John Stuart Mill

"Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death"

Question: With more technology, people living longer and dying more in hospitals, need to consider ethics behind life-ending medical practices Thesis Withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatment is ethically sound Providing palliative care is ethically sound Euthanasia does not have enough current research to make a sound decision, so they're saying that it's not permissible as of now Physician-assisted suicide is in the same undecided state as euthanasia Palliative care--treatment that intends to relieve pain/suffering, but hastening the patient's death is a forseeable consequence ex. increasing morphine dosage to relieve pain, but will probably cause death After the first trimester, the state can restrict abortions to some extent · The state can regulate things like the license of the doctor performing the abortion, and other health standards · Compelling point is viability of the fetus because it can have a meaningful life outside of the womb at that point · After viability, the state has the right to even restrict all abortion (with obvious exceptions i.e. to save the life of the mother)

President George W. Bush's Speech on Embryo Research, August 9, 2001

Related to human cloning: make a clone for yourself solely for spare body parts when your own body starts to die...completely immoral (creating life for our convenience) Similarly with embryonic stem cell research Most noble ends do not justify any means Plus, no one is certain that the science will live up to the hope it has generated

Potential Essay: Effective Career Choice

Response to MacAskill Fails to fully consider the nature of people 1. yes, I agree with him that money is fungible and can be used to contribute to the best of causes however, I take issue with his suggestion that Sarah, a hypothetical character, should choose a lucrative career over working in charitable organization on the bases that she could pay for others to take her place. I am not confronting whether or not Sarah should take the lucrative job or not. I am challenging the drawbacks of this sort of replaceability idea by focusing on characteristics of people. 1. As Harrriet McBryde conveyed when debating Singer that a disabled child should not be killed to be replaced by a healthy child, humans are not fungible, able to replaced or be replaced by another identical item; mutually interchangeable. 2. Importance of individual contributions--people with unique contributions. There are certain people who have revolutionized the charitable organizations that they worked in. Ex. Could XYZ be replaced? Even if they could be. I think MacAskill underestimates the amount of time it would take to find someone capable of making at least an equal amount contribution. For instance, he says a doctor could be replaced. But what if that doctor were to be the one to cure cancer? How long would we have to wait. I agree with Carl Shulman in concept when he talks about how we should think of achievements such as bringing about technologies faster rather than making them possible at all. While I am not talking about technology I am talking about the significance of time, and the chance that Sarah could potentially make a unique contribution within a charitable organization that might not come about for another 50 years. Is this time lost not at least worth consideration? 3. Plus, passion for charitable organization work is not universal. As I see it those who go abroad to help the poor are typically well of themselves and well educated, and have the means to live abroad. However, if all of these people considered themselves replaceable, who could be found to replace them? MacAskill mentions that if Sarah did not join the financial sector, another financier might not donate as well. I find this statement contradictory. Why is she replaceable as a charitable worker but not as a financier? To be clear again, I am not saying that Sarah is not doing more good as a financier. In fact, personally, I think she is on the basis of MacAskill's marginal difference comment...but I think his Replaceability argument is somewhat flawed because as Ben Todd mentions an important aspect to assess regarding the impact of one's career is personal fit, which is the extent to which you will excel in a role. Not everyone is personal fit to work in a charitable organization, and does it not matter at all that Sarah's replacements are not as personally fit as she is?

Peter Singer's Animal Liberation

Singer's Animal Liberation challenges readers to either defend the way they eat or change the way they eat · Singer's basic argument is founded in equality o Most of us readily accept the premise of equality among all people, but all people are really NOT equal. We are of different levels of intelligence, attractiveness, etc. o "Equality is a moral idea, not an assertion of fact" says Singer. Idea is that though all people are different in their traits, all people's interests should receive equal consideration. § "if possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit non-humans for the same purpose?" --Singer · Singer acknowledges that humans and animals differ in morally significant ways, so we shouldn't treat pigs and children alike, but equal consideration of INTERESTS is not the same as equal TREATMENT--pigs, Singer says, have an interest in rolling around in dirt, while children have an interest in being educated · BUT WE SHARE A COMMON INTEREST IN AVOIDING PAIN: "The question is not Can they reason? Or Can they talk? But Can they suffer?" -Jeremy Bentham § Humans that don't have the same moral capacity as we do (infants, severely retarded) are included in our moral consideration, so how can we exclude other animals that aren't able to act morally? This is SPECIESIST · Singer asks readers to imagine a hypothetical society that discriminates based on something like intelligence—if you think that this scheme offends equality, then why is the fact that animals lack human characteristics enough to justify discrimination against them? o If you believe in equality and that equality is based on interests, you either "do not owe any justice to the severely retarded or we do owe it to animals with higher capabilities" · Some suggest that speciesism will one day be regarded as being as evil as racism The issue at hand is not a choice between baby and ape, between saving an animal life or humans curing cancer, but between EATING a pig and EATING tofu. Seemingly such a simple decision · Even rejecting Singer's utilitarian argument, don't we owe animals that can feel pain some moral consideration? o Humans no longer need meat to survive, so what is on the human side of the scale that outweighs the interests of the animals we eat? § Choice is between, Singer writes, "a lifetime of suffering for a non-human animal and the gastronomic preferences of a human being" · Can't objectively make this choice if you do eat meat

Obligations of wealthy nations in Climate Change

Singer: if we agree that we should do no harm to others, and we are harming millions if not billions by contributing to climate change, we have an obligation to stop harming them and compensate them for past harm. doctrine of double effect doesn't even protect us: we know that we are doing more harm to people than the "lifestyle" good that we get In 2007, President of Uganda called the massive greenhouse gas output by developing countries "Aggression"

GiveWell

The key principles GiveWell recommends keeping in mind when deciding where to give are as follows: 1. Your donation can change someone's life 2. The wrong donation can accomplish nothing 3. Your dollar goes further overseas. GiveWell seeks out charities that are evidence-backed, cost-effective, and capable of effectively using more funding ( broadly consequentialist and operating in an "expected value" framework.)

Cultural Relativism

The norms of a culture reign supreme within the boundaries of the culture itself Argument: 1) Different societies have different moral codes. 2) The moral code of a society determines what is right, at least within that society. 3) There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one's society as better than another's. 4) The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is one among many. 5) It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always be tolerant of them. Objections: 1) Some values are shared by all cultures--the value of truth telling, caring for young, prohibition against murder 2) There is a difference between what a society believes about morals and what is objectively true 3) It is possible to criticize cultural practices, such as slavery, on the basis of principles not tied to society. Does the practice, promote or hinder the welfare of people affected by it? 4) Tolerance of torture, slavery, rape is a vice, not virtue. Important Takeaway: Cultural Relativism holds that societies are morally infallible--the morals of a culture can never be wrong. Comment: We can see that societies can and do endorse grave injustices and are in need of moral improvement, like their members

Jamieson, The Category Formerly Known as Geoengineering

The trouble with geoengineering is that it is seen as a rival to proposals to clean up emissions, when in fact it needs to be part of a "portfolio" of various options to address climate change Not all geoengineering solutions have trivial costs; sulfate aerosols might cause droughts in tropical areas and disrupt the monsoons, causing serious regional damage (just as the natural eruption of Mt. Pinatubo did in 1991) The idea that we could only use geoengineering in an emergency also does not do a good job of defining an emergency (i.e., Hurricane Sandy was not nearly as bad as what happens every year in more tropical regions) Geoengineering solutions and even research might have negative consequences for other things like biodiversity and for Geoengineering has a huge potential for moral hazard, and it might also breed arrogance about nature individual countries

