phil 4 final

-What is the Considered Judgment argument for FLO?

(1) The Considered Judgment Argument a. -Those facing premature death would agree.

-What exactly is the approach that Marquis takes (his approach to figuring out whether abortion is wrong)?

(1) Try to determine what is wrong with killing normal human adults (someone like us). (2) See what this account of killing (normal human adults) implies about abortion.

-What is the Appeal to Cases Argument for FLO?

(2) The Appeal to Cases Argument a. FLO yields the correct answer in many life-and-death cases (involving normal adults): b. Two types of case:

-Give an example of a false negative that FLN might be thought to produce.

• Collecting, but not trading, model trains • If everyone keeps collecting trains without trading, then, eventually, there will be no more trains to collect in the world. • It will be morally wrong to collect trains because there is a contradiction.

-What is the difference between a categorical imperative and a hypothetical imperative?

• Hypothetical imperatives apply to you because of your subjective ends i.e. they depend upon your actual desires, plans etc. • Categorical imperatives apply to you independently of your subjective ends.

-Does the fact that predictions about future warming are uncertain entail that we have no moral duty to do anything now?

• No, uncertainty concerning future warming does not entail that we have no moral duty to do anything now.

-What positive argument does Harris offer in favor of reproductive cloning?

• Procreative freedom • Ronald Dworkin: "A right to control their own role in procreation unless the state has a compelling reason for denying them that control." o Compelling reason: harm to the child

-What backward-looking moral principles did we examine as possible ways to justify deviating from the default distribution?

• You caused it, so you pay for it. o Costs are to be divided based on past contribution to the problem. o Past emissions have significantly contributed to the fact that we face these problems. o Industrialized nations have released by far the largest proportion of greenhouse gases (over the past few hundred years). • You benefited, so you pay! o Industrializations not only caused the problem we face by emitting lots of greenhouse gases in the past, but these nations benefitted themselves from doing so i.e. it produced the high standard of living we enjoy today. (These benefits were not shared with other nations). o So, industrialized nations ought to have lower emission limits than developing countries (even after adjusting for population size).

-Why does Harris reject this second objection to reproductive cloning?

• Your genes alone don't determine your fate. Differences in environment, culture, when in history someone is born etc. mean that the future of a clone will not be closed

-Give an example of one of Ross' prima facie duties that is personal, and one which is impersonal. -Give an example of one of Ross' prima facie duties that is personal, and one which is impersonal. -Give an example of one of Ross' prima facie duties that is personal, and one which is impersonal.

• imPersonal: Duty not to harm others • personal: Duty of fidelity

-What kind of knowledge about fetuses and pregnancy must the virtuous person have? What kind of knowledge does the virtuous person NOT need to have?

(2) To have the right attitude toward X you need to know about X. You don't need to know recondite information. Whether the fetus is a person is highly controversial and difficult to find out. You only need to know widely held information. Widely known biological and psychological facts about the fetus. Things include inanimate objects, animals, human fetuses, children and adults etc. Biological information: pregnancy lasts 9 months, leads to birth of children, is dangerous and painful for the mother. This is how we all come to exist... Psychological: emotional attachments in families are some of the strongest to human beings. Parenthood. Biological information: pregnancy lasts 9 months, leads to birth of children, is dangerous and painful for the mother. This is how we all come to exist... Psychological: emotional attachments in families are some of the strongest to human beings. Parenthood. (3) Given this widely held information, it follows that it would (normally) be inappropriate to view pregnancy as akin to any other physical condition. A practical conclusion: it would be morally wrong to have an abortion because you believed that abortion was like having your appendix removed. Focus is on attitude: it would manifest the wrong attitude to believe that abortion is akin to having one's appendix or a kidney removed.

-What are the two stages in which moral virtue is acquired?

- 1) Childhood habituation: developing the dispositions i.e. learning good habits. - (2) Acquiring practical wisdom: developing the ability to reason well about practical affairs.

Which example(s) does Marquis take to show that FLO is preferable to the Sanctity of Life account of the wrongness of killing?

- 1. FLO implies that it would be wrong to kill peaceful aliens. - 2. FLO implies that it might (or might not) be wrong to kill some non-human animals. - These cases suggest an advantage for FLO over the Sanctity of Human Life Account. (If have future similar to ours... If have future similar to ours...)

-What epistemological problem with virtue ethics does Louden identify?

- Knowing what acts someone does may not be enough. - For Lauden, "to advocate an ethics of virtue... is to presuppose that we can clearly differentiate the virtuous from the vicious. Otherwise, the project lacks applicability." - How does virtue ethics presuppose this?

-What is moral virtue? Moral virtue is excellence with respect to which part of the rational soul?

- Moral Virtue: virtues of character i.e. exercising well the capacity for following reason (in our character traits). - Moral virtues is excellence with respect to the part that is capable of following reasoning, but does not engage in it. Our dispositions or character traits are capable of being molded by free actions (by choice) and so are, in a sense, capable of following reason.

-What kind of case is the violinist case most closely analogous to

- The violinist case is most closely analogous to cases that involve rape because you were an innocent person and did not want any of it. However you were forced to stay connected to another person - The violinist case suggest that abortion is morally permissible in cases of rape. - You never granted the Violinist a right to use your body to stay alive. - Analogously: In the case of rape, the woman never grants the fetus a right to use her body.

-What reply to her people-seeds case does Thompson consider? How does she respond to this reply?

-A possible reply: you could have avoided risking fertilization by closing your windows. Analogously: a woman can avoid risking fertilization by abstaining from sex. - The same line of thought would suggest that the mother grants the fetus a right to use her body in cases of rape as well. - That is crazy, so it can't be right. Reductio Ad Absurdum

What is the Violinist Case?

-The Violinist Case involves a famous violinist whose kidneys are failing and you are the only one who can save him. You get kidnapped and you wake up in a hospital, You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.[4]

Which example(s) does Marquis take to show that FLO is preferable to the Personhood account of the wrongness of killing?

. FLO implies that it would be wrong to kill human infants. This case reveals an advantage for FLO over the Personhood Account. (Infants have valuable future like ours...)

-Give examples of Aristotle's 'moral virtues'

. courage, temperance, liberality, truthfulness, patience etc.

-What is the Contraception objection to Marquis' argument?

1. The Contraception Objection: Contraception when conception is possible results in one less future with value like ours. Hence, Marquis' account implies that contraception is wrong. Hence, Marquis' account must be false.

-Why does having the right attitude to the fetus and pregnancy matter to the morality of abortion (according to Hursthouse)?

4) Taking the right attitude to the fetus and pregnancy also requires recognizing its role in the eudaimon life. One intrinsic good is parenthood. Another practical conclusion: E.g. it would be wrong [display a vice] to have an abortion because being a parent would prevent you from pursuing your goal of getting rich. We assume that getting rich is not a worthwhile goal because it is not intrinsically good.

-If conception occurs at fertilization, how might a conservative on abortion respond to the worry that some forms of contraception might cause abortion?

A conservative might respond that there a moral difference between contraception and abortion. There is a distinction between killing (abortion), and letting die (contraception).

-What is the difference between fertilization and implantation?

Fertilization is the process in which the sperm meets the egg. This is the point where all the genes for this individual are created [1]. During the fertilization process, there is still a possibility that it can split and become twins Implantation takes place when the fertilized egg travels to the uterus. At this time, it will stay there until birth, this is where the development occurs [

- Why does Hursthouse believe that whether the woman has a right to terminate an abortion is fundamentally irrelevant from the virtue theory perspective?

A virtue ethics approach suggests that whether the woman has a right to terminate an abortion is fundamentally irrelevant. Why? You can act within your rights yet still act viciously. An act is right iff it is an act that a virtuous person would do in the circumstances. Example of the woman wanting to go on holiday again. Relate this to the virtue of charity. Charity understood as the appropriate disposition with respect to treating vulnerable persons with respect and care

-What exceptions to the conclusion that abortion is seriously wrong does Marquis recognize (if any)?

Abortion due to rape; Abortion when the mother's life is in danger; Abortion during the first 14 days of pregnancy.

-What is the People-Seeds Case?

Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective; and a seed drifts in and takes root.

-For the purposes of discussion, Thompson assumes that the embryo/fetus has a right to life from the moment of conception. Is this what she really believes? If not, why does she make this assumption?

