Ethics Final Review

Philosophy: Suicide Part 1

-1. Ancient (early)- we have only fragments (Pythagoras, Heraclitus) so it is difficult to interpret what the position was. 2. Plato: No absolute prohibition; life was the possession of the gods; however, suicide would be permissible if the state mandated it, if there was some painful misfortune or if one was undergoing some intolerable, unalterable shame. 3. Aristotle: There is an absolute prohibition; it is a cowardly act. He gives an utilitarian argument (suicide does injury or harm to society). 4. When Athens was invaded by the Romans and defeated there was blood and ruin in Greece, the Greeks looked for a philosophy that would enable them to cope. These philosophies were Stoicism and Epicureanism. In both, suicide is not absolutely wrong. The Romans took home with them both philosophies, particularly Stoicism.

According to Dr. Webber (A Key To Revisionist Thinking On Suicide), what is "euselbicle"?

-A new term coined by Dr. Webber called "euselbicle", which refer to the intentional taking of one's own life that is "just" and receives moral approval/sanction -Acts to which by definition we must have but have been unwilling to call "suicide"

According to Dr. Webber (A Key To Revisionist Thinking On Suicide), some refuse to recognize self-killing due to justice

-A particular act of self-killing can upset the scales of justice, which occurs when my act causes injury or harm to others inadequate with the benefit I receive. In this scenario, a self-killing is unjust -There are also instances where either the benefit to others or the harm done to others is not as great as the injury to myself were to refrain from killing myself. In the latter case, self-killing is just. -They emerge when it can be established that an individual no longer has an obligation to preserve his life and the scales of justice are not upset were he to exercise this right. -For a self-killing to be just, it is essential that, everything considered, there must be no violation of that person's duty to preserve his life.

Raziel Abelson, "Kill or Let Die," Overview

-Abelson and Rachels were colleagues at NYU. They disagreed on this matter. -Abelson holds that there is a moral difference between active and passive euthanasia. He looks a factors that make up acts and says that the difference is that with passive euthanasia there may not be a strict duty to help the nephew but there is still a duty, a meritorious duty to help the nephew. -But ultimately he says that even if there is a moral difference between them still there are circumstances in which one should opt for active euthanasia.

What is wrong with the definitions of suicide?

-All of these definitions are biased; they all cater to special needs. -The moral definitions (#1) excludes certain acts of self-killing that we want to consider moral because we want to give moral approval to them. -Examples: A fireman rushing into a burning building and losing his life (he did not intend to lose his life.) -God authorizing a self-killing (Samson- God authorized it) -Socrates drinking the poison hemlock (the state authorized it/ ordered him to drink it; he did not do it on his own authority.) -The social science definition (Durkheim): the term "intentional "is left out as verification because the social scientist needs verification and it is difficult to verify whether a death was intentional or not.

History of the status of homosexuality Part 2

-An incident in NYC in 1969 initiated a movement that would change this. -On June 28, 1969 at 1:20AM at the Stonewall Inn ( a gay bar) in Greenwich Village, the police raided this bar and threw the patrons out of the bar. -Since homosexuals rarely resisted, the police did not expect trouble but this time things were different. -The patrons protested chanted "gay power" and when the police tried to make arrests, beer cans, bottles and bricks were thrown at the police. -The police retreated into the bar; the mob using a parking meter as a battering ramp attacked the door, broke windows and set the bar on fire. It took two hours to calm things down. -For several nights after there were skirmishes between the police and the gays. -Within days, new gay liberation groups were established and many more followed. Today there is a very active gay rights movement. The pink triangle became the symbol of this movement.

History of the status of homosexuality Part 3

-Discrimination Ex: Occurred in San Francisco in 1978 when Harvey Milk (San Francisco City Councilman) was murdered by Dan White and in his defense he said, "Hostess Twinkies made me do it." -In 2008, the movie, "Milk" came out depicting the murder. -1973: The American Psychiatric Association took homosexuality off its list of mental illness. -1977: The American Psychological Association urged mental health professionals to remove the stigma of mental illness.

Don Marquis, "Why Abortion is Immoral.": His argument

-His argument is not based on the fetus having personhood but on it having a valuable future. -Marquis argues that abortion is immoral because it falls in the same category as the killing of an adult in so far as it deprives the fetus of a rich set of experiences that it would otherwise have.

Rachels (Active and Passive Euthanasia): What may doctors think of the euthanasia argument?

-May be think it is only of academic interest and has no impact on their work -Doctors must also be concerned about the legal consequences of what they do, since active euthanasia is forbidden by law. -Most doctors do not regard themselves as merely faint along with what the law requires, and endorse this doctrine (AMA euthanasia policy statement) as a central point of medical ethics. -Rachels says doctors should do no more than discriminate between active and passive euthanasia to satisfy the law. -He also states they should not give the distinction any added authority and weight by writing it into official statements of medical ethics.

Thomson, (A Defense of Abortion) on wether a fetus is a human being at the moment of conception

"...I think that premise is false, that the fetus is not a person from the moment of conception. A newly fertilized ovum, a newly implanted clump of cells, is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree"

James Rachels, "The Morality of Euthanasia": "The single most powerful argument in support of euthanasia is the...

"...argument from mercy." "Terminally ill patients sometimes suffer pain so horrible that it is beyond the comprehension of those who have not actually experienced it" -"The argument from mercy says euthanasia is justified because it provides an end to that.:

Marquis (Why Abortion is Immoral) claims that the moral principles of a pro choicer are

"...certaintly not obviously wrong" because these are generally accepted moral positions.

Thomson (A Defense Of Abortion) "...the right to life consists not in the right not to be killed, but rather..."

"...in the right not to be killed unjustly."

Warren on killing an infant with serve physical anomalies that will shorten it life/make it miserable.

"...it is not morally wrong to cease or withhold treatment, thus allowing the infant a painless death."

Warren acknowledges that a 7 or 8 month fetus can give us the same protective instinct we give an infant and is even somewhat more personlike but...

"...it is not significantly more personalize than a very small embryo."

According to Marquis (Why Abortion Is Immoral),

"...it is wrong to kill potential persons also"

Warren states that "defective human beings, with no appreciable mental capacity, are..."

"...not and presumably never will be people; and a fetus is a human being which is not yet a person, and which therefore cannot coherently be said to have full moral rights"

Dr. Webber (A Key To Revisionist Thinking On Suicide) believes the right to life means...

"...one's life cannot be taken away unjustly"

What other ethic essay does Dr. Webber (A Key To Revisionist Thinking On Suicide) compare to support her point there are "just" and "unjust" suicides?

"A Defense of Abortion", Judith Jarvis Thomson, who states the right to life is to not be killed unjustly. So we should realize there are just and unjust killings

"...we can even grant that one may morally abstain from employing extraordinary means of life preservation which entails that the termination of one's life accomplished in this manner receives moral approval (is morally sanctioned). What can't be granted, however, is that this termination is something other than "suicide". By definition it still remains suicide. Not justification for regrading it other than suicide has been provided. What has been provided is justification for certain suicides."

"A Key To Revisionist Thinking On Suicide", May Webber

"Although suicide is an act of self-destruction, not all such acts are actually suicides. A soldier who perishes after having thrown himself upon a grenade to save his buddies, and a mother who dies attempting to rescue her child from a flaming building are both committing acts of self-destruction"

"A Key To Revisionist Thinking On Suicide", May Webber

Kant's Categorical Imperative

"An act is immoral if the rule which would authorize it cannot be made into a rule for all human beings to follow." "Act on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it becomes universal law." This principle is saying that before you act you must ask whether your act can be OK for everyone to do. If not, it must not be done. It will only be OK if it can be universalized (willed for everyone) with logical consistency (no inherent contradiction).

Warren on the fetus' potential

"But even if a potential person does have some prima facie right to life, such a right could not possibly outweigh the right of a woman to obtain an abortion, since the rights of any actual person invariably outweighs those of any potential person, whenever the two conflict."

Why is it wrong to kill according to Marquis (Why Abortion is Immoral)?

-"What primarily makes killing wrong is neither its effect on the murderer nor its effect on the victims friends and relatives, but its effect on the victim" -"The loss of one's life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer -"The loss of one's life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one's future." -"Therefore, killing is wrong, primarily because the killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim." -"...the loss of my biological life is the loss to me of all these activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted my future personal life"

Example of utilitarianism applied

-Suppose that I am thinking of performing act X (buying a trip around the world for myself). -Would this be the right thing to do; would it be ethical or moral? -You could set up a scenario in which you would try to demonstrate that when the consequences of X on others in your sencerio are considered, X would result in more unhappiness than happiness. -If you can argue that the act would bring about more overall misery than happiness, the act would be wrong under utilitarianism. Others affected might be you mother, father, grandparents, sister, brother, and a good friend. Maybe, your grandparents depend on you for groceries that they can't afford to buy, maybe your sister needs your contribution to her college education fund. You would have to stop doing these things to pay for your trip. The trip may bring you happiness, pleasure but not them, etc.

According to Dr. Webber (A Key To Revisionist Thinking On Suicide), despite many saying the right to life is absolute, they supported many exceptions such as...

-Taking of life in self-defense -A just war -Capital punishment They believe these do not violate the right of the person that is being killed (a moral justification)

Divine Command Theory: Abortion

-The con- abortionists turn to certain scriptural passages to argue that abortion is wrong Ex: Jeremiah, Chapter I, "Before I formed you in the womb...." If you read this in context, abortion is not being spoken of at all. Instead, Jeremiah is asserting his authority as a prophet. Ex 2: Exodus, Chapter 21; "If a woman is caused to have a miscarriage the penalty was a monetary fine." This indicates that it was regarded as being a serious offense; if it was the penalty would have been death. -Recognize that often Divine Command Theory is a double-edged sword. That is depending on how scripture is interpreted it is possible to argue both sides to an issue.

Euthanasia: Morality

-The moral issue mainly focuses around "Voluntary active euthanasia (assisted and physician assisted suicide). -Few if any persons would advocate involuntary and non-voluntary active euthanasia. -Passive euthanasia is no longer much of a moral issue. -Even Roman Catholicism gives moral permission to it. -Pope Pius XII distinguished between ordinary and extraordinary means of remaining alive and maintained that one is not obliged to use extraordinary means. -What constitutes an extraordinary means would vary from time to time and place to place. -Ex: There was a time when kidney dialysis would have been an extraordinary means (due to cost, availability, etc.) but that is not the case today at least in America. However, in some third world nations even today it might be extraordinary.

Why does Rachels (Active and Passive Euthanasia) argue in favor of active euthanasia?

-The process of being "allowed to die" (passive euthanasia) can be relatively painful and slow, whereas being given a lethal injection is relatively quick and painless. -Ex: A man dying of terminal cancer asks to be taken off treatment, and his family agrees. The justification for the doctor doing this is to stop the patient from suffering, and since he is going to die anyway, it would be wrong to prolong his suffering needlessly.

Natural Law Theory: Capital Punishment

-The state exists to maintain justice; its main purpose is to prevent and punish crime. -It receives its authority from God through the natural law. It has the right to use any means necessary to attain its ends. -Capital punishment was thought to be such a means. -It fulfills the retributive function of punishment by balancing the scales and it was thought to be the only efficient deterrent against the most serious crime. -The state has the right to use capital punishment but it doesn't have to use it if there is another way. -For the longest time Natural Law was pro the death penalty but this is no longer the case.

Judith Jarvis Thomson, "A Defense of Abortion": Overall view of the chapter

-Thomson claims that the right to life is not the right not to be killed but rather the right not to be killed unjustly. -What is a just killing? See Thomson's analogies: The violinist and the rapidly growing child. -If Thomson is correct then, it is not sufficient to show that the fetus is a person for abortion to be morally impermissible. -Why? Because in this view (Thomson's), even if the fetus is a person, it does not follow that abortion is categorically (i.e. always) impermissible. -That is, it seems permissible in instance of rape and where the life of the mother is endangered.

