Questions

What is the conclusion in the essay, "Guns in America" (Philp J. Cook and Jens Ludwig)?

A fair conclusion is that the more fundamental divide is not between handgun and long-gun owners but between those who own guns and those who do not. Over time, the relative importance of self-protection and sport as motivations for gun acquisition and use has changed. The overall prevalence of gun ownership appears to be declining, as is participation in hunting. When people do acquire guns now, the motivation is more likely self-defense than in the past.

What is Judith J. Thomson's conclusion?

Abortion is neither impermissible, not always permissible. There is no general yes or no answer for the issue. The permissibility of abortion in some case does not mean that the right to secure the death of unborn child is unnecessary. Right to abortion with rape or mother's life is in danger, or when you have taken necessary precautions to avoid pregnancy, but not when you haven't taken necessary precautions, because then you were apart of its creation.

What are contemporary feminist philosophers' points of view (in Christina Hoff Sommers' essay)?

Androgyny, abolish legal marriage, radical reorganization of child rearing, non-sexist and assimilationist

How does Judith J. Thomson argue for abortion (three arguments)?

Argument 1: The development of an acorn into an oak tree does not follow that acorns are oak trees. Therefore, the development of a fetus into a human does not follow that the fetus is a human. Argument 2: Questions about right to life - there is a conflict between the fetus' right to life and the mother's right to life, in the case of rape. Argument 3: The woman has the right to her life and to use self-defense to protect it.

What are the differences between Aristotle's Eudaimonia and Mill's happiness?

Aristotle's Eudaimonia: to achieve happiness we should perform those actions that would further one's proper development as a human being, which means that virtue or acting with excellence is necessary. Mill's happiness: to consider the happiness with the maximum of people and minimize pain. Minimizing pain is a condition for one to achieve happiness. Thus virtue is necessary for Aristotle, but not necessary for Mill's. Mill's simply emphasizes achieving happiness. Aristotle emphasizes virtue and arete and other necessary actions. Eudaimonia is more personal, while Mill's idea of happiness is universal.

The value of a human's future makes killing wrong

Children/infants have futures of value. To kill defenseless little babies causes the loss of children/infants' the value of their future. To kill defenseless little babies is seriously wrong. Fetuses, infants and human being all are in the same category. Abortion causes the loss of fetuses' future. Therefore, abortion is seriously wrong.

What is the Cultural Differences Argument?

Different cultures have different moral codes. There is no objective "truth" in morality; right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.

The fetuses are human beings

Fetuses are in the same category as adult human beings. Both fetuses and adult human being are with respect to the moral value of their lives. Right to life is over than a woman's right to privacy. Any particular abortion is immoral. Therefore, abortions are seriously immoral.

According to Don Marquis' argument, what makes killing wrong?

It is wrong to kill us. A killing brutalizes the one who kills. Others will experience loss due to our absence. The loss of one's life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer, and thus killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim. The effect of the loss of one's biological life is the loss to one of all those activities, projects, experience and enjoyments in my future life. Killing causes the loss to the victim of the value of his/her future. Therefore, killing any adult human being is seriously wrong.

What is the tragedy of the commons?

Under a system of private property, the men who own property recognize their responsibility to care for it, for if they don't they will eventually suffer. If a pasture becomes a commons open to all, the right of each to use it may not be matched by corresponding responsibility to protect it. In a crowded world of less than perfect human beings, mutual ruin is inevitable if there are no controls. For example: the air and water have become polluted because they are treated as commons.

What is the relation between virtue and happiness according to Mill?

Virtue is good and may be felt as good in itself. Happiness is intended pleasure, absence of pain, end in itself; the sole end of human action. Virtue is desirable as an end that then becomes happiness. Mills states that virtue is a source of happiness that becomes itself a source of pleasure more than our primitive desires. Virtue can do this because there was no original desire for it, but through association of its effects is becomes desirable in itself.

How does Peter Singer argue that animals are able of feeling pain? Why does he argue that?

Both animals and human beings are capable suffering and feeling pain. Pain is a state of consciousness. We feel pain, but we can only infer that others are feeling it from various external indications. Animals show the reaction to the source of pain. Animals have a nervous system. Thus pain and suffering are bad and should be prevented or minimized. If we abuse animals, they are scared of their source of abuse. We must give animals equal consideration.

What is Ethical Hedonism and what is the formula of "Hedonistic Calculus" (Bentham)

Ethical Hedonism is an ethical theory that holds the view that pleasure should be the goal of all actions. Involves the Principle of Utility and the Greatest Happiness Principle. Hedonistic Calculus: we can quantify pleasure with units: hedons or hs, and we can quantify pain with units: dolors or ds. All hs + all ds = total utility units (u).

Argument 2: Questions about right to life - there is a conflict between the fetus' right to life and the mother's right to life, in the case of rape.

Everyone has an equal right to life. The fetus has a right to life. The fetus has a right to be born and grow. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong. The mother has a right to life. The mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body. Therefore, abortion is not morally wrong.

What is the Greatest happiness principle according to Mill

Great Happiness Principle: Act always to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Pleasure, happiness and good are synonymous terms; and pain, unhappiness and evil are also synonymous terms. Maximize the happiness of humankind.

How does Mill argue that ethics could start with a single concept, happiness.