Equal Consideration of Interests

We ought to give equal weight to similar interests, irrespective if the species of the being whose interests they are Based on Jeremy Bentham's notion that all that matters is whether an animal can suffer--"to suffer is to have interests" --suffering is weighted equally but one can suffer more than another This principle does not put humans and animals on equal moral ground, but gives equal consideration to all interests involved (which will be very different for a human vs. an animal)

Thomas Pogge

What does it mean to violate a human right? Pogge: When non-fulfillment, when a person lacks secure access to that right is occurring Citizens of well developed countries have a responsibility for themselves and their countries respective policies (exception children and disabled people) INCLUDING poor and poorly educated citizens. However, it is up to each citizen to decide how much exoneration they deserve. Regarding the poor, the right to "secure access to an adequate standard of living is the main unfilled right" lack of living conditions then makes you likely to not have the other rights, or access to them. You're stuck in a situation of dependence. Trafficking, forced labor, unequal political representation, follow. Pogge's process: prove something is a human right. By extension, that unfulfillment means denied secure access to said right. 1st claim, that something is so important that it must be a right. Having justified the significance, the responsibility is placed on those who can help provide these rights if possible and if doing so doesn't create more burdens on others. This means unfulfilled rights can exist even if no one's to blame. The process is: define a right, then duty, then an obligation Try not to deprive others, 2) protect people from being deprived of, and 3) do this personally and through institutions. Duties of respect: not helping to prevent, or indirectly violating a rights ( a soldier blows up a dam that floods a village's crops ) Duties to protect/provide: Securing access and then giving food, shelter, or whatever the rights entails (ie UN provide food for besieged city). In terms then of what duties citizens and institutions have, he claims that they have both positive and negative duties to steer institutions How we treat the poor: (interactional/personal violations and institutional violations). Institutional- we "buy" natural resources from impoverished countries and lend while granting billions of aid to them. But our purchase isn't fair to those citizens because their lack of democracy limits their ability to shape their institution's dealings. give funds to place we know will embezzle them on behalf of their people pollute which hurts poor countries. He advocates donating to effective aid charities to offset what the U.S. is doing. donate however much of your income, based on where you rank in the world, that would help offset the poverty gap.

Effective Altruism

a philosophy and social movement that applies evidence and reason as well as emotion to determine the most effective ways to improve the world, principle way being through giving. It is based around the aim of doing the most good that one can. It involves: 1. Being ope to all possible ways to do good and pursuing the path with the biggest impact; 2. Using evidence to figure out how to do the most goof; and 3. Choosing to make altruism a significant part of one's life.

Two main strategies for geoengineering

carbon dioxide removal (CDR), which can be done with plants and algae, and solar radiation management (SRM), which seeks to deflect or absorb sunlight to cool the planet in spite of excessive carbon dioxide CDR is more expensive and takes time to work (i.e., planting forests) but has fewer long-term systemic risks, while SRM is faster and less expensive but could have serious unintended consequences (i.e., putting more of specific chemical compounds into the atmosphere) SRM solutions are also imperfect because they do not address the root cause of the problem, but most are projected to offset the damage of climate change in most areas most of the time

Consequentialism

class of normative ethical theories that hold that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgement about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct

Groningen Protocol

criteria under which physicians can perform "active ending of life on infants" without fear of legal prosecution. Breakdown: 1. The infant has no chance of survival 2. Poor prognosis and dependent of intensive care 3. Hopeless prognosis and experiencing unbearable suffering E. Requirements 1. Diagnosis/prognosis must be certain 2. Hopeless and unbearable suffering must be present 3. Diagnosis, prognosis, and unbearable suffering must be confirmed by at least one independent doctor 4. Both parents must give informed consent 5.The procedure must be performed in accordance with accepted medical standards

Preference Utilitarianism

idea that morally right actions and institutions maximize aggregate preference satisfaction and/or minimize aggregate preference frustration or denial Ex: replace disabled babies with non-disabled ones to increase overall happiness.

Three most frequently mentioned end-of-life concerns

loss of autonomy, decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable, and loss of dignity

Michael Pollan--"The Ethics of Eating Animals" from The Omnivore's Dilemma

o Science has proven that qualities we used to think of as exclusive to humans are actually not, but we treat them "in the spirit of Descartes" who claimed animals could not think or feel We tolerate the logic gap between raising dogs as pets and eating pork (dogs and pigs are of approximately equal intelligence) because the transformation of pig into pork is so far removed from our lives; we really never see the animals we eat until they are on our plates Meat Eaters Arguments: 1. Why should we treat animals any more ethically than they treat one another? Animals eat each other, why can't we eat them? 2. Wouldn't life in the wild be worse for these creatures? 3. Domesticated animals can't survive in the wild. Without us eating them, they wouldn't exist at all! 4. Animals on factory farms have never known any other life 5. World is full of problems—shouldn't solving human problems come first? 6. The fact that we CAN choose to not eat meat for moral reasons justifies our speciesism, because we alone are the moral animal (acc. To Immanuel Kant)—we alone can think about "rights." So why can't we limit our moral consideration to those who are capable of understanding it? Pollan argues that we give marginal humans moral consideration b/c we've all been and will likely once again be marginal cases ourselves. PLUS the retarded, the demented, and infants all have family, which makes our interest in their welfare deeper than our interest in that of even the most intelligent ape The Vegetarian's Dilemma --Vegetarianism can be socially awkward o Alienates us from other people who do eat meat (aka from the large majority of humans) o Others have to accommodate us—if you don't tell a host, he feels bad, if you do tell him, he has to prepare special meal, and you will feel bad o Unable to participate in traditions like Thanksgiving turkey, hotdogs at the ballpark; human meat consumption is reflected in design of our teeth, structure of our digestion—human brain grew under pressure of the hunt; human culture founded on the cooking and sharing of meat that had been hunted · Irony of animal rights: asks us to acknowledge all we share with animals, then act towards them in a most unanimalistic way Animal Suffering · Animals do feel pain, but human pain is different from animal pain "by an order of magnitude" o Because we have language and therefore thoughts and the ability to imagine, our pain is amplified by regret, self-pity, shame, humiliation, and dread. This amplified pain is suffering. Animal rightists are concerned only with the individual animal, not with the overarching problem of species in their ecosystems Vegan Utopia · Problems with veganism: grains are harvested w/ combines that shred rodents, and pesticides kill birds o Whatever we eat, however we live, animals are going to die In the end, we have to decide for ourselves whether it is right to eat animals that have died in humane ways · There are no longer rituals that surround our killing animals and eating meat, as there used to be. Now, w factory farms, it is a matter of either looking away or giving meat up

Kant's Doctrine of Retributivism

punishment is a matter of justice 'eye for an eye' Kant thought punishing people all rights because though increases suffering int the world, the suffering is borne by those who deserve it Punishment should proportionate to the seriousness of the crime Responses: Utilitarian--Bentham oppose retributivism--punishment is only justified if ti does enough good to outweigh the bad Criminals: Utiliarian appeal: victims of circumstance, who do not ultimately control their lives Kant retributivism: rational agents who freely choose to do harm

"lesser evil" argument

since policy has not resulted in effective emissions reduction, geoengineering is the only way to cool the planet, even though it presents moral hazard and does not solve all the problems that removing emissions would

