Philosophy Test #3

What does Kant mean that people are autonomous?

Kant: believes that rational humans are agents, they have plans, they make deliberate choices. It is this fact about humans that Kant's ethical theory seeks to enshrine and protect. Human agency should never be sacrificed for anything less valuable and everything is less valuable.

8. In English's view, is personhood relevant to determining the moral permissibility of abortion? Does she think that the fetus's resemblance to persons is morally relevant? Why or why not? What does English mean by the coherence of attitudes and how does this relate to late term abortions?

"in the latest stages abortion is psychologically akin to murder" coherence of attitudes mistreating person like non persons undermines system of sympathies and attitudes that make the ethical system work. the more it looks human, the more we owe. physical resemblance is morally relevant for our ethics to work.

5 Traits of Cognition

1. Consciousness: experience of environment 2. reasoning 3. self motivated activity: raising hand 4. self awareness: identity apart from other things 5. communication. lack all 5 traits then you are for sure not person. could be 1,2 that is enough or having 1,2,3.

What is Kant's #1 formulation of the Categorical imperative (universalizability)? How do the examples of breaking promises, wasting your talents and failing to help others fail under the 1st formulation?

1st formulation of categorical imperative: act on maxim in which you can at same time will that it becomes universal law. can you universalize this maxim? run into contradiction?

What is Kant's #2 formulation of the Categorical imperative (respect for persons)? How do the examples of breaking promises and wasting your talents fail under the 2nd formulation?

2nd formulation: Maxim: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in any other person, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means". "when I am in need for organs, doctors should harvest organs from healthy people in order to save lives" doesn't pass because no respect for man!

7. What are English's conclusions on abortion? What does she think of the conservative and liberal views on abortion?

English has a moderate view on abortion. "Abortion and the consent of the person" self-defense model. morality of abortion doesn't depend on moral status of fetus. conservative position: life begins at conception. fetus is innocent person. assume that killing innocent person always wrong. killing innocent person sometimes permissible liberal position: life begins at birth. fetus not a person. woman can do what she wants with her body.

9. What point is Thomson trying to make when she uses the following analogies? a) The Unconscious Violinist Analogy, b) The Henry Fonda Analogy,

Henry Fonda analogy:[Thomson points out that the right to life is not a positive right that requires one to provide the minimum others need to stay alive. Instead, it is a negative right obligating one not to kill.] Violinist Analogy: [At the end of this excerpt, what the director of the hospital says does not reflect Thomson's view. Instead, Thomson thinks that it is morally permissible for one to unplug oneself from the unconscious violinist even if doing so results in the violinist's death.] In this case, of course, you were kidnapped; you didn't volunteer for the operation that I plugged the violinist into your kidneys. . . [Thomson admits that the Violinist analogy represents pregnancies due to rape. Those who believe that the fetus has the right to life but allow for the abortion in cases of rape do not hold an absolute right to life; instead, they support a prima facie right to life which means that this right admits of some exceptions such rape cases and threats to woman's life.]

How does Kant view the moral worth of a person as opposed to things/animals? Does Mill think animals should be given moral consideration?

KANT: humans:rational. dignity, intrinsic worth, value givers. have an ends. animals: non-rational. price,instrumental value, valued objects. simply means, no moral value. MILL: was a utilitarian. For a Utilitarian, killing animals is wrong in the same way as killing humans. animals should be given moral worth and value according to Mill.

English offers several variations of the hypnotic attacker analogies? Which scenarios reflect her own position on abortion and which represent the views of others?