Although Thompson assumes that the embryo/fetus has a right to life from the moment of conception, it isn't actually what she believes. She believes that the fetus is not a person until some time after the conception. For the sake of argument, however, Thompson here assumes that (1) is true. From conception, the fetus is a innocent person with a right to life. And she argues that we should reject the argument even if premise 1 is true

-Why does Aristotle accept the idea that the function of man is to live in accordance with reason?

Aristotle accepts the idea that function of man is to live in accordance with reason because it is what separates us from all other being. Argument that tries to show what the good for man is. You can figure out the function of man by see what distinguishes it between man and others. If we share it with other creatures that's not what our function was. Its only what human beings can have. Life of nutition / growth and we share that with a lot of things like plants. Life of perception. That we can perceive things through senses but animals can do that too. 3rd choice is a life of reason. Only animals that reason at that high of level. Something we don't share with other creatures so that's what we should be aiming for.

- Why does Aristotle reject the following suggestions for the function of man: a life of nutrition/growth and a life of perception?

Aristotle believes that for human, the ultimate function is the activity or soul that follows a rational soul, that follows a ration principal. Man's function is that which sets him apart from all other beings, an action that only humans can perform. Nutrition/ growth and perception are all things that animals can do. So if they were the function of man, there would be no differentiating between men and beasts

-Why does Thompson think that an abortion may be morally indecent even if it does not violate anyone's right to life i.e. even if the abortion is not unjust?

But Thompson argues that abortions can be morally objectionable even in cases where the mother acts within her rights i.e. where the mother does not violate the rights of the fetus. Thompson offers a change in circumstances to the violinist case. Instead of being hooked up 24 hours for 9 months, what if you only had to remain hooked up for 1 hour or 1 day. To unhook yourself in this scenario would be callous and self-centered. It would be morally indecent.Obviously, pregnancy doesn't last an hour. So when might a real life abortion be morally indecent? E.g. Having a pregnancy at 5 months because you don't want to put off going on a nice holiday.

-If a fetus is viable (i.e. could be kept alive outside the womb), why does Thompson think that a mother who has not granted the fetus a right to use her body is only allowed to have the fetus removed i.e. she is not allowed to have it killed?

Caveat: where the mother has not granted the fetus a right to use her body, the mother only has a right to detach the fetus. There is no right that the fetus be detached and killed. So: if the fetus is viable, the mother cannot insist that the fetus be killed. If the fetus is like eight months old, and there are medical procedures in which the fetus can still survive the mother only has the right to have it removed but she doesn't have the right to kill it.

-What is eudaimonia?

Eudaimonia = 'Happiness', 'Flourishing', or 'Well-being.'

-What does Aristotle believe to be the highest good for man?

Every activity aims at some good i.e. it has as its end some good. But is there some good that all human activity aims at? If so, this would be the highest good. And only one of these goods is such that all other goods are desired for its own sake. Happiness. Happiness is the final end i.e. the end of all action. It is the highest good. A good life is a happy or flourishing life! Happiness is not simply pleasure-seeking, or accruing wealth or honor.

-If abortion is morally wrong, does that entail that a law against abortion would be morally acceptable? (If not, why not?)

If abortion is morally wrong, it would not entail that a law against abortion would be morally acceptable. There are many things that are considered morally wrong, but do not necessarily mean that it should be deemed illegal. These things can include lying or infidelity

-What is intellectual virtue? Intellectual virtue is excellence with respect to which part of the rational soul?

Intellectual virtue: virtue of the mind or intellect i.e. exercising well the capacity for reasoning. • Intellectual wisdom. Practical wisdom. • The focus is on a complete life ("One swallow does not make a summer.") • Intellectual virtue is the part of the rational soul that engages in reasoning: • Theoretical reasoning versus practical reasoning. • Man has a capacity for reason. Person is able to reason through thing and their ability to do so reflects intellectual virtue

-What are the liberal and conservative positions on abortion?

On the extreme liberal position, abortion is never seriously morally wrong. While the extreme conservative position, there are no exceptions, abortion is seriously morally wrong. Each position includes a spectrum of views

According to Thompson, how could someone ever come to have a right to use your body to stay alive?

Perhaps: if you voluntarily grant someone this right.

-What common pro choice argument did we examine (lecture 2/25)?

Premise 1: Every woman has a right to decide what happens in or to her own body, Premise 2: Abortion involves doing something in or to a woman's body. So, Conclusion: A woman has a right to decide whether or not to have an abortion. i.e. Conclusion (restated): Abortion is morally permissible.

-What common pro life argument did we examine (lecture 2/25)?

Premise 1: From conception, the fetus is an innocent human being. Premise 2: It is seriously morally wrong to kill innocent human beings, So, Conclusion: Abortion is seriously morally wrong. (1) From conception, the fetus is an innocent person with a right to life. (2) Each woman has a right to choose what happens in and to her body. (3) In all conflicts between one innocents person's right to life and another innocent person's right to choose, the right to life trumps the right to choose. (4) Except where the mother's life is in danger, there is conflict only between the fetus' right to life, and the mother's right to choose. Conclusion: Where the mother's life is not in danger, abortion is morally wrong.

-What is Marquis' main argument for this conclusion?

Premise 1: Killing a normal adult is presumptively wrong when it deprives him/her of a future like ours (a valuable future). Premise 2: Killing a fetus involves depriving it of a future like ours. Conclusion: Abortion is presumptively wrong.

-What is Marquis' view of why killing is bad (i.e. it is called the Future Like Ours account or FLO)?

Premise 1: Killing a normal adult is wrong when it deprives her of a future like ours (a valuable future). [The FLO Account/Theory] A future like ours is a future that contains the goods of consciousness.

-What is the violinist case supposed to show?

Premise 3: In all conflicts between one innocent person's right to life and another innocent person's right to choose, the right to life trumps the right to choose. The Violinist Case offers a counterexample to this premise.

-What other goods besides eudaimonia does Aristotle regard as desirable in themselves?

Some of the goods listed before are desirable in themselves e.g. friendship, pleasure, contemplation, happiness.

-What is the case of the Rapidly Growing Child?

Suppose you find yourself trapped in a tiny house with a growing child. I mean a very tiny house, and a rapidly growing child—you are already up against the wall of the house and in a few minutes you'll be crushed to death. The child on the other hand won't be crushed to death; if nothing is done to stop him from growing he'll be hurt, but in the end he'll simply burst open the house and walk out a free man.[7 You're in the ahouse with a rapidly goriwng child and you can't get out. You're going to be crushed against the wall if you don't kill them. And you'll be killed

-How does Marquis respond to the Contraception objection?

The FLO account holds that it is wrong to kill an individual when it would deprive it of a valuable future. Prior to conception there is no determinate individual that exists to be deprived of a valuable future.

-What rival accounts of the wrongness of killing does Marquis reject?

The Personhood Account: Killing is wrong because it ends a person's existence. The Sanctity of Human Life Account: Killing is wrong because it ends biological human life.

-What is the Worst of Crimes argument for the FLO?

The Worst of Crimes Argument a. FLO explains why we regard killing as the worst of crimes (e.g. worse than robbery or assault). b. Corollary: FLO also explains why exceptions to the wrongness of killing are very rare.

-Why did we find that argument to be unconvincing?

The argument looks okay if we also assume that the embryo/fetus has no right to life (at that time).

-What is the case supposed to show?

The case is supposed to show that in the case in which a life is in danger they has the right to act to prevent something that's going to kill them as an act of self defense.

-Why does Marquis recognize a possible exception for abortions that take place in the first 14 days of pregnancy?

The first 14 days of pregnancy is a period during which one can argue that "the fetus is not definitely an individual." Up to 14 days, monozygotic twinning is possible.

-What is the relationship between 'the highest good' for man and 'the final or chief end' of man?

The highest good is a final or chief end i.e. that at which all our activity ultimately aims. The highest good will have three features: It is desirable in itself, It is not desirable for the sake of some other good, All other goods are desirable for its sake.

-What kind of case is the people-seeds case most closely analogous to?

The people seeds case most closely analogous to getting pregnant even with contraception.

-What does the People-Seeds Case show?

The people seeds case shows that something that occur even if you try everything in your best efforts to prevent it from occurring.