Happiness is intended pleasure, absence of pain, and is an end in itself; the sole end of human action. All things desirable are aspects of happiness, which is the ultimate goal of the human experience. Happiness is a concrete whole because it is made up of various elements that are desirable in and of themselves. Sources of happiness become happiness themselves. Ethics is about promoting happiness and reducing unhappiness, so it all goes back to happiness.

What does the traditional just war theory argue about (in James Sterba' essay)?

Harm to innocents can be justified for the sake of achieving a greater good when the harm is: (1) Trivial (e.g., stepping on someone's foot to get out of a crowded subway), (2) Easily reparable (e.g., lying to a temporarily depressed friend to keep her from committing suicide), or (3) Nonreparable but greatly outweighed by the consequences of the action. Just cause and just means.

How do doctors respond to the two kind of euthanasia and why, according to James Rachels?

Killing (active euthanasia) is wrong and it is against doctor's' duty—to save and protect life. Letting a patient die with dignity (passive euthanasia) is to respect the patient's' right to death. The policy statement of the American Medical Association: Killing patients is absolutely forbidden; however, it is sometimes permissible to allow patients to die. It is permissible to allow a patient to die if (1) there is irrefutable evidence that he will die soon anyway; (2) "extraordinary" measures would be required to keep him alive; (3) the patient and/or his immediate family requests it.

What is the distinction between killing and letting die?

Killing involves an active role, letting die involves a passive role. Killing is morally worse than letting die.

Argument 1: The development of an acorn into an oak tree does not follow that acorns are oak trees. Therefore, the development of a fetus into a human does not follow that the fetus is a human.

Logical weakness of her argument: A fetus is not a grown up. A fetus will develop into a human. To kill a fetus means to kill a human. An acorn is not an oak tree. An acorn will develop into an oak tree. To destroy an acorn means to destroy an oak tree.

Argument 3: The woman has the right to her life and to use self-defense to protect it.

She has the right to do the self-defense for saving her life. She has the right to "unplug" the person whom she is unwilling to share her life. She has no obligation for a result of a "kidnap" (or rape). Therefore, abortion is only her personal choice.

What is the difference between the ethics of a spaceship with those of a lifeboat (near and distance people)

Spaceship Earth needs and authoritative figure as a captain. This won't work because we have limited resources and too many people. Therefore, the better metaphor is that Earth is a lifeboat. In the lifeboat, we face moral dilemmas. Those in the lifeboat are lucky. Who should be in the lifeboat? We can't let everyone in. So who do we let in, and why? These metaphors are based on different moral codes. Earth is like a lifeboat because we can't find one person to rule us all. Thus, the lifeboat situation of life leads to the tragedy of the commons.

How does Mill explain mental pleasure and physical pleasure? What is the formula that Mill contributes which considers the quality and quantity of pleasure?

Superiority of mental over bodily pleasures chiefly in their greater permanency, safety, uncostliness, etc. Quality and Quantity of Pleasure: Duration (total minutes pleasure lasts; quantity) and intensity (an orgasm vs. reading a book; quality): Duration x Intensity = Amount of Pleasure

What is James Rachels' conclusion in his essay "Euthanasia, Killing, and Letting Die"?

The American Medical Association Statement is false. There is no general moral difference between active and passive euthanasia; if one is permissible, so is the other.

What is the conclusion that James Sterba reaches in his essay on "Terrorism and International Justice"?

The U.S. must make it clear that it is taking radical steps to correct for related terrorist acts of its own or of those countries it supports.

What is the basic principle of equality (in the essay "All Animals Are Equal")?

The basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration. Equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights. Capacities and abilities cannot be the same.

What is the logical weakness in the Culture Differences Argument?

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. The premise concerns what people believe, however the conclusion concerns what really is the case.

How does Don Marquis argue against abortion?

The fetuses are human beings The wrongness of killing The value of a human's future makes killing wrong

What is the fundamental issue in justifying abortion?

The moral status of the fetus. The fetus has full moral status and hence has a serious right to life. At the same time, the fetus has almost no moral status until birth and lacks a serious right to life.

According to James Rachels, what is the real difference between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia?

The real difference between them is the difference between killing and letting die, both of which are actions for which a doctor will be morally responsible. But there is no intrinsic moral difference between them, although there may be morally important differences in their consequences, varying from case to case. If one is permissible so is the other.

What is the feminist moral philosopher, Simone de Beauvoir's point of view (in Christina Hoff Sommers' essay)?

The tragedy of marriage. Family is an unacceptable arrangement. Marriage and childbearing are essentially incompatible with women's subjectivity and freedom. The ideal of a society: sexual differences are minimal or nonexistent.

What is Cultural Relativism?

There is no such thing as universal truth in ethics; there are only the various cultural codes, and nothing more. Our own code has no special status, it is merely one among many. Customs of other cultures cannot be said to be "correct" or "incorrect", for that implies we have an independent standards of right and wrong by which they may be judged.

What is Christina Hoff Sommers' standpoint in her essay "Philosophers against the Family"? What moral approach she holds?

To expose the philosophical roots of the current hostility to family morality. She agrees with the Aristotelian approach, finding the middle ground. Many philosophers are radically anti-family, and takes it too far in Sommers' opinion. Radical feminists and what they're going for would destroy the traditional family and deny most people what they want. Promote the traditional idea of the family. Women do not consider themselves to be slaves. Women choose to be wives and choose to have kids. We shouldn't contradict their true nature and their desires.

What is the purpose of Don Marquis essay?

To show that abortion is, except possibly in rare cases, seriously immoral. It is in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being.