Does Pojman (A Defense of the Death Penalty) believe the death penally should be use on ONLY those who murder or towards other criminals for other crimes?

-Yes, Pojman believes the death penalty should be used on those who do not murder -Argues it should be used for the perpetrators of white collar crimes such as bank managers embezzling the savings of the public.

Judith Jarvis Thomson (A Defense of Abortion): If the law says everyone has a right to life and the fetus' right to life is more important than the mothers. Scenario #1

-You wake up and find yourself with an unconscious, famous violinist -He has a fatal kidney aliment, and the Society of Music has looked through your medical records and found you alone have the right blood type to help -So they kidnap you and plugged the violinist's circulatory system into yours to extract poisons from his and your blood and you are supposed to stay connected to him for 9 months until he recovers. -If you unplug it, the violinist dies -Since everyone has a right to life, the right of the violinists overtakes your right to your body. Connect to the con abortion argument.

Divine Command Theory

-You would need to argue providing scriptural support. -An act is morally required just because it is commanded by God, and immoral just because God forbids it.

James Rachels' (Active and Passive Euthanasia) piece on euthanasia, which strongly influenced the debate of this topic, was published...

...a few months before the famous case of Karen Ann Quinlan

According to Burton M. Lester (Is Homosexuality Unnatural?) Western attitudes towards homosexuality have been shaped largely...

...by Christianity, and within the Christian tradition, homosexuality has been condemned again and again. -Saint Paul: "idolaters, thieves, HOMOSEXUALS, drunkards and robbers cannot inherit the kingdom of god -Later theologians decided it was because homosexuality is UNNATURAL, and this concept became the KEY term in the debate. -Saint Thomas Aquinas: cited "unisexual lust" as a particularly obnoxious "sin against nature".

Dr Webber (A Key To Revisionist Thinking On Suicide) finds it unfortunate that the right to die is almost a synonym for refusing treatment because...

...it give credence to the erroneous belief that it is only in certain well defined refusal of treatment that a person could exercise this right. -This was precluded an openness of inquiry into whether the right to die might not be legitimately exercised in other kinds of situations.

According to Rachels (Active and Passive Euthanasia), the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is thought to be crucial for medical ethics, which is the idea that...

...it is permissible, at least in some cases, to withhold treatment and allow a patient to die, but it is NEVER permissible to take any direct action designed to kill the patient. -It is accepted by most doctors, and is even endorsed in a statement adopted by the House of Delegates of the American Medical Association on December 4, 1973. -But Rachels that a strong case can be made against this doctrine.

According to Stephen Bright (Why the U.S. Will Abandon Capital Punishment), the two most important decisions in every death penalty are made not by juries or judges, but by

...prosecutors -Have complete discretion in deciding whether to seek the death penalty and whether to offer a sentence less than death in exchange for the defendant's guilty plea.

Thomson (A Defense Of Abortion) stresses she is not arguing that people don't have a right to life, but...

...she is arguing only that having a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person's body, even if one needs it for life itself. -"So the right if life will not serve the opponents of abortion in the very simple and clear way in which they seem to have thought it would."

In the chapter, David Boonin (Same-sex Marriage and the Argument from Public Disagreement). summarizes and responds to....

...the best-known argument in the philosophical literature against gay marriage by Professor Jerry Jordan of the University of Delaware -Jordan claims to not make the common assumptions that homosexuals are predisposed to commit acts such as infidelity or child molestation. -Jordan attempts to show that it is morally permissible for the state to sanction same-sex marriages by appealing to the fact that marriage is a PUBLIC rather than PRIVATE institution, and that there is widespread public disagreement about the moral status of homosexuality.

Dr. Webber (A Key To Revisionist Thinking On Suicide) acknowledges...

...there are some instances where one's demise does little to no injury to the community. It also implies there are other cases (probably the majority) where injury is done, and are the more problematic cases in which estimations of fairness and unfairness are not easily decided.

According to Dr. Webber (A Key To Revisionist Thinking On Suicide), we treat certain acts which by definition are suicides as if they are something else. Two reasons account for this deception. Part 1

1. From a Roman Catholic point of view, the International taking of one's own life is never just ir justifiable. Hence, if an act if tagged a suicide, it must immediately receive moral disapproval. 2. The terms "suicide" and "moral" are mutually exclusive

Objections to Capital Punishment

1. Human fallibility- innocent executed/If CP justified regrettable but morally acceptable that mistakes will be made. 2. CP unjust-discriminates against the poor, minorities, etc./ CP not unjust; its application is.

By providing Barney Clark with a key, according to Dr. Webber (A Key To Revisionist Thinking On Suicide), the situation can be likened to refusal for treatment for two reasons

1. The act relies our moral approval/is morally sanctioned 2. The stipulated conditions that exempt certain actions from being suicide do not obtain -Noting about this allows us to regard Clark's death as anything but a suicide. Says Rachels is correct in viewing this as a suicide.

Pojman's (A Defense Of The Death Penalty) response to two objections of the death penalty Part 1

1. We could end up executing innocent people -"Would these abolitionists argue that it is better that 50 or 100, or 1,000 murderers go free than the one innocent person be executed" -Argues society has a right to protect itself from capital offenses, EVEN if this means a chance of executing an innocent person. States it is regrettable, but morally acceptable, that some mistakes are made. -States the abolitionist is incorrect in arguing that death is different from long term prison sentences because death is irreversible but acknowledges imprisonment takes good things away that may never be returned (such as the amount of years you spent in prison) -"Death prevents all subsequent quality, but imprisonment also irrevocably harms one by diminishing the quality of life of a prisoner".

-"Denying it to homosexuals is the most public affront possible to their public equality" -Even those tolerant of homosexuals may find this institution so wedded to the notion of heterosexual commitment that th extend it would be to undo its very essence" "..., giving these people an equal right to affirm their commitment doesn't reduce the incentive for heterosexuals to do the same"

Andrew Sullivan, "A Few Words about Gay Marriage"

Marquis (Why Abortion is Immoral) on broad and narrow principles of the abortion debate

Anti abortionists embrace too much, while the pro abortioners embrace too little

Utilitarianism: Homosexuality

Bentham: "I have been tormenting myself for years to find, if possible, sufficient ground, for treating them (homosexuals) with the severity that they are treated at this time of day by all European nations, but upon the principle of utility I can find none."

Euthanasia: Definition & Classification

Definition: 1. The act of killing oneself for reasons of mercy (terminally ill). 2. Acts or omissions that result in the death of a person who is already gravely ill. Classification: 1. Passive euthanasia (acts of omission; patient is allowed to die; foregoing life-saving treatment) 2. Active euthanasia (acts of commission; patient is intentionally killed) a) Voluntary (patient wills it/ requests it) i) Assisted suicide- someone other than the patient (a physician, a spouse, etc.) does the actual killing. ii) Physician-assisted suicide- the physician provides the means; the patient does the actual killing. b) Involuntary (patient doesn't will it; patient refuses it; patient is competent) c) Non-voluntary (patient's will is not known; patient is incompetent)

Capital punishment

Definition: The infliction of the penalty of death for certain capital crimes. The question: Is capital punishment a just response to crimes that threaten society or some sort of barbaric practice?

Pertinent data on Abortion Part 1: A: Biological

Development of the "conceptus" (a neutral term) coined by David Callahan of the Hasting's Center meaning "that which has been conceived." zygote- a cell or group of cells which results from the union of the sperm and egg cells. embryo- the conceptus between the second and eight weeks in gestation. fetus- the conceptus from the eight week until birth. child- the conceptus after birth. Viability- the period of pregnancy between the twenty-sixth and the twenty eight weeks (6 ½ months) when the fetus can survive on its own (outside the womb). Although these distinctions can be made, the term fetus is commonly used to denote the unborn entity at any stage.

Difference between Suicide and Self-Sacrificing (A Key To Revisionist Thinking On Suicide), May Webber

Difference: Suicide is direct, self-sacrificing is indirect (not intended to bring about death) -But if we adhere to the traditional definition of suicide, these cases (self-sacrificing) have to be treated as "suicides" because there is no justification for regarding them as anything else.

Don Marquis "Why Abortion is Immoral", what does he asks when discussing the morality of abortion?

Do we have the same reasons not to kill a fetus that we have not to kill an adult? -He states killing adults is wrong because it deprives them of their future, and is the same reason on why killing a unborn fetus is wrong

"Accordingly, morally permissible abortions will be rare indeed, unless, perhaps, they occur so early in pregnancy that a fetus is not yet an individual"

Don Marquis, "Why Abortion Is Immoral"

Natural Law Theory (St. Thomas Aquinas).

-NOT a consequential theory so, not only consequences matter; other things (the nature of the act, one's intention) matter as well. -First you look at the nature of the act; if the act by its very nature is evil, neither intention nor consequences would convert it to a good act. -However, if an act is not evil by its very nature, it can be changed to an evil act by virtue of one's intention or consequences. -A theory asserting that the morally right action is the one that follows the dictates of nature -According to this theory, God made the world a rational order descriptively (natural laws that are casual in nature) and prespectively (natural laws that are prescribe how we ought to act) -Ex: Homosexuality-contrary to natural law because it is unnatural (sex organs not being used for reproduction) -Used Static's theory that man is a rational animal and Aristotle's theory of virtues/concept of the human person

Thomas Nagel,"Sexual Perversion" Journal of Philosophy ('69) Part 1

-Nagel, a professor of philosophy at NYU and Chair of the department., asks whether homosexuality is a sexual perversion(an unnatural sexual preference). -Any perversion would involve an unnatural object relative to the kind of perversion. He first speaks of "gastronomical perversion" and then of "sexual perversion." -He asks which of these would be an unnatural gastronomical object and hence a perversion. 1. eating paper 2. eating pictures of food 3. fondling a napkin at dinner time He says that 1 may be odd but it is not an unnatural gastronomical object and so, it is not a perversion He says that 2 and 3 are unnatural gastronomical objects and so, they are perversions.

Natural Law Theory: Abortion

-Natural Law theory, for example, makes this kind of distinction maintaining that while acts of commission are immoral, acts of omission may not be -Abortion under natural law theory would be categorically wrong. -Why? You would apply the moral determinants we discussed in class and were listed in a handout.

Burton Leiser, "Is Homosexuality Immoral": Differences between man made and natural laws

-Natural laws are not passed by country or state law unlike man made laws. -They are not proclaimed or announced, impose no obligation upon anyone or anything, their violation entails no penalty, and there is no reward for following them

What does Dr. Webber (A Key To Revisionist Thinking On Suicide) suggest to fix the problems (overly negative reaction to it no matter the circumstances) of the traditional definition of "suicide"

-She calls for a revision of the traditional definition of "suicide", calling the traditional framework of "suicide" to be unworkable, and suggests a new framework is required to objectively evaluate acts of self-destruction. -She states suicide is not merely the "intentional taking of one's own life" but rather the taking of one's own life "unjustly", stating an intentional taking of one's life can be "just" or "unjust", and that suicide just be reserved just for the "unjust" taking of one's own life -She then coins a new term called "euselbicle", which will refer to the intentional taking of one's own life but the act receives moral approval

Mary Anne Warren, " A Liberal View of Abortion,": Overview of the chapter

-She sets up a criteria of personhood { ( 5 points to it),see Warren} and maintains that the fetus does not satisfy the criteria. -In fact the fetus does not meet any of the five points to her criteria. Hence, abortion is not immoral. Ex: A woman who just won a trip to Europe would be uncomfortable given her pregnancy on this trip, she could abort the fetus. It might be indecent to do so but not immoral. -Both philosophers and theologians have attempted to set up criteria of personhood. Joseph Fletcher would be an example of a theologian who has attemped this.