-What kind of case is the rapidly growing child most closely analogous to?

The rapidly growing child is most closely analogous to when the fetus is threatening the mothers life and the mothers life is in danger.

-Why might the timing of conception (whether it occurs at fertilization or implantation) be relevant to the moral debate over abortion?

The timing of conception might be relevant to the moral debate over abortion because the timing can determine whether the fetus can be considered an individual or a human being. Some contraception can prevent at implantation. Most people believe that contraception is morally unproblematic

-Why is the main conclusion of the argument only that abortion is presumptively wrong?

There are possible exceptions, rape, first fourteen days mothers life in danger. Its presumptively because in the same way killing adult beings is only presumptively wwrong because there might be rare cases in which it might be justified.

-Why does Hursthouse regard Thompson's discussion as potentially compatible with a virtue theory approach to abortion?

Two of the virtues: justice and charity. Some vices: callousness, self-centeredness. For Thompson, a woman who does not violate the right of a fetus does not act unjustly. Nonetheless, such a woman could still act in a callous manner i.e. viciously.

-What does Louden mean when he says that virtue ethics may lead to 'moral backsliding'?

VE focuses on long-term characteristic patterns of behavior and so runs the risk of "overlooking occasional lies or acts of selfishness." -Backsliding may lead to self-deception. -This is a final reason to focus more on acts than does VE.

-How did Mary Anne Warren critique that argument?

Warren points out an ambiguity in 'human being': Genetically human versus morally human. Within the two premises, human beings seem to have two different meanings. -What is (Warren's) distinction between human in a genetic sense and human in a moral sense? Moral sense of human is one that is able to make moral decisions and a member of the moral community, however human in genetic sense is any member of the species is a human being and no member of any other species could be Fails to distinguish two senses of human. In the gentic sense, you have the right genes. Any creature who ahs the genese is a human. Moral human a member of the moral community you have what it takes to tak moral considerations. Are they overlapping? Are every single creature with human dna has moral beings. taking advantage of the ambiguity. To be a person you have to be able to reason if you're a preconscious embryo you don't exactly meet the moral being but you are part of the human genome. You have to have some level of competence.

-Louden argues that while consequentialism and deontology focus on the evaluation of actions (be clear in what way this is true), virtue ethics focuses on the evaluation of agents (and character). He regards this as the basis for further differences between them What further differences does Louden identify between (a) consequentialism/deontology on the one hand, and (b) virtue theory on the other

What would be missing if its just virtue ethics. Virtue ethics focus too much on agents and evaluating agents are good and not and doest not look at acts. These consequentialist at least focusing on what the right thing to do is and they focus on that. Virtue ethics is rather vague with specific guidelines of whats. act theories are interested in formulating deciision procedures for making practical choices. VE: focuses on long term characteristic pattersn of action. so, not as concerned with formulating decision procedures for making practical choices

- Why does Hursthouse believe that whether the fetus has a right to life is fundamentally irrelevant from the virtue theory perspective?

Whether the fetus has a right to life is fundamentally irrelevant from the virtue theory persepective because the virtue ethics focuses of the agent performing the act and thus virtue ethics would be focusing on the mother and the fetus is irrelevant. Claims she makes it depends on the kind of knowledge that virtuous people should have. In the context that virtuous people have the right attitude towards al lthings. A virtuous person has the right attitude toward fetuses , don't you need to know the moral status of fetuses. She says you dnt need to know because you to virtous you don't need to know informations that you need to go out of your way to figure out. It's a question that is really hard to answer and you just have no idea so you don't need to know. So the things you do need to know. Below.

-Describe some circumstances in which Hursthouse believe that it would be morally vicious to have an abortion? Why does she believe that it would be morally vicious to abort in those circumstances?

You have to have the right attitude but given the role. One thing should be clear, you cant just treat being pregnant as any physical condition. It's not same as have to remove an appendix. If you have an abortion and you have an attitude that its just an organ that diseased, you've acted viously in having the abortion. Yo ufailed to have the right attitude. And similar to Thompson you're not giving it enough respect, holidays

Which cases does Marquis appeal to in order to support FLO? Which cases does Marquis appeal to in order to support FLO?

a. Cases common in medicine a. . FLO explains why it is NOT wrong for a doctor to end the life of someone permanently unconscious b. 2. FLO explains why it IS wrong for a doctor to end the life of someone temporarily unconscious. c. 3. FLO explains why it is not wrong for doctor to carry out active voluntary euthanasia. d. 4. FLO explains why doctors standardly give emergency medical treatment to the suicidal. e. 1. No conscious goods (no valuable future) versus 2. conscious goods in future. 3. No conscious good versus 4. conscious goods in future Cases of interest to philosophers

-What does it mean to say that 'moral virtue' involves a 'state of character' or a disposition' to act in certain ways?

it doesn't depend on the action but it depends on whether a moral character would do so, with virtue. Courageous people feel the right the way at the right time. So in battle, they end up doing the bad thing. If its sensible to stay in fight they stay, and if it's a lost cause then they can leave. Know the difference between excess . if someone fears too much they would be a coward. Disposition of someone who has cowardness. Disposition of state of character. The vice of deficiency is someone who doesn't feel any fear. Charges without any consideration and rash

-Why does Robert Hood prefer the label 'Climate Change' to 'Global Warming'?

• "Global warming" is a misleading term because not all places' climates become warmer. Some places' climates become colder.

-What is a 'clone'?

• A clone is genetic copy of a sequence of DNA of an entire genome (genetic makeup) of an organism.

-What is the point of the Function Argument (i.e. what is it supposed to show)?

• A good X has an excellence or virtue that is appropriate to Xs. • There is a close connection between 'the good for X' and 'a good X.' • A good eye has the virtue or excellence of seeing well. • What is good for an eye is to see well. • So, if we can find out what is the function of man, then we can find out what is the good for man i.e. what is happiness. 'What is good for man?' is closely related to 'What is a good man?' • Aristotle believed that humans being have a function, and that this can be discerned by examining what makes humans distinctive.

-According to Glasgow, what is the maxim of an action?

• A maxim, in brief, in an abstract description of the action one intends to perform.

-What is a natural example of human cloning?

• A natural example of human cloning is the identical twins. o Identical twins share the same genes. o The fertilized egg divides into two separate individuals. o It occurs in 1 out of 240 births.

What is a prima facie duty?

• A prima facie duty is a moral consideration that must be taken into account in determining an action's all-things-considered moral status. • An act is a prima facie duty when there is a moral reason in favor of doing the act, but one that can be outweighed by other moral reasons.

-What forward-looking moral considerations did we examine as possible ways to justify deviating from the default distribution?

• Ability to pay: Assign according to who can 'afford to pay.' o 'Afford to pay' relates to whether an emission limit would mean that a country would be unable to ensure its citizens a basic minimum level of welfare. o In this sense, clearly the US and other industrialized nations can better afford to pay than many developing nations. o Based on the idea that justice requires - at the least - that each person enjoy a basic minimum of welfare. • Efficiency: the nations that can most efficiently and least expensively reduce their greenhouse gas emissions ought to shoulder more of the burden. o This is a consequentialist argument: how can we set emission limits in a way that has minimum negative impact on human well-being?

-Give an example of a theory we have looked at that exemplifies (a) value monism, (b) deontic monism.

• Act Utilitarianism o Value monism: The only thing that has value is happiness. o Deontic monism: An action is morally right if and only if of those actions available to the agent in the circumstances, it would produce the greatest total net happiness.

-What is the Formula of the Law of Nature (one formulation of the Categorical Imperative (big 'C', big 'I') that Glasgow examines?

• Act as if the maxim of your action were to become your will a universal law of Nature. o Maxim - an abstract description of the action one intends to perform. o I will do act A, in circumstances C, for end E.

-What is the Formula of the End in Itself?

• Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end. • Never treat persons as 'mere means' - never treat people as means but not ends (in themselves) o If you treat or use someone as a means then you are involving them in your plans, i.e. using them to help achieve one of your goals. o If you treat someone as a means and also treat her as an end (or as an end in herself), then you respect her choice. In that way, you respect her nature as a person, i.e. as one who has the capacity for free choice and autonomy. o If you use someone as a means but fail to treat someone as an end, then you fail to respect her choice. You treat her as if she had no free will or autonomy. That is, you treat her as if she were not a person, as if she was merely a thing.