Speciesism

suggests that species membership is morally significant; speciesists want to treat beings according to the capacities of their group, not the individual ex. treat humans better than animals because they are of the same species Objections: - Slippery slope of lowering moral status of group of humans o If moral value is determined by physical characteristics, women and racial minorities are at risk of losing moral rights - species is just as arbitrary of a boundary as race and gender are o If moral value is determined by mental capacity, infants and mentally disabled persons are at risk of losing moral rights - some nonhuman animals have higher mental capabilities than some humans Singer: Right now he still believes that animal pain is much greater than the benefits that have arisen from the testing. o If willing to experiment on animals, we must be willing to experiment on intellectually disabled humans. Objections to Singer and his responses: 1. How do we know animals can feel pain? Singer: The present behavior similar to humans in situations where they should feel pain - All vertebrates and some invertebrates share a very similar nervous system structure 2. Animals eat each other, why shouldn't we eat them? (Darwin's survival of the fittest) Singer: Many animals would die without eating another animal - Those who wouldn't die don't have the capacity to realize that they have other options or considerations - Humans can't hide from our responsibility through the ignorance/lack of reason of animals - Modern consumption of animals is not some natural evolutionary process. Even natural processes can be pragmatically and ethically improved. 3. Ethics and Reciprocity: Platonic idea that ethics is based on a mutually beneficial contractual agreement (social contract). If you cannot appreciate or reciprocate restraint, you are not entitled to be protected by it. Society is too far into ethical discussion to commit to a completely new system. Singer: Contract model is based completely in self interest. Even if you decreased the need for reciprocity, there is no point to the model 4. Unlike other animals, humans have reason, self-awareness and perception of the past and future. Singer: Science has proven that there aren't that many differences between animal and humans except for self-awareness. The self-awareness argument only holds if somehow self-awareness actually increases an actions effect on a being's interests, otherwise irrelevant.

Discriminatory treatment

the failure to provide life-saving treatment and letting a disease run its natural course

Tipping Point

the phenomenon wherein reaching a specific threshold results in sudden changes to the entire system (for instance, if Siberia gets too warm, methane under the ground will be released into the atmosphere and rapidly warm the Earth) --Potential emergencies include the Siberian methane, the collapse of the Antarctic ice sheet, and the death of the Amazon rainforest, and in these emergencies, the world needs a rapidly-acting plan that would cool the Earth faster than cutting emissions

Omnivore's Dilemma

when you can eat anything nature offers, deciding what to eat, especially when some foods can sicken or kill, will inevitably cause anxiety—UPenn research psychologist Paul Rozin originally coined term

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

"...the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." --Individual has sovereignty over his/her body and mind --"those who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others, must be protected against their own actions as well as against external injury" --human liberty comprises consciousness, liberty of thought and feeling (which is different from the liberty to express those thoughts), liberty of tastes and pursuits, liberty to do these things in groups --social contract means that citizens owe the society something → not hurting others' interests and rights, sharing labor --society has control over those actions which impact multiple people --it is also usually morally wrong when personal conduct interferes with the public (i.e. when people try to impose their beliefs and views on others)

The Categorical Imperative

"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law " When thinking about doing something, ask what rule you would be following if you actually did it. This rule will be the "maxim" of your act. Then, ask if you would be willing for your maxim to become a universal law Take-away point: Kant viewed categorical imperatives as binding on rational agents, because if you accept any considerations as reasons in one case, then you must accept them as reasons in other cases as well. Moral reasons to be valid have to be binding on all people at all times (requirement of consistency). Rules cannot have exceptions, but they need not be absolute. If we violate a rule, we shoudl do so for a reason that we would be willing for anyone to accept. --Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only --To treat people as ends requires treating them with respect and as a rational being

Hamilton, Ethical Arguments

"Buying Time" Argument: if the reason that governments do not reduce emissions is because they are waiting for a more profitable clean energy source to use instead of oil, then SRM is a necessary evil to help keep the planet cooler until then "Climate Emergency" Argument: if the world hits a tipping point, it must have a fast-acting solution like SRM to prevent human extinction (or other consequences worse than using the SRM) "Best Option" Argument: since geoengineering is cheaper and easier to do than reducing emissions, we might as well use it now rather than delay and wait for when we really need it (in fact, if geonegineering is cheaper, it would be unethical not to do it) --Geonegineering may end up creating moral corruption; that is, it allows humans to shift their moral debates and come up with solutions that are easiest for them instead of accepting greater losses --Research on geoengineering may also have a moral hazard; that is, if people believe that geoengineering is a solution for problems in the future (like an insurance policy on a car), they will be less likely to take care of the climate and reduce emissions because the costs will be reduced if problems happen --Geoengineering also carries a risk of a "slippery slope" among those who back it; that is, as more people back the research and espouse its potential benefits, governments will be more likely to choose it over emissions reduction --One might argue that geoengineering is a way that humans might try to "play God" and control things that they ought not control (for instance, manipulating human DNA is an affront to the intrinsic value of human life and intelligence)

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

"I will argue that, while it is not possible to produce a satisfactory defense of a woman's fight to obtain an abortion without showing that a fetus is not a human being, in the morally relevant sense of that term, we ought not to conclude that the difficulties involved in determining whether or not a fetus is human make it impossible to produce any satisfactory solution to the problem of the moral status of abortion. For it is possible to show that, on the basis of intuitions which we may expect even the opponents of abortion to share, a fetus is not a person, and hence not the sort of entity to which it is proper to ascribe full moral rights." It is personhood, not genetic humanity, that is the basis for membership in this community-- a fetus cannot be considered a member of the moral community, the set of beings with full and equal moral rights, for the simple reason that it is not a person. Nor, as we will see, is a fetus's potential personhood a threat to the morality of abortion, since, whatever the rights of potential people may be, they are invariably overridden in any conflict with the moral rights of actual people. Consequently, a woman's right to protect her health, happiness, freedom, and even her life, by terminating an unwanted pregnancy, will always override whatever right to life it may be appropriate to ascribe to a fetus, even a fully developed one. And thus, in the absence of any overwhelming social need for every possible child, the laws which restrict the right to obtain an abortion, or limit the period of pregnancy during which an abortion may be performed, are a wholly unjustified violation of a woman's most basic moral and constitutional rights." Refutes Thomson's violinist analogy by bringing up various cases of abortion Analogy is only good to show that rape victims can have abortions But what about women who were careless in becoming pregnant, or changed their minds about having a child? In these cases the analogy fails New analogy: you voluntarily joined the music lover society, knowing that it's possible your name will be drawn from a lottery, so that you will be the one hooked up to the violinist You placed yourself in a position in which it might happen that a human life would be lost if you did not do cooperate (similar to a woman putting herself in a position to become pregnant) So you have an obligation to stay in bed with the violinist (and the woman has an obligation to be responsible for keeping the fetus alive) --Personhood and traits most central to its concept: (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 relatively 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 variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics; (5) the presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both. An entity does not have to have all these attributes to be properly considered a person. But any being which satisfies none of the above attributes is certainly not a person (aka a fetus). So some human beings are not people and there may be people who are not human beings. Therefore, people without mental capacities and fetuses are human beings but not people and do not have moral rights --Seven- or eight-month fetus is not significantly more personlike than is a very small embryo. It is somewhat more personlike, but it is not fully conscious and cannot reason or communicate So the right to life of a fetus (of that particular magnitude) could never override a woman's right to obtain an abortion, at any stage.

