Philosophy Midterm1.Be able to explain what an argument is, and its parts. Know the difference between validity and soundness. And be able to test arguments for validity. Argument: a structured series of propositions intended to establish reasons for believing some claim.Reasons- premisesClaim- conclusion (the truth of some further proposition)Statements- truth evaluable sentencesValid: if premises are all true, then the conclusions MUST be trueSound: valid argument with all true premisesFirst determine if an argument is valid then determine if it is sound- All sound arguments are valid- Not all valid arguments are sound 2.Be able to explain the difference between permissible, impermissible, and obligatory actions; distinguish between rights and duties; and be able to state the main theses of consequentialism and deontology, respectively.Permissible: action that is not wrong if you do itImpermissible: action that is wrong if you do itObligatory actions: it is wrong if you do not do the actionRights vs. Duties: Rights are protections against certain types of conductDuties are you are morally required to do itThesis of consequentialism:Ignores the intention of the act. Rather it looks at the consequences of the action to see if it is right or wrong.Thesis of deontology:Concerned with moral obligation (the right) rather than ends or consequences. Moral obligation relates to duty, the ought, rightness, or appropriateness. Moral obligation has priority over moral value.3.Be able to explain the Argument for Ethical Relativism and explain why it’s a bad argument.There exists moral disagreement about what sorts of things are permissible or not.Disagreement implies there is no settled fact of the matter. Problem with this argument – it concludes about facts of what people believe is the case.The fact that people disagree with something does not mean it is either right or wrong.4. Know Warren’s traits of personhood, and be able to explain why infanticide poses a problem for her argument. Warren’s traits of personhood:1.Consciousness and in particular ability to feel pain2. Reasoning; the ability to solve new and complex problems3. Self motivated activity; activity that is independent of genetic or external control4. Capacity to communicate5. The presence of self concepts and self awarenessInfanticide argument: Infanticide is wrong because it deprives people of wants to adopt ortake care of the baby.5. Be able to explain Marquis’ diagnosis of what makes killing wrong, and the problems it engenders. Argument: it is typically seriously wrong to kill us (adult human beings). It is wrong because it deprives us of a future of value. The future like ours argument: Depriving a being of the value of a future like ours makes killing it wrong. Killing a fetus deprives it of a future like ours. So killing a fetus is wrong. Marquis does not argue if a fetus is a person he just argues that killing it would deprive it of a future like ours. Objections:1. A necessary condition for the wrongness of killing a being is that doing so interferes with the fulfillment of the beings desire to go on living. Bu fetuses do not have a desire togo on living, so killing them is not wrong. Marquis response: Claim is implausible. Killing is wrong regardless of their desire,suicidal victim. 2. Only victims can be wronged. Victims must have sentience, but fetuses do not have sentience. An embryo is thus not a victim and cannot be wronged. So it does not wrong an embryo to have an abortion. Marquis response: A victim does not necessarily have to have sentience. Killing an embryo is wrong not because of sentience, but because it deprives it of a future like ours.3.If what Marquis says is true, that it is wrong to deprive an embryo of a future like ours. Then contraception would be wrong. And that is absurd.Marquis response: There is no determined entity that is deprived of having a future like ours. We cannot point out who is losing the chance of a future like ours from contraception. There are millions of sperms and eggs. 6. Know Thomson’s analogies and how she uses them in her argument.Thomson’s Argument:Thompson grants for the sake of argument that an embryo is a person.The basic argument that people use against abortion is that all people have a right to life and therefore fetuses have a right to life. The mother has a right ot decide what happens in and to her body. But the fetus’s right to life outweighs the mothers right to decidewhat happens in and to her body. Therefore the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.Thompson argues that the basic argument does not support that abortion is wrong in all cases. That there is cases in which abortion is morally permissible…The right to life consists not in the right not to be killed, but rather in the right not to be killed unjustly.If this is what the right o life amounts to, then abortions are morally permissible in some cases in whish the fetus threatens the mother’s life, in some cases in which the mother’s pregnancy has resulted from rape, and, it seems in some cases is which the mother has conscientiously used contraception, but this contraception has failed. 1. Analogy to rapeFamous violinist case: You are kidnapped and hooked up to the violinist for 9 months so he can use your kidneys. The violinist has a right to life; he is a person. However, it is not unjust to unhook yourself from him even if that means he will die. 2. Analogy to using BC and condomsPeople seeds: They are all over and can float into your house and one could get in. So they sell high tech screens to keep them out however there are some instances of mechanical failure and a people seed could get through the screen. Is it just to get the people seed taken out? Yes, you did not invite it in. You took all the proper precautions and just because something has a right to life does not mean it has the right to use your body.3. Analogy of self-defense by motherWhat if the people seed (aka baby) is growing so big it will ruin your house? There are times when it could be permissible to kill a fetus even though it does have a right to life. You do not always have to let the people seed use your body/house if it will ultimately kill it/you. 7. Be able to explain speciesism and Singer’s Basic Principle of Equality.Singer is a consequentialist Speciesism is assigning different values or rights to beings on the basis of their species