What do Beauchamp and Childress propose on the definition of suicide, May Webber (A Key To Revisionist Thinking On Suicide)

-Suggest for it to take on a more objective meaning that is emotionally unblemished. -"We propose then, that suicide occurs if and only if one intentionally terminates one's own life-no matter what the condition or precise nature of the intention or the casual route to death." -Acknowledge there are obstacles to overcome this traditional definition but they are optimistic, which Dr. Webber says is false optimism.

Four theories of punishment (in terms of their aims)

One's position on capital punishment will most likely reflect one's view on the nature of punishment. -One view on the nature of punishment in turn will reflect the ethical theory one holds (e.g. Utilitarianism is not compatible with retribution theory of punishment). Four theories of punishment (in terms of their aims): 1. Retribution: lex talionis-law of retaliation; an eye for an eye... a) revenge- punish because the criminal deserves it- suffer in kind. b) respect for persons- the criminal has disrupted the balance of justice-punish to restore the balance. c) respect for the criminal- not to punish the criminal treats him/her disrespectfully; denies him/her responsibility for his/her actions. 2. Prevention: To prevent the criminal from committing the crime again. 3. Deterrence: To deter or discourage others from committing crime. 4.Rehabilation: To rehabilitate or to reform the criminal.

Jordan's Principle Argument against gay marriage, David Boonin (Same-sex Marriage and the Argument from Public Disagreement) Part 1

P1. If (a) there is a public dilemma about x, and (b) resolution of the dilemma by accommodation is possible, and (c), there is no overriding reason to prefer resolution of the dilemma by declaration, then (d), the state should resolve the public dilemma about x by accombination P2: There is a public dilemma about same-sex marriage P3. It is possible for the state to resolve the dilemma by accommodation if it refuses to sanction same-sex marriage (provided that it permits private homosexual acts between consenting adults).

Jordan's Principle Argument against gay marriage, David Boonin (Same-sex Marriage and the Argument from Public Disagreement) Part 2

P4. It is not possible for the state to resolve the dilemma by accommodation if it sanctions dame-sex marriage (since that amounts to resolving the dilemma by declaration and leaves no room for accommodation) P5: There is no overriding reason for the state to resolve the dilemma by declaration. C: The state should refuse the sanction same sex marriage (Provided that it permits private homosexual acts between consenting adults)

What does Rachels argue in "Active and Passive Euthanasia"

Rachels challenges the claim that "passive" euthanasia (or letting die) is always more humane than "active" euthanasia (or direct killing). In some situations, he argues, it is more humane to kill.

"Thus, whether the death sentence is imposed may depend more on the personal predilections and politics of local prosecutors than the heinousness of the crime or the incorrigibility of the defendant

Stephen Bright, "Why the U.S. Will Abandon Capital Punishment"

"Whether death is sought or imposed is based on the discretion and proclivities of the thousands of people who occupy the offices of prosecutor in judicial districts throughout the nation." -"Some prosecutors seek it at every opportunity, and others never seek it, some seldom seek it, some frequently seek it"

Stephen Bright, "Why the U.S. Will Abandon Capital Punishment"

Pertinent data on Abortion Part 2: B. Ontological status of the fetus

That is, what kind of existence is to be accorded the fetus? What kind of entity or being is it? What kind of reality does it have? 1. Is it an individual organism? 2. Is it biologically human? Does it have the characteristics which distinguish the human species from other species? 3. Is it psychologically human? Is it, for example able to imagine, formulate ideas and concepts, and think? 4. Is it a human person? To assign 1) is to assign the fetus the most significant/ highest status. Although usually some view regarding the ontological status of the fetus underlies one's position on abortion, the ontological status of the fetus remains an open question.

Utilitarianism: Abortion

Will make no such distinction between omission and commission as utilitarianism is only concerned with consequences and whether the act is a direct or an indirect killing the end is the same

Does the death penalty depend on what side of the county line you are?

Yes, a crime could constitute the death penalty a few feet away from a place where the crime would NOT constitute the death penalty.

According to Leiser (Is Homosexuality Immoral), with the development of artificial means of reproduction, the sex organs may be obsolete for reproductive purposes,

but would still contribute greatly to human pleasure

According to Dr. Webber (A Key To Revisionist Thinking On Suicide),

how one accomplishes the act of suicide is irrelevant to whether or not it is suicide because there are the criteria we have set and must abide by. -Moralists who refuse to recognize certain refusal of treatment cases as suicides must show that something intrinsic to the definition allows for this.

To determine limitations of life preservation for the time being and not mark them as suicide, the ( ) will do May Webber (A Key To Revisionist Thinking On Suicide)

the ordinary-extraordinary distinction

Kant's Ethic of Duty: Abortion

the status of the fetus is very important. If the fetus is a person, it has the same inherent worth as any other person and must be treated with the same respect. Self-defense may be the only justifiable reason for an abortion. In fact maybe morally obligatory (think about Kant's principles). What if a fetus is seriously defective? Could it be argued that aborting it might be the way to recognize its dignity in that you would be treating the fetus in the way that any rational person would want to be treated?

"If one simply withholds treatment, it may take the patient longer to die, and so he may suffer more than her would if more direct action were taken and a lethal injection given. This fact provides strong reason for thinking that, once the initial decision not to prolong his agony has been made, active euthanasia is actually preferable to passive euthanasia, rather than the reverse. To say otherwise is to endorse the option that leads to more suffering rather than less, and is contrary to the humanitarian impulse that prompts the decision not to prolong his life in the first place."

James Rachels, "Active and Passive Euthanasia"

"The decision to let a patient die is subject to moral appraisal in the same way that a decision to kill him would be subject to moral appraisal: it may be assessed as wise or unwise, compassionate or sadistic, right or wrong." "If a doctor deliberately lets a patient die who was suffering from a routinely curable illness, the doctor would certainly be to blame for what he has done, just as he would be to blame if he had needlessly killed the patient."

James Rachels, "Active and Passive Euthanasia"

"If a person prefers-and even begs for-death as the only alternative to lingering on in this kind of torment, only to die after a while, then surely it is not immoral to help this person die sooner".

James Rachels, "The Morality of Euthanasia"

"...nobody is morally required to make large sacrifices, of health, of all other interests and concerns, of all other duties and commitments, for nine years, or even for nine months, in order to keep another person alive"

Judith Jarvis Thomson, "A Defense Of Abortion"

"I think, rather, there are dramatic limits to the rights of self-defense. If someone threatens you with death unless you torture someone else to death, I think you have not the right, even to save your life to do so. But the case under consideration here (the baby growing case) is very different."

Judith Jarvis Thomson, "A Defense Of Abortion"

"In sum, a woman can surely defend her life against the threat to it posed by the unborn child, even if doing so involves its death."

Judith Jarvis Thomson, "A Defense Of Abortion" Conclusion to #1, where abortion is impermissible even if it threatens the mother's life.

"Opponents of abortion commonly spend most of their time establishing that the fetus is a person, and hardly any time explaining the step from there to the impermissibility of abortion." "Perhaps they think the step too simple and obvious to require much comment...."

Judith Jarvis Thomson, "A Defense of Abortion"

When talking about the legality of abortion use the terms: When talking about the morality of abortion use the terms:

Legality: Pro choice, pro-life Morality: Pro-abortion, con-abortion

"What Jarvik and Rachels fail to recognize is the unlikelihood that either moral or social acceptability of a patient intentionally taking his own life (even if a patient happen to have this right) could come about as long as such takings are considered acts of suicide. It seems improbable that any action as long as it is tagged "suicide" could ever have enough positive moral import to generate acceptability at any level"

May Webber, "A Key To Revisionist Thinking On Suicide"

Thomson (A Defense Of Abortion) on what it comes to to have a right to life Part 1

-"In some views, having a right to life includes having a right to be given at least the bare minimum one needs for continued life. -"But suppose that what in fact is the bare minimum a man needs for continued life is some thing he has no right at all to be given?" -She gives a scenario where a person is sick and about to die and the only think that can save him is the touch of Henry Fonda's cool hand on his fevered brow. -But the man has no right to Fonda's cool hand. -Nice if Fonda flew out to save his life, less nice, but well meant, if his friends flew Fonda in to save their friend -But he has no right at all against anybody that should do this for him.

J. Gay Williams on suffering (The Wrongfulness of Euthansia)

-"Suffering is surely a terrible thing, and we have a clear duty to comfort those in need and to ease their suffering when we can." -"But suffering is also a natural part of life with values for the individual and for others that we should not overlook." -He then states euthanasia is not an easeful death, it is a wrongful death and it constitutes killing.

Pojman: "A Defense of the Death Penalty": Chapter Overview

-Argues pro using retributive theory (not conceived of a revenge but dessert) and deterrence theory -The criminal deserves to be punished and CP can deter perhaps if universally administered swiftly. -Speaks of Cosmic Retribution: Imagine that every time someone intentionally kills another, he is immediately struck down; surely would deter. Murder rate would plummet. -How should the death penalty be administered so that it is a maximal deterrent? -Best Bet Argument: Ernest van den Haag. If argument sound should support death penalty (for murder of police, prison guards, pol. leaders). -Death of some murderers will be more than compensated for by the lives of some innocents not being murdered. -Better to bet that it works than not. Even if don't know whether it deters should bet that it does. If have CP for capital crimes we are betting that the death of some murderers will be more than compensated for by the lives of some innocents not being murdered (by these murderers or others who would murder). -If doesn't deter come out ahead but if it does then we have missed an opportunity to save innocent lives. If value saving innocent lives more than loss of the guilty CP rational.

Road to legalization of euthanasia in the United States

-Assisted suicide: someone else does the killing -Physician assisted suicide: patient does the killing -Physician assisted suicide is Illegal except in Oregon (1994), and now in Washington and a couple of other states. Assisted suicide is illegal in every state. -'91 Washington -Initative 119 -assisted suicide- failed -'92 California- Proposition 161- assisted suicide -failed -'80's Road to acceptance began. -'80 Hemlock Society in L. A. / Derek Humphrey and wife Ann Wickett/ How to do books- Let me Die Before I Wake ('81), Final Exit ('91). -'88: "It's Over Debbie," Journal of the American Medical Association -'91: " Death and Dignity," New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Timothy Quill -'90: Dr. Jack Kevorkian/ retired Michigan pathologist; Janet Atkins/ -'68 VW/gave her the means; his suicide machine. -At the time assisted suicide was not a crime in Michigan; temporary law put into effect to halt his activities'; he defied it and was charged; dismissed; law ruled unconstitutional. -Finally, he crossed the line and gave a patient a lethal injection on 60 Minutes; arrested, convicted. He went from physician assisted suicide to assisted suicide.

Definitions of Suicide (A Key To Revisionist Thinking On Suicide) May Webber

-Beauchamp and Childress, "Principles of Biomedical Ethics"-a death is a suicide "if it is an intentionally caused self-destruction & is not forced by the action of another person" -Roman Catholic, moral philosophy, and theology: "direct (voluntary) taking of one's own life on one's own authority"

Why do most philosophers think utilitarianism is wrong (Why Abortion Is Immoral)

-Because they think that the promotion of happiness and the avoidance of misery are not the only morally important things -Ex if utilitarianism only applies: People might be happier if there is no freedom of religion because everyone would adhere to the same religious beliefs, which would increase happiness. -But despite this, it would NOT be right to deny people freedom of religion, because people have a right to make their own choices

Example by Rachels (The Morality of Euthanasia) on why euthanasia is moral (Stewart Alsop)

-Before his death, Alsop wrote of his experiences as a terminal cancer patient. -He had not thought much of euthanasia until he was roomed with a suffering young man named Jack -Alsop stated that Jack, who had a melanoma on his stomach, was in constant pain despite receiving many pain medications and shots. Whenever he would moan in pain, Alsop or himself would have to ring the nurse. -This was all occurring despite the hospital (NIH) being modern and very well equipped. -Jack's illness was not the result of some poor treatment in some backward rural facility, it was the inevitable product of his disease, which medical science was powerless to prevent."

