Philosophy Midterm Review

Positive eugenics vs Negative Eugenics

+ ) enhancement, beyond normal fun Beyond normal -) repair, or restore to normal fxn. Normal

Explain

...

Describe the ways in which terrorism violates 3 jus ad bellum or jus bello conditions.

1) Discrimination of warriors and innocents: that is violated because if a bomb is activated by one side, the bomb cannot say who it will kill and who it will not kill. therefor, it violates the rule of war (jus bello) that innocents should not be killed. you should only kill combatants and not noncombatants. sometimes they tarfet them on purpose 2)just cause: if it is religios, aquisition of more territory, those are not justified reason; they need to be moreally acceptable such as self-defense 3) last resort: we may be able to assume that terrorists did not try everything possible to avoid attack, tried all nonmilitary options to reach agreement. short of violence. 4) probability of sucess; a little group wanting war has no chance against a big milittary but may still declare war and bomb other nations 5) legitimate uthory: pres, congressinaol body, aprliment . not an extermest group because they dont represent a group of ppl

Explain the concept of 'legal moralism'

1) Okay to criminalize something if it causes harm to others 2) ok to criminalize something if it causes harm only you. BUT Even if \an action harms no one, it is still okay to criminalize it if it is immoral is any sence percived. Here is behavior that we cannot prove that it is harmful, but it is immoral in some sense therfore we can make it illegal because it is immoral. In relation to drugs, there are some drugs that have not been proven to be harmful but are illegal because it is immoral. Heusack says there is no sense of universal morality being applied, only Christian morality,and that is not faii, they are playing favorites, you are not supposed to use the law to enforce on side of morality at the expense of others Laws limiting people's liberty in order to prevent them from doing what most people believe to be immoral and to prevent self-harm to even if the behavior does not pose a significant threat of serious harm or offense

Explain two possible differences that exist between deliberate killing and failing to assist the poor.

1) difference in motivation: if you want to kill someone, your motivation is to kill them, their death thats you goal, when you dont wanna give money, your motivation is self-interest keep it youself. youre not motivated when you fail to assist by death of someone, youre motivation is not total destruction 2) difference in certainty of the outcome: if you had the interest to kill a person, it is pretty certain tht u will kill the personbut if you fail to give assistance, you cannot be as certain that that will result in anyones death. at least it is way lower of that certainty whenu wanted to kill. 3) it is not hard to avoid killing: to not kill is easy to do, but it is hard to live up to a standard where you have to jelp other ppl, thts hard to do,. 4) diference in identifying ability of the victim: when you kill your victim is rigth there.. but when you dont assist, even if that person died jsut bc u didnt give them money for food their death cannot be linked to you its not my fault they are starving, but it would be my fault that i killed someone.

***Explain Singer's response to the claim that differences in certainty and motivation make the cat of killing much worse than failing to asist the poor.

1) difference in motivation: if you want to kill someone, your motivation is to kill them, their death thats you goal, when you dont wanna give money, your motivation is self-interest keep it youself. youre not motivated when you fail to assist by death of someone, youre motivation is not total destruction SINGER SAYS: stomach product, ex (drunk driving) motive was to get home but you still did soemthing wrong. whe u dont assist ur it can increase the risk of harm to someone. so youblame them. 2) difference in certainty of the outcome: if you had the interest to kill a person, it is pretty certain tht u will kill the personbut if you fail to give assistance, you cannot be as certain that that will result in anyones death. at least it is way lower of that certainty when u wanted to kill. SINGER SAYS: there not sure they will kill someone, you dont get drunk saying i am going to kill someone they r not sure, but they r most likely to. enhance their risk tht ppl will be harmed, when u fail to assist the poor, you increase the risk Of them dying.

Explain 2 objections to Singer;s argument taht we have moral obligation to assist the poor.

1)Taking care of our own:we shouldnt help the poor bc our own is our neinghborgood we donthave an obligaton to take care of the poor internationally. just those close to us. 2) property rights: u have no obligation bc its ur money, its ur property, earned by ur labor, and if u want u can give it away, keep it and not do anything with it. 3)triage: most wounded, in bubble, or worst wounded. some may not benefit even if u help them but it may be a lost cause. dnt help the worst situation.. there is also a middle and 4)gvt: no obligation bc it should be done by gvt. they have moremeans and reliable way to extraxt funds 5) too high std to impose: ppl will be intimitated saying they have to do this and the dont eant tht big responsibility this may cause to give less

Explain the method of reproductive cloning known as somatic cell nuclear transfer.

