PHL 292 Exam 3

What is the relationship between the Principle of Universalizability and the Principle of Humanity?

Both concepts are basic guidelines for how one should treat humanity.

Kant thinks that there is one fundamental moral principle. What is it? What are the two formulations of this principle that we discussed in class?

The Categorical Imperative. Two formulations of this idea: -The Principle of Universalizability. - The Principle of Humaninty.

In what respects does the Principle of Universalizability differs from the Golden Rule?

-The golden rule says that we should treat others how we want to be treated. It depends on what we care about or how we want to be treated. - Universalizability states that you should only act on a maxim that can at the same time be a universal law. - If there is an in consistency in willing that a maxim be a universal law does not depends on what we want/value.

Compare Kant and utilitarians with respect to the moral status of non-human animals. In doing this, indicate whether non-human animals count as rational and autonomous according to Kant. Does the Principle of Humanity apply to them? Explain

-Utilitarians believe that we should treat non-human animals with some level of respect. -Kant believes that we have no direct reason to treat animals with respect because they are neither rational or autonomous. -The Principle of humanity does not apply to non human animals.

Why does Kant's commitment to absolute moral rules cause difficulties? (Hint: Rachels discusses two problems pertaining to this. I also discussed these during lecture?)

1. It is implausible: In certain situations, it may be necessary to break moral rules for the greater good. 2. Conflicting rules: Rules often conflict themselves and in that case, you shouldn't break either rule, which may be impossible.

What is a DNR order? If one enacts a DNR order, is this an instance of active euthanasia, passive euthanasia, or neither? Explain your answer

A DNR order instruct physicians to not resuscitate patients after going into cardiac arrest. This is an instance of passive euthanasia because they are withholding lifesaving measures.

Hypothetical Imperative

A command or rule that you should follow depending on your goals. "If you want y, then do x."

Kant thinks that the Principle of Universalizability can be used to test whether an action is morally permissible/acceptable. Explain how the test works.

A maxim is a general rule or principle that guides one's action. To test the thesis, you could do the following: 1. Formulate your maxim (What you intend to do and why) 2. Imagine a world where everyone supports and acts on your maxim in cases where it applies to them. 3. Can the goal of my action be achieved in such as world?

Provide an example of each of the following: a. passive non-voluntary euthanasia, b. passive voluntary euthanasia, c. passive involuntary euthanasia.

A. Patient not wanting chemo B. Family choosing to remove life support from their brain dead family member C. Removing feeding tube and all means of nutrients of someone who still wants it

Kant thinks an action is morally right only if a person acts from a good will. Explain what this means.

Acting from good will is when a person uses their rationality (ability to know one's moral obligations) and their commitment to acting from a sense of duty (doing it because it is right). -Motivated from rationality, not desire.

What is the difference between active and passive euthanasia?

Active euthanasia is when the physician takes direct action to kill a patient. Passive euthanasia is when a physician with holds life-sustaining measures.

What is active voluntary euthanasia? What is the difference between active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide? Provide an example of each one. a. Is active euthanasia legal anywhere in the US?

Active voluntary euthanasia is when a physician directly kills a patient ex. Lethal injection. Physician assisted suicide is 20 position provides the patient with the means to kill themselves ex. Prescribing barbiturates and providing instructions. A. No

The Principle of Humanity. Who does it apply to?

Always treat a human being (yourself included) as an end, and never as a mere means. Ex. Don't use people or treat them as inanimate objects. Always treat people with respect. - Applies to all being who have desires and are rational and autonomous beings (HUMANS Only)

Categorical Imperative

An unconditional moral obligation that is binding in all circumstances and is not dependent on a person's inclination or purpose. Ex. Do Y.

What is physician-assisted dying (PAD)?

Any practice where a physician assists a patient in ending their life

What objections are commonly raised against allowing physician-assisted dying for patients whose sole cause of suffering is a mental disorder/psychiatric illness?

Are those with mental disorders ever competent enough to request PAD? A successful treatment could be discovered Psychiatrist cannot be certain the illness is in curable or unmanageable Should be using resources to help mentally ill people get better not help them die Allowing PAD reinforces hopelessness

What does it mean to treat someone as a mere means? What does it mean to treat someone as "an end in themselves"? (Be careful to distinguish between treating someone as a mere means versus treating them as a means.)

As a means is to use people or treat them as an object without respect. As an "end" in themselves, you treat someone in a way that respects their value as a person.

