Respond to either Q1a, b, or c. Q1a. John Stuart Mill offers us an argument in

Respond to either Q1a, b, or c.
Q1a. John Stuart Mill offers us an argument in favor of hedonism. (He says it’s an argument in favor of utilitarianism, but it is really in favor of hedonism, more specifically). Begin by stating his argument, then answer the following question: Is Mill’s argument sound? (A) If you believe his argument is sound, (1a) state why you find his argument convincing, (2a) consider how a smart critic might object to the argument, and (3a) defend his argument from the critique. (B) If you believe his argument is unsound, (1b) state why you find his argument unconvincing, (2b) consider how Mill might attempt to defend his argument from your objection, and (3c) offer a smart rebuttal to Mill’s defense.
Q1b. Mozi offers us an argument in favor of what your instructor has called the thesis of ‘impartialism.’ (Mozi calls the thesis ‘universal love,’ but this is more-or-less just the impartialist thesis). Begin by stating his argument, then answer the following question: Is Mozi’s argument sound? (A) If you believe his argument is sound, (1a) state why you find his argument convincing, (2a) consider how a smart critic might object to the argument, and (3a) defend his argument from the critique. (B) If you believe his argument is unsound, (1b) state why you find his argument unconvincing, (2b) consider how Mozi might attempt to defend his argument from your objection, and (3b) offer a smart rebuttal to Mozi’s defense.
Q1c. This week we encountered several significant objections to utilitarianism. The following three are the most significant: The Experience Machine objection, as described by Robert Nozick; the Walking Away from Omelas objection, as described by Ursula Le Guin; and the Trolley Problem objection, as described by Judith Jarvis Thomson. (1) Begin by describing ONE (and only one) of these objections. How does it work as an objection to utilitarianism? (2) Then, defend utilitarianism from the objection. (3) Afterwards, consider how Nozick, Le Guin, or Thomson might reply to your defense. Do you find this reply plausible? Why or why not?