1. Egg cell donor femal animal has the nucleus removed 2. Body cell of animal that you want to clone is injected into the "hollow" egg cell 3. Egg cell is stimulated to induce mitosis 4. Developing embryo is inserted into surrogate mother so that it can grow., a cloning process by which a cell is removed from a donor animal, the nucleus is removed from it, and the nucleus is then placed in an unfertilized egg of a female animal, which has had its nucleus removed. This is what occurred to Dolly - it took 277 tries to get another sheep. 1) take nucleus from an egg 2) replace the nucleus with the donor nucleus of a body cells from an adult being cloned 3) stimulate egg to initiate call '% Transfer the cloned embryo to host uterus.

benefits of human cloning.

1.) Helps people have genetially related children because they do not need to have sperm or eggs frozen up, they can just take any cell and clone. gives people the the hope to have biologically related children if they have become infertile. 2.) We may want to clone certain organs that are no longer working on out bodies. This is a huge, important benefit, because or dies would not reject it since it is a copy of your own original organ. 3.) Brings back / restore the life of a dead family member To avoid passing down a genetically inherited disease by.

Explain the significance of what Narveson calls a Defensive Unit

A defensive unit is people defend a pacifist is being attacked for their view pacifism is wrong so ... its not ok to defend yourself if ur capable of doing so, but if you see someone who cant defend themselves then its ok to assist them. so you and that person now become a defensive unit capable of defending itself. howeveer. according to the principle of taht people who can defend themselves cannot, it is invalid and they shoudl bot defend the other person.

Explain how both advocates and opponents of drug legalization appeal to autonomy in making their arguments

ADVOCATES: To take the drugs you are telling me to not do is my choice, my life, butt out, I can choose to harm my body for my own personal reasons. Autonomy is violated by drug laws because allows the government to interfere in private pleasure seeking behavior. Harm to autonomy is brought upon by drug laws because they restrict one to make a free decision concerning themselves and their drug use. OPPONENTS: Autonomy is the ability to make decisions free from interference. But if you start taking drugs, you become a slave of the drug. Therefore the drug itself is destroying your autonomy to reject it. We need drug laws, because then if not the drug will take away you autonomy. *It is important to both,

In what sorts of cases does Dworkin believe that paternalistic intervention is permissible?

Agrees with Mill, that one should never enslave themelves, so he uses that as leverage. When paternalism is used to protect your future freedom (mental or physical) so if someone says i should be allowed to not go to school when thy are young, then we can interfere because that would negatively affect their future and affect their intellectual life. Drugs, he says that since they have the potential to enslave you to them and they can control your life, you should be prevented from accessing them, the same way you are not permitted to enslave yourself. sIREns we should be able to intervene with any self regarding act that would result in the forfeiture of your freedom in the future. more likely to thank person later.

Explain the idea that noncombatant status is a matter of degree

Andrew Valls wrote how terrorism could be justified under the just war theory. But it would never satify the discrimination requirments bc terrorist attack anyone (innocen ppl not just combatants). Valls says whose rlly a combatant? its not black and white. noncombatants can help combatants and may have voted towards them or donating, and if you do that you are benefiting for them. so you have some minor degree of noninocense, the degree of combatant you are depends on how much you aid them in one way or another/ for example the lowest degree possible could be achieved by babies because they havent done anything. but if youcve voted, then you have more than a zero degree of innocense.

Explain these 3 concepts: biocentric, moral status, and anthropocentric.

Biocentric: all living things have some degree or moral status that you should attend to and respect Moral status: if tehy have this it means that a being has it has rights in its interest. you have to give some degree of its consideratins when acring with it, yopu cant do aything you want withit, does it want u to do this? we have moral status anthopocentric: only humans have moral status, only things you have to take in conderation how they feel

Beneficence argument

Everytime you can help/better/enhance someone you should do it! If it as little to no cost to you! Genetic enhancement would benefit ppl! Why would you not want to make anyone better !? There's no reason you shouldn't do it unless you have a problem with helping people!

Singers reply to the claim that we only have a moral duty to take care of our own

Distance doesnt change need. If these ppl were present, you wouldt feel diff about helping them if they were closeand u wanted to help them shldnt change bc of distance racially, ;; interest r different, these shld be addressed first

Explain Mill's theory of utilitarianism.

Do what brings the most happiness to everyone. It has to provide largest overall pleasure/happiness to the group. (Ex. buying a pizza, buy the pizza that makes me most people happiness. Even if one person gets the pizza they wanted only, but heir happiness alone surpasses the rest of the happiness of the group. You have to buy that pizza, because that is what brought the most overall happiness.) The theory states that the best course of action is the one that maximizes the overall happiness. It is based on the principle that actions are right as long as they provide the most happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the opposite of happiness. Mill defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain. He argues that pleasure can differ in quality and quantity, and that pleasures that are rooted in one's higher faculties should be weighted more heavily than baser pleasures. Furthermore, Mill argues that people's achievement of goals and ends, such as virtuous living, should be counted as part of their happiness. [A decision focused on outcome or consequences that emphasizes the greatest good for the greatest number]

Explain Kant's claim that an action only has moral value if it is done from the motive of duty.