Utilitariarianism: Capital Punishment

-Bentham: "All punishment is mischief; all punishment is in itself an evil." -Hence, it needs to be justified. It is evil because it treats people badly. How so? 1. Imprisonment- takes away one's freedom 2. fines- takes away one's property 3. capital punishment- takes away one's life. -Remember the utilitarian is only concerned with consequences. It can be justified if the overall consequences are good. -Increasing happiness in the world, serving the common good would be such justification. -The utilitarian would have to focus on the preventive and deterrent functions of punishment. Can't focus on rehabilitative function as one cannot be rehabilitated if one is dead. -If one is pro capital punishment, prevention theory can be used to defend it as surely it prevents the criminal from ever doing it again (he/she is dead). -Since whether capital punishment deters crime is an open question and so, deterrence theory can be used by both the pro and con sides to the issue. -Retributive theory is simply not compatible with utilitarianism.

Ethical egoism (Self-interest Theory) and Utilitarianism

-Both are consequential theories; ONLY consequences (short and long term) matter; nothing else is factored in when deciding whether an act is right or wrong, moral or immoral, ethical or unethical. Ethical egoism- consequences for only ME Utilitarianism- consequences NOT just for me but for others as well; for all those who would be affected by the act.

Brock, "Voluntary and Active Euthanasia"

-Brock asks that we take a look at two different scenarios both of which are said to be examples of "acts of omission." 1) A medical doctor takes a terminally ill patient off a respirator after the patient requests it and so, her son will get a big inheritance. 2) Her son wanting the inheritance can't wait until she dies and so, he takes his mother off the respirator. In 1) we say the doctor "allowed her die." In 2) we say that her son "killed" her. .-Brock maintains this does not show that the son is a killer and the doctor allowed her to die. -They both did the same thing; they intended to cause death and did; so, they both "killed." -What is shown is that the doctor was morally jusified while the son was not.

Divine Command Theory: Capital Punishment

-Can be used to argue both pro and con capital punishment. -This would depend on whether one gives a narrow or a broad interpretation of the Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." -Under a narrow interpretation the death penalty would be wrong and under a broad interpretation permissible. -In the latter case, the death penalty would be an exception to the religious prohibition.

Warren on the fetus' potential: Warren creates a scenario to address the potential where a space explorer falls into the hands of an alien culture. The scientists decide to create a few hundred thousand human beings by breaking his body into its component cells, and using these to create fully developed human beings, with of course his genetic code.

-Each of these newly created men would potentially have all of the original man's abilities, skills, knowledge, and so on, and also have an individual self-concept -The whole project takes seconds, with a high success rate and the explorer knows the people created out of him would be treated fairly -BUT, "he would have every right to escape if he could and thus to deprive all of these potential people of their potential lives; for his right to life outweighs all of theirs together, in spite of the fact that they are all genetically human, all innocent and all have a very high probability of becoming people very soon, if only he refrains from acting"

Road to legalization of euthanasia in the Netherlands

-Euthanasia: someone else does the killing -Assisted suicide: patient does the killing -Prohibited by law but acceptable (Dutch Penal Code of 1826; E- Clause 293, AS-Clause 294). -'70's road to acceptance began- Dr. Gertruida Postma put her mother to death (she had breast cancer, cerebral hemorrhage, partially paralyzed, deaf, and unable to speak without difficulty, pneumonia). -Arrested; received one week suspended sentence and one year probation. -Society for Voluntary Euthanasia- largest in the world established/ Sybrandy's -How to do book (Justifiable Euthanasia: A Manual for the Medical Profession)

Rachels (Active and Passive Euthanasia) AMA (American Medical Association)

-Even though the AMA statement forbids "mercy killing", the statement DENYS that the cessation of treatment is the intentional termination of life -Rachels questions what is the cessation of treatment, in these circumstances, if it is not "the intentional termination of the life of one human being by another". -He states that's exactly what the "cessation of treatment" is, and if there wasn't there would be no point to it. -In that statement, active euthanasia is condemned not merely as illegal but as "contrary to that for which the medical profession stands", whereas passive euthanasia is approved.

Con/ anti-abortion argument

-Every person has a right to life -The fetus is a person -Therefore, the fetus has a right to life -The anti-abortionist's claim is that abortion is morally impermissible because it destroys the fetus' right to life. -The above argument is a valid argument but the question is; Is it a sound argument? -Valid argument: if the premises are assumed true, the conclusion necessary follows; it cannot be false. Sound argument- a valid argument in which all of the premises are true. A sound argument is a GOOD argument.

Analogies by Thomson, "A Defense of Abortion," Part 1

-For the sake of argumentation Thomson accepts or presumes the truth of the con-abortionist's argument and attempts to argue that even given their very argument, abortion is not always wrong. It is permissible in instance of rape and where the life of the mother is in jeopardy. She argues by analogy: 1. Let's say that the Society of Music Lovers has this famed violinist who needs life support. -So, unbeknownst to you while you are sleeping, they hook him up to you for life support. You wake up in the morning and find yourself hooked up to this violinist giving him life support. -You have every right to take him off your life support because you did not give permission to use you for this support. This would be a just killing. -This Thomson maintains is analogous to a woman who has been raped; she did not give permission to the fetus to use your body for life support. Hence, abortion here would be morally permissible. -Abortion in this case would be a just killing.

Homosexuality

-From the term homo (Lt. "man"; Gk." Same"); lesbian derived from the 7th century poetess who wrote about her passion for and love of women. -Definition= the sexual attraction of a person for members of the same sex. Homosexuality has been judged in very different ways in different historical periods and cultures. Early in the Judeo-Christian tradition homosexuality was condemned (it was regarded a sin); later secular legal codes prohibited sodomy making it a crime; also it came to be considered a mental illness. So, the homosexual was considered to be a sinner, a criminal and mentally ill. Discrimination followed and so, homosexuals remained "in the closet," so to speak (i.e. they didn't disclose their sexual preference for fear of losing their jobs, etc.).

The Best Bet Argument (Van den Haag) Louis P. Pojman "A Defense Of The Death Penalty"

-Haag argues that even if we don't know for sure if the death penalty deters or prevents other murders, we should bet it does -Pojman then argues "...to bet against capital punishment is to bet against the innocent and for the murderer, while to bet for it is to bet against the murderer and for the innocent..."

Brody challenges Thomson's views

-He compares a zygote in a petri dish to a fetus in uterus. - If you walk away from the zygote you are simply "allowing it to die"' this is an indirect killing. It is an act of omission (the act of leaving out or neglecting) -You are not under any obligation to offer it a uterus. But in the case of a fetus in uterus there is no way to get rid of it without killing it (i.e. directing killing it). This is an act of commission. -He says that Thomson would be justified in saying that there would be no duty to offer the zygote conceived in a petri dish a uterus because it has no other place to live but you can't get rid of a fetus without killing it (this is not merely refusing to save fetal life but taking it). -There is no obligation on my part to save your life if it would bankrupt me but I have no right to take your life to prevent bankruptcy to me.

Judith Jarvis Thomson (A Defense of Abortion): Extreme view that abortion is even wrong to save the mother's life Part 2

-Here are a variety of ways this may be continued (1) As directly killing an innocent person is always and absolutely impermissible, an abortion may not be performed (2) As directly killing an innocent person is murder, and murder is always and absolutely impermissible, an abortion may not be performed. (3) As one's duty to refrain from directly killing an innocent person is more stringent than one's duty to keep a person from dying, an abortion may not be performed (4) If one's only options are directly killing an innocent person or letting a person die, one must prefer letting the person die, and an abortion may not be performed. -Thomson than goes on to say 1-4 are all false, and they show that the extreme view of abortion is false. -For (2), she argues that the logic states the mother killing her fetus inside her counts as "murder", and is impermissible. She argues that it is not murder if the mother aborts her own fetus to save her life and that she just not just sit and wait around to die. -In the violinist scenario, if being attached to him eventually kills you, it will still be murder if you unplug yourself from him.

Bright, "Why the US Will Join the Rest of the World in Abandoning Capital Punishment" Chapter Overview. CP=Capital Punishment Part 1

-Holds US will get rid of CP, just as it has abandoned whipping, branding, maiming, and other primitive forms of punishment -Argues it is a descendent of the darkest part to American History including slavery, lynching, "legal lynchings", etc 1. Not a deterrent/ South has more executions (85%) than any other region and yet has the highest murder rate in the U.S. -Used in less than 1% of all murder cases (Yearly in the U.S., 20,000 murders, fewer than 300 of them sentenced to death, and only 55 are executed 2. No place in a civilized society / who would have thought that the US would still have it. -One of 4 countries that accounted for all world executions in 2001 (A list including authoritarian nations like Saudi Arabia, Iran and China) -Almost every developed/Western nation and even some U.S. states has abolished it and their crime rates are not high -Most of those societies don't have because they simply don't engage in those acts. They refrain from behaving this way because the punishment is not only degrading to those on whom it is imposed, but it is also degrading to the society that engages in the same behaviors as the criminals. -Even war trials crimes at the Hague do not have the death penalty. -Affects U.S. moral standing -Other countries protesting when their citizens are executed in the U.S.

History of the status of homosexuality Part 1

-Homosexuality has been judged in very different ways in different historical periods and cultures. -Early in the Judeo-Christian tradition homosexuality was condemned (it was regarded a sin) -Later secular legal codes prohibited sodomy making it a crime; it also it came to be considered a mental illness. -So, the homosexual was considered to be a sinner, a criminal and mentally ill. Discrimination followed and so, homosexuals remained "in the closet," so to speak (i.e. they didn't disclose their sexual preference for fear of losing their jobs, etc.).

Bright, "Why the US Will Join the Rest of the World in Abandoning Capital Punishment" Chapter Overview. CP=Capital Punishment Part 3

-Hundreds of people on death row in the last 3 decades alone later found to be innocent. -In most cases there is no evidence to prove their innocence. Ex 1: Earl Washington/ DNA evidence six years after convicted- released. Was a childlike, special-education dropout who gave inconsistent confessions Ex 2: Anthony Porter (mentally retarded and brain damaged)/ 2 days before execution journalism class at Northwestern University proved him innocent, and the third to be released as a result of that journalism class at Northwestern Ex 3: Ray Krone, sentenced to death based on a witness testimony that claimed Krone's teeth matched bite marks on the victim. Was on death row for 10 years. Ex 4: Joe Lloyd sentenced to death for murdering a 16 year old girl, released 17 years later when DNA evidence found his innocence. Ex 5: Gary Graham executed in Texas

Rachels (Active and Passive Euthanasia) on how the bare difference between killing and letting a person does not make a moral difference

-If a doctor lets a patient die, for humane reasons, he is in the SAME moral position as if he had given the patient a lethal injection for humane reasons. -If his decision was wrong (ex: patient's illness was in fact curable), the decision would be equally regrettable no matter what method was used to carry it out. -And if the doctor's decision was the right one, the method he used is not in itself important.

