applied ethics

What is Kant's first formula of the categorical imperative?

"act on the maxim that you can will at the same time that it become a universal law"Start with your primary intention, universalize it, in a world where everyone follows this is it possible to satisfy my intention? If yes, the action is morally permissible.It is your moral duty to do it if it passes the test.A man borrow money knowing he can't pay it back, if everyone did this it would make promises worthlessRationale behind this formula:Double standard is morally wrong One's behavior should be governed by principles which one would have govern the behavior of all people

How can Marquis' FLO account explain the followings: (1) Why premature deaths (from accidents, diseases, etc.) are a misfortune; (2) Why being killed is a worse crime than being robbed or beaten, etc.; (3) Why is it OK to intentionally cause the death of the permanently unconscious patient; (4) Why it is wrong to cause the death of a temporarily unconscious patient.

(1) it deprives victims of future goods of conscious life, FLO(2) you lose your future, can never get it back(3) nothing is lost, they already lost conscious life which is what mattered(4) they have potential for future goods of conscious life

What is Judith Thomson's version of an anti-abortionist argument?

- Fetus' right to life always outweighs mother's right to body - Assume fetus is person from moment of conception It is false that a fetus' right to life always outweighs the mothers right to body 1. All persons have a right to life 2. Fetus is a person 3. Fetus has a right to life 4. Women have a right to their bodies/ they have the right to decide too and in their bodies 5. Abortion is morally wrong

What is the "principle of utility" according to Act UT?

- the right action is the one that maximizes total aggregate good (happiness, pleasure, success, lack of pain) Mill's view - the right action is the one that maximizes total aggregate happiness or good ( total happiness for the greatest number of sentient beings affected by the act) - Utilitarianism always looks at the outcome and consequence to tell you whether or not you should act, meaning the right action should be defined by consequence. Under this idea, the Principle of Utility can be defined by the right action being the one that maximizes total aggregate happiness. Which means total happiness for thegreatest number of sentient beings affected by the act. When defining the 'morally right action'under Utilitarianism, we look at the Value Theory and Hedonism. The Value Theory underUtilitarianism explains what the good is in the principle of utility. John Stuart Mill expressed how good equals happiness and pleasure and the absence of pain. We look at the extrinsic value,which is equal to good in itself. So with Hedonism, created by John Staurt Mill, it is to makemore of that good. So the 'morally right action' is the action, in any situation underutilitarianism, is the one that produces the greatest balance of benefits or happiness over itsharms to all. Utilitarianism focuses on happiness as the only thing with true Intrinsic value,actions are right as long as they promote happiness, and wrong as to when they are producingunhappiness, and everyone's happiness is equal.

What is "the Euthyphro problem"?

-God is either beholden to a standard outside of himself to which he must make his commands conform. -God's commands are arbitrary and he could command murder and it would be good. A man put his father up in court because he believed that God wanted him to do it. This brought up the question of do we do the action because God commanded it so it is good? Or do we do the action because God said that it is good, so therefore it is good?

Thomson believes that in the case of rape-caused pregnancy, the pregnant woman has the right to abort the fetus. How does she justify this claim? What premise in the anti-abortionist argument does she criticize? (Make sure to discuss the violinist scenario.)

Anti abortionist claim fetus is innocent, not just to kill for crime of father Violinist hooked to patient for 9 months Lack of consent -There are two choices: kill the fetus or let mother die-Mothers right to life vs Fetus right to life-Abortion: Act of self defense-Trapped in a room with an expanding baby. You kill the baby to defend your life.... Self defense - The Violinist Case Kidnapp luke and he wakes up attached to a famous violinist and Luke has to stay connected to him for nine months to save his life and after 9 months he can be disconnected and go back to normal life do you have the right to want to be disconnected? can't do things to my body without consent Thomas says those have right to their body and can decide what they want for their body The violinist's right to his life is no more pressing than Luke's right to his body right to body < right to life fetus right to life < mother's right to her body

Some people believe what makes killing people like us morally wrong is the loss of a future of biological life. Discuss one major objection to this view.

Conscious life is the only life that we put value on

What is the difference between DCT and Natural Law Theory?

DCT follows what is good and wrong based on God's will, whereas NLT people understand what is good and bad independent of God's will.

