PHI 325 Midterm Review
In those U.S. states that allow physician-assisted suicide (PAS), how many physicians do they typically require to approve the patient's request?
2
Match the facts of the case with the person (Elizabeth Bouvia or Dax Cowart) - Great Pain from cerebral palsy - Became an attorney - Dunked in chlorinated baths - Requested removal of feeding tube - Severely Burned
- Great Pain from cerebral palsy = Elizabeth Bouvia - Became an attorney = Dax Cowart - Dunked in chlorinated baths = Dax Cowart - Requested removal of feeding tube = Elizabeth Bouvia - Severely Burned = Dax Cowart
Warren argues that since the fetus meets none of the criteria for being a person, abortion is therefore always morally permissible.What is Warren assuming in making this argument? A. That one day before birth a fetus becomes a person. B. That there is a single criterion for determining whether the fetus is a person. C. That the fetus' personhood status is relevant to the question of the morality of abortion. D. That human embryos have the moral rights of persons. E. None of the above.
C. That the fetus' personhood status is relevant to the question of the morality of abortion.
In discussing the ethics of suicide, Kant states that "we see at once that a system of nature of which it should be a law to destroy life by means of the very feeling whose special nature it is to impel to the improvement of life would contradict itself, and therefore could not exist as a system of nature..." What is the most accurate way to characterize the conclusion in the argument above? A.The intention to commit suicide makes everyone unhappy. B. The intention to commit suicide creates a moral dilemma. C. The intention to commit suicide creates a contradiction in conception. D. The intention to commit suicide creates a contradiction in will. E. The intention to commit suicide creates a contradiction in humanity.
C. The intention to commit suicide creates a contradiction in conception. Yes, and here is an explanation: In saying that a moral law permitting suicide could not exist as a "system of nature" Kant means that such a system is inherently self-contradictory; since the motivation to commit suicide is generated by the intention to improve oneself, but one cannot improve oneself by committing suicide, there is a contradiction in the conception of such an intention or maxim.
In assessing whether we are morally obligated to help someone in need of charity, Kant suggests that a universal law could exist in accordance with this principle or maxim: "I will take nothing from him nor even envy him, only I do not wish to contribute anything to his welfare or to his assistance in distress." Yet, Kant contends that we should not accept this maxim. What is the best explanation of why we should not accept it, according to Kant? A. The maxim represents a selfish perspective. B. The maxim leads to a contradiction in conception. C. The maxim leads to a contradiction in will. D. The maxim leads to a contradiction with our own interests.
C. The maxim leads to a contradiction in will. Although the maxim specified in the passage does not involve a contradiction in conception, it does involve a condtradiction in will (one cannot honestly will that no one ever help others). Any maxim should be rejected if it leads to either a contradiction in will or a contradiction in conception.
The harm principle applies to A. omissions only. B. actions only. C. both actions and omissions. D. euthanasia only. E. neither actions nor omissions.
C. both actions and omissions.
According to the selection you read from Kant, what is the only intrinsically good thing in the world?
a good will
What is a slippery slope argument? How can one effectively respond to a slipper slope argument?
A slippery slope argument claims that an initial action, A, will lead to a series of intermediate consequences (which may be non-objectionable) --- B, C, etc. --- which will ultimately result in some disastrous or morally objectionable consequence, D. Therefore, do not allow A. For example, allowing one nation to remain communist (North Vietnam) will eventually lead to neighboring nations becoming communist, and ultimately all nations (or an unacceptable number) will become communist. One should respond to a slippery slope argument by trying to show that the slide towards D will not occur (because, for example, B and C can be prevented). [Extra note: if the arguer does not give adequate justification for the slide to D occurring, then he or she commits the slippery slope fallacy; a slippery slope argument is not necessarily fallacious, although often times they are, especially in politics.]
How does the Valuable Future Theory not rely on the concept of a person? A. Because it holds that some entity could, in principle, have a valuable future even though it is not a person. B. Because it holds that some persons do not have valuable futures. C. Because it holds that dolphins and chimpanzees are persons. D. Because it holds that fetuses are not persons. E. Because it holds that personhood is exclusively a theological concept and, therefore irrelevant to social and moral questions.