Judith Jarvis Thomson (A Defense of Abortion): Extreme view that abortion is even wrong to save the mother's life Part 1

-If both the fetus and the mother had an equal right to life and the mother is going to die if she gives birth, how do we decide who lives? -The argument here: Performing the abortion will directly kill the child, whereas doing nothing would not be killing the mother, it would just be letting her die. And the child is innocent and not aiming to kill his mother -After the 4 views discussed below, she goes on to talk about how the main focus of attention on writings of abortion focus on what a third party should or should not do in answer to a request from a woman for an abortion. -She argues that to treat the matter this way is to refuse to grant the mother that very real status of person than is so firmly insisted on for the fetus. -She then goes to talk about the 2nd scenario where the mother is trapped in a tiny house with a rapidly growing fetus. If she doesn't do anything, she will be crushed to death. She concludes its understandable if a bystander can do nothing but she argues the mother can kill the fetus to defend herself even if it's innocent, but that there are limits to the right of self-defense.

Thomson (A Defense of Abortion): The Good Samaritan and the Minimally Decent Samaritian

-In the story, the good Samaritan wen tout of his way , at some cost to himself, to help someone in need. -We are not told the options, whether the priest or the Levite could have aided, but the fact they did nothing shows they are not even minimally decent Samaritans. They could not even be considered Samaritans because they are not even minimally decent. -Thomson then tells the story of the public murder of Kitty Genovese. 38 people watched and listened to her die but did not help or call the police -It would have been a splendid Samaritan who helped her since he himself to rich death -Thomson argues that the 38 people who watched Genovese die are not morally required to give their lives to help Genovese. No one in almost any country is required to do this. -No U.S. state requires men and women to be a Minimally Decent Samaritan to anyone but most states have to be Good Samaritans when carrying a baby to term, showing a gross injustice in the existing state of the law.

Thomson (A Defense Of Abortion) on if abortion is unjust killing

-It is not if the fetus came about due to rape cause the mother had given no right to the unborn person to use her body for food and shelter -In this case, aborting them is not depriving them of anything they have a right to and hence is not unjust killing -But, if the fetus came about because of consented intercourse, it is unjust to abort it since it is the mother's partial responsibility that the fetus is there, except if you sue protection to prevent it from happening and it fails. (Burglar breaks into your house when you open the window vs. if you put protection on the window) -Thomson concludes there are some (not all) cases in which the unborn person has a right to the mother's body, and therefore, in some cases, abortion is unjustified killing.

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia, Down Syndrome Example Part 1

-While most of the 1 in 600 babies born in the United States with Down syndrome are healthy with the usual pediatric care, some are born with congenital defects that require operations if they are to live -Sometimes, the parents and the doctor will chose not to operate and let the infant die. -Rachels states the infant should not just die a slow, painful death, but the doctrine states doctors should not actively euthanize a baby.

Legal Status of Abortion in the United States Part 1

-Jane Roe (pseudonym) was an unmarried women from Texas who wanted an abortion when Texan statutes forbade abortion except to save the life of the mother. -Maintaining that the statutes were unconstitutional she went to district court. The court ruled that the right to decide whether to have children was protected under the Ninth through the Fourteenth Amendments. -Eventually the case went to the Supreme Court which on 22 January 1973 in the Roe v. Wade decision upheld the district court's ruling. Justice Blackmun, expressing the view of seven of the court members, pointed out that the right to privacy applies to a woman's decision on whether to terminate her pregnancy but that this right is not absolute. A state's interest in safeguarding the health of the woman, ensuring proper medical standards and protecting human life may limit this right. -Justices White and Rehnquist in the dissention, maintained that the court's decision was not justified by either the language or the history of the constitution and that the court had conjured up a new constitutional right for pregnant women.

"At this place, however, it should be remembered that we have only been pretending throughout that the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception. A very early abortion is surely not the killing of the person, and so is not dealt with by anything I have said here."

-Judith Jarvis Thomson, "A Defense Of Abortion" -Last paragraph

Legal Status of Abortion in the United States Part 2: Opinion of the Court Members

-Justice Blackmun, expressing the view of seven of the court members, pointed out that the right to privacy applies to a woman's decision on whether to terminate her pregnancy but that this right is NOT absolute. A state's interest in safeguarding the health of the woman, ensuring proper medical standards and protecting human life may limit this right. -Justices White and Rehnquist in the dissention, maintained that the court's decision was not justified by either the language or the history of the constitution and that the court had conjured up a new constitutional right for pregnant women.

Kant's Ethics Of Duty: Capital Punishment

-Kant came up with a very unique form of retributive theory, namely, showing respect for the criminal. -"When someone who delights in annoying and vexing peace loving folk receives at last a right good beating, it is certainly an ill, but everyone approves of it and considers it as a good in itself even if nothing further results from it ." (The Metaphysics of Morals, 1797). -A person who commits a crime should be punished in kind proportionate to the crime committed, no more, no less. (e.g. murder/execution). -The argument is based on the practical Imperative/ treating others as ends in themselves as rational beings responsible for their actions and the Categorical Imperative: -When someone decides to do something (kill, for example) one is proclaiming one's wish that it be made a universal law. One is saying that this is the way people ought to treat people. -If we kill him, we are simply allowing him to decide how he is to be treated. Treats him as an end in himself and so, shows him respect.

Divine Command Theory: Homosexuality

-Keep in mind; Divine Command theory can be a double edged sword. -There are a number of scriptural passages that are cited in defense of the position that homosexuality is immoral: 1. Genesis 19- God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. What was the sin? The traditional view is that it was homosexuality. -However, some biblical scholars maintain that the sin was inhospitality not homosexuality 2. Code of Leviticus: Lev.18:22, Lev.20:13. Boswell maintains that one does not generally go to Leviticus for moral instruction but for ritual instruction (e.g. it would be ritually unclean for Jews to eat pork). 3. Other passages: Romans 1:27; I Corth.6:9-10; Romans1:26 (lesbians).

Legal Status of Abortion in the United States Part 3: Aftermath & New Challenges

-Legally then, the matter seemed resolved. The state may not interfere with a physician's decision rendered in consultation with a pregnant woman prior to the first trimester. -Between the first trimester and when the fetus is viable, the state may only interfere for reasons having to do with the mother's health. -After viability (6 ½ months) the state may prohibit all abortions except those necessary to preserve the health or the life of the mother. -Developments since have weakened this decision. On July 3rd 1989, the Supreme Court ruled on a restrictive Missouri abortion law. It upheld the law (5-4 ruling), thus giving states the right to impose sharp new restrictions on abortion. -The court stopped just short of overturning Roe v. Wade. -Since, other cases have continued coming before the court threating the legality of abortion.

Burton Leiser (Is Homosexuality Immoral) on the argument against homosexuality that "which is natural is good, and whatever is unnatural is bad.

-Leiser argues that as we have seen, the unnatural/artifical (such as homes, clothing and typewriters) has often been very good, while what is natural (not subject to any human interference) may be bad. -While Leiser agrees interference with nature can be bad (think of climate change), not ALL interference with nature is bad (again, homes, clothing, etc) -If that was all the argument intended, then there would be very little to discuss as to whether a given form of behavior might be proper even though it is not in strict conformity with someone's views of what is natural

Burton Leiser, "Is Homosexuality Immoral?": The argument against homosexuality that anything uncommon or abnormal is unnatural

-Leiser argues that you can't condemn a behavior just because it's uncommon. There are many uncommon behaviors that are not condemned. Ex: Great artists, musicians, and scientists -The world is better off having them, and it would be absurd to condemn them or their activities for their failure to be common and normal -If homosexual behavior is wrong, then it must be for some reason other then its unnaturalness in this sense of the word.

Burton Leiser, "Is Homosexuality Immoral?" Overview Part 1

-Leiser maintains that the term "unnatural" is vague and so, he tries to ascertain what is meant by this term when Natural Law theory says that "homosexuality is unnatural." Four possible meanings of the term: 1. Statistical notion: not shared by most. Homosexuality would be unnatural in this sense. Left handedness, for example, is also unnatural in this sense but it doesn't follow that it is wrong.

Rachels (Active and Passive Euthanasia): Why may one be against the judgement of active euthanasia?

-Many people believe killing is worse than "letting a person die" -You always here about horrific murder cases, but you never hear of crimes in which a person let someone die -But does not mean that killing is worse than letting a person die, for it is not the bare difference between killing and let die that make the difference. Rather other factors (murderer's personal gain, a doctor's humanitarian motivation) account for different actions to the different cases

James Rachels, "Active and Passive Euthanasia," Chapter Overview

-New England Journal of Medicine; this is one of the two most prestigious journals of medicine. The other is Journal of the American Academy of Medicine. -Rachels draws an analogy between the difference in letting someone die and directly killing them in response to the argument that "killing someone is morally worse than letting someone die". So he creates this scenario: Smith and Jones have a wealthy nephew in common and if he dies they get a big inheritance. Rachels sets up 2 scenarios involving the nephew taking a bath: 1) Smith drowns him (this is an act of commission). Nephew dies and Smith arranges for it to look like an accident (He does something that causes his nephew to die) (Same end) 2) Jones watches him drown after he slips in the tub and fatally injures himself (this is an act of omission) Nephew dies (He does nothing to help his nephew; he allows him to die) -Rachels maintains that since the end (result, consequence) in both is the same that one is no worse than the other. The only difference is that Smith killed the child while Jones just let the child die. -And so, Rachels maintains that there is no moral difference between active euthanasia (act of commission) and passive euthanasia (act of omission). -The end, result, consequence is the same; the patient dies

Warren compares the difference between late term abortion and infanticide

-Once the infant is born, its continued life cannot pose any serious threat to the woman's life or health -A fetus' birth marks "the end of the mother's absolute right to determine its fate."

What is the difference between passive and active euthanasia? (Active and Passive Euthanasia), James Rachels

-Passive euthanasia: letting the person die (ex: a doctor does nothing to cause the patient's death, it is the disease that kills him. If the doctor simply stops treatment, the patient dies of the disease) -Active euthanasia: direct killing (ex: doctor causes his patient's death by giving him lethal injection.

According to Webber (A Key To Revisionist Thinking On Suicide) , a person can commit suicide positively or negatively. Explain.

-Positively: Producing some death-producing act against oneself -Negatively: By not doing what is necessary to preserve one's life. If one does not employ ordinary means of life-preservation implying that not to employ extraordinary means is not suicide.

At the end of the chapter (The Morality of Euthanasia), Rachels presents a somewhat different version of the argument from mercy, which is inspired by utilitarianism but doesn't make the Principle of Utility.

-Rachels believes this argument is sound and proves that euthanasia can be justified: 1. If an action promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one's rights, then the action is morally acceptable. 2. In at least some cases, active euthanasia promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one's rights. 3. Therefore, in at least some cases, active euthanasia is morally acceptable

Rachels (Active and Passive Euthanasia): Is passive euthanasia doing nothing?

-Rachels says it is not correct to say that the doctor is doing nothing -In fact, the doctor does one thing important: he lets the patient die. (Ex: one may cause a patient's death by not giving him medication)

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia, Down Syndrome Example Part 2

-Rachels' second argument states that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions concerning life and death made on irrelevant grounds. -Say the operation to solve the baby's life is not difficult, and the doctor and parents still fell it is better for the child to die because he has Down's syndrome. -Rachels calls this absurd because if the life of an infant is worth preserving, what does it matter if it needs a simple operation, and what difference does it make if it has an unobstructed intestinal tract? -Either way, the matter of life and death is being determined on irrelevant grounds, and is one of the reasons that the conventional doctrine on euthanasia should be rejected.