Scenario #1: A mad scientist hypnotizes innocent people to attack passer bys with knife. attacker innocent, not malicious. do you have right to defend yourself? English: if your attacked and it's the only way to save your life or avoid serious injury, you have right to kill attacker in self defense. serious harm: rape,severe beating, loss of finger (inflict minimum necessary to avoid harm). your purpose is avoiding, not equalizing harm even if he intends to kill you should not shoot him if you can run away. late term abortion not justified by self defense model (baby can be safely delivered by c section, woman can be free w/o killing fetus) infanticide: not justified by self defense model. Scenario #2: you are kidnapped by hypnotic attacker and taken to mad scientist who plans to hypnotize you. you are highly trained surgeon. permanent mental block against your knowledge. destroy your career. in this case you are justified to kill to protect your life prospects. hypnotized attackers only operate at night. View #1: sine you could stay home at night, if you choose to go out, you have no right to defend yourself. View #2: you should carry mace with yourself when you go out, but if that doesn't work, then you must submit to injury. View #3: you may kill hypnotized person only if he will kill you, but not if he will only injure you. View #4: you can go out where you know and not take mace. you have right to shoot/kill attacker to avoid slight inconvenience. resemblance to fetus to person significant in comparison towards person-like-non-persons

5. What is Warren's extreme pro-choice view on abortion? When is abortion morally permissible? Why does Warren view a fetus to have no more a right to life than a newborn guppy? What rights does a woman have and why do they override the right to life of a fetus?

Warren believes fetus is human in genetic sense. doesn't agree that fetus is a person (part of community) theory: establish fetus is "person" at certain stage. abortion morally permissible at any stage. warren views fetus to have no more right to life than a newborn guppy because it is not a person yet because it is not capable of cognition. even fully developed fetus is less personlike than is the average mature mammal, indeed the average fish. non-humans: highly advanced self aware robots or computers should such be developed, and intelligent inhabitants of other worlds, should such be found as people in the fullest sense and to respect their moral rights. woman has rights to kill fetus till fetus is born. override fetus because not person yet.

10. What is the difference between absolute versus prima facie right to life? What is the difference between negative versus positive rights?

absolute right to life: always your duty to provide. prima facie right to life: duty that can be overridden(rape cases). positive right to life: creates duty in other's to provide. you must feed, clothe, shelter, give needed medical care to keep them alive. defend them from attack. save them from natural disasters, predators, emergencies. negative right to life: must refrain from killing. negative right to marry- you must not interfere with others actions.

2. Why does Marquis think it is wrong to kill beings like us? What does he think is the wrong-making feature of killing a fetus?

because they have a future like us. character of consequence also shared with fetus.

6. In what ways is a newborn baby similar to a late-term fetus? How are they different? Does Warren consider abortion or killing a newborn infant as murder? According to Warren, under what conditions is infanticide morally right or wrong?

both have same physical features and detectable brain activity. different because birth changes extrinsic properties, not intrinsic (what baby understands). birth ends right to kill baby. outside woman's body: social and independent. argument for abortion: 1. woman has rights. 2. actual person's rights outweigh nonperson's rights. 3. fetus is not a person with rights. 4. woman has right to abortion. infanticide is not permissible when others in society want to care for it (adoption). "analogous to want only destroying natural resources or great works of art". so most of the time, not morally permissible.

How are categorical imperatives distinguished form hypothetical imperatives?

categorical imperatives are morally binding on everyone while HI's apply to particular persons, CI's apply to all

1. What does Marquis conclude about abortion? What does it mean to be "prima facie" wrong? What hard cases does he not explore in his essay?

concludes that abortion is murder, accept in rare cases (rape, women's life at risk). doesn't offer personhood theory because not necessary to prove fetus is a person for abortion to be wrong.depriving one of all value of one's future is what makes killing someone wrong. abortion deprives fetus of all value of ones future. so abortion is prima facie wrong. prima facie wrong: usually wrong but can be overridden in circumstances.

3. How does Marquis argue that his theory is consistent with beliefs that many people hold? What are these beliefs? How does he defend that his theory is superior to other theories on abortion?

consistent with 5 questions we would say yes to. superior to other theories because: 1. does not lead to speciesm( assigning certain rights to something based on species). 2. not founded on religious claims. 3. some personhood theories-kill infants. 4. sanctity of life theories-euthanasia and contraception are wrong.