A. Because it holds that some entity could, in principle, have a valuable future even though it is not a person. Marquis' VFT does not rely on the concept of a person because there may be some entities that turn out to be non-persons, like some animals or alien creatures, that nonetheless have valuable futures because they have 'futures like ours' filled with experiences, enjoyments, activities, etc. like ours. Also, fetuses may in fact NOT be persons (and Marquis does not want to assume it is), yet they do have valuable futures (at least typically); their potential for this valuable future, just like our potential for our valuable future, makes killing wrong.
According to the "human fetus argument' for the conservative view on abortion, the fact that a fetus is genetically human implies that the fetus has a right to life and therefore abortion should not be done. What assumption does this argument make that makes it ineffective in establishing its conclusion? A. It assumes that the fetus having human genetics implies that it is a human person. B. It assumes that the fetus having human genetics implies that it is a human adult. C. It assumes that human embryos have human genetics. D. It assumes that human genetics has nothing to do with being a person.
A. It assumes that the fetus having human genetics implies that it is a human person. The human fetus argument, as discussed on the handout analyzing various common abortion arguments, equivocates in its use of the term "human", first using it to mean genetically human and then to mean human person.
In the documentary, "Living Old," it is suggested by some individuals that they wish to have the right to end their life by voluntary active euthanasia. One physician states he does not know if he would ever exercise this right, but that he definitely wants it available. Which moral principle below most directly and explicitly supports the idea that people have a moral right to voluntary active euthanasia (or physician-assisted suicide)? A. The harm principle. B. The principle of paternalism. C. The principle of least harm. D. The principle of utility. E. The offense principle.
A. The harm principle.
The establishment of the so-called "God Committee" is one event that was critical in the development of bioethics as a distinct field of inquiry. A. True B. False
A. True
The ethics of abortion is important because it raises questions about the nature of life and persons, the right to liberty versus the right to life, the responsibilities of physicians, and other issues. A. True B. False
A. True
What is wrong with lying, according to Kant's moral theory, is that when you form the maxim that permits you to tell a lie, you are willing that there exists a universal law that is inherently contradictory: you are holding, essentially, that it is okay to attempt to deceive the person you lie to, while also holding that it is impossible for you to deceive the person you are lying to. A. True B. False
A. True Right. The contradiction is: attempting to deceive (that is, lying), but deception is impossible (that is, not lying). Since a contradiction is irrational, and being moral requires being rational, one should not lie.
Suppose that one objects to the Moral Symmetry Principle by saying that positive duties are more important than negative duties. True or false: Tooley responds to this objection by emphasizing that when motives/intentions are the same in two actions, then there is no difference between them even though in one you do something positive while in the other you refrain from doing something. [You can assume the results of the two actions are the same too.] A. True B. False
A. True This issue is addressed in section V of his essay and on my corresponding handout. On the handout, interpreting Tooley, I say "When motivation and outcome are the same in two cases, there is no morally relevant difference in doing v. allowing, or acting v. refraining to act, or purposefully killing X v. purposefully disallowing X's existence." Intentionally doing something to hurt x and intentionally allowing x to be hurt are morally the same (if the results are the same). That is, positive actions (doing something) and negative actions (allowing something) are equally morally serious, if all other factors are equal. Compare Rachels from Unit 2.
If Mill's Harm Principle is true, then what does it necessarily imply about the morality of abortion? A. Whether abortion is permissible or impermissible depends on whether it causes harm to others. B. Whether abortion is permissible or impermissible depends on whether one's culture allows abortion. C. Whether abortion is permissible or impermissible depends on whether it has duties to the mother. D. Abortion is never permissible, because abortion is always an other-regarding act. E. Abortion is always permissible, because abortion is always a self-regarding act.
A. Whether abortion is permissible or impermissible depends on whether it causes harm to others. The Harm Principle alone does not say specifically what are all the actions that cause harm and are therefore other-regarding. And it does not say what are all the actions that are self-regarding. Whether, it is a general rule that needs to be carefully applied, and so it might be that some abortions (very early abortions) do not cause harm and thus are self-regarding, while later-term abortions do cause harm and thus are other-regarding.
Doing moral reasoning, or presenting arguments concerning ethical issues, involves both trying to get straight about the facts of the situation or issue and offering some moral rule or principle that illuminates those facts. A. true B. false
A. true
Tooley argues for distinguishing between A. "human being" and "fetus". B. "human being" and "person". C. "human being" and "member of the human race". D. "person" and " having a serious right to life".
