are never justified, such as rape, murder, enslavement, and so on" (HLS 803, 2022) - "Kant's ethics accord with our moral sense that persons have a special dignity that commands respect. The humanity formula of the categorical imperative undergirds our sense that it is unfair, and a violation of individual rights, to use some people as tools to benefit others. Kantian ethics provides a solid grounding for the view that persons have rights that may not justifiably be infringed, no matter how good the ends are being pursued." (HLS 803, 2022)

Bentham's view on what it means to maximize pleasure (measuring pleasure, quality/quantity)

All pleasures are equal. The quantity of pleasure is what matters most.

"Which of the following best expresses Zack's view of the principle of SALL (Save All Who Can be Saved)?" (HLS 803, 2022)

As an application of a deontological commitment to fairness, it is ethically sound

"Which of the following best expresses Zack's view of the principle of SGN (Save the Greatest Number)?" (HLS 803, 2022)

Because SGN fails to account for disaster preparation planning, it is insufficient. There is no reason we cannot adequately prepare for predictable disasters so that we can fairly save all who can be saved.

"Which of the following best characterizes Aristotle's view of the relationship between ethics and politics?" (HLS 803, 2022)

Ethics is a subset of politics (HLS 803, 2022)

FSALLBP

Fairly Save All Who Can Be Saved, with the Best Preparation

True or false- Utilitarianism means that using any means is justified to achieve a desired end.

False. Utilitarianism doesn't just focus on producing happiness, but also on minimizing unhappiness: we must do what will bring about the most good with the least harm. This means that no matter the magnitude of the good being pursued, some means towards that end still may not be justified. For example, even if torturing a terror suspect would produce information that would save innocent lives—a great good—torture would not be morally acceptable if the information could be obtained in a less harmful way. In other words, we have to keep in mind not only the good we're trying to achieve, but the least harmful way of achieving it. Utility is maximized to a greater degree if good is attained and harm is minimized.

What value theory does utilitarianism have?

Hedonistic. Pleasure (absence of pain, happiness, higher/lower pleasures) is the only thing that has intrinsic value. Pain is the only thing that is intrinsically bad.

"Which of the following best captures Mill's distinction between higher and lower pleasures?" (HLS 803, 2022)

Higher pleasures are those of the intellect, imagination, and moral sentiment; lower pleasures are sensual

How does utilitarianism affect life today? What is its impact?

I feel like Utilitarianism is still used in the military, deciding to go to war/justifying certain missions. Utilitarians like democracy and social progress. Utilitarianism has certainly been relevant with the covid pandemic. Triage and lockdown, Public Utility needed to be considered.

How might utilitarianism be used when deciding to wear a mask or not to help reduce the likelihood of giving someone Covid? Which is the moral choice??

In a decision to wear a mask or not, weigh which action would cause the most happiness (absence of pain) for the most people. (HLS 803, 2022) Wearing a mask would be the correct answer. Using utilitarian calculus, the mild annoyance of a mask is causing you less unhappiness than not wearing one and causing the pandemic to continue. Wearing a proper mask immensely reduces the likelihood of contracting/spreading covid, therefore the moral answer to maximize good to the public would be to wear a mask. Not wearing one would be immoral.

Is the categorical imperative the same thing as the golden rule?

No. "The categorical imperative is a universal law of reason that dictates the same duties for everyone, everywhere, at all times, and that operates on the principle of rational consistency, not on personal desires or preferences. But the golden rule is subjective and contingent: different people prefer to be treated in different ways." (HLS 803, 2022)

"Is Utilitarianism about the pursuit of pleasure on an individual level?" (HLS 803, 2022)

No. Utilitarianism isn't about the pursuit of pleasure on an individual level, but about maximizing happiness to the greatest extent possible, for as many people as possible. Utilitarianism is not the same thing as egoism, which is a consequentialist theory that asserts that I ought to do what makes me happy, or what best serves my interests. Mill emphasizes that "the happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is not the agent's own happiness, but that of all concerned" (Utilitarianism, chapter 2).

advantages and disadvantages of Utilitarianism

Pros - "asks us to do the most good we can, an intuitively plausible moral imperative" (HLS 803, 2022) - "utilitarianism can supply the flexibility needed to make appropriate moral decisions based on circumstances" (HLS 803, 2022) - "By acknowledging that breaking moral rules is sometimes justified in order to prevent great harm, utilitarianism aligns with our sense that absolute prohibitions on certain acts, like lying (to take one example), are too extreme" (HLS 803, 2022) - It considers other people's happiness, as well as the community/state/global happiness. It is not individualistic or self-centered Cons - "Critics argue that since happiness is not quantifiable, there can be no reliable decision procedure for determining how to produce the most of it" (HLS 803, 2022) - "we cannot always predict the consequences of our actions, so not only will we be unable to determine which action's consequences will be the best, we may be unable to determine (at least, to a high degree of accuracy) what any given action's consequences will be in the first place." (HLS 803, 2022) -"its potential to disregard individual rights. Critics argue that on utilitarian grounds, it's too easy to justify violating people's rights and too easy to rationalize doing what is unjust and unfair to some in order to provide a benefit for others. Such disrespect for rights could extend to the extreme, justifying what would generally be considered to be deeply immoral behavior, like killing an innocent person in order to prevent harm to others."(HLS 803, 2022) ((((Proponents of utilitarianism, particularly of rule utilitarianism, respond by arguing that following general rules, like don't kill innocent people, does a better job of maximizing utility overall. However, since rule utilitarianism allows for exceptions to the rules in situations where breaking a rule would produce more utility than following it, critics argue that rule utilitarianism ultimately collapses into act utilitarianism and thus cannot overcome this objection.)))) (HLS 803, 2022)