Some people believe that killing people like us is morally wrong because of the loss it causes to the victim's family and friends. Discuss one objection to this view.

Depriving people of future goods of the conscious life is the number one reason why we should not kill

How does cultural relativism define "good/bad" or "right/wrong"?

Different cultures have different norms, nothing is good or bad, it depends on culture - diversity thesis; different societies/cultures have different moral values, thus moral values vary from one society/ culture to another - X is good if it is approved by the society/ culture Bad to good worse to bad good to better

What is the rationale behind this formula?

Double standard is morally wrong. One's behavior should be governed by principles which one would have govern the behavior of all people

What is the difference between "The Valued Future View" and "The Valuable Future View"?

Future goods of conscious life, if future has no value, follow these accounts:Temporary depression: valued future view - what makes my future valuable to me are those aspects of my future life that I will value when I will experience themPermanent depression: valuable future view - what makes my future valuable to me are those aspects of my future life that I should value when I should experience them

Thomson believes that in the case of unintended pregnancy when the woman voluntarily indulges in intercourse but took all the precautions to prevent pregnancy, it is permissible for her to abort the fetus. What is her argument for this claim? (Make sure to discuss the 'people-seed' scenario). In this case, what rights are in conflict, and which one takes priority?

Human seeds floating in air, put up a window screen to keep them out, Guest or intruder?You didn't invite the baby - Human seeds floating in air, put up a window screen to keep them out but it still happened after buying the best screen and putting in a bunch of work to keep seeds out. If seeds still get in and start growing on the coach, morally permissible to remove Guest or intruder? You didn't invite the baby

Explain Kant's distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperatives. From the perspective of Kant, what kind of imperatives are moral obligations, hypothetical or categorical?

Hypothetical: when the action is good merely as a means to something else, the force of the should comes from desire Categorical: when the action is good in itself, as principle of the will, in a will that in itself accords with reason, Independent and or regardless of your desire Imperatives - Categorical Imperative; the formula of the universal law double standard is morally wrong, act on the maxim that you can will at the same time to become a universal law Primary intention is to make a promise knowing that I cannot keep it step 1: everyone makes false promises contribution in will in primary intention and its universalized counterpart

Morally speaking, what is the difference between "killing" and "letting die"? Use an example to explain the difference.

If there is a morally significant difference between killing and letting die:Actively benefiting someone is better than passively letting that good happen to that person -Killing is the active action -Letting due is the passive action-Low cost/high benefit (save someone with a touch but you don't have to because you are not morally obligated)

What is the Intrinsic-worth Account of the wrongness of killing? Explain it.

Intrinsic worth account focuses on how people have equal worth based on the ethics of respect.This focuses on one's value and worth. Value can be defined as ones' content of consciousexperience, amount of pain, pleasure, etc., whereas worth can be defined as the mere fact that wehave the ability to have conscious experience, in this regard we are all equal. So with this theorykilling is morally wrong due to the fact that all people are equal and have equal worth.

What is Thomson's position on the case in which the woman does not want to have children, but voluntarily engages in sex without taking the necessary precautions to avoid pregnancy? Does this woman have a duty to carry her pregnancy to term? Explain her argument.

It is not the mother's duty to carry the baby. It is low cost vs high benefit. You SHOULD not abort it, but you don't HAVE to. Just because she should, doesn't mean that it is her duty to do so. It is indecent, but not a moral duty. They are morally admirable and praiseworthy, but not required.Example: If Bran Pitt is in the other room and places his hand on your son's head, your son will be healed instantly. Brad Pitt should do this, and it is indecent for him not to, however. He does not have a moral duty to do so.

Can a cultural relativist explain the fact of "moral progress"? (Make sure you define "moral progress" briefly.)

Moral progress if the outcome from moral reform. It is moving from bad to good or from good to better. This is the product of the success of the moral reform.You cannot make moral progress because what is morally correct is only deemed by majority opinion and, therefore, the opinion never changes.

Can a cultural relativist explain the phenomenon of "moral reform"? Explain it.

Moral reform: When something happens in your society that is wrong and you identify it as such, then you move to change the.As a moral reformist, you must first say slavery is bad, which challenges an aspect of the culture, then the reform comes. If you want to judge something as wrong, then you do are not able to do so since the society will always say that what it is doing is right.

What is "The Divine Command Theory"?