B. "human being" and "person". On the "Tooley on abortion" handout (section 2.a.), I quote Tooley as saying: "I shall treat the concept of a person as a purely moral concept, free of all descriptive content. Specifically, in my usage the sentence 'X is a person' will be synonymous with the sentence 'X has a (serious) moral right to life' " (section II). If person = having a serious right to life, this rules out the answer "distinguishing between 'person' and 'having a serious right to life' ". According to Tooley, not all human beings (a descriptive concept) are persons (a moral concept). Human must possess a self-concept) to be considered persons or entities with a serious moral right to life.
Which of the following most accurately presents the steps used in applying the Universal Law formulation of the Categorical Imperative? A. 1. Form the maxim, 2. Universalize the maxim, 3. Imagine humanity's reaction to the maxim B. 1. Form the maxim, 2. Universalize the maxim, 3. Look for contradictions C. 1. Form a contradiction, 2. Derive a maxim from the contradiction, 3. Universalize the maxim D. 1. Form the maxim, 2. Survey humanity's intuitions about the maxim, 3. Decide on the universal law E. 1. Form the maxim, 2. Universalize the maxim, 3. Look only for a contradiction in conception
B. 1. Form the maxim, 2. Universalize the maxim, 3. Look for contradictions
Let's suppose that action A1 produces 20 units of happiness and action A2 produces 15 units of happiness. Also, suppose that A1 has a .5 probability (i.e., 50% probability) of occurring and A2 has a .6 probability (i.e., 60% probability) of occurring. If we calculate the expected utility of these actions, which action would be recommended (assuming all other factors are equal)? A. Do whichever action your culture approves. B. A1 C. Neither action is recommended. D. A1 and A2 are equally recommended. E. A2
B. A1 Utility A1 = .5(20) = 10Utility A2 = .6(15) = 9 Therefore: do A1. Even though A2 is a little more likely to occur, A1 has a greater possible payout or expected utility.
Suppose every competent, conscious patient with a fatal disease has the moral right to end their life-sustaining treatment (that is, they have the right to refuse further medicines or technologies that keep them alive). Suppose further that there is no moral distinction between killing and letting die (that is, suppose that Rachels is right). Given these suppositions, which of the following statements is most accurate? (Ignore the role of the physician in this question: just focus on the rights of the patient.) A. Although every patient has a moral right to passive euthanasia, given the suppositions, they don't have the moral right to active euthanasia. B. Every competent, conscious patient, besides the moral right to end life-sustaining treatment, also has a moral right to active euthanasia. C. Every competent, conscious patient, besides the moral right to end life-sustaining treatment, also has a moral right to a substituted judgment. D. Both A and B. E. All of the above.
B. Every competent, conscious patient, besides the moral right to end life-sustaining treatment, also has a moral right to active euthanasia. Good job. If the killing/letting distinction is no good (as the cases of Smith and Jones, due to Rachels, tried to show), then there is no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia. So if a (competent, conscious) patient has a right to passive euthanasia (ending life-sustaining treatment), then this implies the (competent, conscious) patient has a right to active euthanasia as well.
A passage needs at least three statements (i.e., units of a passage that can be true or false) to be an argument. A. True B. False
B. False
Both the moral theories of cultural relativism and utilitarianism hold that right actions are based on maximizing happiness for one's culture. A. True B. False
B. False
True or False: The argument below is valid. (P1) If embryos are sentient, then they have moral rights. (P2) Embryos do have moral rights. (C1) Hence, embryos are sentient. A. True B. False
B. False
True or False: The following argument is valid. "If genetic engineering is permissible, then we should take steps to improve the human race. And we should take steps to improve the human race. So genetic engineering is permissible." A. True B. False
B. False
The available scientific evidence suggests that races (i.e., racial kinds) are natural or biological kinds. That is, 'race' is determined primarily by genetics, not by social factors such as culture and social hierarchy. A. True B. False
B. False Dr. Tsai summarizes the situation as follows: "Genetic variation across geographic loci is continuous—like a color spectrum or gradient— though medical literature often communicates race as immutable—like clearly separated colors. Research demonstrates that genetic differences are higher within racial groups than between racial groups—that two black patients sitting in the waiting room will have less genetic overlap with each other than with their white, Asian, or Hispanic neighbors." This strongly suggests that race is not primarily determined by genetic factors.
The Valuable Future Theory, as discussed by Marquis, excludes the possibility that some non-human animals may also have valuable futures that give them rights. A. True B. False
B. False Marquis' VFT implies that any entity (human or not) that has a 'future like ours' also has a right to that future--that is, that it would be wrong to kill it. So, VFT does not exclude the possibility that non-human animals may have valuable futures giving them rights.