"Critics say that Utilitarianism sets the bar unattainably high. asks too much of people to intend the happiness of all with every act, a standard rendering morality virtually impossible. What does Mill say to this?''(HLS 803, 2022)

Public utility refers to the benefits or harms actions produce for the public sphere (community or state). Private utility refers to the benefits and harms produced within an individual's private sphere of influence. "Mill argues that we are required only to consider the impact of our actions on those who will be impacted by them. Most of us inhabit the private sphere, where we do not routinely have to make hard decisions that will impact large groups of people, or consider whether, and when, breaking generally accepted moral rules would increase utility. People with broader spheres of influence, whose actions and decisions have the potential to affect the public more broadly, are morally obligated to keep public utility in mind. Most people, then, are responsible only for private utility, a much easier bar to meet." (HLS 803, 2022). An example of Public Utility is if I don't wear a mask in regard to covid. That action could result in unhappiness to a large number of people in the public sphere as a consequence. I could indirectly cause pain to hundreds.

"Critics argue utilitarianism is flawed because it would be impractical to calculate the utility of an action, the decision procedure is too demanding. They also say utilitarianism could be used to justify heinous actions. What would Mill's response be to this?" (HLS 803, 2022)

Rule Utilitarianism is his response. Mill says that we don't literally need to sit and calculate using his formula to determine every course of action. There are "Secondary Principles". Basically, little rules humans developed over the course of our history that make a lot of moral decisions common sense, to the point that we don't need to calculate. We know people aren't super jazzed when lied to, stolen from, etc. so we don't need to sit and ponder EVERY situation, it's common sense. Following our norms and principles in this way to maximize happiness is easy utilitarian. ~"Generally, we ought to follow secondary principles that have been shown to promote utility. But when it's not clear which secondary rules to follow when they conflict, the bottom line is always the principle of utility: do what will produce the greatest possible net balance of happiness over unhappiness." (HLS 803, 2022) Benthem's Act Utilitarianism is like the feral distant cousin of rule utilitarianism in my unprofessional opinion. It might justify wack actions for the sake of a good consequence. Mill was much more like.... detailed

SALL

Save All Who Can Be Saved

SGN

Save the Greatest Number

"According to Zack, which principle did the first mate of the William Brown apply in deciding whether, and whom, to throw overboard?" (HLS 803, 2022)

Save the greatest number who

"Which of the following best expresses Zack's view of the state of society post-disaster?" (HLS 803, 2022)

Severe disasters do not return us to a state of nature because the government does not disappear, and we lack the capacity for material self-sufficiency. P.S i feel like because we're used to government/capitalism/social norms and morals, it would take SO MUCH to return humans to an actual state of nature. In thee worst disasters I can think of, there were still like strong social norms and the communities governed themselves to a point. Just my thoughts.

utlility

The net balance of net good/bad an action is expected to produce. Utility = Happiness

instrumental value

The value something has after comparing it to something else. Worth pursuing due to whatever will happen as a result. Money has instrumental value, it can achieve a goal that has value. (HLS 803, 2022)

intrinsic value

The value something has without comparing it to anything else. Worth pursing for its own sake. Virtue has inherent intrinsic value. It's valuable just because. (HLS 803, 2022)

Principal of utlility

We should do actions that result in the most good for the most people. Maximize utility.

Is utilitarianism based on majority rule?

While the principle of utility requires us to pursue the greatest good for the greatest number, it doesn't mean that we automatically always do what benefits the majority. Maximizing utility means that we do whatever produces the greatest net balance of happiness over unhappiness, and sometimes that requires prioritizing the needs of the few over the needs of the many. So like.... if an action would create crazy cool happiness for like 5 people, and it would outweigh the happiness that would be for 10 people, i guess the high level of happiness for the few would be worth it? I need like real-world examples though.

Is Utilitarianism secular?

Yes BUT- Mill asks his critics what they think God wants, alleging that if there is a good God, his will is for his creatures to be happy. If this is so, then the utilitarian imperative of maximizing happiness "is not only not a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other" (Utilitarianism, chapter 2)

Third Version fo the Categorical Imperative

autonomy formula

How did Kant feel about lying

lying is intrinsically wrong, lying even with the good intention and wanting good consequences is wrong.

Private Utility

the benefits and harms produced within an individual's private sphere of influence.

Public utility

the benefits or harms actions produce for the public (such as a community or a state). "It's worth noting two points about this. First, in the advent of globalization and an ever-shrinking world, private individuals' actions have increasing potential to affect a much wider community, collapsing the distinction between public and private utility. For this reason, contemporary utilitarians such as Peter Singer argue that we are morally obligated to consider the impact of our actions globally." (HLS 803, 2022)

The three ways of an imperative

the universal law formula, the humanity formula, and the autonomy formula