Barney Clark (A Key To Revisionist Thinking On Suicide) May Webber

-Received the first artificial heart on December 2, 1982 -Clark was said to be given the a key in the event that he would have decided against living tethered to a machine. -Rachels "this key symbolizes both the moral and social acceptance of certain "suicides", which in turn his closely linked to a moral stance legitimizing euthanasia in the form of "mercy death" (active euthanasia) -But Webber states this key can represent a need to revise the traditional concept of suicide, stating Clark had a right to intentionally take his own life, and that it falls under the instance of euselbicides. -An example of extraordinary treatment

Warren on infanticide

-Says it is wrong for many reasons, even if her argument is correct. -Reasons include newborn infants are very close to being people, there are people that want to adopt that infant, etc. -Even if an infant is unadoptable, it is still wrong to kill it in most cases

Judith Jarvis Thomson, "A Defense Of Abortion" on the view that abortion is permissible to save the mother's life , but the abortion can only be performed by the mother herself

-Says this is not right, the mother "owns" her house (body) -She states if Jones found a coat and put it on to keep him from freezing, if Smith takes the coat from him, it is not wrong if Smith OWNS the coat. -She goes on to state "My own view is that if a human being has any just, prior claim to anything at all, he has a just, prior claim to his own body."

Kant: Homosexuality

-Sex for Kant is a problem as the starting point of sex is the desire of a person for the body of another, treating the other as a means to an end. -Based on Kant's principles one must somehow treat the object (the other) as an end in himself. How to do this? Somehow the personhood of the other must be brought into play. -Kant said of masturbation, sex with animals and homosexuality, "They are the lowest and most disgusting sort of vice, worse in a sense even than suicide."

Thomson (A Defense of Abortion) asks whether or the not the argument we began with, which proceeds only from the fetus being a person, really does establish its conclusion

-She argued that it does not

Thomson (A Defense Of Abortion) on the argument "to deprive someone of what he has a right to is to treat him unjustly."

-Thomson creates a scenario where a boy and his small brother are given a box of chocolates for Christmas. -If the older boy takes the box and refuses to give his brother chocolates, he is unjust to him, for the brother also has a right to half of them -But back to the violinist scenario, you learn you have to spend 9 years attached to the violinist, you unplug yourself from him. -You are not being unjust to him by doing this because you gave him no such right to your kidneys, and no one else but you could have given him that right -She then argues "...the right to life consists not in the right not to be killed, but rather in the right not to be killed unjustly." -So the violinist has a right to life with the fact you do not act unjustly towards him in unplugging yourself, thereby killing him. You do not violate his right to life if you do not kill him unjustly"

Thomson (A Defense Of Abortion) on what it comes to to have a right to life Part 2

-Thomson goes back to the violinist story, where she argues that the violinist, despite needing your kidneys to continue living, has no right to use them -Nobody has a right to your kidneys unless you give them such a right -Giving him permission to use your kidneys is kindness on your part but not something he can claim from you as his due. -The violinist has no right against the Society of Music that they should plug him into you in the first place. -If you unplug yourself from the violinist, finding out you have to spend 9 years like this, nobody should try to prevent you from doing so.

Kant's Ethics of Duty

-Unlike Ethical Egoism and Utilitarianism, Kant's ethics is not a teleological/ consequential theory. -Representative of deontological ethics. Where consequences determine the morality of an act under Ethical Egoism and Utilitarianism, they do not for Kant. -More important than consequences for Kant is motive. -An act must be done for the right motive: to do one's duty. Kant's ethics is a form of absolutism (i.e. there are NO exceptions to the moral rules.) -Nothing for Kant is unconditionally good except a good will! What is a good will? It is not a will that brings about good consequences as Kant is not concerned with consequences. It is a will that acts out of duty rather than inclination. -He sums it up in his Categorical Imperative

Capital punishment: history

-Until the 19th Century. despite the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill," there was no strong objection to capital punishment. -In the late 19th Century anti-clerical writers (Beccaria, Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau) were the first to denounce it. -In 1750 Russia under Catherine the Great was the first nation to abolish it except for treason. -England as late as the 19th Century had 200 crimes which was reduced to 2 (pre-meditated murder and treason) that was punishable by the death penalty. Pick-pocketing was one such crime. Interestingly, while persons were being hung in a public square for this pick-pocketing others were pick-pocketing. Deterrent? -The U.S. Supreme Court (1972) in Furman v Georgia (1 murder/2 rape) ruled that capital punishment was unconstitutional as it violated the 8th Amendment prohibiting cruel and unnecessary punishment. It was thought that the Court had ruled comprehensively that capital punishment violated the 8th Amendment since there was nothing unusual about these cases but it didn't. -In 1977 capital punishment was back again.

Difference between retribution and vengeance according Louis P. Pojman (A Defense of the Death Penalty)

-Vengeance: signifies inflicting harm on the offender out of anger because of what he has done, despite it being out natural instinct, we should refrain from vengeance since we live in a civilized society and go through a legal process -Retribution: the rationally supported theory that the criminal deserved a punishment fitting the gravity of his crime

Thomson (A Defense Of Abortion) on the argument that there are cases where it is morally indecent to detach a person from your body at the cost of his life.

-Violinist scenario: You learn you only have to attached to the violinist for only one hour instead of nine years to save his life. Suppose letting him use your kidneys for an hour will not impact your health in any way. -In this case, even tho you were kidnapped and did not give permission for him to use your kidneys, you SHOULD allow him to use your kidneys for that hour, it would be indecent to refuse -Same case with pregnancy. Even if the pregnancy was due to rape and you gave the fetus no right to use your body, she OUGHT to allow it to remain for an hour, it would be indecent to refuse. -Back to the chocolate story: Even though the older brother ate all the chocolates that were for him and his younger brother. Thomson states the brother has no right to the chocolates and while the older brother is being greedy, he is NOT being unjust and we should keep distinct the older brother's refusal to share in this case and when he first got the chocolates. -If Henry Fonda was nearby and could touch my fevered brow with his cool hand to save my life, he surely OUGHT to do it. -Thomson concludes that "even though you OUGHT to let the violinist use your kidneys for the one hour he needs, we should NOT conclude that he has a right to do so. But if you refuse, you are self-centered and greedy but NOT unjust.

May Webber, "A Key to Revisionist Thinking on Suicide," Chapter Overview

-Webber maintains that the term "suicide" is cognitively and emotively pejorative (negative). And so, it is not possible to put together the terms "suicide" and "moral." -Webber coined a new term "euselbicide"(eu/good, selbst/self, cido, cidere/ to kill) meaning a "good self-killing." -The term "suicide" should be used for unjust self-killings and the term "euselbicide for just self-killings. Examples of euselbicides: If someone kills himself due to a painful terminal illness. -Johnathan Swift, a prolific English writer, had Meniere's disease (a painful degenative disease which leaves a person a drooling babbling idiot). -He tried to kill himself on a number of occasions and each time was prevented from doing so. Had he succeeded, I maintain his death would be an euselbicide, Also, some instances of passive euthanasia , I contend would be other examples.

Example of why euthanasia is a difficulty for utilitarianism

-What is a person who is leading a miserable life doesn't want to die? -It would be hard to see why killing this person would be wrong if utilitarianism was applied because it will increase in the balance of happiness over unhappiness.

Examples of euselbicides: May Webber (A Key To Revisionist Thinking On Suicide)

-When you want to die when you are suffering from a painful, terminal illness and in which holding on to life becomes demoralizing. -Uses Johnathan Swift example, where his illness reduced him to a drooling, mindless being. His death would have been an instance of euselbicide

Theology: Suicide Examples

1) St. Augustine (4C AD) in his City of God, we find the first general prohibition of suicide. Augustine cites: Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill" 2) St. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1275 AD) in his Summa Theologica, Question64, Article 5; Aquinas asks: Is it lawful to kill oneself? His answer- NO; he provides four arguments: -Divine Command argument a) He cites Augustine's argument. -Natural Law argument b) We have a natural tendency to love oneself; killing oneself goes against this tendency and so, is evil. -Utilitarian argument c) It does harm to society (He got this from Aristotle) -Divine Command argument d) Deut. 32:39- "I will kill and I will make live" (i.e. life is a gift from God) -This prohibition worked its way into Ecclesiastical Law (6C AD; Pope Nicholas denied holy mass to those who committed suicide) and then Cannon Law (where in the Old Code, 1917, no ecclesiastical burial would be given unless one repented before death; New Code, 1983, there is no specific reference to suicides but it speaks of other manifest sinners and says that they would not be given ecclesiastical burial if scandal would result). The Protestant Reformation was in 1521.

The moral question is under what conditions, if any, is abortion morally permissible. Three broad positions are held:

1. Conservative view- abortion is never morally permissible or at most only allowable when the mother's life is in jeopardy. 2. Liberal view- abortion is always permissible independent of reasons for the abortion and stage of fetal development. 3. Moderate view- abortion is permissible up until certain stages of fetal development and/or justified by some but not all reasons.

Two reasons why Louis P. Pojman (A Defense of the Death Penalty) believes the death penalty is justified Part 1

1. It gives killers what they deserve/Retribution -"Intentionally taking the life of an innocent human being is so evil that absent mitigating circumstances, the perpetrator forfeits his right to die." -States that revisionists hold three propositions: all the guilty deserve to be punished (1), only the guilty deserve to be punished (2), and the guilty deserve to be punished in proportion to the severity of their crime. (3) -"...I would be open to suggestions of torture (why not) but at a minimum, the death penalty seems warranted" "Civilization demands that we not take he law into our own hands, but it should also satisfy our deepest instincts when they are consonant with reason." - "The death penalty reminds us that there are consequences to our actions, that we are responsible for what we do, so that dire consequences for immoral actions are eminently appropriate, The death penalty is such a fitting response to evil."

J. Gay Williams (The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia) on why euthanasia is wrong Part 1

1. It goes against our natural instincts -Every human being has a natural inclination to continue living, which is why we fight for our survival. Man also acts against God when he takes his own life. Euthanasia sets us against our own nature. 2. It violates human dignity -When one of our goals is survival and actions are taken to eliminate that goal, then our natural dignity suffers. Euthanasia involves acting as if this dual nature-inclination towards survival and awareness of this as an end-does not exist. 3. It forecloses the possibility of miraculous cures -Spontaneous remission occurs in many cases. For no apparent reason, a patient simply recovers when those all around him expect him to die.. Euthanasia would just guarantee those expectations and leave no room for the "miraculous recoveries that frequently occur.

Marquis on the additional support to his claim: what makes killing wrong claim

1. It is incompatible with the view that it is wrong to kill only beings who are biologically human. Hence, this theory is opposed to the claim that only life that is biologically human has great moral worth, a claim which many anti abortionists seem to adopting. It will be wrong to kill members of other species that had a future. 2. The claim that the loss of one's future is the wrong-making feature of one's being killed entails the possibility that the futures of some actual nonhuman mammals on our own planet are sufficiently like ours that it is seriously wrong to kill them also. 3. The claim that the loss of one's future is the wrong-making feature of one's being killed does not entail that active euthanasia is wrong -Persons who are severely and incurably ill, who face a future of pain and despair, and who wish to die, will NOT have suffered a loss if they are killed. 4. The account of the wrongness of killing in this essay straightfrowardly entails that it is seriously wrong to kill children and infants, for we do presume they have futures of values.

Possible pro-abortionist responses to this con/anti-abortion argument

1. Might question the truth of the premises of the con abortionist's argument. Ex: Is the fetus a person? (see Mary Anne Warren, "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion ) -Warren distinguishes between humanity in the genetic sense and the moral sense (personhood). -That is, she in effect argues that the fetus is not a person. -The disadvantage of defending abortion in this manner (i.e. by taking this approach) is that it leads to the possible justification of other things which most people regard as unjustifiable (e.g. infanticide). 2. Might ask what it means to say that one has a right to life.

