PHIL200 1st EditionExam # 3 Study Guide Lectures: 20 - 26Lecture 20 (April 4th)What is the Huemer’s prohibition argument?P1: Drug use is very harmful to usersP2: The government should prohibit people from doing things that harm themselvesConclusion: So the government should prohibit drug useCriticisms?P1: Is drug use very harmful to people?P2: Should the government prohibit such harmful things?But what about: smoking, drinking, eating too much, riding motorcycles, dropping out of college, unprotected sex?Lecture 21 (April 6th) What is the Huemer’s legalization argument?P1: People have a natural (though not an absolute or exceptionless) right to use drugsP2: The government should not prohibit people from doing things to which they have a natural right (barring exceptional cases)C1: So the government should not prohibit drug useDefense of P1?P1: We have a natural right to exercise control over our bodiesP2: Drug use belongs in the category of controlling one’s bodyC1: So we have a natural right to use drugsWhat is the generic view on abortion?1.) it is wrong to kill innocent human beings2.) Fetuses are innocent human beingsC1.) It is wrong to kill fetuses (abortions are wrong)What is Warren’s response?The problem, as warren sees it, is that the argument contains and equivocation on the word humanEquivocation- when you use an ambiguous word in multiple senses within an argumentEx.) P1: some triangles are obtuse P2: all obtuse things are ignorant C1: Some triangles are ignorant5 traits, which are central to her notion of personhood:1.) consciousness2.) reasoning3.) self-motivated activity4.) the capacity to communicate5.) the presence of self concepts, and self awareness wither individual, racial, or both(you don’t necessarily need every single trait to be a person)Lecture 22 (April 13th)What are the traits that make a person a person according to Warren?1.) consciousness2.) reasoning3.) self-motivated activity4.) the capacity to communicate5.) the presence of self concepts, and self awareness wither individual, racial, or bothSummary of Warren’s reasoning?1.) only members of the moral community cannot be killed innocently2.) all and only people are members of the moral community3.) fetuses are not peopleC.) So fetuses can be killed, though they are innocent (ex.) abortions can be performed)Lecture 23 (April 15th) Thompson’s defense against abortion?“it would be indecent in the woman to request an abortion, and indecent in a doctor to perform it, if sheis in her seventh month, and wants the abortion just to avoid the nuisance of postponing a trip abroad” ---What is indecent?? Does that mean it is immoral?So she begins by going to the heart of the matter:“Most opposition to abortion relies on the premise that the fetus is a human being, a person, from the moment of conception.”P1: The fetus is a personP2: every person has a right to lifeP3: a right to one’s body does not outweigh the right to one’s lifeC2: The fetus, therefore, must not be killed; no abortionWhat is the Violinist/Justin Bieber Case?Imagine director of hospital tells you when you wake up “look, were sorry they did this to you- we wouldn’t have permitted it if we’d known, but still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for 9 months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.” What would you do???If that doesn’t convince you, consider:Imagine you’d have to be hooked up for the rest of your life! Now that does seem crazy! Yeah he’s got a right to life, but it doesn’t mean you have an obligation to do this…What is the extreme view?First we don’t have a clash of “right to life” with “right to body”. In this case, the mother’s right to life is on the line, too- not merely her right to do with her body what she wants. Therefore, different argument.(killing someone vs. letting that person die)Might explain that extra premise in a number of ways:1: directly killing an innocent person is always and absolutely impermissible2:Directly killing an innocent person is murder and murder is always and absolutely impermissible3: One’s duty to refrain from directly killing an innocent person is more stringent than one’s duty to keep a person from dyingP1: abortion is the direct killing of an innocent person(fetus) P2: directly killing an innocent person is always impermissibleC1: So abortions are impermissible-even when mother’s life is on the lineLecture 25 (April 22nd)What is the Fred Argument?P1: Fred’s behavior is ridiculously unacceptableP2: There is no relevant difference between Fred’s behavior and the behavior of those of us who eat factory-farmed meatC1: So our behavior must be ridiculously unacceptable as wellDeny P1 and P2 and what happens?Deny P1: say that what Fred is doing is not ridiculously unacceptable Deny P2: Try to show that there is a relevant difference between Fred’s behavior and our behaviorSome attacks on P2:1.) Fred tortures the puppies himself; I never tortured a chicken I atea. But this doesn’t matter. Would you have thought any better of Fred if he had the torturing done by someone else, or by some machine?2.) Doesn’t it matter that most people are just totally unaware of the suffering of the animals they consume, while Fred is absolutely aware of the suffering of his puppies?a. Well, even if it did, you know now3.) Doesn’t it matter that Fred can stop the suffering of the puppies (by destroying the lab), whereasI can’t do anything to stop the suffering of the farm animals (because my abstaining won’t make a dent in the industry)? a. Narcross has two responses: i. Chocolate Mousse a la Bama: Imagine you hace the local Tuscaloosa specialty, which includes a cocoamone( (from tortured puppy) laced coffee followed by chocolate mousse. Imagine further that the cocoamone industry in Alabama is seriously big. Will you keep eating the dessert?ii. It’s untrue that your decision is so impotent… however many chickens that you’ve eaten over the last year is how many chickens which could have been spared a miserable life had you not eaten them. 4.) Fred Intends the suffering of the puppies, whereas we meat eaters do not.a. Doctrine of Double Effect: It’s permissible to perform an action that has foreseeable harms, assuming you do not intend those harms, and assuming that there is an outweighing good to be