The Minimum Conception of Morality

"Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one's conduct by reason--that is, to do what there are the best reasons for doing--while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by one's action"

Will MacAskill, Doing Good Better

"Which causes are most important?" Assess on three dimensions: 1. scale-what's the magnitude of the problem? long run, short run? 2. neglected-ness-how many resources are already being dedicated to tackling this problem? 3. tractability-how easy is it to make progress on this problem, and how easy is it to tell if you're making progress? if contributing time, a fourth dimension: 4. personal fit-given your skills, resources, knowledge, connections and passions, how likely are you to make a large difference in this area

Margaret Little, "The Moral Permissibility of Abortion" in Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics. Ed. A Cohen and Christopher Wellman

"[The opposing views] are based on a problematic conception of how we should value early human life; more than that, they are based on a profoundly misleading view of gestation and a deontologically crude picture of morality." "I believe that early abortion is fully permissible, widely decent, and, indeed, can be honorable...I think [burgeoning human life] has a value worthy of special respect...I believe that the right way to value early human life, and the right way to value what is involved in and at stake with its development, lead to a view that regards abortion as both morally sober and morally permissible." --An embryo or early fetus is so far removed from our paradigmatic notion of a person that regarding it as such seems an extreme view --"The trajectory we privilege as the fetus's natural development...depends on the actions and resources of an autonomous agent, not the events and conditions of a habitat" --So the argument about the embryo having a potential to become a person, and therefore has rights, is dangerous: "for it encourages us to think of the embryo's development as mere unfolding - as though all that's needed other than the passage of time is already intrinsically there, or at least there independently of the woman" --Early life is "respect-worthy" but not the same as giving it moral status --The right to life does not include the right to have all assistance needed to maintain that life (Thomson); so abortion is not violating the fetus's right to life In murdering someone on the street: you are interfering with the trajectory of that person's life that's independent of you, she faced a happy future and your murdering her changed that and robbed her of that future But in ending gestation, you are taking away from this fetus something it wouldn't have had to begin with without your aid; you are leaving the fetus no worse off than before it encountered you (unlike in murder)...so not violating its right to life --This argument also stands in the opposition that the woman is responsible for procreating, for introducing the fetus's need Creating someone who comes with needs is not the same as inflicting a need onto someone "The pregnant woman has not made the fetus more vulnerable than it would otherwise have been: absent her procreative actions, it wouldn't have existed at all" So abortion isn't a "wrongful interference" Abortion, I want to argue, is both permissible and widely decent, for reasons involving what we might call authorship and stewardship. Authorship: "for there are available reasons - about sharing her body and entering motherhood - she may deploy as basis for honorably declining" --Gestation doesn't just turn cells into a person; it turns a woman into a mother; and some women do not want to be mothers-- motherhood changes one's fundamental practical identity; Gestation is an enormous undertaking that has reverberations for an entire lifetime --The boundaries of one's self (borders and use of one's body, identity) are matters over which one deserves special moral deference (Stewardship): Decisions about abortion are often located within the norms of responsible creation. Decisions to abort often represent not a decision to destroy, but a refusal to create --Bringing about a person's life in these circumstances (such as the mother being unable to care for the child, living a life of poverty and gender apartheid, etc.) would do violence to her ideals of creating and parenthood

Emotivism

--Attributes to philosopher Charles Stevenson--who states that moral disagreement is disagreement in attitude --Moral language is not fact stating, more like a command, used to express attitudes and influence people's behaviors Two forms of disagreement: 1) Disagreement in belief: We believe different things, both of which cannot be true 2) Disagreement in attitude--We want different outcomes, both of which cannot occur.

Bernard Williams 'Critique of Utilitarianism'

--Consequentialism Critiques: Not concerned with whether a state of affairs consists in what I do, or is produced by what I do, but is only concerned with the idea of these doings being consequences of what I do --Not concerned with whether the production of the eventual outcome is provided by someone else's doing something --all casual connexions are on the same level, it makes no difference whether the causation of a given state of affairs lies through another agent, or not--Claims no morally relevant difference between my bringing about a certain outcome rather than someone else's producing it (Extreme of principle to impartiality) Utilitarianism Critiques: --Counter-objection: Utilitarianism alienates one from one's moral feelings and one's actions as well. Forgets about integrity in favor of concern for general good in some cases --Response to counter-objection: Utilitarianism cannot understand integrity as it cannot coherently describe relations between a man's projects and his actions Takeaway point: We cannot regard our moral feeling as mere objects of utilitarian value. Our moral relation to world is given by such feelings and by a sense of what we can or cannot 'live with.' To disregard feelings is to lose a sense of one's moral identity, to lose, one's integrity. --There are no limits on one's obligation to improve the world, according to utilitarians. The utilitarian has general project of bringing about maximally desirable outcomes. --utilitarianism leaves a hole in range of human desires, between egoistic inclinations and necessities at one end.

Challenges to Judith Jarvis Thomson (aka Thomson)

--Does not take into account a woman's special kind of responsibility issuing from the fact that she is its mother. For her, the fetus is seen as some foreign, unrelated parasite --Violinist analogy only applies to cases where the woman was not responsible for procreation (rape) --While you unplugging yourself from the violinist is not directly killing him, you are still indirectly causing the death of the violinist --Ignores the difference between killing (abortion) and letting die (unplugging yourself from the violinist) --Camosy Conclusion for abortion does not follow from conclusion for violinist We have rights and obligations that exist outside of choices we make Parents (including fathers) have a natural obligation to their child, while one does not have a natural obligation to the violinist Fathers have to pay child support

Kant's other core ideas

--Human beings have an "intrinsic worth" or "dignity" that makes them valuable "above all price" --"Animals..are there merely as means to an end. The end is man." --Supported by following facts about people: --People have desires, things that satisfy those desires can have value for people. --People have "intrinsic worth" because they are rational agents that is free agents capable of making their own decisions and guiding their conduct by reason

Objections to Utilitarianism

--Justice requires us to treat people fairly, according to merits of particular situation --Ex. the best outcome may be achieved by bearing false witness, but wrong to bring about conviction of innocent person --Rights place limits on how an individual may be treated, regardless of good that may be accomplished --Notion of individual rights is not a utilitarian notion --Small gain in happiness cannot overcome obligation created by promise; obligation should mean something morally --Utilitarians only care about consequences of actions but some past facts are important too --Requirement for 'equal concern' too demanding ; destroys personal relationships --if we are impartial, we miss out on intimacy, love, affection, friendship -Requires us to promote general welfare to maximum extent possible and abandon personal endeavors that make our lives meaningful

Simple Subjectivism

--Moral Language is about stating facts--ethical judgements report speaker's attitudes --X is morally acceptable, X is right, X is good, ALL mean: "I (the speaker) approve of X"

Reason and Impartiality

--Moral judgements must be backed by good reason --Morality requires the impartial consideration of each individual's interests --Moral judgments are different from expressions of personal taste

Camosy, Beyond the Abortion Wars, The Violinist Case

--One distinction Thomson makes is that one between direct and indirect killing, which makes abortion permissible --Peter Singer believes that in the Violinist Case, you do have a moral duty to stay connected to the violinist --Camosy says most pro-lifers see personhood differently than the individualistic and "choice-centered" position Thomson takes. --The fetus is not a foreign parasite or a random person like the violinist --There are, however, obligations that exist outside of our choice to accept them --For example, if a woman claims that a one-night stand led to a pregnancy, the father of the child is forced to pay child-support --You do not have a natural obligation to the violinist --The fetus is "welcomed" by the human body and created by God/natural selection depending on your beliefs --The obligation to a child cannot be ignored if it is burdensome or inconvenient

Doctrine of Double Effect

--St. Thomas Aquinas It is permissible to act in ways that will lead to deaths of innocents provided that: A) this occurs as a side effect to the achievement of the act which is directly aimed at or intended; B) the act directly aimed at is itself morally good or, at least, morally neutral; C) the good effect is is not achieved by way of the bad, that is, the bad must not be a means to the good; and D) the bad consequences must not be so serious as to outweigh the good effect Double effect euthanasia, defined by the American Medical Association, is "the provision of a palliative treatment that may foreseeably hasten death... The Intent of the treatment is to relieve pain and suffering, not to end the patient's life, but the patient's death is a foreseeable side effect of the treatment."

