PHL final
Thomson argues that abortion is permissable in some cases, even if a fetus is a person. She does not however claim that abortion is always permissable. Explain. Related to the above: Does Thomson think that a woman's right to control goes on in and to her body always outweighs a fetus's right to life? Explain.
She feels it would be wrong to refuse to allow the violinist to use your kidneys for an hour, just as if a woman should not abort if the pregnancy only took an hour and was no burden. She also feels that if a fetus happened to survive the abortion, then the mother has no right to kill it.
Is cultural relativism a version of metaethical objectivism or metaethical skepticism? Explain your answer.
Skepticism. Because the base of the belief is that there are no objective moral facts and that they vary by cultures.
Explain the contraception objection to Marquis's argument. What is the objection and why is it supposed to pose a problem for Marquis?
Some argue that Marquis's view has the consequence that contraception is wrong in virtue of depriving something of a FLO. Contraception certainly prevents something from having a FLO. Response: He says that using contraception does not deprive any existing individual of a FLO. At the point when contraception is used there is a sperm and an egg, but neither one of those is a fetus nor is the conjunction of the two a fetus.
Explain how Marquis uses the FLO account of the wrongness of killing to argue that abortion is prima facie seriously immoral. Why does he say abortion is "prima facie" immoral? What does this mean? Related to the previous question: does Marquis claim abortion is never permissible
1. If killing a being deprives it of a future like ours, then killing this being is prima facie immoral. 2. Killing a fetus deprives it of a future like ours. Therefore, 3. Killing a fetus is prima facie immoral. a. Prima Facie: latin for "at first glance". Means it is wrong unless there are overriding circumstances. For example, if you kill someone you might derive them from FLO, but the overriding circumstance was that it was for self defense. b. no, there are overriding circumstances that could justify it
In order to be eligble for physician assisted suicide in the relevant places where it is legal in the United States, what are the main conditions that a person must meet?
1. Must be 18 2. Capable of communicating the request 3.Resident of the relevant state 4.Diagnosed with a terminal illness and have a prognosis of 6 or fewer months to live 5.Be deemed competent to make the decision 6.Patient must make 2 requests separated by 15 days 7.Prescribing physician must inform the patient of feasible alternatives to assisted suicide, including comfort care, hospice care, and pain control
Explain the line drawing fallacy using Thomson's acorn oak tree example 2.Why does Thomson bring up the acorn/oak tree example? What is her point?
Acorn oak tree and color spectrum: you cannot pinpoint where the color orange actually turns orange on the color spectrum so you cannot pinpoint when a fetus becomes a person because you cannot pinpoint the definite moment of contraception
What is difference between active and passive euthanasia? Provide an example of each
Active Euthanasia → When a physician takes direct action to end a patient's life for the purpose of relieving untreatable illness or suffering (lethal injection) Passive Euthanasia → when a physician ends a patients life by withholding or withdrawing life - sustaining measures (DNR)
Utilitarians think that everyone's happiness counts equally. But who is "everyone"? Whose happiness/unhappiness counts according to the utilitarian? Does a cat's happiness count? Does a butterfly's count? Explain your answer.
All sentient beings. Utilitarians think everyone's happiness matters equally.
What is a question begging argument? Can a question begging argument? Can it be sound? Are question begging arguments helpful at persuading someone who is not already convinced of the conclusion? Explain your answer.
Begging argument → one begs the question in an argument when they use a premise that one would accept only if they already agreed with the conclusion. It is a form of circular reasoning Is it sound? → Not valid or sound Example → Coco Gauff and Caty McNallly are both playing in the United States Open in 2022. Therefore, Coco Gauff is playing in the United States Open in 2022 Are question begging arguments helpful at persuading someone who is not already convinced of the conclusion? Explain your answer. → No, because these questions provide very little, if any, supporting evidence.
Using the principle of universalizability, explain why Kant thinks it is wrong to tell a lying promise?
Come back to
What is a DNR order? If one enacts a DNR order, is this an instance of active euthanasia, passive euthanasia, or neither? Explain your answer.
DNR order→ do not resuscitate ; instruct physicians to enact passive euthanasia in some cases If one enacts a DNR order, this is passive because the physician is withholding life-sustaining treatments
What is ethical skepticism?
Denies that there are any objective moral facts, values, or standards. Denies that there are any moral facts or standards that apply to everyone, everywhere, whether those people believe them, like them, or care about them.
How does Thomson use the violinist thought experiment and the Henry Fonda case to support her position on the claim in question 57?