Mill's proof of the principle of utility relies on the observation that people desire love. A. True B. False
B. False Mill's proof relies on the observation that we desire happiness, not love (although love can produce happiness).
According to Tooley's view, in order for an entity to have a right to not be tortured in the process of medical experimentation, the entity needs to have a self-concept. A. True B. False
B. False The statement is not true because on Tooley's theory if something can feel pain, that alone gives it right to not be tortured (e.g., a kitten has a right to not be tortured), but feeling pain does not require a self-concept. (In order to have a serious 'right to life', however, the kitten would need a self-concept.).
Marquis' strategy in arguing that abortion is immoral is to identify the particular feature of fetuses that makes it wrong to kill them, whether or not this particular feature is what makes killing adults and children wrong. A. True B. False
B. False This is false, because Marquis' strategy is to identify in general what makes killing adults wrong.
The point of Thomson's hypothetical story of a child growing without limit in your house, in which you have no escape so that the child will eventually crush you to death, is to demonstrate that you are morally obligated to defend your life (i.e., kill the child) even if others (third parties) aren't allowed to help you. A. True B. False
B. False Thomson uses this story to try to prove that we should not base our judgments about the morality of abortion (at least not in all cases) on what third parties (e.g., doctors) are or are not allowed to do. You have a right to self-defense if the fetus' growth will likely kill you, Thomson claims. However, you are not morally obligated to defend yourself and kill the growing child.
According to Utilitarianism, whether an action is right or wrong depends entirely on how much happiness it produces for those people that believe Utilitarianism is correct. A. True B. False
B. False Whether an action is right, according to Utilitarianism, has nothing to do with what people believe about morality. What matters, and the only thing that matters, is producing maximum happiness. The key is that the question says "entirely". The right action does not depend entirely on how much happiness it produces for those people that believe the principle of Utility is true. Right action depends entirely on how much happiness it produces, period. The way it is stated in the question makes the "for those..." clause part of the conditions of happiness, which makes the answer "false."
Both the moral theories of cultural relativism and utilitarianism postulate that the same moral rules hold true for all cultures. A. True B. False
B. False Yes, cultural relativism says moral truths are relative to cultures, where utilitarianism is a universal (culturally universal) theory of moral truth.
To what purpose does Rachels use the cases of Smith and Jones? A. He uses the cases to show that killing is morally better than letting die. B. He uses the cases to show that killing and letting die are morally equivalent. C. He uses the cases to show that letting die is morally better than killing. D. He uses the cases to show that whether letting die or killing is morally better essentially depends on the cultures of Smith and Jones.
B. He uses the cases to show that killing and letting die are morally equivalent.
Which of the following is a moral duty, according to Kant's moral theory? A. Do not commit suicide unless it would maximize happiness for everyone. B. Help others sometimes. C. Improve yourself by violating the autonomy of other persons. D. Do not lie unless it would save an innocent life.
B. Help others sometimes. Good work. The answer is "Help others sometimes" because although you are obligated towards charity (broadly conceived), including helping others, you don't have to do so at all times; you can choose when and how to carry it out, hence the "sometimes". Positive duties are like this (you must give to charity, you must improve yourself, you must do your job, etc., all involve a degree of flexibility in how and when you carry them out), whereas negative duties (do not lie, do not steal, etc., generally hold all the time...although plausibly there are exceptions for special circumstances).
According to the Moral Symmetry Principle (as advanced by Tooley) which of the following is most accurate? (Let A be an action that can start C, where C is a causal process that will lead to an entity, E, with a serious right to life; B is an action that can stop C, once C has started, thus preventing E from coming into existence.) A. Not doing A and not doing B are morally equivalent provided that the intentions are the same for both actions. B. Not doing A and doing B are morally equivalent provided that the intentions are the same for both actions. C. Not doing A and doing B are morally equivalent provided that theological principles support both possibilities. D. Trying to bring E into existence by doing A and trying to make C more efficient are morally equivalent. E. Not doing A and doing B are morally equivalent provided that the character of the agent doing the action is good.
B. Not doing A and doing B are morally equivalent provided that the intentions are the same for both actions.
Why does Mill distinguish between "higher" (intellectual) pleasures and "lower" (bodily) pleasures? A. Because Socrates identified these two kinds of pleasures. B. Otherwise a pig could theoretically be just as happy as a human. C. Because Mill's mentor, Bentham, had also accepted the distinction. D. None of the above. E. Both A and B.
