Ethical Issues & Life Choices - Fall 2013Study Guide for Exam #2Notes on the Exam: The exam will be held during the week of final exams in our regularclass on Monday, December 9, 5:30-7:30 PM.The exam will consist of some combination of definitions, short and medium-length answer. You will be responsible for all of the material covered in class as well as that found in the readings. The following is intended as a guide to help you know what to focus on in studying for the exam. If you are able to provide thorough answers to the following questions, you should be in good shape for the exam.Hint: Remember to think of the readings in terms of (1) the thesis of the argument (i.e., the main point), (2) support for the thesis (i.e., the actual argument), (3) possible objections (focus on those found in the readings and discussed in class), and (4) possible responses to the objections. ArgumentsWhat is an argument? An argument is a set of statements, one or more of which, called premises, are offered in support of another statement, and called the conclusion.What is the difference between an argument and an assertion?An assertion is simply a claim or statement. An argument shows that something is true.What is the difference between an argument and an explanation?An argument aims to show that something is true.An explanation’s goal is to show why an argument is true. What is the difference between deductive and inductive arguments?Deductive intends to guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Inductive shows that the conclusion is likely to be true. (No guarantee)What is a valid argument?Argument in which if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.What is a sound argument?A valid argument with all true premises. What is the difference between descriptive statements and normative statements?Normative statements describe how things ought to be; descriptive statements describe how things are.What are moral arguments? What do they need to succeed? Why?An argument for a moral claim needs at least one premise to be a moral claim to support moral conclusion. In general, there are only two ways to criticize an argument. What are they?1. Show a premise is false (attack the premise). 2. Show that premises fail to support conclusion.AbortionWhat is the difference between positive obligations and negative obligations?-Positive obligations are obligations that we are obligated to carry out; such as taking careof a newborn child. (Obligate one to do good things)-Negative obligations are obligations where we refrain from particular actions; such as hitting infants or any other related action. (Obligate one not to do bad things).What is the difference between positive rights and negative rights?-Positive rights are positive obligations for others to do certain things for you or provide you with certain rights. -Negative rights are negative obligations for others to refrain from doing certain things for you.WarrenHow does Warren respond to the following argument? u 1. It is wrong to kill innocent human beings.2. Fetuses are innocent human beings.3. Therefore, it is wrong to kill fetuses.Warren says that the term “human being” has two different meanings. In the first premise, Warren says that the expression “human being” is applied in the moral sense to mean a “person”, or a “member of the moral community (p.188).” In the second premise, Warren declares that the term “human being” denotes the sense of a biological human, a homo-sapien. ;A fetus is a homo-sapien, but not a “person” or a “member of the moral community” because it fulfills none of the traits central to personhood; so it does not have the same moral rights (right to life) as a “person” does. Is a fetus a person/member of the moral community, according to Warren? Why/Why not?Warren says that a fetus is not a member of the moral community because any being, which satisfies none of the personhood traits, is not a person/ member of the moral community. Does the fact that some fetuses (more developed ones) are similar to persons give them a right to life? What does Warren say? Why/Why not?Warren says that although developed fetuses are somewhat similar to persons, they’re notsimilar enough in the relevant respects that they have a right to life.Relevant respects: consciousness, reasoning, self motivated activity, capacity to communicate, and presence of self-concepts, self-awareness.Does the fact that fetuses are potential persons give them a right to life? What does Warren say? Why/Why not?Warren says that the mere fact that they are potential persons doesn’t show that they are already persons in the present state. Even if potential persons did have some right to life, the rights of actual people will always outweigh the rights of potential people.How might one object to Warren’s argument? Does Warren have a good way of responding to this objection? Why/why not?One objection to Warren’s argument might be one such as saying “What about individuals in an irrevocable coma?” Individuals in an irreversible coma do not exhibit any of the traits central to personhood.. So does that mean that they are no longer members of the moral community? Does that mean that we need no consent from them toeuthanize them, or “pull the plug”? Warren responds, “a man or woman whose consciousness has been permanently obliterated but who remains alive is a human being which is no longer a person; defectivehuman beings, with no appreciable mental capacity, are not and presumably never will bepeople”This is not a good way of responding because she is essentially denying moral rights to individuals that were once considered “people” and “members of the moral community.” Because she did this, how could it be trusted that if an individual (a fetus) that met none of the traits central to personhood, that that individual is not a person with moral rights (a right to life)? Thomson is a SHEWhat does Thomson want to show? How is this different from what Warren wants to show?Thomson wants to show that abortion is morally permissible regardless of whether fetuses are considered persons. Warren on the other hand, says that abortion is morally permissible at any stage of the pregnancy. According to Thomson, what is wrong with the following argument?1. A fetus has a right to life.2. The right to life is stronger than (and so outweighs) the right to control what happens to one’s body.3. Abortion kills the
View Full Document
Unlocking...