For example in the violinist example, even though the violinist has a right to life, it doesn't mean that you are entailed to keep him plugged into you. It would be nice, but not necessary. In the Henry Fonda example, it would be nice if Henry would fly in and touch your eyebrow to save your life, but he isn't obligated to fly from the west coast to do it. In the growing Baby case, if the baby is going to crush you in your own house, you don't need to allow the baby to crush you just because they have a right to life. Basically, to show that the right to life is not the right to whatever you need to sustain your life
How does Marquis respond to the contraception objection?
He says that using contraception does not deprive any existing individual of a FLO. When contraception is used there is a sperm and an egg, but neither one of those is identical to a fetus nor is the conjunction of the 2 fetus
What is hedonism?
Hedonism is the view that happiness is the only thing that is intrinsically valuable. The morality of an action depends solely on its consequences. Nothing else matters. For the utilitarian, the consequences matter to the extent that they lead to increasing or decreasing net happiness among individuals. Everyone's happiness counts equally.
Explain Thomson's "people seeds" thought experiment. What is she trying to show with this thought experiment?
Her "people seeds" thought experiment is that people seeds floated in the air like pollen. You blocked the window and did everything you could to prevent the people from coming in, but one somehow got in. Does this mean that you are obligated to keep it? No she did this to show that in the event of rape, if you did everything you could to try and prevent it and it somehow happened that it would be permissable to have an abortion
What are the objections/problems that are Rachels raised against cultural relativism?
How are cultures individuated? How do we decipher which cultures are separate from another, and which are meant to be conjoined? Can a person be a part of many cultures at once? If yes to #2, which code do they follow and how do they choose which to follow? (there is no method for this.) What is the clear moral code for the entire group if there is a disagreement within a culture?
One of the main objections to the divine command theory is that if it is true, then God's commands are arbitrary. Explain this objection.
If the Divine Command Theory is true, then God's will is arbitrary. •The main objection to this option is that it threatens God's omnipotence (all-powerfulness).
Explain Thomson's violinist thought experiment. Why does Thomson think that it is morally permissible to unplug from the violinist? How is it supposed to work and what is it intended to show about the permissibility of abortion in the case where the pregnancy is the result of rape?
If you got kidnapped and woke up next to a famous violinist who had a rare kidney disease that only your blood type can cure, but if you unplug them from you before 9 months have passed, you will kill him. It is supposed to show you that even though people have the right to life, it doesn't mean you don't have a say about what happens to your body. It would seem ridiculous It is suppose to show that abortion is permissible at least in the case of rape.
According to Don Marquis, killing is one of the worst crimes because ________.
It deprives the victim of a valuable future (FLO)
Does the FLO account of the wrongness of killing entail that active euthanasia is always wrong? Explain
It does not entail that active euthanasia is wrong: if a person does not have a valuable future, then killing them would not deprive them of a FLO. They must value their future. If they don't value it, it is not wrong to commit active euthanasia
What is the divine command theory? Explain the view in your own words.
It is the view that God creates morality. An act is morally right because it is commanded by God, and morally wrong just because God forbids it - An act is right if and only if and because God commands it.
What does it mean for an argument to be deductively sound?
It is valid and all of its premises are true (always true).
Is active voluntary euthanasia legalanywhere in the US?
It's illegal everywhere in the United States
Three of the main branches of ethics are metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Explain each one and give an example of a question that falls under each branch
Metaethics → The area of ethics that asks about the status of ethical claims and whether/how we can come to know them (are there moral facts? Is it a fact that torturing kittens for no reason is wrong, what makes this wrong?) Normative Ethics → the branch of ethics focused on identifying general ethical norms - such as standards or rules (under what conditions is an act morally right/wrong) Applied Ethics → Concerns what is morally right/wrong regarding a specific issue (is abortion ever morally okay? Is it ok to eat animals?)
We discussed the following areas of philosophy: Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, and logic. Explain what sorts of issues/questions each one deals with and be able to recognize whether an issue is metaphysical, ethical or epistemological.
Metaphysics → Concerns the nature of reality and existence, what exists, how things persist over time and change (Does God exist? Are there moral facts?) Epistemology → Concerns the nature of knowledge and justified belief (What is knowledge? Can we know anything at all?) Logic → Concerns how to reason and build good arguments (sound and valid arguments)
Be able to recognize arguments that are the (deductively) valid forms Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens
Modus Ponens → If P, then Q P Therefore, Q Modus Tollens → If P, then Q Not Q Therefore, not P
What is an example of an ethical/moral claim? Be able to recognize whether a claim is ethical/moral versus non-ethical/non-moral.