B. Otherwise a pig could theoretically be just as happy as a human.
Which of these concepts is most plausibly both vague and complex? A. The concept of red. B. The concept of a chair. C. The concept of blue. D. The concept of a triangle. E. The concept of a square.
B. The concept of a chair.
The aim of a moral theory is to specify what? Question 2Select one: A. What the nature of reality is. B. What makes an action right (or wrong) C. How beliefs about reality are justified. D. Why people disagree about controversial moral issues. E. To specify which religion is true.
B. What makes an action right (or wrong)
In her article "What role should race play in medicine?" Dr. Tsai's main thesis about race is that A. race should be eliminated from medical decision-making altogether. B. race should be treated as a marker of potential risk based on socioeconomic and environmental factors. C. judgments about a patient's race are entirely subjective. D. race is a social construct. E. race innately determines risk factors for various medical outcomes.
B. race should be treated as a marker of potential risk based on socioeconomic and environmental factors. Tsai argues that "Race should not be used as a proxy for genetics, ancestry, culture or behavior, but it is meaningful within the context of inequality. Race is enhanced as a descriptor when it is mobilized as a marker of potential risks drawn from external inequities and assumptions, rather than as a risk factor that is innately responsible for poorer health outcomes." In sum, race is a marker of potential risks grounded mainly in social conditions.
Tooley suggests that infanticide is important to discuss when thinking about the morality of abortion. Why? A. It forces one to consult one's emotional reactions about infanticide and thus to better reason from taboo. B. It forces one to take Kant's point of view that some actions are impermissible no matter what. C. It forces one to specify, even more so than when considering abortion, the exact nature of persons. D. None of the choices are accurate.
C. It forces one to specify, even more so than when considering abortion, the exact nature of persons.
Suppose that a murderer, M, comes to the door of Jack's house. M asks Jack if Sasha (who fears M wants to kill her) is hiding in Jack's house. Suppose Sasha is, in fact, hiding in Jack's house.According to Kant's Categorical Imperative (Universal Law formulation), Jack should A. do what a virtuous person would do, which is to lie to M about Sasha's whereabouts. B. tell the truth about Sasha's whereabouts. C. lie or tell the truth to M about Sasha's whereabouts, depending on the consequences of the action. D. do what a utilitarian ethicist would do: maximize pleasure and minimize pain. E. lie about Sasha's whereabouts, if doing so benefits Jack.
B. tell the truth about Sasha's whereabouts. According to Kant's Categorical Imperative, lying is always wrong (at least, it is always wrong in morally significant situations; he seems to make exceptions for 'white lies' intended to protect someone's feelings, and similar situations). The reason lying is wrong, according to the Universal Law formulation, is that if you lie it leads to a contradiction when universalized. If there is a universal maxim to "lie in situation x" then no one you lie to in situation x will ever believe your lie: it would be impossible to deceive anyone, for they too would know that lying is a universal law. So, you'd be attempting to lie (deceive), yet deception would not be possible. For these reasons, Sasha should not lie; therefore, she should tell the truth.
The SCOTUS ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey modified the ruling in Roe v. Wade (although both were later overturned in Dobbs v. Jackson's Women's Health Organization). Choose the statement that most accurately summarizes the differences between the two rulings that generally favored the pro-choice position. A. Casey strengthened the rights of physicians to perform abortions without legal repercussions. B. Casey resulted in no significant legal differences compared to Roe. C. Casey weakened women's abortion rights relative to states' regulatory power. D. Casey overturned Roe. E. Casey strengthened women's abortion rights relative to states' regulatory power.
C. Casey weakened women's abortion rights relative to states' regulatory power. As stated in the overview of key abortion rulings provided by the Pew Research Center: "Casey appeared to accommodate both sides in the abortion debate. By partially dismantling the three-tiered framework and creating the less rigorous undue burden standard for determining the constitutionality of abortion regulations, the high court gave states greater latitude to regulate abortion before the point of fetal viability. Indeed, in Casey the court applied the less rigorous undue burden standard to the Pennsylvania laws and, with the exception of the spousal-consent requirement, found all to be constitutional" (bold not in original).
