PHI 2630 Final Exam Study Guide1. What is applied ethics?Applied ethics is when someone applies philosophical methodology to a specific ethical theory. It tries to convince people of conclusions based on “theory-netural” premises2. What are “theory neutral” premises and what is their relevance to applied ethics?These are claims that are thought to be ones that everyone will admit to, regardless of their theoretical commitments. 3. What are “moral slippery slope” arguments and how should they be evaluated? What is a conceptual slippery slope argument and what phenomenon do they tend to ignore?Moral slippery slopes have the following format:You should not do A, because doing A will eventually lead to B, and B should be avoidedExample: the DirecTV commercial. These should be evaluated based on the reasoning of A leading to BConceptual slippery slopes have the following format:If A and be lie on a continuum with respect to the property x, and there is no cut off point between things that do and do not have X, then either A and B both have X or they both do not have XEx. Difference between an acorn and an oak tree. When does an acorn become an oak tree?4. What is moral luck?When the morality of an action or a decision depends on factors outside our controlEx. Is drunk driving worse if someone runs a red light and makes it back safely, or if they run a red light and hit a child5. What is the doctrine of double effect?It says that “if your goal is worthwhile, you are sometimes permitted to act in ways that foreseeably can cause certain harms, though you must never intend to cause those harms”Ex. Death of an innocent person6. According to Rachels (and many others), why can’t you solve applied ethical issues by simply consulting the law?Because there are certain situations where actions (such as euthanasia) can be deemed appropriate, even though they are ruled illegal by lawAnimal Rights and Welfare7. Give some examples of widely accepted uses of non-human animals (NHAs), and examples of some widely condemned usesAccepted uses: drug testing on animals, use of animals as goods, sports/gaming, zoos and circusesCondemned uses: ivory poaching, vivisections, animal fighting, private collections8. Though they both agree that many accepted uses of NHAs should be changed, explain the difference between animals rights proponents (eg. Regan) and animal welfare proponents (eg. Singer).Animal rights proponents say that it is wrong to violate rights, whether it is human or animal rightsAnimal welfare proponents say that it is wrong to cause unnecessary suffering, whether it be with humans or animals (i.e. factory farms) 9. What are Regan’s arguments against indirect duty and utilitarian views on NHAs?Indirect duty: some people argue that we don’t have any direct duties to non-human animals. However, this is false because it also fails to account for the direct duties we have to certain humans (i.e. infants, mentally challenged, elderly)Utilitarian views: some utilitarians claim that animals cannot feel pain, others claim that the pain of animals does not matter. Regan says that animals display obvious behaviors of being in pain, just like humans. He also says that the pain of animals does matter; positive value is decided by pleasure and negative value by pain. This view completely leaves out who is having the pleasure/pain10. Why does Regan think the “Rights View” is the correct one?He believes that the “rights view” gets around the two problems listed above in number 911. What is the criterion for having inherent value, according to Regan?According to Regan, some individuals have inherent value, which means they are not mere receptacles. This entails the right that they be treated with respect.12. What is “speciesism” (Do not get confused by Cohen’s misuse of the term)Speciesism is having a prejudice or attitude in bias in favor of the interests of members of your own species, and against those members of other species.Regan says this is comparable to racism and sexism13. What reason does an aesthetic vegetarian give for not eating meat?Aesthetic vegetarians do not eat meat because they are literally disgusted by the thought of eating non-human animals14. Briefly summarize the following philosophers’ objections to animal rights/animal welfare views: Frey and CohenFrey: claims that NHAs do not linguistic ability sufficient for having beliefs and desires. He also denies that all individuals with inherent value have the same amount of inherent value. The value of life is a function of its quality (i.e. severe mental handicaps, senile dementia, etc…)Cohen: says that since NHAs cannot understand moral claims, they are not part of the moral community. Because of this, they do not have any moral rights, making it impossible to violate NHA rightsAbortion15. In the debate over moral permissibility of abortion, what do “abortion” and “fetus” mean? What are the two main questions in the debate?Abortion: the intentional termination of pregnancy, resulting in the death of a human fetusFetus: a developing or unborn human between the stages of conception and birthTwo main questions that are asked are: does a fetus have a right to life? If the fetus has the right to life, does that make abortion morally impermissible?16. What is Marquis’ theory - neutral premise in his argument against abortion? How does he argue from that premise to claim that abortion is (nearly always) wrong?He gives the theory-neutral premise that killing is wrong because of its effect on the victim; it deprives them of their future. He then argues that since it is wrong to a kill person, it is also wrong to kill a future person. Future like ours argument17. Why does Marquis think that the desire account of the wrongness of killing fails?The desire account states: “what makes killing wrong is that it interferes with the fulfillment of a strong and fundamental desire” and since fetuses lack the desire to live, abortions do not interfere with this desireHowever, Marquis has two objections:1. Some people have little or no desire to live, but that doesn’t mean that killing them is okay (unconscious, suicidal, and sleeping people)2. “We desire life because we value the goods of this life. The goodness of life is not secondary to our desire for it”18. Briefly summarize the following philosophers’ objections to Marquis: Paske, Norcross, and McInerneyNorcross: he fails to distinguish
View Full Document
Unlocking...