Moral claims state something about what is good or bad, right or wrong, or about we ought or ought not to do. Example → We should not dye our hair, we should all drive toyotas. A non moral claim states something that has no relation to morality or ethics.
What is physician-assisted suicide? What is the difference between physician assisted suicide and active voluntary euthanasia? (KNOW THAT PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE IS LEGAL IN OREGON)
Physician assisted suicide → a practice where a physician assists or facilitates a patient in committing suicide by providing them the means of doing so Difference → in active euthanasia, the physcian directly lethally injects, but in physician assisted suicide, the physician only assists the patient or gives them the means to do so.
How does Thomson argue that the extreme view is false?
She argues the extreme view is false by posing the question: "Does the right to life entail the right that someone give up their life for you?"
Thomson claims that it would be supererogatory for you to stay plugged into the violinist for 9 months. Explain why she says this and in doing so, explain what it means for an act to be supererogatory versus morally obligatory.
Supererogatory: you aren't obligated to go above and beyond for each action; it is ethically good to perform Morally obligatory means you are obligated to do the action To stay connected to the violinist would be "a great kindness" ; it is voluntary and not morally required.
One might object that unless the mother performs the abortion on herself, it isn't technically self-defense. How does Thomson respond?
The smith and jones example brings light to this because no one would say they can't choose who should have the coat between smith and jones, when Smith is the one that owns the coat. Jones and Smith are both freezing, but Jones has Smith's coat and will kill him if a third party doesn't tell Jones to give it back. It is Smith's coat therefore he has the right to take it even if it kills Jones
Why does Thomson assume, for the sake of argument, that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception? What is her reason for making this assumption? Does Thomson actually believe that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception?
Thomson does NOT actually believe that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception She does this to show that since every person has a right to life, the baby's life would outweigh what the mother wants for her body; therefore abortion is not permissible. She does this to set up the scene of the violinist being hooked up to you. The violinist is a person and has a right to life; therefore it outweighs you're wishes about what is done to your body
What does Kant mean by treating someone as "an end in themself"?
Treating someone as intrinsically valuable rather than an instrument that can be used for your own benefit
Having a right to life does not entail the right to whatever you need to sustain your life. Does Thomson think that this statement is true or false?
True
True or false: Marquis thinks that if a being does not desire or value its continued existence, then it cannot be harmed by its death
True
True/False : Cultural relativism is the view that the moral status of an action depends on the specific circumstance (which include the non-moral facts about the situation) under which the action is performed.
True. Context and circumstances which concern non-moral facts about a situation including beliefs about a situation including beliefs about non-moral issues matter with respect to whether an action is right or wrong.
According to utilitarians, does the rightness or wrongness of an action depend on the actual consequences of the action or the expected consequences of the action? Explain.
Utilitarians say that the expected consequences do not matter when deciding if an action is morally right or wrong but it is included when considering if an action is praiseworthy. Moral rightness/wrongness depends on the actual consequences.
What does it mean for something to be instrumentally valuable? Give an uncontroversial example of something that is instrumentally valuable.
Valuable if and only if it is valuable for what it can get you, but not valuable for what it is.(money)
What does it mean for something to be intrinsically valuable? Give an uncontroversial example of something that is intrinsically valuable
Valuable if and only if it is valuable in and of itself, and not because of what it can get you. (happiness)
Provide a clear example of withholding life-sustaining treatment. Provide some clear examples of withdrawing life containing treatment
Ventilator, surgical procedure, feeding tube, chemo, blood transfusion = withholding Ventilator, feeding tube, source of hydration, medication = withdrawing
What us the difference between voluntary, non voluntary, and involuntary euthanasia? Give an example of each one.
Voluntary → performed at the express, voluntary request of a patient who is in full possessions of their capacities (competent and can make the decision autonomously) Non voluntary → is performed even though the patient is not capable of competently requesting euthanasia at the time, norm have they previously declared a preference (infants or someone in a vegetative state) Involuntary euthanasia → is performed on a patient who is competent to request euthanasia but has not done so. (basically murder; violation of patient's rights)
Explain the "cat serum" example. How does the example raise a challenge to Marquis's FLO argument?
We put a drop of magic serum on the kitten that will make it grow into a person. We use another serum that will neutralize the first, if the serum is used it will make the kitten just a regular kitten again. : the problem is not that the kitten doesn't value, desire or even know about their future.
Is passive voluntary euthanasia legal in United States?
