Just use the book which I attached. Do not use other sources.

(EQ08)-How can we explain or justify our moral judgments that appear to be inconsistent or even consistent?

Can we grant that whether one appears to be consistent or inconsistent at a lower level, a moral agent is actually doing her best trying to be consistent in maximizing the ever-elusive "highest good" at a higher level?

Explain your thoughts on it as elaborately as you can.

(EQ09) Why do we need to probe into human nature in our study of Ethics?

(EQ10)- What are the four major human attributes? How do they differ from one another in terms of their respective modes, values,
and so forth?

(EQ11)- Why is the notion of "function" so important in being "rational"?

(EQ12) Who reversed the long-held traditional conception of the relationship between reason and emotion?

(EQ13) What aspect of our human nature is attributed as the ultimate source of value conflicts between Kantianism & Utilitarianism?

(EQ14) What was the epoch-making period in history that marked the transition from religious ethics to secular ethics?

(EQ15)-Who are the so-called trio in Contractarianism from the Age of Enlightenment?

(EQ16) Given that secular ethics has to come up with its own basis for morality as something equivalent to what was occupied by divine authority in religious ethics, how does the so-called "Contractarianism" achieve that?

(EQ17)- How does the "game-theoretic" account of the State of Nature in terms of the celebrated "Prisoners' Dilemma" model help illustrate the contractarian argument?

Is it a fair assessment that the model effectively captures the discrepancy between individual rationality and collective rationality (i.e., Pareto-optimality) in the absence of civilized order based on moral consent? Explain your answer.

Is it a plausible interpretation from this account that after all, there is a "convergence" of moral maxim between religious ethics and secular ethics? Explain your answer.