Write a five-page essay (~1600 words) that responds to one of the essay questions listed below. Refer to the mini-lecture on how to write a philosophy paper (posted in the Week 3 module) for guidance. Remember to explain any philosophical terms or theories that someone who has not taken this class would not understand. Remember to include a thesis statement at the end of the introduction.   Essay questions (choose one): Question 1: Hedonism, in the context of the philosophy of well-being, makes the following claims: All and only pleasure is (non-instrumentally) good for us. All and only pain is (non-instrumentally) bad for us. A person’s overall level of well-being is determined solely by the balance of pleasure and pain they experience. Is it true that we can assess well-being by adding up a life's pleasures and subtracting that life's pains? Support or critique this position. As you do so, respond to one or more of the objections to hedonism discussed in the Week 4 lecture on this topic. Question 2: There is a debate in the philosophy of the meaning of life between subjectivism, objectivism, and the hybrid view. Briefly explain each of these positions. Is Wolf's argument in favor of the hybrid view correct? Why or why not? Question 3: Answer one of the following: Are persons identical to human animals? Are minds identical to brains? Support your answer by taking into account considerations offered in Saul Kripke's Naming and Necessity and/or Lynn Rudder Baker's "The Ontological Status of Persons". Be sure to discuss the distinction between the metaphysical notions of identity and constitution. Question 4: Answer one of the following: How can metaphysics be political? How can epistemology be political? Support your answer by using the concepts introduced by Sally Haslanger (social constitution) or Miranda Fricker (epistemic injustice). Make the author's core claims and their significance clear (if you choose metaphysics, focus on Haslanger; if you choose epistemology, focus on Fricker).