Ethical Egoism In Nozick's 'Experience Machine'

2) According to Aquinas, how can we know that we should at according to reason?
Though it may be true both that God designed us and that we are rational, Aquinas would not used this to prove we should act according to reason.
The concept of teleology (which Aquinas used) says, for natural objects or artifacts, that things are designed a certain way in order to perform a certain way.
Thus, the way Aquinas would phrase his answer is that God designed us the way he did so that we would act rationally.

4) Compare the lives of someone who actually does great things that she enjoys and someone who has the same experience in Nozick’s “Experience Machine”. According to _____, the person who actually does those things enjoys her life more.
Where I
Ethical Egoism states that each person should act in accordance to those actions which would produce the best results for the given individual (self-interest). This is how actions are judged to be morally right or morally wrong, based on the consequences alone.
Therefore, not only does Utilitarianism work as an answer for this question (which was the one I chose), but Ethical Egoism also fits. This means the correct answer is “all of the above”.

8) According to Socrates, if I do not know what justice is, then I cannot know…
Socrates’ Epistemic Thesis states “S knows what x is iff S can define x”, the definition of x being the necessary and proper conditions for something to be x. Then, according to the Priority of Definition, S cannot know that a particular borderline case is x unless S knows what x is. Therefore, Socrates would agree that if you do not know what justice is, you can’t know whether a borderline case is just or unjust.
However, Socrates would not agree that you also can’t know whether any action is just or unjust. Quite to the contrary, he admits that there are certain actions we can know are just (ie. worshiping the gods, caring for others, etc.) or unjust (ie. attacking innocent people, desecrating monuments, etc.) despite not being able to define
Here I brought up the point that it would be arbitrary since the different gods would love and value different things, and those values could change. While this was addressed by Socrates and Euthyphro at one point, it was also resolved before the Euthyphro Question came up, making it irrelevant in this situation. Euthyphro resolved his error by determining that actions were not pious if they were loved by a god, but if they were loved by all gods unanimously. What I should have written: “If it is pious because the gods love it, then this implies that morals are determined by what the gods unanimously value. Thus this is a Divine Command Theory since divine power defines morals and there is no external factor. There is still a problem, though. The gods do not agree on all fronts, so there will be many actions that are neither pious (loved by all gods) nor impious (not loved by all