Natural Law Theory

--The world has a rational order, with values and purposes built into its very nature -Aristotle:Nature belongs to a class of causes which act for the sake of something --The world is in harmony when things serve their natural purposes --Moral rules are derived from the laws of nature Ex. Duty of beneficence--We are morally required to care for neighbors. According Natural Law theory, beneficence is natural for us, because we are by nature social and need company of others The 'natural laws' of morality are just laws of reason. We can figure out what is right because God has given us the ability to reason. Objections: --Counter to argument that was is natural is good: disease is natural but bad, and people are selfish by nature --confuses 'what is the case' and 'what out to be the case' --logically different notions and no conclusion about one follows from the other --Its view of world conflict with modern science --World as described by Galileo, Newton, and Darwin has no need for 'facts' about right or wrong --Explaination of nature makes no reference to values or purposes --Only 'natural laws' are that of physics, chemistry, biology Important Takeaway: Morality is a separate matter from religion 1) Right and wrong are not understood in terms of God's will 2) Morality is a mater of reason and conscience, not religious faith 3) Religious consideration do not provided definitive solutions to most of our moral problems that we face

Ethical Subjectivism

--Theory that our moral opinions are based on our feelings and nothing more --David Hume, morality is a matter of "sentiment" rather than "reason" -- Philosopher John Mackie--there are no objective facts in ethics, and no one is right or wrong

Judith Jarvis Thomson, "A Defense of Abortion," Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1 (1971)

--Unconscious violinist You wake up one morning and find yourself attached to a famous unconscious violinist You have been kidnapped by the Society of Music Lovers, and the violinist's circulatory system is connected to yours; so your kidneys are used to filter his blood of toxins To unplug you is to kill him Only for 9 months "All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him" Do you have a moral obligation in this situation? --Henry Fonda's cool hand His cool hand on your fevered brow will save your life But you have no right to it, despite the fact that it will save your life --Brothers with a box of chocolate Used to illustrate "to deprive someone of what he has a right to is to treat him unjustly" --Intercourse as opening the window If you open a window, it does not mean you are inviting any burglars that come in and that you have given them the right to your house (even though you are partially responsible and know that burglars are out there) So if you have intercourse, esp protected intercourse, it does not mean that you have given the child a right to your body (maybe in some cases, but def not in all cases) -- Arguing that abortion is not impermissible, not that it is always permissible. Arguing for the woman's right to detach herself from her unborn child, not that her unborn child must die. Not arguing for the right to secure the death of the unborn child If it lives through the abortion somehow, it doesn't mean that she can slit its throat and kill it anyway Main Arguments 1) The mother has the right to defend her life against the threat to it posed by the unborn child, even if doing so involves its death (to unplug the violinist would NOT be murder) 2) Having a right to life does not guarantee having a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person's body—even if one needs it for life itself ---the bare minimum a man needs may be something he has no right at all to be given; Illustrated by Henry Fonda example 3)The right to life consists not in the right not to be killed, but rather in the right not to be killed unjustly. It is not unjust to deprive someone of something he had no right to in the first place 4)Nobody, especially not the mother, is morally required to make large sacrifices for nine years, or even for nine months, in order to keep another person alive. Just because you ought to do something for someone does not give them the right to use you 5)choose to stay impartial to either the unborn child or the mother While one has the right to refuse to abort a child of a woman, one cannot extrapolate his right to others and deny them the ability to help the woman There is no injustice in helping someone extricate themselves when they have been compelled to be a Good Samaritan--no law in this country compels anyone to be a Good or even a Minimally Decent Samaritan

John Finnis, "Absolute Moral Rights"

--Utilitarian Argument: There are no absolute human rights, because there are no ways of treating a person of which it can be said, 'Whatever the consequences, nobody must ever be treated in this way'. --Finnis: Basic principles of practical reasonableness (aka basic human values) are recognized by all-or-most people. There are absolute human rights that entail exception-less duties: --Right to not have one's life taken directly as a means to an end --Right to not be positively lied to in any situation in which factual communication is expected --Right to not be condemned on knowingly false charges. --Right not to be deprived, or required to deprive oneself, of one's procreative capacity --Right to be taken into respectful consideration in any assessment of what common good requires One arrives at reasonable judgments by a steady determination to respect human good in one's own existence and the equivalent humanity or human rights of others. It is always unreasonable to choose directly against any basic value, in oneself or in one's fellow human beings.

David Velleman, "Against the Right to Die"

--establishment of a right to die actually decreases autonomy --we generally think that having more options is better for our autonomy however, having the option can be harm even if you don't exercise it OR even if you do exercise it and gain from it --in the world of negotiation, a lack of options can be an advantage; options often pressure you to make decisions --when you offer someone a change to the status quo, "he can no longer have the status quo without choosing it" Euthanasia: --denies them the possibility of staying alive by default → you might feel that you have become forced to justify your existence (and if you can't, you might choose euthanasia) --"thus, even if a patient antecedently believes that his life is worth living, he may have good reason to assume that many of the people around him do not" --"offering someone the choice of euthanasia would not only cause his existence to be perceived as his responsibility; it would actually cause his existence to become his responsibility for the first time. And this new responsibility might entail new and potentially burdensome obligations." --patient euthanasia can be a gift or favor on family or friends who are burdened emotionally or financially → follows from this that death is never too much to ask

Immanuel Kant, "On a supposed right to tell lies from benevolent motives"

--in response to Benjamin Constant: "To tell the truth is a duty, but only towards him who has a right to truth" --Kant: "to have a right to truth" is a meaningless statement because a man has a right to his own truthfulness i.e subjective truth in his own person Kant: It is a wrong done to mankind to lie even if it is not a wrong against the person who compelled you to lie. It is an injury against mankind because it violates the principle of justice --If you have by lie, hindered a man who is even now planning a murder, you are legally responsible for all the consequences. But if you have adhered to the truth, public justice cannot fault you, whatever the consequences may be. --In telling a lie, you have to answer to the consequences of it. Your intentions in lying don't matter. --Truth is an unconditional duty which holds in all circumstances.