-What is the relation between acting morally, acting rationally, and acting autonomously, according to Kant? (see beginning of lecture on O'Neill, 2/8).

• Acting morally is action rationally (to act guided by good reasons), and acting morally is acting autonomously (i.e. freely). • Autonomy, reason, and morality coincide in Kant's view. • Acting morally is to act from the Categorical Imperative (from duty). • Acting rationally is to act as categorical imperatives tell you what you ought to do (have reason to do) independently of what desires you have. • Acting autonomously is to choose to act in a manner guided by the Categorical Imperative.

-What determines whether an act has moral worth?

• An act has moral worth only if it is done from duty (part of the theory of conduct). • An act done from duty implies the existence of good will, i.e. will that chooses to act from duty is a good will. • An act has moral worth only when the act is chosen by a good will. • An act has moral worth if and only if it is both (a) the act required by the moral law, but also (b) the motive or intention behind the act is respect for the moral law. • An act has moral worth if and only if it is both (a) acting in accordance with duty, but also (b) acting from duty.

What is the difference between an act (e.g. lying) being absolutely wrong and prima facie wrong?

• An act is absolutely wrong if it is wrong in all circumstances. o E.g. Kant thought that bought lying and breaking a promise are absolutely wrong. • On the other hand, an act is prima facie wrong when an act is rejected after weighing PF duties against one another, and the duty that supports that rejected act is not as strong as the others. • An act is prima facie wrong when there is a moral reason against doing the act, but one that can be outweighed by other moral reasons.

-What is the distinction I made between (a) whether an act is the right act, and (b) whether an act has moral worth? Give an example of an act that is the right act but which nonetheless does not have moral worth.

• An act is right if it is the act required by the moral law. • An act has moral worth only when it is done for the right reason, i.e. out of respect for the moral law (out of duty). • For example, the shopkeeper will not overcharge the child because it is required by the moral law. However, his action does not have moral worth because his motive for that particular act is not motivated by his respect for moral law.

-What is an all-things-considered duty?

• An all-things-considered (ATC) duty is the resultant duty the agent has that arises from the totality of moral consideration (prima facie duties) relevant to the situation.

-What is Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT)?

• An identical genetic copy of an individual is created in the laboratory using the nucleus of a somatic cell and an egg cell from which the nuclear has been removed.

-Give an example of one of Ross' prima facie duties that is backward-looking, and one which is forward-looking.

• Backward-looking: Duty of reparation • Forward-looking: Duty of beneficence

-What is the difference between a backward-looking duty and a forward-looking duty?

• Backward-looking: to ascertain the right act, you need to look to the past. • Forward-looking: to ascertain the right act, you need to look to the future.

-What types of energy production are associated with global warming?

• Burning of fossil fuels • Greenhouse gas emissions from carbon dioxide

What are the three cases that Kitcher regards as prima facie plausible candidates for morally permissible cases of reproductive cloning?

• Case of the dying child o Clone a brother so the dying child can get a kidney that would save his life • Case of the grieving widow o Husband died in accident, comatose daughter o Having a clone of her comatose child via surrogate motherhood • Case of the loving lesbians o Having a child who is genetically related to both of them

-Which case does Kitcher regard as the easiest to justify and why?

• Case of the loving lesbians o This case is the closes to ordinary procreation case. o There is not much uncertainty (like in the case of dying child or the case of grieving widow) regarding the parents' intentions to have the child. o The loving lesbians just wants a child that is related to both of them, not to use a child to save a brother or use a child to replace a daughter.

-For Kant, the Supreme Law of Morality is the Categorical Imperative. From the Categorical Imperatives can be derived various categorical imperatives. Examples of categorical imperatives (small 'c', small 'i' include 'Do not lie!' 'Do not steal!' How are these categorical imperatives different from hypothetical imperatives?

• Categorical imperatives are commands that apply to us regardless of what we want to do. • The demands of morality are categorical in this way, i.e. they do not depend on our goals or wants. • A hypothetical imperative tells you what you have reason to do if you want to achieve a particular goal. • A categorical imperative tells you what you have reason to do full stop, regardless of what goals you have.

-What exactly is the objection to cloning based on the idea that it violates 'a right to an open future'? [this is the second objection that Harris considers]

• Cloning violates a right to an open future o Some claim that cloning violates a 'right to an open future' o What's the worry? The clone is going to have the same kind of future as their donor? o Related to Kitcher's claim that, in some cases, it imposes a plan of life upon someone, and so interferes with her autonomy

-How are cases of coercion instances in which a person could not in principle consent to the maxim on which the act (of coercion) is performed?

• Coercion - forcing someone to do what you want them to do. The other person is unable to assent or dissent, i.e. even though the nature of the person's plan for them (and its associated maxim) may be very clear, they have no option but to consent. o Physical coercion - physically forcing someone to do something - Bob is bundled into a police car o Threats - offers where the alternative is a grave loss or injury o Exploitation - imposing unfair conditions on the basis of unequal power

-What three major approaches to ethics does Lindemann criticize?

• Contract Theory • Kant's Ethics • Utilitarianism • Each approach relies on an idealization of the moral agent that reflects the experiences and position of powerful, white males. • The picture of the moral agent excludes and is harmful to the interests of those with different experiences and social positions, especially women. • She does not deny that there may be some important things to learn from each of these major approaches.

-What type of contradiction arises in Kant's False Promising case? Why does a contradiction of this sort arise here?

• Contradiction in conception • Kant argued that we do run into a contradiction in imagining this world, so it is not successful. • The contradiction: two claims that cannot both be true. In the world I am imagining: o It must be possible to make promises (otherwise I could not make a false promise) o Promises cannot be made (because upon universalizing the false promising maxim, the practice of promising collapses). • It is morally wrong to make the false promise.

-When testing maxims using FLN, what two types of contradiction may arise?

• Contradiction in conception - we cannot even conceive of such a world without arriving at a contradiction • Contradiction in the will o E.g. Contradiction in the will between willing non-beneficence as a law of nature (that no one helps anyone) and willing that others help us when we need help

-How does Kant argue that suicide (from self-love) fails to pass the FLN test? What type of contradiction is there in this case?

• Contradiction in conception. • Such a world is, according to Kant, inconceivable. • If Kant were right that the purpose of self-love is self-preservation, then it would be impossible to imagine a world in which the motive of self-preservation leads to self-extermination.

How does Kant argue non-beneficence fails to pass the FLN test? What type of contradiction is there in this case?

• Contradiction in will. • According to Kant, everyone at some point will need the aid of someone else. But acting on this maxim is inconsistent with something else each of us must will, i.e. each of us must will that others help us when we need help. • So we run into a contradiction of the will: between willing non-beneficence as a law of nature (that no one helps anyone) and willing that others help us when we need help.

-How are cases of deception instances in which a person could not in principle consent to the maxim on which the act (or deception) is performed?

• Deception - consent is impossible because the real nature of the act is hidden from the other person o You promise Jane you will repay a loan, but you know you can't. o Jane cannot consent because she doesn't know what is going on. She can't agree to what you're doing because she doesn't know what you are really doing. You don't give her chance to assent (or dissent) to your actual plan.

-What does it mean to say that 'there is no overriding value' (only conditional values)?

• Definition of 'overriding value': in conflicts with any other value, an overriding value always defeats the claims of the other value. • A non-overriding value is a conditional value. • For Kekes, all values are conditional values. • E.g. Mill's higher pleasure

-What is the difference between Deontic Monism and Deontic Pluralism?

• Deontic Monism: Only one type of consideration bears on whether an act is right or wrong. o E.g. Ethical Egoism, Act Utilitarianism, Kant's moral theory • Deontic Pluralism: More than one type of consideration bears on whether an act is right or wrong. o E.g. W.D. Ross' theory

-What is the difference between Deontic Pluralism and Value Pluralism?

• Deontic Pluralism: More than one type of consideration bears on whether an act is right or wrong. • Value Pluralism: More than on type of thing has value. • Deontic = determines whether acts are right or wrong • Value = determines what is good

-What is the 'picture of the agent' Lindemann associated with these approaches?

• Detached from others. • Self-Sufficient. • A powerful, social equal. • A rational planner/chooser.