5 reasons why it was in Jack's best interest to be euthanized according to Rachels (The Morality of Euthanasia)

1. Most importantly, it would have been in Jack's own interests since it would have provided him with an easier, better death without pain. 2. Been in the interests of Jack's wife to not watch Jack dying for so long 3. Been in the interests of the hospital staff, as they can now turn their attention to other patients whom they could have helped. 4. Other patients would have benefitted, since medical resources will no longer have to be devoted to keeping Jack alive. 5. If Jack himself requested to be killed, it would have NOT violated his rights.

Protestantism: Suicide

1. Protestant Confessions of Faith: Lutheran (Shorter Catechism: "Thou shalt not kill," refers to others. Reformed(Calvin's Institutes: "Thou shalt not kill ,"includes oneself. 2.John Dunne (17 C): Biathanatos: He attempts to refute St. Thomas Aquinas.

In the chapter, David Boonin's (Same-sex Marriage and the Argument from Public Disagreement) 3 reasons on why Jordan's argument against same sex marriage should be objected Part 1

1. The argument itself is unsound -Boonin states P2 seems the least problematic of all the premises of Jordan's argument -States that Jordan at one point speaks of "the public dilemma concerning homosexuality, and in particular whether states should sanction same sex marriages, as if there is a single subject of dispute here, but these are in fact two distinct subjects of disagreement." -If P2 is regarding the moral status of acts of participating in same sex marriage, it means P3 and P4 are also false -P3 is false because the conflict is over the permissibility of same-sex marriage, not private acts and public benefits, meaning this is no accommodation at all, and simply a declaration than one side is entirely correct. -P4 is false since the dilemma is over same sex-marriage, not homosexual intercourse -In Jordan's argument, if the dilemma is to be one over marriage instead of sex, then following a proposal is not satisfactory to neither side is what Jordan's argument demands we do. -Boonin also argues that if the state sanctions gay marriage, it does not resolve the conflicting beliefs about the moral permissibility of acts of homosexual behavior in a way that leaves no room for accommodation. Ex: State could recognize both straight and gay marriage while disallowing gays to have sex outside of marriage, but allowing straight people to have sex outside of marriage.

According to Dr. Webber (A Key To Revisionist Thinking On Suicide), we treat certain acts which by definition are suicides as if they are something else. Two reasons why the terms "suicide" & "moral" are mutually exclusive.

1. The traditional definition of suicide was carefully formulated so as to exclude only those acts which received our moral approval. In this way, the notion of immoral was built into the definition of suicide, an analytic judgement in a non-logical sense. 2. The term "suicide", in addition to its cognitive meaning has emotive meaning in that it excites us emotionally. For most people, this gives rise to negative charged feelings, making them believe the act of suicide is always immoral

Marquis (Why Abortion is Immoral) two considerations on why killing is wrong and how these considerations support this idea.

1. This theory explains why we regard killing as one of the worst crimes. Killing is wrong because it deprives the victim of more than perhaps any other crime. 2. People with diseases who know they are dying believe premature dying is very bad for them because of the loss of their future. Marquis then suggests we need a different natural property associated with killing which better fits with the attitude of dying.

Definition of Suicide

1. Traditional (moral) definitions: a. The intentional taking of one's own life without being coerced by another (secular) b. The intentional taking of one's own life on one's own authority (Roman Catholic) These are definitions used by ethicist or moralists

Mary Anne Warren's criteria of personhood (5 points to it)

1. consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain 2. reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relativity complex problems) 3. self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control) 4. the capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics 5. the presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness -Maintains that the fetus does not satisfy the criteria. -In fact the fetus does not meet any of the five points to her criteria. Hence, abortion is not immoral. -She also argues that if this criteria was significant in determining personhood, it is clear that genetic humanity is neither necessary nor sufficient for establishing that an entity is a person" -"If the opponents of abortion were to deny the appropriateness of these five criteria, I do not know what further arguments would convince them" -"I think that on reflection even the antiabortionists ought to agree not only that 1-5 are central to the concept of personhood, but also that it is a part of this concept that all and only people have full moral rights."

According to Dr. Webber (A Key To Revisionist Thinking On Suicide), what are 2 categories of just killing

1. the just killing of another 2. the just killing of one's self (euselbicle)

Utilitarianism and Natural Rights/Social Contract Theory (Historical context)

17C Social Contract/ Natural Rights Theory in: -Hobbes: A natural right to life, liberty and property -Locke: A natural right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness 19C Utilitarianism in; Natural Rights Theory out. -Bentham said that: moral rights are nonsense natural rights are nonsense on stilts 20C After WWII/ German atrocities natural rights are back

Burton Leiser, "Is Homosexuality Immoral?" Overview Part 2

2. Descriptive law of nature: describes what happens or occurs in nature. -According to scientists, laws of nature (purely descriptive) differ from law of man (presciptive) -Ex: Water boiling at 212 degrees describe the manner in which physical substances actually behave but they differ from laws as they do not prescribe behavior. -Natural laws are not passed by country or state law unlike man made laws. They are not proclaimed or announced, impose no obligation upon anyone or anything, their violation entails no penalty, and there is no reward for following them -Ex: When a scientists says the air in a tire obeys the law of nature that govern gases, he does NOT mean that the air OUGHT to behave in a certain way, but rather it behaves appropriately under the right conditions. (Boyle's Laws). In fact, it does NOT make sense to speak of a natural law being violated. -The laws of nature are revised as scientists discover new phenomena that require new refinements in their descriptions of the way things actually happen. -In this respect they differ fundamentally from human laws, which are revised periodically by legislators who are not so interested in DESCRIBING human kbehavior as they are in PRESCRIBING what human behavior SHOULD be. -Well, homosexuality occurs in nature and so must be included.

Pojman's (A Defense Of The Death Penalty) response to two objections of the death penalty Part 2

2. Discriminates against the poor and minorities, especially African Americans -Argues it is not true that a law that is applied in a discriminatory manner is unjust. -Argues that discriminatory practices can be reformed but imperfect practices in themselves do not entail that the laws engendering these practices are unjust. -Argued if we abolish a rule unless we treated everyone exactly by the same rules all the time, we would have to abolish, for example, traffic laws and laws against imprisonment for rape, theft, and even murder -"Imperfect justice is the best we humans can attain" -While acknowledging we should reform our practices as much as possible to eradicate discrimination, Pojman states that if we can't have an imperfect law, we will be forced to have no laws at all. -Argues blacks are no longer more likely to be executed than whites -States rich murderers are equally deserving of the death penalty, stating it will remove the impression that only the poor get executed.

Other definitions of suicide

2. Durkheim's (social scientist): All cases of death resulting from a positive or negative act of the victim which he knows will produce his death. (Guild's Medical Encyclopedia, and the Encyclopedia of Medicine. 3. Omnibus definition: Engaging in any activity (even life-style) that one knows might kill him and it does. Dale Erehart's death racing his car would be a suicide under this definition. 4. Paradigm view: Suicide is an open-ended term; any definition accommodates only certain paradigm cases. 5. Dr. Webber: The non-accidental causing of one's own death.

Analogies by Thomson, "A Defense of Abortion," Part 2

2. Imagine that you are in a room with a huge growing child who is getting bigger and bigger every day. If you do not kill this child, the walls to the room will come tumbling down and you will lose your life. This would be a justified killing as it would be in self- defense and so, a just killing. This Thomson say is analogous to the pregnant woman whose life is in jeopardy. If she does not have an abortion, the walls to her uterus will come tumbling down and she will lose her life. Killing the fetus (abortion) would be in self-defense and so, a just killing. In essence, she is arguing that the "right to Life" is not absolute. The right to life means "the right not to be killed unjustly," and these are just killings of the fetus.

Two reasons why Louis P. Pojman (A Defense of the Death Penalty) believes the death penalty is justified Part 2

2. It deters potential killers/Deterrence -Pojman says evidence does not show either (inconclusive) that the death penalty deters or that it fails to deter -Argues it will plummet the murder rate in the USA, stating there is close correlation between murder and retribution that will serve as a deterrent to would-be murderers -He argues to make the death penalty more deterrable, we have to bring the accused to trial quickly and limit the appeals process of those found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt". He also argues in favor of public execution. -Argues that if the punishment for a crime is mild, it will make the crime more attractive and claims statistics show many potential criminals refrain from murder due to the death penalty -Argues in the mafia (he has friends in the mafia), people stop short of killing due to the death penalty -Believes the death penalty could deter more if it was used MORE. -"If capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent, we've come out ahead, but if it does work, then we've missed an opportunity to save innocent lives"

In the chapter, David Boonin's (Same-sex Marriage and the Argument from Public Disagreement) 3 reasons on why Jordan's argument against same sex marriage should be objected Part 2

2. It is subject to a reductio ad absurdism that Jordan fails to overcome] -Reductio Ad Absurdism: If the state should refuse to sanction same sex marriage because it is the subject of a moral impasse, then it should ALSO refuse to sanction mixed-race marriage on the same ground. -"But the claim that the state should refuse to sanction mixed-race marriage is surely intolerable. Soo, therefore, is Jordan's argument -While Jordan argues there is no opposition to mixed race marriage, there still is in the South, especially with the black community -Unlike illegalizing mixed race marriage, which would affect all races, banning gay marriage will only affect gays, not heterosexuals, making I=this law discriminate by sexual orientation. -So Jordan has failed to show that there is an overriding reason for the state to resolve the mixed-race marriage issue by declaration that does not also apply to the case of same-sex marriages.

Bright, "Why the US Will Join the Rest of the World in Abandoning Capital Punishment" Chapter Overview. CP=Capital Punishment Part 2

3. Arbitrary and unfair-people in jail for crimes didn't commit. -Innocent people sentenced to die based on false/inaccurate eyewitness testimonies, false confessions, inability to afford an attorney, etc. -Many communities STILL exclude racial minorities to participate as judges, jurors, prosecutors, and lawyers. -Use of death penalty is inconsistent 4. Police make mistakes 5. Most can't afford an attorney; so public defender -While many are good, many others are not good at defending their clients or are inexperienced with criminal cases, which alone could lead them to getting the death penalty. -Any lawyer could do a criminal case, despite their inexperience. -Many people and states are unwilling to pay for others to get good lawyers. 6. Innocent sentented to death- -Hundreds of people on death row in the last 3 decades alone later found to be innocent. -In most cases there is no evidence to prove their innocence. -He gives many examples of this. Examples in Part 3

Burton Leiser, "Is Homosexuality Immoral?" Overview Part 3

3. Artificial: like artifacts in that it interferes with nature. -Sometimes when we say something is not natural, we mean it is a product of human artifice. -Ex: Typewriters, clothing, etc are not natural as they have been removed from their natural states (before man) into what they are now. So wearing clothes will be unnatural. Even human laws are unnatural. And modern healthcare required for us to live. -We live in houses that we build not caves. If it is wrong to interfere in nature maybe we should live in caves. -Leiser questions at this point what sense do theologians and moralists mean when they are using the word unnatural to condemn homosexuality, abortion, and other forms of human behavior? -Besides the homosexual does not believe that homosexuality is interfering in nature; it is part of the description of nature. Those laws will HAVE to include homosexual behavior if it takes place. It is also impossible to violate the laws of nature. Even human interference in nature is not violating the laws of nature. -Actually, man should look at nature as an enemy. Without the intervention of human artifice, we would be dying of diseases, be plagued by insects, and whether for storms with no shelter. -Unlike homes, clothing, etc, homosexuality is NOT artifice, it is NATURAL. -Even if it was artificial couldn't condemn it for this reason.