Kantian ethics

--moral issues are absolute and that lying is wrong under any circumstances --"hypothetical imperatives" tell us what to do provided that we have the relevant desires --Moral obligations do not depend on having particular desires, instead they are categorical and have the form " You ought to do such an such period" --Categorical oughts hinge upon reason; hypothetical 'oughts' on desires

Ideas about moral truth

1) There are moral values in the same way that there are planets and star 2) Our values are nothing more than the expression of our subjective feelings 3) Moral truths are objective in the sense that they are true independently of what we might want to believe 4) Moral truths are matters of reason; a moral judgement is true if it is backed by better reasons that the alternatives

Kant's arguments on lying

1) we could not will a universal law that allows people to lie because such a law would be self defeating. As soon as lying becomes common, people stop believing each other Suppose it is necessary to lie to save a life? Kant: 1) We should do only those action that conform to rules which we could will to be adopted universally 2) I f you were to lie you would be following the rule that it is ok to lie 3) This rule could not be adopted universally because it would be self-defeating --People would stop believing in each other, and then it would be impossible to lie 4) Therefore you should not lie Regarding a supposed right to lie for altruistic motives: If while you are lying the person you are hiding tries to sneak away, and then the murderer wanders aways because you lied and sees the person, then you are partially responsible for the death We cannot know what consequences will be so best policy is too avoid the known evil--lying--and let the consequences comes as they may Counter: Kant assumes that we would be morally responsible for any bad consequences of lying, but we would not be morally responsible for any bad consequences of telling the truth Objections to the idea that moral rules are absolute: If it is absolutely wrong to do both X and Y, what about the case in which someone must choose between X and Y? Counter: This argument is only against pairs of absolute moral rules--two rules needed to create conflict

R.M. Hare, "Survival of the Weakest"

1. Fundamental principle: we should treat the interests of all people with equal weight 2. Theories that inform the fundamental principle: a. Christian Golden rule: "do unto others..." b. Kantian principle: act in such a way that we can will the maxim of our action to be a universal law c. Utilitarian: everybody is to count as one and nobody as more than one (equally regarded interests) d. Ideal Observer: we ought to do what a person would prescribe who was fully informed and wholly unbiased e. Rational Contractor theory: we ought to do what a rational self-interested person would agree to if he did not know what end of the stick he would receive 3. Interests --Possible people have interests 4. Replicability: disabled infant/fetus vs. healthy possible child a. Unborn child cannot be deprived of life, but it can be withheld from him b. Fetus has no conscious life and cannot feel loss of it or fear of that loss c. Harm to a fetus or unsuccessfully operated on newborn infant < stopping the conception and birth of a healthy child to take its place d. We should favor the higher prospect for a normal and healthy life

Impersonal (Total) and person-affecting principles

1. Impersonal (Total): We should do what most reduces misery and increases happiness. We should maximize the total amount of happiness. o According to this, the best way to increase happiness is to increase the number of happy people (parents ought to have a child to be moral) 2. Person-affecting view: We should do what harms people the least and benefits them most. o Make people happy, not happy people o Failure to birth is not wrong - there is no one a someone has harmed or failed to benefit

The Case of Baby Sidney Miller

1. Right to decide treatment of newborn o Father of premature did not want medical intervention/resuscitation of child --Girl is currently living with severe mental and physical disabilities - can live to age seventy but will be very expensive --Sued the hospital and corporate owners (1998) for treating the child without their consent 2. Dangerous implications of parental decision -- Without initial resuscitation, there are not enough signs to justify taking an infant's life --Risks preventing the life of large or vigorous children - anything moderately abnormal --"Speculation" that does not promote the child's best interests 3. Right to Life --Does birth mark a decisive change in moral status? 4. Miller Defense o Decided that aggressive treatment would be painful and leave lasting consequences, and thus denied it o Claims that Sidney was not born disabled, but the treatments inflicted by the hospital caused her pain and disabilities. o The only interests served are those of health care giants benefiting financially from procedures to keep Sidney and others like her alive

Doctrine of negative responsibility

1. We are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of the choices we make. 2. Sometimes we choose to act, and sometimes we choose not to. Either way, we are making a choice that has consequences. 3. Therefore, we are just as responsible for the foreseeable consequences that we fail to prevent or allow as for those that we bring about directly. "I didn't do it" is not necessarily a good defense. The best defense is "I couldn't have prevented it." If I know that if I do X, O1 will eventuate, and if I refrain from doing X, O2 will, and that O2 is worse than O1, then I am responsible for O2 if I refrain voluntarily from doing X.

Dreams and Dilemmas

1. Who Should Decide? a. Parents are given the most power in Travis's situation b. Priest says it is more compassionate to direct parents that treatment should be withdrawn, rather than leave decision completely to parents. The parents will experience a greater moral hardship if they feel wholly responsible for the decision. 2. Discriminatory treatment 3. The Interests of the Child a. It could be in the best interest of a child to die - will end suffering 4. Window of Opportunity a. Family takes a while to make decision during which it becomes harder to end the life of the infant b. Easier to say no to treatment for an abstract person than someone with a personal presence - bonds could form during assessment period c. Legal gray area - at what point is the child too developed to justify taking its life/terminate life-saving methods?

Two approaches for preventing more emissions and for compensating those hit hardest:

1. historical principle; "you broke it, you fix it" those who contributed the most to atmospheric carbon should bear the burden of the consequences Henry Shue: this can be morally driven or incentives driven means U.S. and Europe bear largest burden (industrialized the longest) two objections industrialization benefited the entire world they didn't know about the possibility of climate change as a result of carbon emissions not a great excuse bc from 1992 (when clearly everyone knew), US and Europe still emit the most per capita 2. time slice; "clean slate" starting now, everyone gets an equal share of the atmosphere but for example, under this, US and Germany need to cut emissions to 10% of current levels solution? trade carbon quota Robyn Eckersley raises a lot of objections, but summarizes that the two things that are important to get right to make carbon trading just is fair initial allocation of carbon just trading practices

Tracy Latimer

12 year old that had cerebral palsy and the mental level of a 3 month old baby killed by father Act of mercy? Was it wrong for the father to kill his daughter to relieve her pain and suffering, not because of her disability? Arguments: 1) It is wrong to discriminate against the disabled 2) Slippery Slope Argument: if we accept any sort of mercy killing, we slide down a 'slippery slope,' and all life will be held cheaply

Will MacAskill: Ethical Career Choice

4 arguments that support MacAskill's claim The Financial Discrepancy Argument The Fungibility Argument The Uncertainty Argument: Replaceability argument Following your passions/calling can go astray (ex. children playground and water pump) Principles for an Ethical Career 1. work in effective causes 2. get leverage 3. do something that wouldn't have happened anyway We shoudl try to do the most good that we can. We need research into the amount of good created and this can be done by researching quality-adjusted life-years (Qalys), a unit that allows welfare economists to compare benefits of very different sorts. One Qaly is a single year of life lived at 100 per cent health. Bed nets: $50 dollars per QUALY Guide dog $50,000 per QUALY Working in charitable sector or working on wall street and donating 50% "Here earning to give seems to win" PLUS: It is very unlikely that you would get to work for the very best charities but can focus donations to only the very best causes and $5-$25 million—could hire several possibly more qualified charitable workers

The Sanctity of Human Life Argument

All human life is precious, regardless of age, race, social class, or handicap, is at cores of Western moral tradition. Prohibition against killing innocent humans is absolute in traditional ethics. Objections: 1) Killing human beings is permissible when three conditions are met--A. The innocent human has no future because she is going to die soon no matter what B. The innocent human has no wish to go on living, perhaps she has no wishes at all C. The killing will save others, who can go on to lead full lives. We should save as many lives as we can.

Justice Blackmun, Opinion of the Court, Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court of the US, 1973.