What are some of the main considerations that people provide in support of PAD? (See the first lecture on PAD.)

Avoids needless suffering, controlling how one dies, value of dignified death, controlling who one is (dementia/Alzheimer's) (Sandy Bem)

What is the difference between a direct and indirect argument against physician-assisted dying?

Direct arguments against PAD rely on the claim that something is ethically wrong with PAD. Indirect arguments against PAD rely on the idea that PAD is good in theory but there are ethical problems when it is put into practice.

Provide an example of an indirect and direct argument against PAD (and be able to recognize whether an argument against PAD is direct or indirect).

Direct: it is wrong to take human life and it is wrong for doctors to cause death of their patients Indirect: errors in judgment, abuse or coercion

"Kant thinks moral rules are absolute." What sorts of rules does this statement refer to? Provide a few examples. How are these rules related to the Principle of Humanity and the Principle of Universalizability?

Examples of moral rules include: - Lying -Stealing -Facilitating the death of the innocent - Breaking promises These rules relate back to his formulations because they are "universializable and treating humans as "ends".

True or false: You can be a Kantian and a utilitarian at the same time.

False, because the views of each differ.

True or false: If one is a deontologist, then they definitely think that the consequences of action have no bearing on its moral status.

False, only Kant believes this.

Related to 24, explain Kant's shopkeeper example and explain what it is supposed to show

If a shopkeeper decided to give back his customers the correct change because he knows it is his moral obligation instead of only doing it because it is the right thing to do, his action is done in good will. If he is only doing it because it is the right thing to do and not because he wants to, then it is bad because it is only luck that he decided to do the right thing that day.

If one performs an act only because they enjoy helping people, is that person's action morally right, according to Kant? Explain your answer.

It is not morally right because it is only motivated by personal desire and not the idea that following their rationality is the right thing to do.

How does Kant view the relationship between morality and rationality? Can a rational act be immoral? Explain.

Kant argued: -Whether we have a certain moral obligation has nothing to do with what we desire. - All rational beings are bound by moral law. - Immoral conduct is irrational. A rational act can be immoral if the the act is not done from a good will. If the act is only done because it was the right thing to do, then it is bad because it is only luck that the person decided they wanted to do the right thing.

Does Kant believe in moral luck? Do utilitarians believe in moral luck? Explain.

Kant does not believe in moral luck because the consequences of an action don't bear on its moral rightness or wrongness.

Does Kant think we have any direct duties towards animals? Explain your answer

Kant states that we do not have any direct duties toward animals, but we do have indirect duties to them as a man who is cruel to animals is also cruel to humans.

Is Kant's ethical theory utilitarian or deontological? Explain your answer and when doing so, specify whether Kant thinks that the consequences of an action bear on its moral status.

Kant's theory is deontological yet he is more extreme as he believes that the consequences of an action have no bearing on it's moral status, whereas regular deontologists believe that consequences are not the only thing that's important.

The Principle of Universalizability

Kant's thesis that an act is morally acceptable if, and only if, its maxim is universalizable. Ex. Is it ok for everyone else to do what you have chosen to do.

Are ethical rules hypothetical or categorical imperatives, according to Kant? Explain your answer

Moral duties or ethical rules are categorical imperatives.

How does the answer to question 10 present a problem for Kant's idea that the Principle of Universalizability can be used to test whether an action is morally permissible?

Multiple possible maxims posses a problem for this theory because not all maxims are universalizable and it depends on which on the individual picks.

In order to be eligible for physician-assisted suicide in the ten places where it is legal in the United States, what are the main conditions a person needs to meet? a. Could someone with early-stage dementia qualify? Explain your answer. b. What about someone who is dying from dementia and has 6 or fewer months left to live? Explain your answer.

Must be 18 years old or older, must be capable of communicating the request, must be a resident of the state, and must be diagnosed with a terminal illness and diagnosed with six months or less to live A. No, because they will not die in six months or less B. Yes, it is a terminal illness and they have less than six months left to live

Under what conditions is a person eligible for euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands?

Must be in severe unbearable suffering (physical or mental) caused by medical conditions that cannot be alleviated and there is no hope an improvement.

Does Rachels think that all instances of passive euthanasia are justified? Explain your answer using the case of the infants born with Down Syndrome and an (easily fixable) abdominal obstruction.

