Final ReviewGreen=World HungerRed=AbortionBlue=EuthanasiaPurple=Sexuality1. Explain Hardin’s population cycle and what he thinks the World Food Bank would do to that cycle.Hardin believes that all populations have a carrying capacity (P1). At some point, that population will reach a state of overpopulation. (P2). This will either be caused by an increase in numbers, or a decrease in food, resulting in a low ratio of resources to population. Eventually, some emergency or accident will cause a great decrease in population, and the numbers will return to that of P1 or lower. Then eventually it willreturn to P2 and the cycle will continue.However, Hardin believes that the cycle would change if the World Food Bank became involved. The population would reach overpopulation (move from P1 to P2). But every time an emergency or accident occurred, there would be input from the Food Bank. Therefore, the population would not fall back to P1 because more food generally means more babies. The populationwould again reach overpopulation (P3). When another emergency occurred, the Food Bank would interfere again, causing an increase to P4 and so on. In the end, the only way to fall back to carrying capacity at P1, would be a “catastrophe of scarcely imaginable proportions.”1. Compare Singer and O’Neill’s arguments that we in industrialized nations ought to provide aid to alleviate the famine and hunger of thoseliving in extreme poverty.Singer argues that if a person is not donating to aid agencies, they are doing something wrong. He states that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad. He goes on to explain that if a person can prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so. Since a person can donate to aid agencies to prevent suffering and death from lack of food,shelter and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, that person should donate to these agencies. O’Neill argues from a Kantian standpoint. He believes that humans are required to treat other humans as an end, not merely as a means. This means that they must try to share and support others’ ends and activities. They must act justly towards humans as rational beings, and must not deceive others. Since famine, great poverty and powerlessness are bad things for other humans, Kantians are required to help these humans in any way they can, by trying to avert, reduce or remedy famine. 2. Explain Thomson’s people-spores example. What is this example supposed to show about abortion?Thomson’s people-spores example is explained as follows. People-spores float through the air. A person is aware of this, and they do not want children. Therefore, they seal all of their windows shut, with the best mesh screens they can buy. However, it is known to that person that on very, very rare occasion, a people-spore may still get in. If a people-spore does get in, Thomson says that the person who grows from the spore has no right to use the “mother’s” house. He argues that they don’t have the right even though the mother had voluntarily opened her windows and owned carpets and upholstered furniture. A person may argue that if the mother did not want to be morally obligated to her “child,” she could have lived a life with the windows shut and bare floors and furniture. But Thomson’s example is meant to show that this is foolish. A person could get a hysterectomy, but still be raped. Or a person could go outside, and be attacked. They shouldn’t be morally obligated to walk with an army because they don’t want to be attacked. Thomson’s example is meant to show that sometimes people get pregnant when they do not want to, and take measures not to. He argues that there are some cases where abortion is just, and some cases in which it is unjust. Depending on the circumstances, a mother would have to decide. In this example, he argues that it would be just to get rid of the people-spore child because it has no right to use the mother’s house.2. What is Warren’s space explorer example who is captured by alien scientists supposed to show? (Explain the example.)Space explorer is captured by alien scientists. They are going to clone him into thousands of humans, and he will then be released and his clones will be treated fairly. Warren says it is not wrong for him to escape and deny all of those possible people their lives. His right to escape is greater than bringing all of those potential people into the world. This example is meant to show that a fetus’s potential to become a human does not make abortion wrong. A mother’s right to not want the child inside her is greater than the fetus’s right to life because it is only a potential person.2. What does Marquis mean by ‘a future like ours’? What is his response to someone who says that his view entails that contraception is wrong?Marquis argues that killing is wrong because it deprives the victim of a “future like ours.” By that he means a life of experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would constitute a future. Hi is not concerned about the change in the biological state of a person once killed. But he is concerned by that fact that once someone is killed they are deprived of any values that they had or may have come to value. Killing is wrong because it deprives the victim of any value of their future.Marquis argues that his paper does not entail that contraception is wrong. He states that contraception prevents the actualization of a possible person’s future of value. Therefore, critics may argue that he is saying conception is wrong because he states that futures of value should be maximized. However, Marquis does not argue this. He argues that denying a human future of value is wrong. But contraception does not deny anything a future of value because nothing exists yet. 3. How does Rachels respond to the argument that active and passive euthanasia are morally different because, in passive euthanasia, the doctor does nothing, whereas in active euthanasia, the doctor kills the patient?Rachels argues that there is no moral difference between killing and letting die. When a person performs either of these, they hadthe same end in mind as they acted (or failed to act). The difference between killing and letting dies does not make amoral difference. If a doctor had let a patient die, they would be held to the same moral
View Full Document
Unlocking...