Duty is a rational creature that acts out of respect for rules and laws. Kant believes that the will that a person had at the point in time of the action determines right or wrong. shop owner Kant say the forget the consequences of the action, what really matter is the the will you bring to the action. If you bring good will than you have done nothing wrong and its good. For example, if you see someone who just go ran over and you more them out of the road, then later the paramedics come and tell you you caused more damage by moving him, Kant says that it is your good will that you had when you did the action that so you have done nothing wrong. To have to goodwill you are motivated by duty, and not personal interest. Example;) A scenerio that has a shop owner, and an innocent child unaware of the prices. Scenerio 1) He can charge the child more but he doesn't because he is all about fairness and he likes the feeling of doing right. And in Scenerio 2) Where he thinks, "finally, yes, i can charge the child more money and he wants to so bad" BUT there is something in the back of his head saying you cannot do that, therefore he doesn't. Now they both did the same thing,but the the second shop owner deserve moral credit because he did it on principle alone. What the first shop owner did is not reliable because he did the right thing this time doesn't guarantee that it will be that same inclination towards personal gain the next time. But action motivated by duty is reliable because it will always provide outcome. Even if what the other person is not wrong, they don't receive moral credit because what they did was simply following their desire. Kant says you should only receive moral credit and appraise when you go through a personal struggle and act on pure pricinple. First person was inclined to but the second person acted on simply duty.

Explain the idea that rights and obligations are correlative.

For every right there is corresponding obligation. If someone has a right to x, then someone else has some obligation, or duty, to respect that right that you hold. Ex) someone has the right to life, meaning other people are obligated to not kill them Ex) you have the right to vote obligating the state to not take the There can be positive and negative duties/obligations. In a positive duty someone to do something (like an obligation): if you have a right to learn, someone's duty (someone is obligated) to teach you. In negative duties, someone has to not do something. Ex) you have the right to life, someone can no longer kill you. Rights are correlative to obligations, because if they were not, then one would not hold that right at all. For example, if you have the right to life, but everyone is in under no obligation to not kill you, then someone could kill you. Taking away your right to life in the first place.

Explain Harris's 'aviation' analogy.

Harris believes that Genetic engineering should be mandatory Imagine there was an airline company. Every single airline company adapted a new safety feature EXCEPT the very one you get on. This decision is wrong because they did not do everything in their power to ensure your safety. They deprived you from being as safe as possible. You would expect the person on object you are relying on to take all measures to ensure your safety. The disadvantage you. This goes to show how if your parents do not genetically enhance you, they are you restricting you from being like everyone else. They have put the child at a disadvantage and didn't take all precautions to make them the same as everyone else and didn't not do everything in their power so they could be superior to what they are not. They will suffer and the parents neglected to make them better and disadvantaged them. If we can benefit a person, we should.

Describe action taken by a state which might constitute terrorism

Historical attacks have been waged by states that are controversial and people think they are terroristic such as 1) atomic bombs on japan bc it killed inoccent ppl and its non-discrimative (bombs do not discriminate, so its indiscriminative) 2) actions taken by regimes sich as the germans, they terrorized many people.

Explain Warren's claim that the standard pro-life argument commits the fallacy of equivocation.

Human being can be in genetic sense (where you are human as long as you have human DNA, where someone is considered a human if if they are born with no brain at all because they still technically have human DNA) or the moral sense (where someone is a human as long as the belong in the moral community, morally humans) 1st Premise) Its wrong to kill an innocent human being 2nd Premise) Fetuses are innocent human beings therefore, its wrong to kill them 1) human in the moral sense because it it was genetic, it would mean it in wrong to kill anything with human DNA, and if that premise would be accepted, then it would be accepted that you cannot kill a fetus, and there would be no argument. 2) means in the genetic sense, because they cannot be moral humans as they do not yet belong to the moral community. therefore since the word human appears twice but means different things, then no legitimate value conclusion follows...

compare the human right to liberty and the animal right to liberty.

Human rights: our rights would be violated if we werent able to travel. our liberties seem to have more strength. Animal rights: an animals right to liberty would only be frusturated if you did things that it had an interest in you not doing. dsnt have interst in traveling woldwide so it can be respected by giving something resembaling its normal habitat

Explain why Narveson says that pacifism is an untendable doctrine.