No Rachels does not think that all instances of passive euthanasia are justified. Rachel's first argument is saying that we are allowing these infants to wither and die over a period of multiple days from dehydration when, we could inject them with something that would cause them much less suffering and pain before death. His second argument is the idea that the infant's death is actually more about the fact that it has down syndrome not about its obstructed intestinal tract and everyone knows that. He doesn't understand then why we use this seemingly unrelated thing of the intestinal tract being blocked as a means to say we can let that baby die when the operation for this type of defect is easy to perform. In the instance of a baby who has down syndrome but no defect or obstruction there is nothing they can do because that would be considered killing it. Therefore, a surgery that is capable of being performed should not be the deciding fact between life or death.

Does Kant think that it is ever okay to tell a lie? Explain your answer and in doing so, be sure to mention the Principle of Universalizability and the Principle of Humanity.

No, Kan t says that you should not lie under any circumstance. He says this because you can never be sure that breaking a rule, like lying, will end up in a good outcome.

Does each action have only one maxim? Explain your answer.

No, there can be problems with many possible maxims because there can be more than one rules that guides ones moral actions.

Where in the United States is physician-assisted suicide legal? (Know all 10 places. Since the exam is T/F and multiple-choice, you will not need to write all 10 down for the exam but need to know them well enough to answer T/F MC questions concerning this.)

Oregon, Washington, Montana, Vermont, California, Colorado, Washington DC, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico

What is paternalism? Why does the Principle of Humanity entail that paternalism is wrong?

Overriding an individual's autonomy in the name of that person's own good. -It is wrong because it is failure to respect an individual's autonomy.

Voluntary euthanasia

Performed by request of patient

Non-voluntary euthanasia

Performed without permission of patient because they cannot communicate the request

Involuntary euthanasia

Performed without permission of patient even though they are capable of communicating the request

What is physician-assisted suicide? What is the difference between physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia?

Practice wear a physician assess what facilitates a patient in committing suicide by providing them the means of doing so. PAS - patient does it themselves, euthanasia - doctor does it

What is euthanasia

Practice where a physician deliberately ends a patient's life in order to relieve suffering

What is problematic about the utilitarian version of the Argument from Mercy, according to Rachels?

Premise one would require happiness to be the only intrinsically valuable thing, premise to would allow involuntary euthanasia

Who was Elizabeth Anscombe? Why is she mentioned in connection with Kant? Was she a utilitarian? Explain your answer.

She was a well known neo-Kantian philosopher who believed that: -Truman was wrong for bombing Japan to end WW2. - There are some things that cannot be done no matter what. - Moral rules are absolute, with no exceptions (Similarly to Kant and unlike other deontologists) -She was a deontologist.

Explain the difference between deontological ethical theories and utilitarianism. What is the main difference?

The main difference between the two is that deontology says that the ends do not justify the means of an action and that Utilitarianism says that the ends justifies the means. **** - Deontologists believe that consequences matter, but they are not all that matters.

Explain the "persimmon juice" objection to Rachels' bathtub argument.

The objection states that in Rachels bathtub argument the actions of Smith and Jones are so bad and are clearly unjustified that we cannot tell a difference between them. It is said that if you have an expensive glass of wine and a cheap glass of wine and choose to add persimmon juice to both, they will both taste equally as bad and there will be no distinction between the two.

In "Active and Passive Euthanasia", Rachels argues that the difference between killing and letting die is not in itself morally significant. Explain what he means by this. a. How does he use the bathtub thought experiment to argue for this claim?

The true difference in situations where letting die looks better than murder is actually a difference in other factors of the cases A. He illuminates all differences other than killing and letting die and both cases are viewed equally bad with only this one difference

What is moral luck? Given an example of a case where moral luck bears on how we might judge someone's action.

When the morality of an action depends on factors outside of the agent's control. -Ex. Driving while tired/intoxicated.

Provide some clear examples of withholding life-sustaining treatment. Provide some clear examples of withdrawing life sustaining treatment.

Withholding: not giving chemo, or following a DNR order Withdrawing: removing feeding tube or removal of life support

In lecture, I put Rachels's argument from this article ("Active and Passive Euthanasia") into premise-conclusion form. Is it a valid argument? If so, what form? a. If it is sound, does it show that active euthanasia is morally permissible? Explain your answer.

Yes, it is a valid argument and in the form of modus tollens. This argument is not sound because the argument just states that passive and active euthanasia are equally bad not if they are morally permissible or not.

Is passive voluntary euthanasia legal in United States? Explain.

Yes, patients can refuse treatment