The Principle of Utility

Complete ONE of the following essay questions below.
The expectation is that the weekly essay assignments are formal essays. That means an introduction, a main body, and a conclusion. General rule for the main body is that the number of paragraphs corresponds to the number of points being made.
Assignment E3: Answer ONE of the following.
3A. When is it, according to an act-utilitarian, right to punish an action? And when is it correct to praise someone for their actions? Consider the following case: You discover that an infamous war criminal is living happily in Argentina under false identity. He is responsible for various atrocities and crimes against humanity (though not against you directly), but has never had to answer for his crimes. Besides, everyone currently thinks he’s dead. You are in a position where you can turn him in so that he receives just punishment. Suppose you also know that if you do not report him, his survival will never be discovered. What should you do, according to act-utilitarianism, and why? Might a rule-utilitarian possibly give a different response?
Bear in the mind the first question provides the rubric for answering the rest of the questions; i.e., the principle of utility. Furthermore, this essay is about the difference between act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism, using the example given (the war criminal in Argentina) as a "case study" showcasing how that difference might manifest itself.
3B. According to Bentham, what are the causes of human action? What is the principle of utility? Is all pleasure intrinsically good? If not, then what if anything is intrinsically good? Consider George E. Moore's "heap of filth" argument. Explain whether you think the use of the hedonistic calculus for the individual and for society is feasible. Would you be able to use it to guide your actions? Can pleasure be quantified? What does Bentham mean when he explains that motives are neither bad nor good? Why doesn’t Bentham think that evil motives can be productive of overall good? Explain his analysis of motives.
This essay essentially has three parts: (1) From the start through to Moore's heap of filth, which is asking for a summary of utilitarianism overall, along with what has been considered a decisive objection to it on the metaethical level; (2) the next three question, all relating to the hedonistic calculus and quantifying pleasure--is this a workable guide for action? The viability of utilitarianism hinges on your answer; (3) the remainder, all specific to Bentham's thought of motives, which relate to the reasons for, and moral value of, acting.
Another thing about question 3A: Bernard Williams' objection to utilitarianism might give you some guidance:
Bernard Williams has objections to Utilitarianism:
Ex: George is a chemist and needs a job. His friend offers him a shady job to work on chemical and biological weapons. If he is efficient and does his job well a lot of people will die. Problem with Utilitarianism?
· If George declines the job, there’s no guarantee that it will go away.
· If George takes the job and does a less than perfect job (instead of Mark who is good at chemistry and will make a more powerful weapon than him) then slightly fewer people will die.
· According to Utilitarianism: He SHOULD take the job
· According to Williams: Utilitarianism is too non-egoistic because what benefits your life and well-being doesn’t matter (too many factors for George).