Moral value depends upon God's will - something is morally right for an individual simply because God commands it. There are not independent criteria for judging the morality of an action. Something is holy or moral because God loves it. -

If Marquis' FLO account is true, does it mean that it is wrong to use contraception? Why?

No, before cells join there is nothing to be deprived of future goods, no individual in existence yet - Use of contraceptionMarquis response: egg and sperm don't have flo individually, so contraception is not morally wrongbefore cells join there is nothing to be deprived of future goods, no individual in existence yet

If Marquis' FLO account is true, does it mean that it is OK to kill the (permanently) severely depressed if the depressed would not value the experience of his/her future life?

No, the valuable future view - what makes my future valuable to me are those aspects of my future life that I should value when I should experience them

Given the FLO account, is it OK to kill someone who is temporarily suicidal and does not value his/her life? Explain it.

No, the valued future view - what makes my future valuable to me are those aspects of my future life that I will value when I will experience them

What is Kant's formula of humanity?

Only act so that you use humanity, whether in yourself or another, as an end (in itself), and never merely as a means. - Humanity is the ability to set goals, utilize the means to achieve these goals and organize these means and goals into a coherent whole. - The formula of humanity; you should not use people merely as a means to your goals, treat humanity in your self and others always as an end in itself and never merely as a means

Given CR, is the following statement true, "Slavery is wrong."?

Slavery is wrong if everyone in society says that slavery is wrong.

How can some objective true moral judgments (like, "Killing a baby just for fun is morally wrong") count against Divine Command Theory? Explain it.

Some things that are morally wrong may be allowed by God (ex. The abrahan story) which means that God can constantly change his mind, so how do we really know if Something is good or bad?

What is the mixed view on the wrongness of killing? Explain it.

The mixed view on why killing is morally wrong is made up of both the Time relative interestaccount and the Intrinsic Worth account. It is split into three stages. Stage one expresses how weare underdeveloped, which is outside of the circle. This stage is related to the Time relativeinterest account, which means that those in this stage don't understand their prudential unity.Stage two, which is inside the circle, where one is developed. This stage focuses on the Intrinsicworth account. And the last stage is the degenerated stage. This, which takes place outside of thecircle once again, focuses on the time relative interest account. Basically in the mixed view cases that place above threshold are governed by the Worth Account, and those that place below the threshold are based on value and use the Time Relative Interest Account. - if they are subject to TRIA, then they may have prudential unity with their future selves. - The first stage represents those underdeveloped and is considered to be outside of the circle. It usually holds those young infants and children. This stage involves the time-relative interest account because these human organisms are too underdeveloped to have developed prudential unity. The second stage is considered to be inside the circle. It contains those humans that are developed enough to have access to the inside of the circle. This stage is concerned with the intrinsic-worth account because these people are developed enough to hold worth and value. Finally, the third stage represents the outside of the circle. With this view, these people are typically severely degenerated and do not hold enough worth to be inside of the circle.

According to Thomson, why is it permissible to abort the fetus when the mother's life is at risk? Explain it. (Make sure to discuss the expanding baby, and to identify the rights that are in conflict in this situation.)

The mother has a right not to let the fetus kill her (a woman surely has the right to defend her life if it is threatened)Baby expanding in room, can you kill it?Fetus right to life vs mother right to body - right to body < right to life - fetus right to life < mother's right to her body

Some people believe that killing people like us is morally wrong because of the brutalization of the killer. Discuss one objection to this view.

The victim's life is more important than the killer's mental feelings

What is the difference between "value" and "worth", from McMahan's view? How can one explain the Threshold of Worth and Respect?

Value - content of conscious experience, amount of pain, pleasure, etc. Worth - mere fact that we have the ability to have conscious experience, in this regard we are all equal Threshold of respect - measures the level of psychological complexityCases that place above threshold are governed by the Worth Account, and those that place below the threshold are based on value and use the Time Relative Interest Account. For example:elephant versus a mosquito - both fall under threshold, evaluated using TRIA. Killing elephant worse because has greater time relative interest. adult human versus an elephant - elephant below human above threshold, killing human worse. When two adult humans are evaluated using this account, they are both worth equal.

What is Don Marquis' account of the wrongness of killing people like us (FLO)?

