FINAL STUDY GUIDE –PHI26301.) Applied Ethics-approaching controversial issues from a theory neutral perspective2) A theory neutral perspective is the basis of applied ethics -> you reach a commonconclusion 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 war6) We canNOT solve ethical issues by consulting the law b/c –they are independentof 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 Rights7) Uses of non-human animals (NHAs)a.) Widely ACCEPTED examples-Traditional Animal Agriculture-Medical Testing (ex: Cancer Research)-Huntingb.) 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 animalsdon’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); evenif 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 violate an individual’s right-It explains the foundation of our duties to one another-the domain of human morality11) 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 whetherit 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>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 (comparesan animal to a tractor)-Cohen>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 sufferingABORTION15) Fetus- developing/unborn humanAbortion- intentional termination of a pregnancyThe 2 Main Questions of the Debate1. 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 claims1. 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 life17) 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 isstill 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 Marquis18) Objections to Marquis-Paske>disagrees w/Marquis’ dismissal of the personhood concept and his claim thatit 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 havinga 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
View Full Document
Unlocking...