Yes
Does Kant think it is okay to treat someone as a means, but not a mere means? Explain.
Yes because you can't treat someone as a means and still respect them. Example: if you use a plumber to fix a leak and pay then that is okay, but if you use a plumber to fix a leak, knock him out after, and then not pay them for "sleeping on the job" that is not morally permissible
Do utilitarians endorse a retributive justification for punishment? Explain.
Yes, eye for eye
Is PAD legal in Belgium and the Netherlands. If so, what forms and under what conditions?
Yes, in Belgium minors are eligible if they are in the final stages of a terminal illness, in the Netherlands, their suffering has to be unbearable and with no prospect of improvement. The suffering must be caused by a medical condition
What does Marquis mean by "a future like ours" (FLO)?
the future of value involving all the good things the individual could conceivably enjoy if the fetus were to live out its natural days without the interruption of an early death
What is Kant's Principle of Humanity?
-Always treat humanity (including oneself) as an end, and never as a mere means -all beings who have desires and are rational and autonomous beings
What are some of the main objections to utilitarianism? Explain why utilitarianism says that sometimes acting morally may require committing serious injustices, violating people's rights, or breaking promises.
1. Regarding the hedonist value theory: Is happiness the only thing that matters? Ex: if all your friends are terrible people and talking poorly about you but you never find out, technically it isn't wrong of them since you haven't lost any happiness. 2: Injustice, rights violations Ex: Killing the innocent Bloggs to save 5 people is technically the right thing to do, if it will bring those 5 people more happiness than Bloggs would ever experience 3: Backward looking reasons Ex: Keeping promises is not important, because the only thing that matters is the future 4: Utilitarianism is very demanding Ex: For the utilitarian, you are always required to do what maximizes net happiness. This means there is no room for "going above and beyond"—you are always morally obligated to do the very best thing it is possible to do. 5: Impartiality Ex: Sometimes it seems that morality requires partiality towards loved ones, friends, those close to you, but you actually have to evaluate everyone the same 6: Measuring happiness Ex: There is no precise way to measure happiness
What are some of the main considerations that people provide in support of physician-assisted dying?
1.Avoiding needless suffering 2.Value of dignified death 3.Controlling how one dies 4.Controlling who one is
What was the main justification for the judgment in Roe v. Wade?
1.The constitution includes a right to privacy 2.The right to privacy extends to a woman's right to an abortion before viability
What is an argument?
A set of propositions which function as premises, and are intended to jointly support another proposition, which functions as the conclusion. (1, 2, therefore 3)
What is Kant's Principle of Universalizability? How does it work? What is a maxim?
An act is morally permissible if and only if its maxim is universalizable maxim: It is is the general rule or principle that guides one's action; what we cite when we try to explain to others why we act as we do test: 1.Formulate your maxim: State what you intend to do and why. 2. Imagine a world where everyone supports and acts on your maxim in cases where it applies to them. 3. Ask this question: Can the goal of my action be achieved in such a world?
What is (hedonist) utilitarianism? Explain the idea in your own words in addition to giving a formal definition.
An action is morally right if and only if it is the action, which of all actions a person could perform, leads to the most net happiness.
What is a supererogatory action? Do utilitarians think there are any supererogatory actions? Explain
An action that goes above and beyond the call of duty Utilitarians don't think there are supererogatory actions because they are focused on the morally right action that will maximize net happiness and always do that act no matter if the act is "beyond the call of duty"
What does it mean for an argument to be deductively valid?
An argument where the conclusion actually logically follows from the premises. (Serena Williams and Rafael Nadal are both playing in the Australian Open in 2019. Therefore, Serena Williams is playing in the Australian Open in 2019)
What is a line drawing fallacy
Argue from the fact that one cannot pinpoint where a change takes place to the conclusion that the change never takes place
Explain the difference between a hypothetical imperative and a categorical imperative. Are ethical rules hypothetical or categorical imperatives, according to Kant? Explain.
Ethical rules are categorical imperatives Hypothetical imperative → a command or rule that you should follow depending upon what you want or desire (if you want X, then do Y) Categorical imperative → an imperative that applies to you regardless of what you value, want, or desire (do Y)
Did Kant think that it is ever okay to tell a lie? Explain.
No, because Kant feels we should only perform actions that conform to rules which are adopted universally, and if you were to lie, then you would be following the rule, "it is okay to lie."
According to Kant, do the consequences of an action bear on whether that action is morally right? Explain
No, because Kant says we should look at our intentions of a particular action.