If you are a pacifist you believe in nonvilence in life and if yourethat type of person, Narveson thinks its funny that you wont defend life, because if you value life so much, as a pacifist does, then couldnt it be justified to kill one person that has the potential to kill more people. Moer life would be taken out of the world, life that you so called defend. Theyre against violence but wouldnt do anything to stop it and its inconsistent. Narveson believes that if you have a right to life, then you should be able to take an action to defend it

Explain the 'people seeds' case

Imagine there are people seeds that fly like pollen. These seeds plant themselves and develop into a human anywhere they land, so now imagine you have a house and you don't want the seed to grow inside your home so you put up a fine mesh in your window that allows . you could've avoid this in total by not having windows but everyone has windows so you put up screens. You get a defected screen, and despite your best effort to keep the seeds out, one still made its way though and now a child is growing in your home. so what if you have the mesh and still end up having a child flower, are you obligated to keep it? No because you took action to stop it, you put in your best effort to avoid it,,, you didn't take any action to have willingly have the child... so even if you didn't make it impossible (by not having windows) you don't have to keep it shadows to abort if failed controversial. by having contraception you tried to avoid it.

Explain the concept of the categorical imperative.

In deciding whether an action is right or wrong, (desirable or undesirable), a person should evaluate the action in terms of what would happen if everybody else in the same situation, or category, acted the same way. 1.) Act always as if the maxim describing your action could be willed to be an universal law. Ex. I will do X in circumstance C > Willed: Everyone will do X in circumstance C. -Perfect Duty: where you refrain from doing bad things, to not to act by maxims that result in logical contradictions when we attempt to universalize them, such as stealing. if everyone stole, then there would nothing else left to steal. -Imperfect duty: gone beyond the basic duties and taken duty upon yourself to help others or help yourself. 2) Never treat a human as a means but always the end. Ethical guideline for behavior by the philosopher Immanuel Kant.

Explain why Tooley says abortion is morally permissible.

In order to have aright, you must have an interest in the content

Explain the 'expanding baby' case. LIFE THREATNING.

In the defense to your life, you can cause another person to die even though they may not threaten you intentionally. Suppose you find yourself trapped in a tiny house with a growing child. This house is extremely small and the child is growing fast. Already, you are pressed up against the walls and in just a few minutes the child will grow enough that it will crush you to death. The child will not, however, be crushed to death, it will simply bursts from the house and walk out. Thomson agrees that a third party (hypothetical 'bystander' but real life 'doctor') indeed cannot make the choice to kill either the person being crushed or the child. However, Thomson argues, it does not mean that you cannot intervene and kill the child to save your own life as an act of self-defense. She says it would be reasonable to kill it because if not you will die. This example goes to show how if a woman (the house), has a fetus growing inside of it, and the mother's life is being threatened, (by the fetus), both are innocent, and no third party can or has to intervene. However, Thomson says, the person threatened can intervene to save themselves, which justifies the decision of a mother to rightfully abort. Most people would justify that you can save yourself from dying. Thomson says that we have to keep in mind that the mother and the unborn child are not like two tenants in a house which has, by unfortunately been rented to both: the mother owns the house emphasizing that a third parties can do nothing about the situation. If we say that no one may help the mother obtain an abortion, we fail to acknowledge the mother's right over her body (or property). Thomson says that we are not personally obligated to help the mother but this does not rule out the possibility that someone else may act. As Thomson reminds, the house belongs to the mother; similarly, the body which holds a fetus also belongs to the mother.

Explain why Marquis' 'future like ours' argument is not 'speciesist'.

It is wrong to abort because the fetus has a prominent human future, which includes intelligence and life experiences like all humans and persons. Abortion is not wrong because because we are killing a human being, but it is wrong because we are stopping it from the right to live a life like ours, we ely, it deprives them of everything and they will never have or experience. It strips them from the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have had. Speciesim is racism against non humans, so he lives it open that if an upper class of animals, such as apes or chimps, would one day achieve to live a life with as much sophistication as us, then it would be wrong to kill them too.It is possible that something other entity, that is not a person can one day be close to live like us, and if we kill them, we deprive them from a future as well. mirrors how abortion is morally impermissable.

Explain the ticking time bomb argument for torture.

It justifies (in favor of) torture, torture to find a bomb...the bomb may or may not be made up When a gvt (cia, fbi) captures someone and realize the only way dissamble a bomb is by the captured person. authority figures detemine that the only way to torture someone is to find/ dissemble a bomb. Authority figures determine that the only way to torture someone is tofind the bomb. Hypothetical situation: an explosive devise is placed in a highly populated area, timed, and the only person who knows how to dissemble it or know where it is, is some person that is in the custody of an authority figure. The pressing need to find this bomb justofies torture for the extraction of information. Represent an utilitarian outlook because while it isn't pleasant for one person, the greater good is being served from the options given to save the most lives, if he was not tortured, only he would have happiness and here would be a huge amoun of happiness form many families. there is greater balance of benefit over pain if he is tortured, but in real life we dont know if such a bomb exists. Utilitarian moral argument in favor of torture. Time before a horrible event when people freak out, When there is a certain amount of time to find out info before something horrible happens Authority figures may use torture to get info Hypothetical case that involves, that it's be ok to torture someone who was known to have planted a bomb somewhere in order to save thousands of lives, & If there is a bomb/terrorist event somewhere and someone is suspected to have information on it (main way to get warrant to use torture).