In the chapter, David Boonin's (Same-sex Marriage and the Argument from Public Disagreement) 3 reasons on why Jordan's argument against same sex marriage should be objected Part 2

3. Contrary to Jordan's claim, it does in fact depend on claims about the morality of homosexuality, claims that stand in need of support and that Jordan has not defended -The claim that a right is a generally recognized one, as claimed by Jordan to argue there is no overriding reason for the state to resolve the public dilemma about same sex marriage by declaration. -This statement can be taken in 2 distinctive ways: Ex: It would be wrong to enslave a white person before the Civil War, but not a black person. -If a right was recognized in this second sense, Jordan would be unable to account that the morally right thing for the state to do was to abolish slavery. -Also states that if the gov't bans Jews from getting married, people will be outraged, stating that this violated a right. -This is why there is an overriding reason to resolve the dilemma by declaration in favor of same-sex marriage. It is not sufficient only if there is some morally relevant difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals, just as it would not be sufficient if there were some morally relevant difference between Jews & non-Jews.

J. Gay Williams (The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia) on why euthanasia is wrong Part 2

4. The critically ill and their caretakers may give up too easily if euthanasia was an option -While modern medicine is excellent and is often reliable, a mistaken diagnosis and prognosis is possible. -A person may believe they are dying when they are not. -Therefore, if euthanasia were permitted, the person would die for not reasons 5. The legalization of euthanasia might lead to horrific abuses, as society slides down a slippery slope. -Euthanasisa would make doctors not try hard enough to save a patient, and would assume the patient would be better of dead. This attitude could then carry over to their dealings with patients less seriously ill, leading to an overall decline in the quality of medical care.

Burton Leiser, "Is Homosexuality Immoral?" Overview Part 4

4. Uses an organ contrary to its primary function: Procreation is the primary function. -Leiser agrees that every organ and instrument has a function to perform and if they don't perform those functions, it will led to terrible consequences (ex: Using your teeth to open a beer bottle will damage them and the person's health) -People who believe in the natural law theory believe sex's proper or natural function is reproduction, and any other use other than that function is wrong, including sex between two people of the same gender. -Leiser questions if every organ has a natural function. Ex: not wrong to use a hammer to crack nuts (even though its purpose it to pound nails), not wrong to use your eyes to flirt (which are for seeing) -Leiser argues our sex organs are adapted for procreation but that are not the only function for which they are adapted. They can also give pleasure, which is probably why sex organs have nerve endingsCan also be used to express love -A tool may be used for more than one purpose, less effectively than the one especially designed for a given task, perhaps, but properly and certainty NOT sinfully. -This Leiser says is the sense or meaning of "unnatural" that the Natural Law theory uses when it maintains that homosexuality is immoral. -Leiser questions this inference that Natural Law theory makes from homosexuality being unnatural to it being bad, wrong. He is not sure that this inference is sound.

Philosophy: Suicide Part 2

5. Hume: "Man's life is of no more importance than an oyster's." The world, he claimed is a natural order and nature through God gave man free will. To say that it is wrong to use it to commit suicide, one would have to show that there is something special about man. Where Natural Law theory says that suicide is an act contrary to nature and that it interferes in nature and so, is evil, Hume says that if it is wrong to destroy life then it is wrong to preserve it. Regarding Aristotle and Aquinas' utilitarian argument, Hume says that if one commits suicide, one simply ceases to do good which is not much of an injury to the community and that one is not obligated to do a small good at the expense of harm to oneself. 6. Schopenhauer: On Suicide- "It is quite obvious that there is nothing in the world which every man has a more unassailable title to than his own life and person." Schopenhauer was probably the most pessimistic philosopher to ever have lived. 7. Wittgenstein: "If suicide is permitted, everything is permitted." He was the most profound late 20th 'Century philosopher.

Bright, "Why the US Will Join the Rest of the World in Abandoning Capital Punishment" Chapter Overview. CP=Capital Punishment Part 4

7. Racial bias -Even the guilty are sentenced to death as opposed to life imprisionment not because they committed the worse crimes but because of WHERE they happen to be prosecuted, the incompetence of their lawyers, their race, race of the victim, etc. -38 states that have the death penalty, 97.5% of those prosecutors are White. 100% in 18 of those states. -Even conscientious prosecutors who have had little experience with people of other races may be influenced in their decisions by racial stereotypes and attitudes they have developed over their lives -Despite being only 12% of the population, they are victims of half of all U.S. murdered -It's worse in the South where blacks constitute 65% of murder victims but 80% are on death row for crimes committed against whites. -A person of color is more likely to receive a harsh prison sentence, be stopped by police, to be denied bail, less likely to participate in the criminal justice system, etc

"Many people around the world have sanctioned and even ritualized homosexual relations. It would seem that an excessive readiness to insist that human sex organs are designed only for reproductive purposes and therefore ought to be used only for such purposes must be based upon a very narrow conception that is conditioned by our own society's peculiar history and taboos."

Burton Leiser, "Is Homosexuality Immoral"

"The fact that people are condemned for using their sex organs for their own pleasure or profit, or for that of others, may be more revealing about the prejudices and taboos of our society than it is about our perception of the true nature or purpose of our bodies"

Burton Leiser, "Is Homosexuality Immoral"

"To sum up 4 then, the proposition that any use of an organ that is contrary to it's principal purpose or function is unnatural assumes that organs have a principal purpose or function, but this may be denied on the ground that the purpose or function of a given organ may vary according to the needs or desires of its owner"

Burton Leiser, "Is Homosexuality Immoral"

Which county in Houston has performed more executions in the last 30 years except for all of Texas and Virginia?

Harris County

Thomas Nagel,"Sexual Perversion" Journal of Philosophy ('69) Part 2

He then asks which of these would be an unnatural sexual object and hence a perversion. Sex he takes to be a psychological category not a physiological category. 1. John and Bob having sex or Sally and Jane (adults) 2. Mike and Tom (a minor) 3. Bestiality (sex with animals) -He says that 1 is not an unnatural sexual object because there can be a meeting of both the body and the mind and so, it would not be a perversion. -He says that 2 and 3 are unnatural sexual objects as there cannot be a meeting of both the body and the mind and so, they are perversions. -In 2 there is an incompleteness in the relationship between the body and mind making an object of another person without recognizing their subjectivity (personhood).

Important data on different views of homosexuality

Important data: Sex: Multidimensional (more than one function) 1. procreation- a conservative would put the most emphasis on this function. In fact may even regard sex as a necessary evil. 2. express love- a moderate would acknowledge all three but would probably put emphasis on love. 3. pleasure- a liberal would put emphasis on pleasure.

"...a fetus is not a person, and hence not the sort of entity to which it is proper to ascribe full moral rights"

Mary Anne Warren, "On The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion"

"...neither abortion nor the killing of neonates is properly considered a form of murder. Perhaps it is understandable that the law should classify infanticide as murder or homocide,..."

Mary Anne Warren, "On The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion"

"...when an infant is born into a society which-unlike ours-is so impoverished that it simply cannot care for it adequately without endangering the survival of existing persons, killing it or allowing it to die is not necessarily wrong-provided that there is no other society which is willing and able to provide such care"

Mary Anne Warren, "On The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion"

"But to ascribe full moral rights to an entity which is not a person is as absurd as to ascribe moral obligations and responsibilities to such an entity"

Mary Anne Warren, "On The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion"

"It is wrong (and sometimes a form of murder) to practice involuntary euthanasia on persons, since they have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to continue to live"

Mary Anne Warren, "On The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion"

"Neither a fetus' resemblance to a person, nor it potential for becoming a person provides any basis whatever for the claim that it has any significant right to life"

Mary Anne Warren, "On The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion"

"Some human beings are not people, and there may well be people who are not human beings. A man or woman whose consciousness has been permanently obliterated but who remains alive is a human being which is no longer a person"

Mary Anne Warren, "On The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion"

"The belief that moral strictures against killing should apply equally to all genetically human entities, and only to genetically human entities, is such an error"

Mary Anne Warren, "On The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion"

"The mistaken belief that infanticide is always tantamount to murder is responsible for a great deal of unnecessary suffering,"

Mary Anne Warren, "On The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion"

"...the right to die is acknowledged in certain refusal of treatment cases. Generally in instances of this sort, there is no violation of the justice requirement, hence, everything considered, the self-killing may be said to be just; it is an euselbicide"

May Webber, "A Key To Revisionist Thinking On Suicide"

"I am under no moral obligation to be charitable. If I do, and it would be a noble gesture, perhaps I should be commended for doing something beyond my call of duty. If I continue to be charitable year after years maybe my gestures can be viewed as even more noble." However, if I stop at some point and no longer continue my acts of charity, I am not to be held morally culpable. Some who have come to expect my charity might call me unkind or even cheap but being so unkind and cheap are not morally reprehensible offenses"

May Webber, "A Key To Revisionist Thinking On Suicide"

"Like Brandt, under our concept of justice, we allow for instances in which one has no duty to refrain from killing oneself even if some injury or harm is done others." "However, unlike Brandt, we don't admit that one has any obligation not to take his life in these cases."

May Webber, "A Key To Revisionist Thinking On Suicide"

"Occasionally, some self-killings are just but these are not actually suicides. Social acceptance is being given to the just intentional taking of one's own life."

May Webber, "A Key To Revisionist Thinking On Suicide"

"So, too, we should not condemn the one who assists in a killing if that killing is just"

May Webber, "A Key To Revisionist Thinking On Suicide"

"There are some limitations to the extent to which one is obligated to preserve his life beyond which the obligation no longer obtains"

May Webber, "A Key To Revisionist Thinking On Suicide"

"We might note, however, that in cases of this kind, no matter how well it is argued that one has the right to die, accusations of a failure to meet the justice requirement work their way in. Emotive appeals are often made regarding the sorrow of those the suicide leaves behind. Few reflect further and think to ask: but would the pain suffered by the person cause more sorrow than his death?"

May Webber, "A Key To Revisionist Thinking On Suicide"

Utilitarians and Euthanasia (Why Abortion Is Immoral)

The Principle of Unity, the basic utilitarian assumption, is first described before these two principles: "The policy of killing, at their own request, hopelessly ill patients who are suffering great pain would decrease the amount of misery in the world" (Ex: Jack) -"Therefore, such a policy would be morally right"

Judith Jarvis Thomson ( A Defense of Abortion) grants for the sake of argument that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception in the chapter. Can we conclude from the assumption that abortion is immoral?

The answer turns out to be surprisingly complicated

Our interest as ethicists is in the morality or legality of abortion?

The morality of abortion

Definition of Abortion

The premature termination of a pregnancy.

Theology: Suicide

Theology: The theological basis for condemnation. -Scripture: There are 5 instances of suicide in the Old Testament and 1 in the New Testament. -I suppose that under the omnibus definition of suicide Christ's death in the New Testament could be considered a suicide. These acts are merely described. No judgement is passed. They are not evaluated. Roman Catholicism maintains that even if they are not condemned it doesn't follow that suicide is permitted.

Thomson (A Defense of Abortion) believes her argument will be found to be unsatisfactory to people who regard abortion as morally permissible. Why?

Two reasons 1. She states while abortion is not impermissible, she does not argue that it is ALWAYS permissible. -She argues there may be cases where carrying the child to term only requires Minimally Decent Samaritanism of the mother, which is a standard we must not fall behind -Ex: Insane for a law to prevent a pregnant, raped 14 year old to get an abortion while it is indecent for a woman to get an abortion when she is seven months cause to avoid the nuisance of postponing a trip abroad. 2. She states she is not arguing for the right to secure the death of the unborn child -Ex: While detaching yourself from the violinist is justified if you have to stay stuck to him for 9 months, if he survives, you do not have a right to slit his throat.