Although the constitution does not explicitly guarantee a right to privacy, such a right has been extrapolated from other parts of the constitution and bill of rights. Only "fundamental rights" can be protected under personal privacy. This includes the decision to terminate a pregnancy "We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation." There are many factors for women to consider, including her physical and mental health, the financial toll of a child, etc. -- A law such as Texas' that denies abortion except to save the life of the mother is too broad and doesn't take other factors into account, and violates the due process clause of the 14th amendment --The appellant argues that because of these factors, the right to an abortion is absolute and that the state has no interest in regulating abortion --The court does not agree with this, but believes there should be some limits. -- The state has an interest in protecting life/health at a certain point in the pregnancy "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." --The constitution does not define "personhood" so the argument that the fetus is a person and therefore protected is unconvincing

Anti-abortionist vs. Pro-choicer

Anti-abortionist: life is present from the moment of conception or that fetuses look like babies or that fetuses possess as characteristic such as a genetic code that is both necessary and sufficient for being human (1) the truth of all of these claims is quite obvious (2) establishing any of these claims is sufficient to show that abortion is akin to murder Pro-choicer: argue or assert that fetuses are not persons or that fetuses are not rational agents or that fetuses are not social beings (1) the truth of any of these claims is quite obvious (2) establishing any of these claims is sufficient to show that an abortion is not a wrongful killing Anti-abortionist logic supported by prima facie that it is seriously wrong to end a life and therefore it is also wrong or worse to take the life of a baby Pro-choice logic supported by the intrinsic moral principles as "Being a person is what gives an individual intrinsic moral worth" or "It is only seriously prima facie wrong to take the life of a member of the human community"

Defense of Utilitarianism

Contesting the consequences--one can bring about a good result by doing something repugnant to moral common sense. Theories like utilitarianism apply to all situations, including hypothetical ones --the principle of utility is a guide for choosing rules, not acts --All values have a utilitarian basis --our gut reactions can't be trusted when cases are exceptional --We shoudl focus on all the consequences Rule Utilitarianism: individuals' acts should be assessed by whether they abide by rules that lead to the greatest good Act Utilitarianism: a persons act is morally right if and only if it produces at least as much happiness as any other act that the person could perform at that time

Angus Deaton, The Great Escape (Princeton UP, 2013)

Deaton argues that it is an illusion to believe "that global poverty could be eliminated if only rich people or rich countries were to give more money to poor people or to poor countries." Deaton's claims: Most aid given now doesn't reduce global poverty; in fact it does more harm than good. With some limited exceptions, eg aid for health care, we can't give aid in a better way. Deaton's argument for why aid can't be effective: 1. If poor governments and poor institutions are a principal cause of poverty, giving money to governments is not going to help. And if an NGO builds a hospital, that simply leaves the government with more money to spend on arms or a bigger presidential palace. 2. We are unlikely to be able to learn from our mistakes, because circumstances vary too much. 3. Conditionality (governments have to do certain things for aid) violates national sovereignty. When Princeton students come to talk with me, bringing their deep moral commitment to helping make the world a better, richer place ... I tell them to work on and within their own governments, persuading them to stop policies that hurt poor people, and to support international policies that make globalization work for poor people, not against them."

Counter-objections to Subjectivism

Denial of value argument: Moral themes are about value, not language Nihilism--theory of value--values are not real--nothing is good or bad, right or wrong

The Unnatural Mother by Charlotte Perkins Gilman Vs. The Good German by Joseph Kanon

Disaster: dam was about to flood o Esther Greenwood first to see this and she ran to the village to give warning, instead of running back to her house to save her daughter. o Because of her warning, no one in all three villages died. o After giving warning, she ran back to house, but wave killed her. o Daughter survived in house. o Villagers thoughts: § "she had made up her mind to leave that innocent baby to die" § "she neglected her own to look after other folks'—the Lord never gave her them other children to care for" § "and here's her child, a burden on the town! She was an unnatural mother" vs. Renate Naumann worked for Germans, identifying Jews for them. She said she did it all for her secret child, who has a German name and was raised out of the money she made from her superiors.

Peter Singer, The Most Good You Can Do

Domestic or Global? : Money goes further in the developing world --In response to "solve poverty in your own country first," poverty is relative and the poor in the U.S. are much better off than the poor in the developing world "What is the most urgent issue?" isn't the best question to ask-some issues already have a lot of work being done for them (i.e. climate change) Instead, the better question to ask is "Where can I do the most good/have the most impact?" The needs of those who are "severely burdened" makes the sum of smaller pleasure have no "justificatory weight" (Technician analogy) Evil Museum Demon thought experiment 1. criticism: people have irrational attitudes toward small risks of very bad things happening 2. Counterargument: allowing donors to follow their personal convictions in choosing a charity leads to their giving more and giving more consistently

Harrriet McBryde Johnson, "Unspeakable Conversations, or, How I Spent One Day as a Token Cripple at Princeton University,"

Firsthand account of someone who would not be alive if Singer's principles were put into practice - justifying killing disabled children to replace them with a happier future child. --Johnson accuses Singer of putting "so much value on animal life, so little value on human life" --People are not fungible-- able to replace or be replaced by another identical item; mutually interchangeable. ex. money Quality of Life -- Presence or absence of disability doesn't predict quality of life --Public and medical view: quality of life of disabled is so poor. This view assumes it is possible to be so miserable that we consider it rational to want to die. --Killing is not a "solution" to disabilities Choosing to live --"Choice is illusory in a context of pervasive inequality" --"Choices are structured by oppression" -- Giving the choice puts a pressure on patients considering ending their lives --Choice (of assisted suicide) should not be given until assistance for living a better life is provided

Theory of Utilitarianism

Founders: Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Henry Sidgwick Classical utilitarianism: A) the morality of an action depends solely on the consequences of the action; nothing else matters B) an action's consequences matter only in so far as they involve the greater or lesser happiness of individuals C) in assessment of consequences, each individuals happiness gets equal consideration An action is right if it produces the greatest overall happiness over unhappiness According to classical utilitarians, happiness is pleasure--al mental states that feel good Hedonism--pleasure is the one ultimate good--and pain the ultimate evil G.E. Moore--three obvious intrinsic goods--pleasure, friendship, and aesthetic enjoyment--so right actions are those that increase the world's supply of these things

Divine Command Theory

God decides what is right or wrong. Actions that God commands us to do are morally required; actions that God forbids us to do are morally wrong; all other actions are morally neutral. In this theory ethics is objective; it is right if God commands it and wrong if God forbids it. Plato-Euthypro--discussion of whether 'right' can be defined as 'what the gods command' Socrates: "Is condcut right because the gods command it or do the gods command it because it is right? --aka does God makes the moral truths or whether he merely recognizes the truth OBJECTIONS: --the conception of morality as mysterious --what does it mean to say God 'makes' truthfulness right? --God's commands seem arbitrary --Before God issues his commands no reason for or against lying exists because Hod is the one who creates the reasons --this theory provides the wrong reasons for moral principles Ex. if God didn't exist, then wouldn't be wrong--Abandon theological conception of right and wrong, acknowledge a standard independent of God's will--rightness exists prior to God's command and is the reason for it

Derek Parfit, "Rights, Interests and Possible People"

Hare: possible people have interests Parfit: even if the possible people don't have interests, we should act as if they do 1. Future people vs. possible people o Future people can be affected by our actions today but will exist regardless of what we do o Possible people won't exist if we act a certain way o Parfit assumes "we cannot harm those we don't conceive" Two Women Example a. Woman 1: One month pregnant - unless she takes a simple treatment, the child she is carrying will be disabled. Person-affecting principle tells us that it is wrong not to take the treatment. (This assumes one month fetus is a person). Woman 2: has a temporary condition and if she conceives a child now, it will be disabled. In three months she will conceive a normal child. b.By the person-affecting principle, woman 1 must take the treatment in order to prevent harm to the child, but there is nothing wrong with woman 2 conceiving a handicapped child because it is not harming an existing person, but rather creating something that wouldn't otherwise exist. c. The difference: For woman 1, the handicapped and normal child are the same. For woman 2, they are two separate people.