Explain why Glannon says that universal access to positive eugenics would be 'self-defeating'.

It would be self defeating because the purpose of this enhancement, is to make one superior and better, giving you an advantage. but if everyone in enhanced you will not see that competitive adavantage anymore because everyone will just be raised up to a higher level of expectations, so therfore no one would have an advantage anymore. so there is no point,

Distinguish between live and let live pacifism, universal pacifism, and personal pacifism

Live and let live: personal preferance, you may not ever want to use violence but uf ithers want to, theyy dont judge so what,,, not a true moral poistion because if its wrong it should be wrong universally not just for you. people should accept the way other people live and behave, espacially if they do things in a different way; do as you wish and let others do what they wish Universal Pacifism: value that applies to all, all violence is wrong for every example; wrong to use violence in general ; never use violence even if you are being hurt; radical; all violence is wrong Personal Violence: violence by yourself is always wrong, you cant take it upon yourself to right a wrong but they're ok ok with the state committuing violence. they're ok the war

Explain how Mill responds to the claim that utilitarianism is a "theory fit for swine".

Mill is the founder of utilitarianism and stated that actions are right as long as they promote happiness /pleasure and actions are wrong insofar they promote the opposite of happiness (deprive happiness). Someone said that because utilitarianism requires everyone promote maximum happiness/pleasure and that is exactly what animals currently do as well. Animals, (swine), also seek to have happiness and please just as this principle states. But to address this claim, Mill states that there are two levels of pleasures/happiness. A lower one, which includes sex, touch, warmth, food, shelter, going outside. And a higher level, which includes: career developments, music, language, fine arts, religion, education, talking, technology, movies (only things that a human can enjoy, not animals) Uniquely human pleasures. Mill states in reaction to the critic that the higher pleasures are more valuable and no one would trade in the higher pleasures at the expense of the lower ones. Anyone who has had both pleasure will tell you that higher ones are more valuable and preferred and if someone had not experienced those high pleasures, you should not listen to them because hey have not had the right experience. He states that what is being misunderstood is that he is not trying to promote only those lower pleasures. When a critic thinks 'pleasure; he is thinking of only those that can be adapted towards animals as well. But what actually brings the most happiness is the higher pleasures only humans are capable of. He's trying to reach the most overall happiness and pleasure that can be acquired through the higher pleases that only humans can obtain. he's not trying important enforce only the lower because no one would give up those pleasures.

Explain what John Stuart Mill would say about laws against drugs.

Mill is very libertarian so he says that everyone should be able to make their own choices with no interference from anyone. you can do what you want. so you would think he is against drug laws because they prohibit someone to do something, but st the same rime you can say he could be favorable, because they don't want to lose their autonomy to the drug. if it destroys your autonomy than there should be a law against drugs because you're enslaved to the drug!

Explain why Noonan says that almost all abortions are morally impermissible.

Noonan says all abortions are morally impermissible because he believes that a fetus is a person at the very moment of conception. And from that moment on he has a right to life. He believes that that moment of conception is where a human obtains their right to life because it i the same for everyone, consistent. He believes that all the other lines that define if as a person are wrong (viability, quickening, sensibility) because those lines change, are arbitrary, varying from person to person therfore unsupportable. So there is no point in the pregnancy were it would be okay to abort the fetus. So we consider the point of conception as it adapting personhood because it is at that point where there is potential and a dramatic increase that an unborn entity will develop into a human. Since it is at that point a person, every abortion is impermissible because then we cannot the right of life of another human. He does however state that the only circumstance where abortion could be considered, it is when the woman's life is in danger because the woman has a right to life, a fetus had a right to life, and a fetus does not have the right to take away the life of the mother.

Explain why genetic humanity is neither necessary nor sufficient for person hood.

Not Necessary: It is not true that you need to be human DNA to be person because there may be other entities that belong to our same moral community. A person is a member of the moral community but does not necessarily have to be a part of the human race because there could be an external alien that is also smart and a part of the moral community, making it a person too. There fore, an alien who does not have human DNA, may be a part of the moral community making it a person as well. Warren states that if you are looking at an alien community, you look for intelligence, culture to see if they deserve respect as people do. Because if aliens are intelligent and members of the moral community and we do not accept them as people then we have committed speciesism (racist to other species). Anything intelligent can be a person and they do not need human DNA, non human person Not Sufficient: It isn't sufficient to have human DNA to be considered a person because there are humans that are considered "vegetables. (brain dead)" This means that there humans who are not members of the moral community, are not intelligent, capable of making choices, or do not have brains. non person human

Explain the open future argument.

