FINAL STUDY GUIDE PHI2630 1 Applied Ethics approaching controversial issues from a theory neutral perspective 2 A theory neutral perspective is the basis of applied ethics you reach a common conclusion from different moral theories Ex Murdering a stranger for money is wrong ALL moral theories will agree 3 Moral Slippery Slope Arguments Do not do A because if you do you will cause B which will cause C The arguments must be evaluated separately on an individual basis The Conceptual Moral Slippery Slope A and B lie on a continuum with respect to Property X and there is no clear cutoff between when something is A B or both Sand Example When does a pile of sand no longer become a pile of sand how main grains Extremely VAGUE arguments 4 Moral Luck the morality of an action depends on factors outside of one s control Ex You go to drown your nephew for inheritance money but he slips and dies before you can Therefore you didn t have to kill him Nesbitt s example of the bathtub Ex in class 2 drunk drivers each run a red light and are pulled over by a cop however a child was crossing the intersection and killed in one scenario and therefore that drunk driver was not only charged w a DUI but manslaughter both drivers morally wrong of the same offense 5 Doctrine of Double Effect IF a goal is worthwhile THEN at times you are allowed to act in a way that may cause harm BUT you must not desire intend to cause harm Class Ex Soldiers at war 6 We canNOT solve ethical issues by consulting the law b c they are independent of one another laws tell us what not to do and not always what we should do laws are NOT our moral compass sometimes they are unjust Ex Slavery Animal Rights 7 Uses of non human animals NHAs a Widely ACCEPTED examples Traditional Animal Agriculture Medical Testing ex Cancer Research Hunting b Widely CONDEMED examples Ivory Poaching Fighting ex dog fighting Michael Vick 8 Animal Rights Proponents Regan Animals have rights just like humans and therefore it is morally wrong for humans to exploit animals in ANYWAY Animal Welfare Proponents Singer Animals can benefit the welfare of humans but animals are to be treated gently with the minimum amount of suffering as possible and ONLY if there is no other way 9 Regan s Arguments Against Indirect duty we have no direct duties to animals we owe nothing to them therefore we can do nothing that wrongs them ex if you kick a dog you have done wrong not because you have harmed the dog but have upset the owner In order to accept such a view Ragan says One must believe that animals don t feel anything as well as the idea that only human pain can be morally relevant This fails to command our rational assent by failing to recognize that we at least have some duties directly to animals just as we have some duties to one another If you exclude animals b c they can t do certain things then you must include humans that do not have those abilities either infants mentally challenged even if no one cares about them it is still morally wrong because it hurts them Utilitarianism 1 everyone s interests count similarly and 2 the best balance between satisfaction and frustration for everyone is achieved Utilitarianism fails because a good end does NOT justify an evil means going against 2 10 The Right s View is RIGHT in principle it denies ALL forms of discrimination in principle it denies that we can justify good results by using evil mean s to It explains the foundation of our duties to one another the domain of human violate an individual s right morality 11 Inherent Value value that is something more than mere receptacles all who have inherent value have it equally and an equal right to be treated with respect whether it be humans animals or not My value is INdependent of my usefulness to you and vice versa 12 Speciesism a form of discrimination favoring one species over another in this case Homo sapiens favored to justify the mistreatment of animals 13 Aesthetic vegetarians don t eat meat because meat disgusts them ex they view a steak as a carcass it s like us eating a bug 14 Summary of Philosophers Objections to Animal Rights Animal Welfare Frey Cohen Not all human life has the same enrichment therefore not all human life has the same value disproving Regan s argument of equal inherent worth of animals Finds fault in Regan s examples of deficient humans Frey says there are good reasons NOT to judge deficient human life to normal adult human life Side note also says that animals have no desires b c of their lack of language compares an animal to a tractor Animal rights does not apply b c rights ONLY apply to members of a moral community and animals CANNOT make moral decisions defends Speciesism by saying that humans have a much greater value and by not using animals for experimentation would require greater human suffering ABORTION 15 Fetus developing unborn human Abortion intentional termination of a pregnancy The 2 Main Questions of the Debate 1 Does the fetus have a right to life 2 If 1 is true is it then morally permissible to have an abortion 16 Marquis Argument is based on 3 claims 1 Person hood is inadequate foundation for the right of life 2 The right to life is based on having a future like ours 3 NORMAL fetuses have a future like ours therefore they have a right to life 17 The desire account what makes killing wrong is that it interferes with the fulfillment of a strong and fundamental desire to continue to live FAILS at defending the abortion of a fetus that lacks desire b c Marquis says it is still wrong to kill someone who is sleeping unconscious or suicidal lacking the desire to live a future like ours is MUCH more sound and the desire account does little to take its place according to Marquis 18 Objections to Marquis Paske disagrees w Marquis dismissal of the personhood concept and his claim that it is inadequate foundation for the right to life Paske argues 3 points 1 Marquis s own position reflects the concept of personhood 2 Having a future like ours is neither sufficient nor nessacary in having a right to life 3 Given the concept of personhood neonates aka newborns infants and children have a right to life personhood indicates emotion Norcross Disagrees with Marquis s stance on denying the fetus a future like ours Even though Marquis doesn t disapprove of contraception Norcross questions why not Are you not depriving a fetus from forming and as a result depriving potentials to have a future like ours the sperm and egg may not be
View Full Document
Unlocking...