Can you be an ethical objectivist and an ethical skeptic at the same time? Explain your answer.
No, because ethical skepticism denies ethical objectivism.
"People's moral beliefs are often influenced by the culture in which they were raised." If one believes that this is true, does it make them a Cultural Relativist? Explain.
No, because one can be an ethical objectivist and think there is a set of moral facts that everyone should follow, but still recognize what people actually believe can be influenced by their culture.
If you believe in God, do you have to accept the Divine Command Theory. Explain your answer.
No, because you can believe in God, but it doesn't mean you believe God creates morality or that God's rules apply to everyone.
If you think that Marquis's argument is unsound, does that you must be pro-choice? Explain your answer.
No, because you can think someone's argument is unsound, but it does not mean you do not agree with the conclusion of the argument
If you think that the consequences of an action bear on the moral status of that action, does that mean you are definitely a utilitarian? Explain your answer.
No, because you could also be a deontologist. Deontologists still think that consequences matter, but the entire moral status does not depend entirely on those consequences.
Marquis argues that if killing a being deprives it of a FLO then it is wrong. Does he also claim that a killing is wrong only if it deprives a being of a FLO? Explain.
No, it violates people's rights (like the 95 year old who has nothing to look forward to, but still wants to live. It would be wrong to kill her even though she doesn't have a FLO). It is enough to make a killing wrong, but it is not the only thing that makes it wrong
Does Thomson think that the right to life is the right not to be killed? Explain your answer.
No, she believes the right to life consist not in the right not to be killed, but rather in the right not to be killed unjustly
Explain the personal identity objection to Marquis's argument. Which premise of his argument does it challenge and why? What is Marquis's response?
Not having a personality, not being sentient is what takes away from what Marquis believes gives a fetus a right to life. (FLO) Marquis says "I reject accounts of personal identity that make identity dependent on psychological continuity"
What does it mean to say God is Omniscient Omnipotent Omnibenevolent
Omniscient → all-knowing Omnipotent → all-powerful (having unlimited power ; able to do anything) Omnibenevolent → all-good (all loving ; infinitely good)
What is the deprivation theory of the harm of death? How does it relate to Marquis's argument?
That death is a harm in virtue of depriving its victim of positive future experiences
What is the Euthyphro question/dilemma? What are the two options? -
The Euthyphro dilemma is that either, "Act A is morally right because God commands it." (This is the Divine Command Theory) OR God commands us to perform act A because A is morally right (for reasons independent of God)
What is cultural relativism? Explain the view in your own words.
The belief that there are no objective moral facts because each culture makes their own set of moral facts and that an act is morally right if and only if it is allowed by the guiding ideals of the society/culture it is performed.
Explain what it means for a being to be sentient. Give a few examples of sentient beings.
The capacity to experience negative or positive sensation ; any being who can experience happiness or suffering counts equally. (humans, dogs, animals)
What is ethical objectivism? (Don't confuse ethical objectivism with Kant's idea that there are absolute moral rules.)
The metaethical view that some moral standards are objectively correct, and some moral claims are objectively true. A moral standard is or fact is objective if and only if it applies to everyone, regardless of whether people believe it, like it, or care.
What is the extreme view?
The view that abortion is impermissible even when it is necessary to save the woman's life.
Define the following terms → Theism, Atheism, Agnosticism
Theism → the belief that God exists Atheism → the belief that God does not exist Agnosticism → suspension of belief with respect to whether God exists
According to utilitarians, the moral status of an action depends entirely on its consequences. For how long do the consequences of an action bear on the moral status of the act, according to the utilitarian?
There is no statute of limitations on when the consequences stop mattering to whether your action was right or wrong.
Was abortion legal in the United States before Roe v. Wade? Explain. What was the legal result of the ruling?
There was no federal law that made abortion legal or illegal ; states determined the legality Result → a woman had the right to an abortion during the first 2 trimesters. Individual states could not regulate abortions that took place during the 1st trimester but could regulate those that took place during the 2nd trimester. After the fetus is viable (around the 3rd trimester), the individual state may regulate or prohibit abortions
How do Kant and utilitarians differ with respect to their view regarding how we should treat non-human animals? Does Kant think that the Principle of Humanity applies to animals?
there is no direct reason to treat animals with respect but we have an indirect reason to treat them with respect ex: you treat a dog good because your friend loves it, not because its a dog
What does Kant mean by treating someone as a "mere means"? Give an example of treating someone as a mere means.
use them without respecting their value as a rational, autonomous being