The Benefits Argument

If we can benefit from someone without harming anyone else we ought to do so. Transplanting organs would benefit other children without harming Baby Theresa (anencephalic). Assumptions: 1) We shoudl help someone if no harm would come of it. 2) The transplant would help other children without harming Baby Theresa Objections: 1) We should not use people as means to other people's ends--using people involves violating their autonomy--the ability to decide for themselves how to live their own lives, according to their own desires and values 2) It is wrong to kill one person to save another (ex. Jodie and Mary conjoined twin question)

Charles Camosy, Peter Singer and Christian Ethics: Beyond Polarization Cambridge

Issues of abortion Camosy and Singer agree upon: --Legally: they agree on the legality of abortion --They agree that it should have been a legislative decision instead of a Supreme Court decision --Should be decided by the people and through debate --They agree that if the fetus is a person, it would be wrong to kill the person, not help the person through the mother's body if it is indeed a person --Any person with a rational understanding is a person (not just Homo Sapiens) The disagreement between Singer and Camosy is about whether the potential of the fetus matters more than any of the above Camosy: --Potential does not mean "percentage chance" but "nature of the kind" --Moral status does not depend on how self aware you are; it is determined by the nature of what you are (even if you are not in the state) --Alzheimer's patients, for example, have lost their rationale but we do not consider them to have turned into a different kind of species. We don't consider their loss of rationale to be a death of any sort. They are just unable to express the fullness of who they once were because of the disease. Camosy suggests that we should consider a pre-natal infant to be a person for the same reason Singer: --His opponents would say that abortion of a child is taking one more life, and a precious one at that But Singer says that to argue for the potential of an infant is to promote more reproduction --The child has no desires nor knowledge of what it could be missing and it makes no difference in its consciousness that is could come into existence --The obligation exists if you have sexual intercourse, and you become pregnant. You should be accountable for the fetus that you have created. Should a father have any say as to what happens to the fetus created? Father is held accountable if Mother decides to keep child but has less say if the mother decides to get rid of the child? Why? If the child is projected to have "low mental potential" would this woman have a more moral right to terminate her pregnancy? Camosy: Humans with diseases are not considered to be different creatures but instead are considered humans with an ailment that frustrates their capacity. Singer: we could because of the genetic implications of the "diseased"

James Rachels, "The Basic Argument for Vegetarianism"

It is wrong to cause pain unless there is a good enough reason (ex. Dentist causing pain is not wrong b/c there is good reason) o Rachels argues that if you are opposed to the cruelty present in meat production, you should not participate in eating meat, a practice that exists at the cooperation between meat producers and consumers · Using animals for research is more justifiable than eating meat because using animals in research can potentially hugely benefit humans, but still these scientists are biased because their careers are centered around animal research However eating ethically is not all or nothing—eating fish is not as bad as eating beef, and humanely-raised cattle and free-range eggs are alright

April Dworetz, "End of Life, at Birth"

Main argument: the struggle of dealing with an ill or suffering newborn is severe and the life-and-death decision should be given to the parent --Dworetz recommendations: o obstetricians must discuss genetics anomalies, values and attitudes toward life, death and disability with pregnant women and their partners o Physicians can offer to make the decision to alleviate the moral burden on the parents; easier to let the doctor take the life than pull the plug on your child

Sheri Fink, "The Deadly Choices at Memorial

Memorial Hospital was affected by Hurricane Katrina Power and backup generators went out Life support shut down, had to have nurses manually aid patients Evacuations were slow and they could not help everybody in the hospital Doctors had the choice between euthanizing the patients who could not be evacuated or leaving them in the hospital to die a miserable death They sorted the patients into 3 categories ranging from the most chance of survival to the least, and prioritized the rescue of those deemed to have the most chance of survival. It is clear that the true goal of the unusually high doses of morphine and midazolam were designed to slowly and peacefully end the lives of the patients. Therefore, these actions do not fall under the category of double effect euthanasia, and instead fall under euthanasia in its simplest form. The question then becomes, under the extreme circumstances, what is more right, letting people die miserably in 100 degree heat with no chance of evacuation, or putting them out of their misery peacefully?

Ringach

Moral status of animals is not equal to that of humans and opting out of animal research condemns patients to pain and suffering. Ringach recognizes our moral obligation to the welfare of animals and the need to look for alternatives to animals testing, but with our current capabilities, he (as many researchers and even ethicists would agree) that the good outweighs the harms in these cases. 1. Humans do not benefit from Animal Research a. Anti-coagulants, insulin, lung surfactants, in vitro fertilization, breast cancer drugs, Parkinson's therapy, etc. 2. Animal Research has a low success rate a. The scientific method requires incorrect hypothesis and negative findings b. No certainty that research will lead to breakthroughs (some experiments will use animals and not gain anything), but one the whole, innumerable benefits have arisen from animal research c.Successes are not chance, but method 3. Researchers must prove animals are necessary for their work a.You don't know until the outcome of the experiment - nature of science 4. Animal Models are not predictive of human responses a. Failures do not invalidate methods b. Critics are cherry-picking c. Highly effective overall 5. Basic research is knowledge for knowledge's sake a. Basic knowledge is what drives advancements in health and well-being 6. Alternatives to Animal Research Already Exist a. No computer simulations nor other methods are as effective as animal testing b. Scientists will no question switch if other options become available B. On Moral Status a. Animals cannot have rights, but can have moral status b. Rejects all-or-none moral status c. Suggests a graded moral status - declining from higher cognitive and social complexity to lower capacity d.Humans value the future and seek aspirations to live a full life. Interests of animals are more biological. Thus, when given the choice, a human's life can be valued over an animal's. e.Disregards marginal cases (impractical) and says beings should be evaluated based on species, not individuals (a natural choice)

Ursula Le Guin, "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas

Omelas is a problem free society (violence, drugs, slavery,etc.) but the people are not free because their happiness is dependent on the suffering of one child. Those who leave walk an uncharted path, away from the city of "happiness" and never return Think of utilitarianism, calculation of happiness, do values matter Shoudl the goodness and grace of every life in Omelas be sacrificed for the chance of happiness of one child? Should people be used as a means to an end? Does the child benefit if released? Can child experience real joy?

Effective Altruism: Peter Singer and Julie Wise

Peter Singer--Ted talk --in China: footage of a two-year-old girl hit by a van and left bleeding in the street by passersby --UNICEF reports that in 2011, 6.9 million children under five died from preventable, poverty-related diseases. --Does it really matter that we're not walking past them in the street? Does it really matter that they're far away? I don't think it does make a morally relevant difference. --effective altruism. It's important because it combines both the heart and the head Questions: 1. How much of a difference can I make? --Toby Ord; Giving what we can organization 2. Am I expected to abandon my career? --Will Crouch 80,000 hours 3. Isn't charity bureaucratic and ineffective? --Can find the effective ones --Blind dog (40,000) vs. trachoma cures ($20-50) 1 guide dog or cure between 400 and 2000 people of blindness --GiveWell 4. Isn't it a burden to give up so much? --helps with depression --gives purpose --helps overcome Sisyphus problem...like a consumer lifestyle...work hard to get money and then spend on good that you think you will enjoy then the money leaves and you have to repeat the cycle to maintain the same level of happiness. Singer calls it a "hedonistic treadmill" Julie Wise, in 2012, and her husband gave half their income. Giving gladly. --Letting myself care --Aim high, even if you fall short. The higher the goal perhaps the more people would accomplish even if they fail; "give yourself permission to go partway" --U.S was a developing nation not too long ago. We used to have a malaria problem... --"On even a modest salary, it's possible to give a significant amount. You don't have to live in a cardboard box"