PHIL140 FINAL EXAM REVIEW SHEET1. Summarize Bedau’s argument that capital punishment is wrong because it is not a deterrent, barbaric, and unfair. What does he mean by these claims and, most importantly, what support does he provide for them?- Not a detterent b/c it couldn’t change killer’s plan to kill, only few criminals actually receive death penalty, and unlikely that capital punishment will have detterent effect on un-premeditated act. - Unfair b/c they do it in an arbitrary/racial fashion (1/2 people on death row= black), treatment of white lives > black/Asian lives, woman who kills won’t end up on death row, poor usually end up on death row, judges are given too much of choice whether/when it should be applied in terms of discretion (arbitrarily applied), too many factors, Bedau finds it inherently unfair- Barbaric b/c it’s just cruel and inhumane2. Describe Morris’ forfeiture theory of rights. How, in particular, might it bear (or not bear) on the question of capital punishment? Be sure to address Morris’ contractarianism in your response.- People forfeit their rights so it’s not morally wrong to harm them. When a person has committed a crime, they have given up their rights. The contractarian theory (Thomas Hobbes) states that moral rights are granted through social contract that gives people rights to life, property, etc. Rights can be forfeited. Punishment can violate criminal’s right to freedom because the criminal (or wrong doer) has forfeited their rights. People are supposed to abide by a certain social contract, if someone disobeys or is unwilling to participate in the contract, they don’t receive justice b/c it’s mutually beneficial. Wrong do-er loses the very rights they took from others. Punishment should fit the crime.3. Describe Singer’s view of the moral standing of animals. In what sense does he take animals to be equal to human beings? In what sense(s) not? What practices might need to change if Singer’s view is correct?- Singer believes utilitarian standpoint that animal’s well-being should be maximized and they deserve moral consideration b/c they can feel pleasure and pain, just like humans. - Practice of testing drugs on animals should be illegal if Singer’s view is correct because the harm done to the animals would not outweigh the benefits done to human. (Singer advocates equality of animals with example of progression in moral equality from movements of blacks, women, and gays). He wishes to widen the sphere of moral concern to animals- Other people cannot disrespect/abuse your pets b/c they are your property and others shouldn’t disrespect you b/c it’s a duty of human being to human being. Animals have moral standing only to their owner and as objects of their owner, not as individuals.4. On what basis does Carruthers assign moral standing to infants? Why does he deny it to animals? Why, nonetheless, does he holds that there are ethical constraints on peoples’ treatment of animals? (Be sure to address contractualism in your response.)- He assigns moral standing to infants by saying that all human beings will get moral standing (“humans in, animals out”) because people aren’t as attached to their pets as they are to infants or old people. - He denies it to animals b/c he believes:o they are not direct moral objectso they are not in the possession of rightso they’re not rational agents like humans are (they can’t govern themselves, or act in accordance to a general rule)- people enter into a social contract- moral rules by convention (contractualism), there are moral rules that come from hypothetical scenarios, If you own a pet that is dangerous, you wouldn’t completely object to authorities putting it down. People wouldn’t sacrifice as much for an animal as they would for aninfant or old person. There are limits on the humane treatment of animals.5. What are Aquinas’ three main arguments against suicide? Identify a potential problem with each of them.1. suicide = unnatural in contrary to charity b/c everything natural strives to preserve itself and contrary to charity b/c you owe all human beings love (by killing yourself you’re taking that away).Problem: ??2. suicide = wrong b/c in killing yourself, you’re injuring the community (social/economic impacts)Problem: if you have no friends/family and provide no economic support to community this is not wrong3. suicide = wrong b/c life is G-d’s gift to man and is subject to this power, who he kills and makes to live, so whoever takes their own life, sins against G-d. Problem: if one does not believe in G-d, then this is not wrong. 6. Describe Hume’s argument that suicide does not violate one’sduties to God, neighbor, or oneself. Be sure to address the relevance of Hume’s view of providence, and of the distinction between duty and charity.- Suicide is okay b/c it’s not a transgression of our duty. - Divine Providence- what happens in universe is unfolding of - G-d’s plans for the universe.- G-d: if G-d guides everyones destiny then people would not be able to try and save themselves (Humes finds this ridiculous)- Others (Neighbors): suicide keeps us from providing charity to others, which is a lesser deal (not major violation of obligation, depends on reciprocation: you do good for society if society does good for you, by committing suicide, you are just opting out of the arrangement of society doing good for you & then you doing good for them, limits on how much society can demand from you.)- Ourselves: suicide is consistent w/ duties to yourself b/c it’s doing a charity to yourself. (“no man ever threw out life while it was worth keeping” –Hume).Almost have a duty to commit suicide if you’re in horrible/miserable circumstances to provide an exampleof others.7. State Rachels’ Equivalence Thesis with respect to euthanasia, and his main arguments in support of it (including the Bare Difference Argument). -Equivalence Thesis: no moral difference between active and passive Euthanasia, no difference between “killing someone” and “letting them die”. Example of child drowning in bathtub: Smith physically drowns child to get inheritance, Jones watches as child drowns to get inheritance. One is not better than the other. (Bare Difference Argument). There is a duty to not harm the patient.- American Medical Assoc. supports passive (letting die; ex: taking off life support), but not active (killing; ex: lethal