PHL 292 Final Exam Kantin!!
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.
"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
Utilitarians say that the expected consequences do not matter when deciding if an action is morally but it is included when considering if an action is praiseworthy. Moral rightness/wrongness depends on the actual consequences.
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
There is no statue of limitations on when the consequences stop mattering to whether your action was right or wrong
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 utilitarians?
No, because ethical skepticism denies ethical objectivism
Can you be an ethical objectivist and an ethical skeptic at the same time? Explain your answer
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."
Did Kant think that it is ever okay to tell a lie? Explain
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.
Does Thomson think that the right to life is the right to not be killed?
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.
Does the FLO account of the wrongness of killing entail that active euthanasia is always wrong? Explain
Omnibenevolent
God is all-good (all loving; infinitely good)
Omniscient
God is all-knowing
Omnipotent
God is all-powerful (having unlimited power; able to do anything)
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 not is the conjunction of the 2 fetus.
How does Marquis respond to the contraception objection?
She argues that 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?"
How does Thomson argue that the extreme view is false?
For example, in the violinist example, even though the violinist has a right to life, it does'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 Thomson use the violinist thought experiment and the Henry Fonda case to support her position on the claim in question 57?
If one enacts a DNR order, this is passive because the physician is withholding life-sustaining treatments
If one enacts a DNR order, is this an instance of active euthanasia, passive euthanasia, or neither? explain
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 believe in God, do you have to accept the Divine Command Theory? Explain
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 Marquis's argument is unsound, does that you must be pre-choice?
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.
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
1. must be 18 2. capable of communicating the request 3. resident of 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
In order to be eligible 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?
yes, in Belgium minors are eligable if they are in the final stages of 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
Is PAD legal in Belgium and the Netherlands, If so, what forms and under what conditions?
its illegal everywhere in the US
Is active voluntary euthanasia legal anywhere in the US?
Skepticism. Because the base of the belief is that there are no objective moral facts and that they vary by cultures.
Is cultural relativism a version of metaethical objectivism or metaethical skepticism? Explain
yes
Is passive voluntary euthanasia legal in the US?
No, it violated 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.
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
True
T/F 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
T/F Marquis thinks that if a being does not desire or value its continued existence, then it cannot be harmed by its death
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
TRUE/FALSE: Cultural relativism is the view that the moral status of an action depends on the specific circumstances (which include the non-moral facts about the situation) under which the action is peformed
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.
Thomson argues that abortion is permissible in some cases, even if a fetus is a person. She does not however claim that abortion is always permissible. Explain. Related to the above: Does Thomson think that a women's right to control goes on in and to her body always outweighs a fetus's right to life? Explain
Supererogatory: you aren't obligated to go above and beyond for each action; it is ethically good to perform Morally obligated 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.
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.
Metaethics - the area that asks about the status of ethical claims and whether/how we can come to know them (are there moral facts? Is it a facts 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 ok? Is it ok to eat animals?)
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.
All sentient beings. Utilitarians think everyone's happiness matters equally
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
There was no federal law that made abortion legal or illegal; states determined the legality result - a women 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
Was abortion legal in the United States before Roe v. Wade? Explain What was the legal result of the ruling?
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)
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.
1. avoiding needless suffering 2. value of dignified death 3. controlling how one dies 4. controlling who one is
What are some of the main considerations that people provide in support of physician-assisted dying?
Is happiness the only thing that matters? Constitutes injustice because maximizing net happiness sometimes cause harm of another (killing bloggs to donate his organs to 5 other people) Rights violation (enslaving the minority)
What are some of the main objections to utilitariansim? Explain why utilitarianism says that sometimes acting morally may require committing serious injustices, violating people's rights, or breaking promises.
How are cultures individuated? How do we decipher which cultures are seperate from another, and which are meant to be conjoined? Can a person be a part of many cultures at once? If yes to number 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?
What are the objections/problems that are Rachels raised against cultural relativism?
Treating someone as intrinsically valuable rather than an instrument that can be used for your own benefit
What does Kant mean by treating someone as "an end in themself"?
Using someone without respecting their value as a rational, autonomous being a. 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
What does Kant mean by treating someone as a "mere means"? Give an example of treating someone as a mere means. a. Does Kant think it is okay to treat someone as a means, but not a mere means? Explain
An argument where the conclusion actually logically follows from the premises. (Serena Williams and Rafel Nadel are both playing in the Australian Open in 2019. Therefore, Serena Williams is playing in the Australian Open in 2019)
What does it mean for an argument to be deductively valid?
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 instrumentally valuable? Give an uncontroversial example of something that is instrumentally valuable.
Valuable if and only if it is valuable in and of itself, and not because of what it can get you (happiness)
What does it mean for something to be intrinsically valuable? Give an uncontroversial example of something the is intrinsically valuable
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 (hedonist) utilitarianism? Explain the idea in your own words in addition to giving a formal definition.
Always treat humanity (including oneself) as an end, and never as a mere means (don't use people just for your grain/advantage)
What is Kant's Principle of Humanity?
Argue from the fact that one cannot pinpoint where a change takes place to the conclusion that the change never takes place 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 a line drawing fallacy? Explain the line drawing fallacy using Thomson's acorn oak tree example. Why does Thomson bring up the acorn/oak tree example? What is her point?