What is the difference between teleological versus deontological ethical theories?

deontological ethics: duty based ethics. consequences won't matter only doing your duty matters. teleological ethics: end or purpose. strictly speaking, the object was not made according to a purpose that is different from the object (as the idea of vegetable soup in the mind of the cook is different from the soup itself), but that the object itself embodies its purpose. Kant is talking mainly about living organisms (which he calls 'natural purposes'), which are both cause and effect, both blueprint and product, of themselves.

all these examples...

do not pass CI!!! so all are wrong actions. 2 different types of failings: 1. some actions can't even be conceived of without contradiction (false promises). 2. actions can be conceived of, but if performed the action would contradict the agent's will

Warren: "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion" 4. According to Warren, what gives people the moral status of personhood? How does she use the terms "people" and "human beings"? What examples of human beings are not considered people by Warren? What non-humans should be recognized as people with moral rights?

fetus is human: warren agrees (genetic sense). fetus is a person: Warren disagrees (moral sense, part of community + have rights). "The moral community consists of all and only people, rather than all and only human beings". Marry Ann: "Human being" is used in the genetic sense. "Imagine space traveler who lands on unknown planet. if he wants to know if he's behaving right, must decide if aliens are people" The moral community is all and only people, rather than all and only human beings. defective human: no mental capacity, not and presumably never will be a person. Warren believes fetus is a person when it is capable of cognition.

According to Kant what gives humans intrinsic worth?

happiness is not intrinsically good because even being worthy of happiness requires that one possess a good will. good will is only unconditional good despite all encroachments. 1. developing your talents 2. Breaking promises: women and men use each other

Why does Kant think that good men are better moral agents than women?

humans should never be used merely as a means to an end, leading him to regard sexual activity as degrading and to condemn certain specific sexual practices. prostitution: using body as means, does not promote rationality and autonomy (right or cond. of self gov.)

Why should we help other people, according to Kant?

kant disagreed that humans should seek happiness. kant thought it is not consequences that give action moral worth. kant believed we should help others because one day we might be in a situation like that. We shouldn't help others simply because we want to be good people but because we might need their help in future.

How is Kant an absolutist? Should we make exceptions of ourselves?

kant is absolutist (in this sense) with respect to lying, because he held that it is never permissible to lie. for morality to be valid, it must apply to all rational beings.

waste talent: Kant's third example

man is lazy. won't develop talents. maxim: should I neglect my natural gifts. apply CI- contradiction:one's rational nature seeks to develop gifts. contradicts one's willing to neglect gifts.

false promises: Kant's second ex

man needs money. can't repay it. can only have loan with promise of repayment. can you will this to be universal law? can i will that promises made are false? then no such thing as promises. contradiction: how can you promise something when promises would no longer exist.

refuse help: Kant's fourth example

man well off. refuses help others in need. maxim: I should not help others when I could easily do so. contradiction: can you will that everyone will not help anyone when some day you may need help?

What does Kant think about the Divine Law/Command Theory? in other words, what does Kant think about God's role in the justification of morality?

morality is based on reason. god gave humans reason. humans can discover the moral rules by use of reason.. humans should not act from self interest

According to Kant's 2nd formulation are you ever allowed to use a person merely as a means to your end? if so, under what conditions?

okay to use other with respect. obtain informed consent, offer information (no deception), seek permission, promote rationality and autonomy.

How is kant an egalitarian? That is how does Kant's duty ethics reflect a belief in the equality of persons?

respect for persons: act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or person of others, always at the same time as an end and never simply as means.

suicide: Kan'ts first example

self love seeks to preserve life and self love seeks to destroy life. so maxim leads to contradiction. logically impossible. can't be both s and not s.

What is a good moral agent according to Kant?

someone who has goodness of her will.

Kant states the only good without qualification is the "good will" What does he mean by this?

to have a "good will" means to be a rational being who consistently does her duty, has right intention

What should motivate us if our actions are to be morally worthy? Are sympathy and love good motives?

wrong intentions: desire for reward, fear of punishment, reputation, fame, desire for happiness, love or sympathy. right intentions: from desire to do one's duty, for sake of principle, out of respect for moral law.