Person feels like they are living in the shadows of the original person. Pressure to be like then & may feel like they have no future of their ownx

Explain the 'famous violinist' case

Pertains to abortion. One day you wake up and there is a famous violinist attached to you and he needs your body to survive. Doctors says it is totally up to you, but you would only need to be attached 9 months;. would it be morally permissible to detach? YES! it is permissable because she had no involvemnt in the whole ordeal.it is saying that yes everyone has the right to life (violinist and mother) but because you hold that right doesn't mean you need to depend on someone else in order to live or impede in others. It just means you have the right to not be Unjustly killed, doesn't mean someone has to save you. It parallels a woman being raped because it was against the womans will.

Distinguish the 4 types of terrorism that Khatchadoutian refers to.

Preditory: Greed, desire for an increase of resources, praying on something for abundance in soemthing Retalitory: Revenge Moralistic: perception of a moral wrong, we have a moral reason to do this bc we've been unjustly dealt with Non-Moralistic: not good, but miscallenous, religios expansion, power, conquest of minority, not a moral obligation and doent fit other categories.

Explain the difference between 'pure' and 'impure' paternalism.

Pure: helmet law, because the class of people that are restricted are the same ones you're trying to protect though the restriction. helmet law, we restrict riders without a helmet so they don't die. impure: unlicensed practitioners laws. practitioner is stopped from doing what he wants to protect the would be patient. because the restriction targets different people than who the restriction benefits. paternalism because it the victim wil

Describe the differences between these: Realism, Anti-war pacifism, and Jusy War Theory.

Realism: they think war is not wrong because morality goes out the window there is no right or wrong anymore, the only real questions that exist now are whether the action advances teh interest of the state. "was it in interest of the military? did it advance their position" they look at war as a natural fact of human nature, sp,ething tht cant be controled, such as weather, (storm isnt morally wrong bc its nature) inevitable Anti war pacifist: think war is wrong bc tehres a lot of killings, death, and those cant be justified Just war theory: in the middle. it may be morally permisible if it satifies the jus ad bellum and jus bello conditions. it is teh criteria, you have to loojk far into the war.

The moral community

Self evident , Warren Consists only of PEOPLE rather than humans 1) consienscess , capacity to feel pain 2) reasoning - capacity to solve problem 3) self motivated - independent 4)capacity to communicate 5) presence of self-concepts, self awareness

Explain Warren's position with respect to the question of whether animals have rights.

Some animals have some rights, it depends on what interest they have. Animals dont have the same interest as we do. the areas they do have interests in we should respect. But the areas they do not have interests, we technically cat violate interest they do not hold. they are interested in not feeling pain but are not interested in voting or traveling. so even when they have si milar interest as us, the streght of the interest can be differen bc the animals capacity to know things is lower than ours/ has some rights depending on the nature of the animal and what its capable of being interested in. they all seem to have the interest to not feel pain, they at least hacve that much of a right.

Exlpain the contractarian argument concerning the moral status of animals.

Some people think that we have rights because we can enter in a contract. Some people consider the realm of moral consideration to be the realm of people being capable of entering and enforcing each other into contracts Now to be able to enter in a contract, someone needs to be sophisticated, iundersyand what rules are, be able to apply them in your conduct, and agee to the terms Animals cannot enter contracts , they cannot read or understand the rules , therfore they cannot be help liable for their behavior, and cannot worthy of moral consideration. only things that get moral respect are things that can concively enter in contracts. since they cant do these things they dont have moral rights because to have moral rights you have to be able to enter in a contract

Explain the 'Henry Fonda' case.

The Henry Fonda case asks you to put someone in a hypothetical situation were they are laying on a hospital bed about to die and the only way to cure them, is by having Henry Fonda (a celebrity in older times) touch his body. Henry Fonda's touch on his body is the only way he will live. The moral is that he is under no obligation to cure you. If it is easy for him to do it (let's say he is in town) but still does not want to, it would be indecent of him not to, but he still not obligated to. He is still not obligated even if he was in the same room hovering over the body, that would just be more indecent of h. This example is put to place to express a pregnant woman, whereas the woman is Henry Fonda, and the fetus inside of her is the sick person who needs the touch. The fetus needs the body to live, but the woman is under no obligation to provide it with her body in order to develop. She does not have to give her womb. If she did, it would not be seen as necessary but as an act of charity. So if she doesn't offer her body right away when she find out, it would be indecent of her And even more indecent if she wanted to have an abortion when the fetus is 9 months old. Still she does not have to go though the entire pregnancy, she is not obligated just like Henry Fonda is not obligated to touch someone. A parallel example to this is if you see a child drowning and you do not save it. It would be very indecent if the reason why you didn't save the kid was because you didn't want to get your sleeves wet. But still, that person was under no obligation to save that child in the first place. It is indecent, but not in violation to one's right to not help anybody.