-What implication did all these moral considerations (backward and forward) have in common regarding the burden the US ought to shoulder (in the context of setting global emission limits to tackle global warming)?

• Different types of moral principle suggest that industrialized countries ought to shoulder more of the burden than developing ones. • In brief, the US ought to take the biggest hit!

-What do I mean by a nation's 'emission limit'?

• Emission limit is how much greenhouse gas each country is allowed to emit in the atmosphere.

-What is the doctrine of the mean?

• Every moral virtue is a disposition or tendency that can be understood as intermediate between two other 'vicious' states of character, one involving excess, and one involving deficiency.

-For another of Aristotle's virtues, name the two vices associated with it.

• Example 2: The virtue of liberality. • Liberality is the intermediate with respect to giving and taking money. • The vice of excess here he calls 'prodigality', and the vice of deficiency 'meanness.' • The prodigal man 'exceeds in spending and falls short in taking' e.g. he is too generous. • The mean man 'exceeds in taking and falls short in spending' e.g. he is not generous enough.

-According to Glasgow, how do we apply the Formula of the Law of Nature (FLN)? I.e. how do we determine whether an act is permissible, obligatory, or forbidden, using FLN?

• First, figure out your maxim i.e. the abstract description of the act. At its most precise, this will come in the ACE format. • Second, universalize your maxim. This involves imagining that it is a law of nature - think of a world where everyone does what your maxim describes. • Third, see if the universalization is successful. If it is not, then acting on the maxim is morally wrong. If it is, then acting on it is morally permissible. o Universalization is unsuccessful if there is a contradiction

What is the 'picture of society' Lindemann associated with these approaches?

• Focuses on relations in a 'public sphere', neglects those in a 'private sphere. • Public Sphere: o Impartiality. o Universal and impersonal application of principles. • Private Sphere: o Partiality. o Permits favoritism.

-What analogy does Aristotle give to support his view that ethics allows for no decision procedures?

• For Aristotle, ethics allows for no decision procedures i.e. there is no one rule or set of rules that, if followed, would tell you what to do in every possible circumstance. • Analogy with medicine and navigation. - doctors have a lot of experience sot theres not a simple rule or decision preceding that tells them where the virtue lies. It depends a lot on experience. Experience is what develops good judgment and intuition and there is no simple algorithm. • The right thing to do is what the virtous person to do. There are no hard and fast rules, too many circumstances and experiences that you've had. Like medicine, its more of an art than a science, you can't write everything down and become a doctor. People don't become doctors until they learn how to deal with idffernt problems and symptoms. Theres no set of rules.

-What is geoengineering?

• Geoengineering is an option proposed to solve global warming. • It is a field of engineering that finds ways to intervene with changed in Earth's climatic system to reduce climate change. • Some of these ways include carbon dioxide removal techniques that seek to remove greenhouse gas emission from the atmosphere.

-What default distributions did we consider as potentially fair ways of determining emission limits?

• Give each nation the same emission limit. • Divide up relative to population size e.g. a country with 200M has twice the limit of one with 100 M.

-What does O'Neill's discussion tells us about our duties to alleviate famine?

• Government policies and foreign ends • Treat humanity in a way that that in principle can consent to. • The duty of beneficence is derived from the Formula of the End in Itself. Treating others as ends requires that we do something to help others whose lack of basic necessities of life places their capacity to act autonomously in jeopardy. • As it is our duty to help someone lacking basic necessities, government policies and foreign aids should help people living in absolute poverty.

-Why does Harris reject those final two objections?

• Harris' reply to Objection 6: o If true, then someone violates this right when she has identical twins. That seems absurd! o Given that our genetic identity is not essential to who we are (to our personal identity or individuality), it is not clear why it is something that ought to be protected by a right. • Harris' reply to Objection 7: o Our moral feelings are not very reliable guide to what is really right or wrong. o Consider mistakes made in the past e.g. the idea of equality for women at one time produced (in men) feelings of repugnance.

-What does it mean to say that 'there are discontinuities in our value rankings'? Give a plausible example of a discontinuity in value rankings.

• Higher pleasures versus lower pleasures. o Some argue that a higher pleasure is more valuable than any amount of a lower pleasure. o If so, then higher pleasure and lower pleasure are discontinuous values i.e. they are values measured on different scales.

-How exactly is Robert Hood's approach an example of pluralism? (What kind of pluralism is it an example of?)

• Hood's approach is an example of Deontic Pluralism. • He utilizes backward-looking and forward-looking duties to determine which act would be morally right to do (to solve global warming problem). • He uses different types of moral consideration to determine the emission limits for each country. • He weight PF duties against one another (duty of justice, duty of reparation, duty not to harm others, etc.) and determine which one is strongest in order to come about to an all-things-considered duty.

-Kitcher regards cloning as clearly wrong in cases where cloning is "undertaken in the hope of generating a particular kind of person, a person whose standards of what matters in life are imposed from without." What does Kitcher take to be the basis of the morally objection to cloning in these cases?

• Human cloning, in such cases, objectionable interferes with or violates human anatomy.

-If there are conflicting prima facie duties relevant in a particular situation, how do you determine what the all-things-considered duty is?

• If PF duties conflict, weigh the various considerations against one another i.e. use judgment to decide how strong each relevant PF duty is (some are stronger than others). • Even when a PF duty is outweighed, it still has some moral clout e.g. it may be appropriate to feel guilt or remorse about violating it.

-If only one prima facie duty is relevant in a particular situation, is it clear what you ought to do?

• If an agent has only one prima facie (PF) duty in a situation, then that prima facie duty determines what her all-things-considered (ATC) duty is. • If no other duties are relevant, then you have an all-things-considered duty

-Why does Kekes feel compelled to defend his pluralist view against ethical relativism?

• If some values are both incompatible and incommensurable, then it seems that there is no rational way to choose between them. • But that seems to push toward ethical relativism. • ER implies that there is no context-independent way to resolve moral disagreements. • Ethical relativism poses a potential problem to Kekes' pluralist view. It can potentially make Kekes' theory seem irrational.

-What is the relationship between (a) the type of contradiction that arises in testing the maxim of an act, and (b) whether the duty not to do that act is a wide or a narrow duty?

• If universalizing a maxim yields a contradiction in conception, then the duty is narrow o duty not to make false promises • If universalizing a maxim yields a contradiction in willing, then the duty is wide o duty not to waste one's talents

-Give two examples of hypothetical imperatives.

• If you want an A in the exam, you study for it. o You should take all of the necessary and sufficient means to your subjective ends. If you end up getting an A in the exam and then that means to the end involve studying for the exam, you need to study. But if you don't have subjective end of getting an A in the class then perhaps you don't care about getting an A. • If you want to lose weight, you exercise. • If you want to be a doctor, then you ought to be a pre-med student • If you want to buy a laptop, then you need to save up the money to pay for it.

-What is the difference between a personal duty and an impersonal duty?

• Impersonal duties: duties toward no one in particular. • Personal duties: duties only toward particular person(s).

-Why does Harris reject the third objection i.e. that cloning is wrong because it threatens the security of genetic material?

• Is genetic material less secure than "when spread around with the characteristic negligence of the average human male"? • We are shredding skin cells, hair all the time, but no one objects to this on grounds of protecting the security of genetic material.

-What objections does she make to this picture of rationality?

• It excludes many things that play an important role in our moral thinking o Emotions, e.g. empathy, anger. o Trust. o Narrative and representational modes of reasoning. • It exaggerates the importance of rationality. o E.g. fails to recognize the power of widely shared prejudice.

-What objections does she make to this picture of the agent?

• It is false as a representation of most real people. • It is false as a picture of ideal people. • It is harmful to those who cannot or have no reason to live up to these ideals.

-What objections does she make to this picture of society?

• It is false, since it implies that women choose to engage in labors of the 'private sphere'. • It neglects the importance to morality of personal relationships e.g. special duties. • It is false and harmful, since the public sphere is not a space that embodies impartiality or universality.

-Why is using someone as a mere means morally objectionable, but using someone as a means and also as an end not morally objectionable?

• It is objectionable to use someone as a means if they do not consent to be a part of our plans. If they do not consent, then we use them as means but not treat them as ends i.e. we use them as mere means • It is not objectionable to use someone as a means if they consent to be a part of our plans. If they consent, then (in a way) we too become a part of their plans. If they consent to our plans, we use them as means but also treat them as ends in themselves

-Why does Harris reject Kahn's argument that Reproductive Cloning violates the Formula of the End in Itself?

