Explain each of the three approaches to morality presented in the course

Description:Imagine that a terrorist intends to detonate a nuclear bomb in a major city. Imagine further that we know with absolute certainty that we can stop the terrorist from detonating the bomb if we horribly torture and then kill an innocent child (of no relation to the terrorist, but for whom the terrorist happens to have feelings) and that if we do not torture then kill this innocent child, the bomb will be detonated, a million people will die instantly, and millions more will suffer devastating harms. Is it morally permissibility to horribly torture and then kill this innocent child? You must support and defend a definitive answer to this question using multiple paragraphs and over 750 words (though even a C essay probably needs at least 1000 words and an A essay 1500 words — not because more words make it better but because it undoubtedly requires more words to convey what is needed to earn the grade) . You may write a much longer paper if you wish (there surely is much more than 1500 words worth that can be written for this assignment), but, if you do write something substantially longer, be sure that you are not wasting my time or yours. In the process of both supporting and defending your thesis, you MUST: Explain each of the three approaches to morality presented in the course (Kant’s, Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics) being sure to consider and clearly discuss: both versions of Kant’s categorical imperative that we addressed (see Post Questions 3.1.2 and 3.1.3), including why Kant formulated them and exactly how they apply in this scenario, the fundamental position of utilitarianism, including why Mill thinks that, in addition to how past utilitarians have supported the higher pleasures (moral and intellectual pleasures) based on a quantitative approach, he can support them from a qualitative approach (as simply better pleasures), and how a utilitarian, accounting for all the morally relevant factors (including the possible significance of the distinction between act and rule utilitarianism), would respond to our scenario, and the details of the virtue ethics approach of both Aristotle and Held and how followers of theirs might formulate their response to this challenge. Present your own position explaining what support, if any, it can get from one or more of the three approaches. In the process of doing this, you must take a stand as to the relative merits of these three approaches to morality independently of our question, as well as their value in helping us to answer our question. Specifically, you need to explain why the approach that you take to deciding whether to torture and kill the child is the correct approach to morality generally (as opposed to merely being an approach that yields what you consider the right result in this case). For example, if you support a utilitarian approach, you need to explain why morality requires us always to maximize happiness. Consider how holders of these three approaches might argue against your position, and defend yourself from these counter-arguments. A paper must begin with an introduction within which you explain the issue in question, state your thesis (the position of whose truth you want to convince your reader, i.e., that the child may or may not be tortured), and discuss how you will organize your paper to support that thesis and defend it from opposition. In the body of your paper, every paragraph, every sentence, and every word ought to be essential to an effective argument in support or defense of your thesis