Which of the following is not a desirable quality of a good deductive argument? A. Uncontroversial premises B. Valid C. Dogmatic premises D. Plausible premises E. Clear
C. Dogmatic premises
Suppose that someone objects to Utilitarianism by arguing that it is too degrading to humans, because it allows, in principle, that a pig's life could possibly contain more happiness than a human's life. Which of the following most accurately captures the essence of Mill's response to this objection? A. Socrates was better off than a pig. B. The objection overlooks that a human life typically contains much more total happiness than a pig's life. C. Humans, unlike pigs, are capable of a higher, intellectual type of pleasure. D. Although pigs are capable of all the same types of pleasures as humans, humans are more competent judges of which life is better. E. Non-human animals are not capable of feeling pleasure.
C. Humans, unlike pigs, are capable of a higher, intellectual type of pleasure. Yes, Mill distinguishes between higher (intellectual) and lower (bodily) pleasures, unlike prior views of Utilitarianism (such as the view due to Bentham) which made no such distinction. Given the distinction--which has been challenged and I address on the handout concerning Utilitarianism--Mill contends that humans are capable of higher pleasures, thus the theory is not 'too degrading' to humans.
What kind of surgical procedure did Dr. Edelin use to complete the abortion in 1973 that he was convicted for in 1975? A. Saline injection. B. Mifepristone (a medication that causes abortion). C. Hysterectomy. D. Dilation and evacuation (a "D&E"). E. Vacuum aspiration.
C. Hysterectomy. The New York Times article recounting the Edelin case states that "The abortion, which took place in 1973, began as a routine procedure: the injection of a saline solution that usually causes uterine contractions and the expulsion of the fetus. But several tries were unsuccessful, and Dr. Edelin completed the abortion by a surgical procedure known as a hysterotomy — making a small incision in the uterus and detaching the fetus from the placental wall by hand." All the other answers, except "saline injection," are medically accepted methods of abortion used for different circumstances.
Which of the following actions would a utilitarian recommend as morally right? A. Action 1, which creates 200 units of pleasure and 120 units of pain B. Action 5, which creates 500 units of pleasure and 499 units of pain C. Action 3, which creates 100 units of pleasure and 10 units of pain D. Action 2, which creates 300 units of pleasure and 150 units of pain E. Action 4, which creates 500 units of pleasure and 500 units of pain
D. Action 2, which creates 300 units of pleasure and 150 units of pain Action 2 is morally required according to utilitarianism. This is because action 2 generates the greatest net happiness. Considering the pleasures and the pains, we get the following equation: 300 units of pleasure - 150 units of pain = 150 units of pleasure 150 is greater than the total pleasure created by any of the other actions.
Which statement correctly identifies an implication of Cultural Relativism? (Suppose that Cultural Relativism is the true moral theory.) A. There are no universal moral truths. B. A single culture's moral beliefs about some action, A, can vary over time—holding that A is permissible at one time and that A is impermissible at a later time—and yet their beliefs about A are always true. C. For any two cultures, the sincere moral opinions of one will be true while the other's sincere moral opinions will be false. D. Both A and B. E. None of the above.
D. Both A and B.
Which is the major error in reasoning in the argument below? (Choose the clearest answer.) "In the abortion debate, we can argue for the pro-life position by focusing on the fact that an embryo is biologically human; for example, normal embryos have 46 chromosomes and are genetically human. From these facts, it follows that the embryo has the moral rights of a human." A. It's self-contradictory. B. Begging the question. C. False analogy. D. Equivocation (ambiguity). E. Hasty generalization.
D. Equivocation (ambiguity).
The Valuable Future Theory, as discussed by Don Marquis, requires that which of the following claims is true? A. It is morally permissible to give expectant mothers a right to abort their fetuses in some cases, because the futures of expectant mothers are always more valuable than that of their fetuses. B. It is morally wrong to abort human fetuses, but it is morally permissible to use as many human embryos in medical research (thereby destroying them) as we need to use in order to maximize the value in the futures of the majority of human beings. C. It is morally wrong to abort human embryos only if the culture in which the action takes place believes that it is morally wrong to abort human embryos. D. None of these choices accurately identify requirements of VFT.
D. None of these choices accurately identify requirements of VFT. - According to VFT, embryos have a valuable future just like fetuses. - VFT says nothing about whether a mother's future is more valuable (besides, in non-life-threatening pregnancies, the choice isn't between which of two valuable futures should be chosen). - VFT neither requires nor implies anything about cultural relativism; it presents an objective, universal claim about the morality of abortion.