• Kahn's formulation would forbid blood transfusions. o "The recipient of blood donations does not usually know or even care about the identity of the blood donor. The donor figures in the life of the recipient of blood exclusively as a means." o Does blood donation really violate Kahn's formulation of Kant's FEI? o Must you know and care about someone in order to treat them as an end • Kahn's formulation would forbid an abortion performed exclusively to save the mother's life. o Is it clear that Kahn's formulation would forbid this? o Perhaps the worry is that human life is being treated as a means only to save the mother's life. o But the mother can be understood as defending herself against a threat to her own life

Given that we are examining two versions of the Categorical Imperative, why is it that Kant would not be classified as a deontic pluralist?

• Kant would not be classified as a deontic pluralist because he believes that there is only one way to determine whether an act is right or wrong. That is, an act has moral worth (morally right) if and only if it is done as required by the moral law and out of respect for the moral law (moral law being the Categorical Imperative).

Do Kekes' views exemplify Deontic Pluralism and Value Pluralism?

• Kekes' views exemplify Value Pluralism. o More than one type of thing is intrinsically valuable. o There are discontinuities in our value rankings. o Some values are incommensurable. o Some values are incompatible. o There is no overriding value. o Reasonable resolution is something possible when incommensurable values conflict.

-How does Kitcher interpret Kant's Formula of the End in Itself?

• Kitcher draws on Kant's FEI as one relevant moral consideration. • Treat humanity whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as means only. • Never use people as mere means. • Always treat people as ends in themselves, i.e. treat people as autonomous, self-governing beings they are (or can be) - respect their capacity for free choice.

• -What does Louden mean when he says that virtue ethics cannot identify 'intolerable acts'?

• Lauden claims that we need to identify types of action "which produce harms of such magnitude that they destroy the bonds of community and render... the achievement of moral goods impossible." • Each community needs rules to teach us which acts are not simply bad, but intolerable. E.g. rape and murder. • This is another reason why Lauden thinks an adequate moral theory ought to focus on acts more than virtue ethics does.

Give an example of acting contrary to duty?

• Lying: Moral law (categorical imperative) tells you to never tell a lie. However, you lie because you find it convenient to do so. • Example: On accident, you broke your mother's favorite vase. Your mom saw it and asks you who broke it. Knowing that your mother will get mad, you tell her a lie and say that your dog bumped into it and it fell and broke. Moral law tells you to tell the truth, but it is more convenient for you to lie because that way your mom will not get mad at you. Therefore, you act contrary to your duty (as required and motivated by moral law).

-What types of evidence are there for global warming's happening already and for its being likely to continue in the future?

• Melting glaciers; and melting permafrost, • Historical recordings of air and ocean temperature • Computer models • Rising levels of 'greenhouse' gases in the atmosphere • Changes in the distribution of plants and animals

-What is the difference between a narrow duty and a wide duty?

• Narrow duties: no leeway in deciding when, how, and in what circumstances the agent complies with the duty. o the duty not to make false promises o the duty against suicide from self-love • Wide duties: latitude in deciding when, how, and in what circumstances the agent complies with the duty. o the duty not to waste one's talents o the duty not to never be beneficent (duty to be beneficent)

-Does Kekes believe that there is only one way to live a good (i.e. eudaimon) life?

• No, Kekes exemplify in Value Pluralism. • He believes that there are many other values (something that contributes to living a good or worthwhile or valuable life) that are important parts of good life: pleasure, friendship, love, work, satisfaction, self-respect, respect for others, etc. o Valuable experiences e.g. pleasure of eating, reading, listening to music. o Valuable goals or ends e.g. social justice, knowledge, honor, self-respect o Valuable pursuits e.g. political activism, a satisfying career, a worthwhile hobby o Valuable dispositions e.g. kindness, courage, compassion. o Valuable objects e.g. money, a house, clothes, artworks. • Therefore, there is more than one way to live a good (eudaimon) life.

-Does Lindemann think that these major approaches to ethics have nothing useful to teach us about ethics?

• No, Lindemann admits that these major approaches offer some helpful tools. • She does not deny that there may be some important things to learn from each approach. • However, she insists that these theories were developed by privileged, white males, and reflect their own experiences. They are false in various ways and harmful to the disadvantaged or stigmatized e.g. women, nonwhites, the disabled, non-heterosexuals. Therefore, we must focus also on what they exclude.

-Does Kant's view allow for prima facie duties?

• No. Kant's moral theory is an example of Deontic Monism so it does not allow prima facie duties. • Kant's moral theory states that an act has moral worth if and only if it is both (a) acting in accordance with duty, but also (b) acting from duty.

-What other objections does Harris consider (objections 6 and 7- both are accidentally labeled objection 6!)

• Objection 6: Genetic identity o European Parliament - each individual has a right to his or her own genetic identity • Objection 7: Repugnance o To many, the idea of cloning human beings fills them with repugnance and/or outrage

-If emission limits were set according to the preferred default proposal (the second one we looked at), what would be the impact on the US (e.g. would it have to cut emissions from current levels)?

• On this approach, the US would have to drastically cut its current emissions, or pay a lot to other nations for the right to use more. It is already emitting far more than its emission limit would be on this approach.

coming about (which is absurd). -Why does Harris reject the fifth objection i.e. that cloning is wrong because it permits 'a eugenic or racist selection of the human race'?

• Other things we don't find objectionable also involve eugenic selection • Pre-implantation screening, egg donation, surrogacy, preference in choice of sexual partner • But there could still be abuse - taking selection to a whole new level • "The fact that a technique could be abused does not constitute an argument against the technique, unless there is no prospect of preventing the abuse or wrongful use."

According to O'Neill, in what other way (besides failing to act in a way to which a person could in principle consent to the maxim of our act) may our actions fail to respect persons as ends in themselves (and so be inconsistent with the Formula of the End in Itself)?

• Respect for persons also requires ensuring that persons are able to act as autonomous beings, i.e. self-governing beings. • Autonomy requires not just (a) absence of deception and coercion, but also (b) basic necessities of life, i.e. food, shelter, health • In today's world, many people lack these basic necessities. Respect for persons thus requires doing something to make up this deficiency, and so enable the autonomy of (some) others.

-Describe an example that makes clear the problem of relevant descriptions.

• Rob a bank versus getting money from a bank o I will rob a bank, when in need of cash, to satisfy my self-interest. This is morally wrong because there is a contradiction in conception. Robbing banks would lead to the collapse of the banking system so imagining such a world would be impossible. o I will get some money from a bank, when in need of cash, to satisfy my self-interest. This is not morally wrong. • Both maxims describe the same action but they cannot be both morally permissible and morally wrong.

-Ross' theory is an example of Deontic Pluralism or Value Pluralism?

• Ross' theory is an example of Deontic Pluralism. • According to Ross, duties are not absolute; duties are prima facie o Prima facie duty - a moral consideration that must be taken into account in determining an action's ATC moral status. o An all-things-considered (ATC) duty is the resultant duty the agent has that arises from the totality of moral consideration (prima facie duties) relevant to the situation. o If an agent has only one PF duty in a situation, then that PF duty determines what his ATC duty is. o If PF duties conflict, then they are weighed against one another (and some are stronger than others). • According to Ross' theory, there are many duties that an agent considers to determine whether an act is right. He has a list of these duties (fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, beneficence, self-improvement, not to harm others).

-What does it means to say that 'some values are incommensurable.' Give a plausible example of two values that are incommensurable with one another.

• Some things are so unalike that they cannot be compared with one another in any way. In other words, they are incommensurable. o E.g. Square root versus insults. o E.g. Smells and puns. • If value A and value B cannot be ranked (in terms of relative value), then they are not only discontinuous, they are also incommensurate with one another. o E.g. Justice and human life. o E.g. Friendship and freedom.

What does it mean to say that 'values are incompatible'?

• Some values are incompatible in the sense that the realization of some of these values logically excludes the realization of others. o E.g. You cannot at the same time be both a gourmand and ascetic. o E.g. You cannot at the same time dedicate yourself to both inner contemplation and to political activism. • Some values are incompatible in the sense that practical conflicts between values are inevitable. o E.g. You are deciding whether to become a restaurant critic or a Buddhist monk. o E.g. You are deciding whether to become a community organizer or a philosopher.