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 McNally are both playing in the United States Open in 2022. Therefore, Coco Gauff is playing in the United States Open. in 2022. ARE THEY HELPFUL - no, because these questions provide very little, if any, supporting evidence
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.
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 is a supererogatory action? Do utilitarians think there are any supererogatory actions? Explain
a set of propositions which function as premises, and are intended to jointly support another proposition, which functions as the conclusion. (1,2, therefor 3)
What is an argument?
Moral claims state something about what is good, or bad, right or wrong, or about what 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 an example of an ethical/moral claim? Be able to recognize whether a claim is ethical/moral versus non-ethical/non-moral.
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
What is cultural relativism? Explain the view in your own words.
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 ethical objectivism? (don't confuse ethical objectivism with Kant's idea that there are absolute moral rules.)
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
What is ethical skepticism?
Hedonism is the view that happiness is the only thing that is intrinsically valuable. a. the morality of an action depends solely on it's consequences. Nothing else matters b. for the utilitarian, the consequences matter to the extent that they lead to increasing or decreasing net happiness among individuals. c. Everyone's happiness counts equally.
What is hedonism?
IT IS LEGAL IN ORGAN 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 physician directly lethally injects, but in physician-assisted suicide, the physician only assists the patient or gives them the means to do so
What is physician-assisted suicide? What is the difference between physician-assisted suicide and active voluntary euthanasia?
What makes an action pious? God commands act A because it is right. If an action is pious, is it because what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?
What is the Euthyphro question/dilemma? What are the two options?
That death is a harm in virtue of depriving it's victim of positive future experiences
What is the deprivation theory of the harm of death? How does it relate to Marquis's argument?
Active Euthanasia - when a physician takes direct action to end a patient's life for the purpose or relieving untreatable illness or suffering (lethal injection) Passive Euthanasia - when a physician ends a patients life by withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining measures (DNR)
What is the difference between active and passive euthanasia? Provide an example of each
It is the view that God created 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 is the divine command theory? Explain the view in your own words.
1. the constitution includes a right to privacy 2. the right to privacy extends to a women's right to an abortion before viability
What was the main justification for the judgement in Roe v. Wade?
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 baby; 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 your wishes about what is done to your body.
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?
Voluntary euthanasia
performed at the express, voluntary request of a patient who is in full possession of their capacities (competent and can make the decision autonomously)
Agnosticism
suspension of belief with respect to whether God exists
Atheism
the belief that God does not exists
Theism
the belief that God exists
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
it deprives the victim of a valuable future (FLO)
According to Don Marquis, killing is one of the worst crimes because ____________
No, because Kant says we should look at our intentions of a particular action.
According to Kant, do the consequences of an action bear on whether that action is morally right? Explain
Modes Pones : If P then Q, P Therefore, Q Modes Tollens: If P then Q Not Q Therefore, not P
Be able to recognize arguments that are the (deductively) valid forms Modus Pones and Modes Tollens
If DCT is true, the conception of morality makes God's commands arbitrary - without reason. The conception of morality provides the wrong reasons for moral principles.
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
Her "people seeds" thought experiment is the people seeds floated in the air like pollen. You blocked the window and did everything you could not 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 somehow happened that it would be permissible to have an abortion.
Explain Thomson's "people seeds" thought experiment. What is she trying to show with this thought experiment?
If you got kidnapped and woke up 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 them. 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 supposed to show that abortion is permissible at least in this case of rape.
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?
1. If killing a being deprives it of a FLO, then killing this being prima facie immoral 2. Killing a fetus deprives it of a FLO Therefore, 3. Killing a fetus is prima facie immoral.
Explain how Marquis used 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
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 its future.
Explain the "cat serum" example. How does the example raise a challenge to Marquis's FLO argument?
Some argue that Marquis's view has the consequences that contraception is wrong in virtue of depriving something of 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 fetus.
Explain the contraception objection to Marquis's argument. What is the objection and why is it supposed to pose a problem for Marquis?
Ethical rules are categorical imperatives Hypothetical imperative - a command or 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)
Explain the difference between a hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative. Are ethical rules hypothetical or categorical imperatives, according to Kant? Explain
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"
Explain the personal identity objection to Marquis's argument. Which premise of his argument does it challenge and why? What is Marquis's response?
The capacity to experience negative or positive sensation; any being who can experience happiness or suffering counts equally. (humans, dogs, animals)
Explain what it means for a being to be sentient. Give a few examples of sentient beings.
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. No, there are overriding circumstances that could justify it.
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 therefore, he has the right to take it even if it kills jones.
One might object that unless the mother performs the abortion on herself, it isn't technically self defense. How does Thomson respond?
extreme view
The view that abortion is impermissible even to save the mother's life
DNR
do not resuscitate; instruct physicians to enact passive euthanasia in some cases
Non-voluntary euthanasia
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 comptent to request euthanasia but has not done so. (basically murder; violation of patient's rights)
withdrawing
ventilator, feeding tube, source of hydration, medication
withholding
ventilator, surgical procedure, feeding tube, chemo, blood transfusion