Kant argues that a person, "who is in prosperity, while he sees that others have to contend with great wretchedness and that he could help them, thinks: What concern is it of mine? Let everyone be as happy as Heaven pleases, or as he can make himself; I will take nothing from him nor even envy him, only I do not wish to contribute anything to his welfare or to his assistance in distress. Now no doubt if such a mode of thinking were a universal law, the human race might very well subsist, and doubtless even better than in a state in which everyone talks of sympathy and good-will, or even takes care occasionally to put it into practice, but, on the other side, also cheats when he can, betrays the rights of men, or otherwise violates them. But although it is possible that a universal law of nature might exist in accordance with that maxim, it is impossible to will that such a principle should have the universal validity of a law of nature. For a will which resolved this would contradict itself, inasmuch as many cases might occur in which one would have need of the love and sympathy of others, and in which, by such a law of nature, sprung from his own will, he would deprive himself of all ho
D. That charity is justified by the Categorical Imperative. See the assigned selection from Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
In the following analysis, Marquis is contrasting two accounts of the wrongness of killing. Which two are these? "The symmetry fades, however, when we focus on the time period of the value of the experiences, etc., which has moral consequences. Although both accounts leave open the possibility that the patient in our example may be killed, this possibility is left open only in virtue of the utterly bleak future for the patient. It makes no difference whether the patient's immediate past contains intolerable pain, or consists in being in a coma (which we can imagine is a situation of indifference), or consists in a life of value. If the patient's future is a future of value, we want our account to make it wrong to kill the patient. If the patient's future is intolerable, whatever his or her immediate past, we want our account to allow killing the patient. Obviously, then, it is the value of that patient's future which is doing the work in rendering the morality of killing the patient intelligible." A. The desire account and the future-like-ours account. B. The future-like-ours account and the utilitarian account. C. The Hippocratic account and the future-like-ours account. D. The discon
D. The discontinuation account and the future-like-ours account. One clue that the discontinuation account is being contrasted with the future-like-ours account is the contrast between "the patient's future" and "his or her immediate past."This passage and surrounding context can be found in Marquis's article "Why Abortion is Immoral."
Which of the following conditions need to be satisfied in order for any of your actions to be protected by the sphere of liberty generated by the Harm Principle? A. You must be well-informed about the nature of the action and its possible results. B. You must choose the action voluntarily. C. You must choose the action without being coerced. D. A and B must be satisfied. E. A, B, and C need to be satisfied.
E. A, B, and C need to be satisfied.
Which of these is a thought experiment or analogy discussed by Thomson in her famous essay "A Defense of Abortion"? A. The Good Samaritan analogy. B. The Famous Violinist. C. The Trolley Problem. D. All of the above. E. Both A and B.
E. Both A and B.
Which of the following statements accurately describe a consequence or implication of cultural relativism? A. Over time, contradictions can arise in the beliefs of a single culture. B. The same level of pain in two people, from two different cultures, counts as equally morally bad. C. Any contradictory beliefs between different cultures are equally true. D. As any culture evolves, its moral beliefs get closer to universal moral truths (true for all cultures). E. Both A and C.
E. Both A and C.
Why does Warren think actual personhood is more important than potential personhood? A. The modified violinist analogy. B. The violinist analogy. C. The cases of Smith and Jones. D. The people seeds example. E. The space explorer example.
E. The space explorer example. Warren gives an example with a space explorer. If the space explorers cells can be cloned, then each of the space explorer's cells are potential persons. But, reasons Warren, these potential persons' lives do not outweigh the moral value of the actual person's life (the space explorer's life) -- not even one day of his or her life.
Which two actions listed below do the values of Self-Determination and Individual Well-Being support as morally permissible, as argued by Dan Brock? A. Physician-assisted suicide and involuntary euthanasia. B. Non-voluntary active euthanasia and voluntary active euthanasia. C. Non-voluntary active euthanasia and non-voluntary passive euthanasia. D. Homicide and voluntary active euthanasia. E. Voluntary active euthanasia and voluntary ending of life-sustaining treatment.
E. Voluntary active euthanasia and voluntary ending of life-sustaining treatment. Right on. Brock emphasizes the value of self-determination (your right to determine your own fate), and the value of individual well-being (your right to determine what it means for you to be doing well, to be happy; well-being is subjective, for Brock). If these values support your right to voluntarily end life-sustaining treatment, then they also support your right voluntary active euthanasia.