-Why is the question of how to reduce global emissions an issue of distributive justice?

• Suppose everyone agrees how much we need to reduce emissions globally in order to prevent dangerous warming. • We still need to figure out how much each country is allowed to emit - call this the emission limit of each country. • Distributive justice is concerned with how benefits and burdens ought to be distributed within the persons belonging to a group. • A common view is that the atmosphere is a common resource (it doesn't belong to anyone). o The atmosphere's capacity to absorb our waste gases without undesirable climate change is a scarce resource - more people want to use it than it can handle. o Hence, we need principles of justice to decide how to allocate it between nations. • Another view is that each nation (or persons) has a property right to some portion of the atmosphere. o From this viewpoint, principles of justice are also relevant i.e. how much does each nation own? Is any nation using more of the atmosphere than they have a property right to use? • Both the common resource and the property rights view of the atmosphere require that we consider what a just distribution of the atmosphere would involve. • A just distribution treats each person/nation as moral equals.

-Give examples of treating someone as a mere means?

• TA Case: The paper deadline passed yesterday, and you still haven't written your paper because you forgot. You go to your TA for an extension, telling him a false story about how the dog ate your paper. o It doesn't matter whether he would in fact have agreed to an extension had you told him the truth. What matters is that you don't give him the chance to make a decision based on the facts.

-Give an example of an act done in accordance with duty, but which is not done from duty?

• The Honest Shopkeeper: A man does not overcharge a child who buys something from his store because it is in his self-interest not to do so. The shopkeeper acts in accordance with duty, i.e. he does what the moral law tells him to do. But, he acts out of calculated self-interest and not because he recognizes that it is the right thing to do. He does not act from duty and so his act has no moral worth. In this choice, his will is not good. • The Sympathetic Philanthropist: A man helps out his fellows because he has a strong sense of sympathy towards others and naturally wants to help them. The man acts in accordance with duty. But he does not act from duty. Hence his act has no moral worth.

duty. But he does not act from duty. Hence his act has no moral worth. -Give an example that involves both acting from duty and acting in accordance with duty

• The Miserable Philanthropist: Someone who has lost all faith in humanity and all sense of sympathy for others nevertheless helps another person because he believes that morality demands this of him. It is not his of self-interest that he acted the way he did, but he still helped another as required by the moral law and out of respect for moral law. The act of helping another is both in accordance with the moral law and also is done from duty. This act has moral worth (and manifests a good will). • The suicidal woman: Despite finding life unbearable and having suicidal feelings, a woman chooses not to kill herself because she believes that the moral law forbids it. She acts in accordance with duty and also from duty. Hence, her act has moral worth.

-What examples of moral conflicts did we look at?

• The Taliban and the kidnapped Korean aid workers (2007) - The Taliban threatened to kill Korean aid workers if the Korean government would not withdraw its troops from Afghanistan. The Taliban also sought the release of Taliban militants from Afghan prison. The Korean government could not secure the release since the Afghanistan government had the authority to do so. The Afghan government refused to negotiate with the Taliban since it has been previously criticized for releasing Taliban militants for an Italian journalist. Ultimately, the Taliban stated that they released the workers in exchange for money from South Korea. • The Case of Alton Logan (1982) - Alton Logan was charged and found guilty for the murder of a McDonald's security guard in 1982. The real suspect confessed the truth to Logan's lawyers, but they could not say anything in court since they promised not to release the real suspect's statements. Logan went to prison, and the truth came out when the real suspect died. • Kant's case of the murderer - Murderer comes to your home and asks you if you saw this person he is going kill. You know where the person is, but you are conflicted whether you should lie or tell him the truth.

-What two vices are contrasted with the virtue of courage? Which of these is the vice of excess? Which of these is the vice of deficiency?

• The coward experiences 'excessive' fear, for example, he tends to flee danger too readily, or to overestimate the danger he faces. • The rash person experiences a 'deficiency' of fear: he takes risks not worth taking, or fails to recognize how great a risk he is taking.

-How does O'Neill derive the duty of beneficence from the Formula of the End in Itself?

• The duty of beneficence derives from the Formula of the End in Itself because treating others as ends requires that we do something to help others whose lack of basic necessities of life places their capacity to act autonomously in jeopardy • We can't help everyone, everywhere, and there are other duties that we have e.g. to ourselves (develop our talents). • So, the duty is wide: we get some leeway about when, how, and under what circumstances we act on the duty. O'Neill argues that the duty might nonetheless be quite demanding

-What prima facie duties does Ross think we have?

• The duty of fidelity (the duty to keep promises) • The duty of reparation (the duty to correct or compensate for some prior wrong of mine) • The duty of gratitude (the duty to recognize or reciprocate others' favorable acts towards me) • The duty of justice (the duty to create a distribution of goods in accord with the merit of the recipients) • The duty of beneficence (the duty to improve the welfare, virtue, or intelligence of others) • The duty of self-improvement (the duty to improve one's own virtue or intelligence) • The duty not to harm others (not to injure others or to make them undeservedly worse off)

-What is the relationship between (a) the function of man and (b) what is good for man?

• The function of man is "an activity of soul that follows or implies a rational principle." • The good for man is to carry out or perform well the activity of the rational part of the soul. • A good man carries out or performs well the activity of the rational part of the soul.

-What is the 'picture of rationality' Lindemann associated with these approaches?

• The idea moral agent is a rational agent: the moral agent acts rationally when making moral judgments. • Abstract reasoning is emphasized. • Morality and Rationality are regarded as intimately connected.

- Under what circumstances does Kitcher think the Case of The Dying Child would be an instance of morally impermissible cloning? Why would it be impermissible under these circumstances?

• The parents have no desire for another kid and would be delighted to find another donor if they could. • In this case, the cloned brother is being used as an instrument - he is being used for his organ to achieve the parents' goal (save their other son) without regard for him.

-Under what circumstances does Kitcher think the Case of The Dying Child could be an instance of morally permissible cloning? Why might it be permissible under these circumstances?

• The parents want another child anyways and are committed to loving him for his own sake. • In this case, although they might be using the child as a means, this may be compatible with concern for the cloned child's own well-being.

-How does Alex Kahn understand Kant's Formula of the End in Itself?

• The principle demands that an individual - and I would extend this to read human life - should never be thought as a means, but always as an end.

-What two problems to the FLN formulation of the Categorical Imperative does Glasgow discuss?

• The problem of false negatives. o E.g. Suppose you like to collect trains (but not trade) model trains. Universalizing the relevant maxims seems to yield a contradiction. That implies - implausibly - that it is morally wrong to collect trains. • The problem of relevant descriptions: o There seems to be a no non-arbitrary way to determine how I should state or describe my proposed maxim. This is a problem because how I state or describe my maxim makes a difference to whether or not it passes Kant's tests.

-Into what parts is the rational soul divided?

• The rational soul has two parts: - A part that engages in reasoning: Theoretical reasoning versus practical reasoning. - A part that is capable of following reasoning, but does not engage in it. Our dispositions or character traits are capable of being molded by free actions (by choice) and so are, in a sense, capable of following reason.

-What is the case of the two secret servicemen?

• The two secret service guards of president see that a person pulls out the gun and aims at the president. Each guard is standing at the same distance from the president, one on the right and one on the left. Both dive to save the life of president. One of the guard trips and fall when vice president tries to stretch his legs, but the other guard saves the life of the president. In this case, both agents have goodwill even though one succeeded and one failed.

-For Kant the only thing that is good in itself, or that has unconditional value, is a good will. What is a good will (what is a will? what makes a will good? when is it good?).

• The will is the faculty of mind we use when we make plans and decisions, adopt policies or rules or set ends (or goals for ourselves). • The will is not to be confused with temperament or talents of the mind. • A good will is a will that acts from duty. • Only a good will is intrinsically or unconditionally good. • A will is good when it chooses to do what the moral law requires and does so out of respect for the moral law. • A will is good if and only if it chooses to do what the categorical imperative (moral law) commands and chooses to do so because the categorical imperative commands it.

-What is the difference between therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning?