What makes killing wrong is the fact that it deprives the victim of the future goods of a conscious life. In other words, it deprives the victim of a future like ours.Fetus also has future goods of conscious life, therefore abortion wrong

Some philosophers believe that UT allows too much. What do they mean? Use an example to explain your point.

best outcome may require violating rightsExample:Kill 1 man to save 5 peopleAccording to utilitarianism, yes it is better that five people live than that one person lives. But on commonsense morality the answer is no.

Suppose I want to make a false promise. Explain step by step whether or not the first formulation allows me to act on the basis of this maxim.

double standards In a world where everyone makes wrong promises, can I borrow money? No, because there is a contradiction between your will (potential universal law) and you cannot fulfill your primary intention.I should not make false promises because if everyone did the same thing, then I would not be able to borrow money in the first place.

What is the Time-Relative Interest Account of the wrongness of killing? Explain it.

evaluates the future goods the victim has left to experience, and prudential unity )the level of psychological connection with the future self)For example:killing an animal would be less severe than a person because they have a limited number of future goods to experience, and they have little to no relation with their future self.

Discuss one objection to the Harm-Based Account of the wrongness of killing.

focuses on future goods of a conscious life, ignores prudential unity. Evaluates killing according to harm it causes victim, and that harm is measured by comparing the future goods the victim could have experienced if they had not been killed. killing of a 2-month-old fetus more highly objectionable than killing of a 20-year-old college student. - Evaluates killing according to the harm it causes the victim, and that harm is measured bycomparing the future good the victim could have experienced if they had not been killed. Forexample, in the case of the human fetus versus a twenty-year old, the fetus has more years of avaluable future than the twenty-year-old does. We must discount the overall value in virtue, dueto the lack of relationship and or unknowing between the fetus human being and the futurehuman being who will enjoy these goods. The idea is that one's present self and one's future selfstand in a relationship to each other that varies over time. This view suggests that the killing of a2-month-old fetus is more highly objectionable than the killing of a 20-year-old college student.

What is the Harm-Based Account of the wrongness of killing? Explain it.

it is morally wrong to harm people, and since killing deprives the victim of future goods of a conscious life, which harms the victim, it is morally wrong to kill people. The Factual Account is directly harming the individual whereas the Counterfactual Account is harm that is indirect. based on the Counterfactual Account of Harm which states if a killing didn't happen, that person would have gone on to experience more goods in life. The act of killing deprives the victim of all the future goods of a conscious life he/she could have had. - The harm-based account of why killing is morally wrong can be defined by harm as morallywrong , and killing is a form of harm, then by doing so to cause harm to the innocent victim ismorally wrong. The harm- based account is based on the counterfactual account of harm. Thismeans that all that matters is the amount of good being lost and the amount of future good thatmay be lost. Killing is morally wrong because you are depriving the victim from the future goodof a conscious life and or future 'conscious good'. According to the factual account, one isharmed if the actual level of well-being has actually diminished. The Factual Account is directlyharming the individual, whereas the Counterfactual Account is harm that is indirect. So based onthe Counterfactual Account of Harm, you think how if a killing didn't happen, that person wouldhave gone on to experience more goods in life. So, the act of killing deprives the victim of all thefuture goods of a conscious life they could have had. But according to the counterfactualaccount, one is harmed by the event even if one has been deprived of some goods she could havehad if the event did not happen. Nothing has actually changed in your life.

Some philosophers believe that UT demands too much. What do they mean? Use an example to explain your point.

no room for actions that are permissible yet do not bring about the best consequencesExample:2 kids in 1 boat your kid in another, both sinking, have to choose which to save, you'd have to let your kid drownGoing out to dinner vs buying several mosquito nets for a low income country

present Marquis' argument against abortion, which is based on the FLO.

what makes killing wrong is that it deprives victim of future goods of a conscious life. In other words, deprives victim of a future like ours. since killing adult human is wrong because it deprives them of a future of value and fetus also has a future of value, killing fetus is wrong

Discuss one objection to the Time-Relative Interest Account of the wrongness of Killing.

when applied to mature, cognitively normal human beings, they should be worth the same, but this account states that isn't true.For example:a 30-year-old Logan and a 30-year-old Bill Gates. By this account, the killing of Bill Gates would be seen as worse. Bill Gates has more future goods to experience because he has more resources than Logan. Intuition tells us this can't be true