What is one self-regarding act that Mill says we ought not be permitted to do and why?

The one self-regarding act that Mill says we should never be permitted to do is enslave ourselves. Mill is very libertarian stating that no one should intervene in anybody's business ever, and everyone should do as they please as long as they don't infringe in the rights of others. You cannot willingly make yourself a slave, because eve if that is what you want, you shouldn't be allowed to because you're willingly giving of your freedom. And that is a paradox, because if you give up you freedom voluntarily, that means that you would contain no freedom to do that in the first place.If someone argues that I should have the freedom to do anything I want to myself, then they are asking for freedom to destroy that freedom. It is a contradiction because they would have the freedom to give their freedom away. Not allowing this protects your autonomy. He is very against this because Mill is so for having freedom, everyone should have freedom, that to willingly give it away is unacceptable.

Explain why according to Tooley it is wrong to torture a cat but not wrong to painlessly euthanize it.

Tooley stated that to have a right, you must be capable to have an interest in that same thing. He believes that cats do not understand the concept of living for the future, but they do understand the concept of pain. because they try to avoid it They do not live hoping for the future, but they do live understanding pain and hope to not experience it. Since it does not care or know about what's going to happen in the future, you're not violating their right to life because they don't have that right since they are not capable of understanding the future. However, they do have a right to not be tortured because they are capable and do understand the concept of pain, they try to avoid pain.You have to be capable of being interested in the right you are being given. This is an example of how a woman could get an abortion because when the human is developing, it is not capable of knowing what is coming in the future or what it will go thought, therefore a fetus does not have a right to life.

Explain what Tooley calls 'the interest principle' and how this relates to the right to life.

Tooley stated that to have a right, you must be capable to have an interest in that same thing. To have right to life you must want t o continue having experiences. Little bugs are not thinkking aut future because thy are not sophisticated but we do. when we are confronted with the possibility of death we think "oh no i wont be able to witness this..." that will be errible because now I won't be in that future that I was thinking about. Anything that does not have an interest in living in the future because they cant understand the future, then doesnt have a right to life.(bugs fetuses) able of being interested in the right you are being given. This is an example of how a woman could get an abortion because when the human is developing, it is not capable of knowing what is coming in the future or what it will go thought, therefore a fetus does not have a right to life.

Explain a utilitarian argument against animal experimentation & a Kantian argument in favor of it

Utilitarian - : always do what promotes the greatest amount of happiness overall given the options harms the animals and the dont bring many benefits so they do experimentation, tehy dont and compare results and see that experimentation brought all this pain is not justified Kantian +: animals only have instrumental value because you can only have the right of you are interested in that right. they are means to an end bc they cant understand their rights, cant reason moreally, dont know right and wrong. we have special rights bc we have those abilities lack rationality.

Explain the difference between a utilitarian and a non-utilitarian argument against drug legalization.

Utilitarian: You must think that to not legalize drugs brings the overall most happiness. A utilitarian would say that legalizing drugs brings more harm than good by crime rates increasing and chaos occurring, there are harms that outweigh the good.' Non-Utilitarian: Never treat a person as means to an end including yourself. Some people argue that if you are involved in drug usage, you are treating yourself as a means toward the gratification of having the drug. For example, even if you know herion will destroy your body, they say to themesleves, "oh well, i get pleasure at the end" is treating someone as means to an end. It doesn't matter what I do to myself as long as I feel this way. So I get get harmed for pleasure, which is wrong because you are destructing youself. When people become addicted it destroy your autonomy, and people would be enslaved to these drugs Costs to society.

Explain why Warren says that abortion is morally permissible.

Warren states that human DNA is not enough to be considered a human (vegetable not members of our moral community) . To think otherwise so is committing speciesism (when we think it is a person just because of its biological classification). She states than an outside entity can be a person by being a part of the moral community. An alien can have five traits most central to personhood, conciseness, ability to feel pain 2) reasoning 3) self-motivated activity 4)capacity to communicate 5) self-awareness self-concepts. Aliens right to life outweighs all other potential humans.

According to Regan what property confers moral rights on a being and why?

What gives something inherent value/moral rights? They have SUBJECT OF A LIFE. For example, people that gave experiences, a life, */inherent moral value, concious, feelings, aware they have a life. Thats why he believes in animal rights.