• Therapeutic cloning is used for research therapy. o Embryos are never transferred to the womb. o Used to extract stem-cells o Potential to replace diseased cells or organs o Reduces chance of rejection in transplants • Reproductive cloning is used to create full-grown human adults. o The cloned embryo would be transferred to the womb and then develop like any other embryo.

-What do these cases have in common?

• They involve prospective parents who are properly focused on the quality of human lives (i.e. not interfere with the plan of life. • Cloning is the only option for the paretns.

-How does this case help show that Kant denies that the consequences of an action are relevant to its moral status?

• This case shows that even though that even though one serviceman failed to save the president, his actions still shows that he has goodwill, just as the serviceman who succeeded to save the president's life. • Both their actions show goodwill. Therefore, by providing this example, Kant shows that the consequence of an action does not necessarily determine the moral status of that action.

-Why does Louden believe that virtue theory is not very helpful when it comes to doing applied ethics?

• This is a reason to think that an adequate moral theory ought to focus on acts more than virtue ethics does

Why does Harris reject the fourth objection i.e. that cloning is wrong because it will reduce genetic variability?

• This is only a danger if too much cloning were to take place. We could limit its use without banning it entirely. • Can we object to limited use because it would undermine genetic variety • No, after all, that would suggest that we ought to prevent identical twins from naturally coming about (which is absurd).

-What does O'Neill mean when she says that we act in a morally permissible manner towards a person "when the person could in principle consent to the maxim on which the act is performed"?

• This means that it is morally permissible for us to use a person as a means if that person knows that we are using him or her to for a particular goal or plan. It follows that the person has the opportunity to go along with our plan or refuse to go with our plan. o E.g. The cashier in the store sells you the gum. He chose to work there (we suppose). He agreed to sell goods to whoever comes in the store with the required cash.

-According to Thompson, why does the innocent violinist's right to life not trump the mother's right to choose?

• Thompson's answer: the right to life does NOT include a right to use someone else's body to keep you alive. You never granted the Violinist a right to use your body to stay alive. Thompson offers the henry fonda case in which "If I am sick unto death, and the only thing that will save my life is the touch of Henry Fonda's cool hand on my fevered brow. then all the same, I have no right to be given the touch of Henry Fonda's cool hand on my fevered brow. It would be frightfully nice of him to fly in from the West Coast to provide it. It would be less nice, though no doubt well meant, if my friends flew out to the West coast and brought Henry Fonda back with them. But I have no right at all against anybody that he should do this for me. For nobody has any right to use your kidneys unless you give him this right--if you do allow him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part, and not something he can claim from you as his due. Nor has he any right against anybody else that they should give him continued use of your kidneys." The right to life is NOT a right not to be killed. It is rather a right not to be killed unjustly.

-Is the intermediate (or mean) disposition consistent with feeling/displaying strong emotions?

• To have the intermediate disposition is consistent with having strong emotions. Hence, is NOT a matter of always having mild or moderate feelings

-What does it mean to treat someone 'as an end' or 'as an end in him/herself'?

• To treat others as 'ends in themselves' we must not only avoid using them as mere means, but we must also treat them as rational and autonomous beings with their own maxims. • We allow them to choose whether to endorse how we plan to use them, i.e. we use them as means but not as mere means. • Treating someone as an end means respecting his or her choice, i.e. ensuring that he or she are able to act as autonomous beings (freely and self-governing).

-What does it mean to treat someone 'simply as a means' or as a 'mere means'?

• Treating someone 'simply as a means' or as a 'mere means' refers to using a person to achieve our goal without his or her consent to be a part of our plans. If he or she does not consent, then we use them as a means but not treat them as ends. o Deception - consent is impossible because the real nature of the act is hidden from the other person You promise Kane you will repay a loan, but you know you can't. Jane cannot consent because she doesn't know what is going on. She can't agree to what you're doing because she doesn't know what you are really doing. You don't give her chance to assent (or dissent) to your actual plan. o Coercion - forcing someone to do what you want them to do. The other person is unable to assent or dissent, i.e. even though the nature of the person's plan for them (and its associated maxim) may be very clear, they have no option but to consent. Physical coercion - physically forcing someone to do something - Bob is bundled into a police car Threats - offers where the alternative is a grave loss or injury Exploitation - imposing unfair conditions on the basis of unequal power

-How might we relate this objection (see the previous question) to the Formula of the End in Itself?

• Trying to 'create a particular person,' trying to 'impose standards of what mattes in life from without' objectionably interfere with that person's autonomy • It thereby seems to involve using someone as a mere means • Imposing a plan of life on someone clearly interferes with their choosing a plan of life for themselves. Choosing a plan of life for ourselves is one important way in which our capacity for self-government manifests itself.

In what three ways does Ross' theory differ from Act-Utilitarianism?

• Utilitarian duties are impersonal; many of Ross's duties are personal. o Impersonal duties: duties toward no one in particular. o Personal duties: duties only toward particular person(s). • All utilitarian duties are forward-looking, while some of Ross's duties are backward-looking. o Forward-looking: to ascertain the right act, you need to look to the future. o Backward-looking: to ascertain the right act, you need to look to the past. • For utilitarianism, harming and failing to benefit are morally equal; for Ross the duty not to harm is much stronger than the duty to help other people.

-What is the difference between Value Monism and Value Pluralism?

• Value Monism: Only one type of thing has value. o E.g. Utilitarianism: Only happiness has value. • Value Pluralism: More than one type of thing has value. o E.g. Aristotle: friendship, honor, pleasure, happiness, wisdom, courage, etc. have value o W.D. Ross

-Does value pluralism primarily concerned with whether there is more than one type of extrinsic value, or with whether there is more than one type of intrinsic value?

• Value pluralism is primarily concerned with more than one type of intrinsic value. o More than one type of thing is intrinsically valuable.

-What objections to Kitcher's discussion of Reproductive Cloning did I make in lecture?

• Violates FEI • Cloning violates a right to an open future • Cloning threatens the security of genetic material • Cloning will reduce genetic variability • Eugenics • Genetic identity • Repugnance

What is the difference between acting from duty (i.e. the act is done from duty) and acting in accordance with duty?

• What you do versus why you do it • To act in accordance with duty is to do an act required by the moral law. On the other hand, to act from duty is to do an act in which the motive or intention behind that particular act is respect for the moral law. • Acting in accordance with duty: doing what the categorical imperative (moral law) commands you to do • Acting from duty: acting on the basis of the categorical imperative, i.e. your motive is to do the act because the categorical tells you to do it

-In what circumstances does Hursthouse believe that it would NOT be morally vicious to have an abortion? Why does she believe that it would NOT be morally vicious to abort in those circumstances?

• When pregnancy, childbearing, or childrearing will conflict with the woman's physical health or physically demanding job, her seeking an abortion cannot be described as self-indulgent, callous, or irresponsible—as showing a lack of serious respect for human life or motherhood. • What this shows is rather that something is very wrong with the woman's life "which makes it so hard to recognize pregnancy and childbearing as the good that they can be." (601) • That is, there is something that seriously restricts her from living her life well.

-Why is O'Neill's interpretation of the Formula of the End in Itself imply that blood transfusions are morally permissible?

• Whether the person can in principle consent to being a means to your goals is the key to whether you violate FEI. • On O'neill's interpretation - blood transfusion would not violate FEI • You don't need to know or care about the donor of the blood. • What matters is that the donor chose to give the blood, knowing what it would be used for.

-If you have a prima facie duty to keep your promises, but you have an all-things-considered duty that involves telling the truth (and so breaking a promise), would it nonetheless be appropriate to apologize for breaking the duty to keep your promise?

• Yes. • You have a PF duty to keep your promises and a PF to tell the truth. But you cannot act according to both duties. • Suppose the duty to tell the truth is stronger than the duty to keep your promises. Then your ATC duty is to tell the truth. • Even so, it is appropriate (a) to feel regret about breaking your promise, and (b) to apologize to your roommate.

-Give examples of treating someone as both a means and as an end in herself?

• You ask your friend if you can borrow his notebook because you missed the class today. You let him know that you are copying his notes so that you can study them. You give him the choice to accept or deny your request. • You borrow money from your sister so that you can buy a new pair of shoes. You tell her that you can pay her in a month after you get your paycheck. You give your sister a choice whether to accept or deny your request.