Tooleys response to the potentiality objection to abortion. 9 too

You can kill a cat with a human brain 1.) an entity can't have a right to life unless it is capable of having an interest in its own continued existence 2) an entity is not capable of having an interest in its own continued existence unless ur possesses the convoy of continuing self, subject of experiences 3) the fast that n entity will, if nig destroying come to have properties that would give it a right to life does but in itself make it wrong to destroy it

According to Warren, what is the basis of our duties to the mentally diabled, infants and children?

because they have partial atonomy all ready and hold potential. on the path of developing reasoning. tehy r not just a zygote, and starting to have basic rationality and have sentimental value. have potential and partial atonomy. animals tdont have either, and may not have sentimental value.

Explain Warren's distiction between the strength and content of a right.

content of a right: what is the right to,. freedom, liberty, education, diff contents, life-cant kill you, vote-cant turn u back, stregth: how strog reason r to satisfy it. to kill a human: we have to say they tried to kill me not i was angry. we beed reasons to kill animals, bc there was overpop but we cant say tht at humans

Explain Regan's comparison of a person to a cup containing fluid

disagrees with utilirianism. he thinks they should have rights. the cup is a person and the fluid symblizes the amount of happiness. a utilitarian dsbt care about the cup but rather the fluid.aunt b... we cant kill that person for ingeritance tht is wrong!

Explain Husak's claim that saying adults ought to have a right to X is not the same as encouragement to do X.

drugs just because it is not illegal to do drugs and one has the right to do it, doesn't mean they have to. just because someone has the right to an abortion doesn't mean the are being encouraged to. church, just because someone has the right t spread their religious ideas isn't encouraging someone to take that religion up and do the same. you have the right to sleep in the bathroom but no one is telling you to and you don't have to.

Explain Kant's idea that we have indirect duties t oanimals

if we were prone to do thisto animals, u will harm your m u have a moral obligation to be kind to ppl, u dont to animals, bu the more cruel you are to it you may direct that towards humans. u shldnt cuktuvate those tendencies. u might useit to ppl.we dnt have moral direct duties to animals bc tehy cant morally reason but we shouldnt train ourselves to be cruel

Explain the 'harm argument' against the legalization of drugs

is using the harm principle: that laws that prevent other people from harming other people ( not just themselves) are legit to criminalize. the reason we shouldnt legalize drugs is becase that would present a harm to others because drug usage makes people harmful to community because they become violent, would do anything for the grug, unable to hold a job, unable to be good parents, cant drive, operate machinery,

Describe the requirments of jus in bello :rules of war"

moral principles to follow during war, Justice in war. Considerations on how a war is prosecuted. Who, By What Means, Treatment of Prisoners, A just and fair conduct during war; rules and behavior to follow in war 1) Discrimination between warriors and innocents unarmed children and women have noncombatant immunity, shouldnt intentionally target them, some say soldiers should shield them 2) The proportional use of force: level of violence shoudl exceed what is needed to complete mission. this forbids torture, rapes, massacres etc.

Objection to contractarian argument

no barrier to contracts that exclude ppl. ex. in our history, there have been contracts that have excluded certain groups (race or gender) has a flaw becasue there is no way to prevent the of excluding of ppl., (nazis.. jews wre exterminated) plus kids and special ppl may not be able to enter contracts

Describe the requirments of jus ad bellum "just cause of war"

provides a moral and legal framework for judging the causes for war Just Cause: A war can only be conducted for the right reason 1) Conflict is endorsed by a legitimate or competent authority: ususally refers to the officials of gvts. controversial bc some argue majority in some states (sucg as africa or middle east have authority) or in the us where leaders where chosen by less than the majority 2) The cause is just: moreally accepted reasons, ex. self-defense 3) war is waged with rightful intentions: moreally good motives, advancement of good not hated, greed, vengence, 4) war is the last resort: all alternatives such as diplomacy and nonviolent pressure has been pursued. 5) The good accomplished by war should proportional to rge evil that the conflict causes: it shoudl be worth the high costs of war, good shoudl outweigh the bad but pacifists say otherwise 6) reasonable possibility of sucess: unjust if tehy dont, causes deaths

paternalism

the policy or practice on the part of people in positions of authority of restricting the freedom and responsibilities of those subordinate to them in the subordinates' supposed best interest. (Noun) the attitude or practice of controlling and managing others similar to how a father would interact with his children.

Explain some differences between enviromentalists and defenders of animal rights

the whole enviorment should be given moral consideration, animal rights: theyre primary concern is just the animals and theyre right to life free from being killed/ 1) eviromentalists would be ok with hunting bc there cld be over pop of a predator or prey and to bring ecosystem back to a balnace they may permit hunting permits and animal rights ppl wldnt bc u kill them and tehy r having experiences!

Explain Singer's claim that the problem of hunger is a problem of distribution, not production

there is not just enough food to go around but singer disagrees bc its not being distributed in the rigjht way.inefficient ways of wht we do with food. water and wht we feed cows and those resources could be changed to feed us ibstead of them. fail of how we distribute these sources.