Exam 2 Study Guide Applied Ethics Basic Questions about 1 What is applied ethics a Applied ethics is the branch of ethics which consists of the analysis of specific controversial moral issues such as abortion animal rights or euthanasia Approaching controversial issues from a theory neutral perspective 2 What are theory neutral premises and what is their relevance to applied ethics a theory neutral premises are premises that most everyone would agree on regardless of their ethical perspective from different moral theories b Applied ethics is based on a theory neutral perspective so you can reach a common conclusion 3 What are moral slippery slope arguments and how should they be evaluated What is a a Moral slippery slope arguments conceptual slippery slope argument and what legitimate phenomenon do such arguments tend to ignore culminating in some significant effect must evaluate each argument on an individual basis and there is no clear cutoff between when something is A B or both very vague arguments i e when does a pile of sand become not a pile of sand or when an acorn becomes an oak tree a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events if A and B lie on a continuum with respect to property X b Conceptual slippery slope arguments 4 What is moral luck a When the morality of an action depends on factors outside of one s control i e going to assassinate the president but he slips and dies before you can preventing you from having to do so 5 What is the doctrine of double effect a The doctrine of double effect is the principle that if your goal is worthwhile you are sometimes permitted to act in ways that foreseeably cause certain harms though you must never intend to cause those harms death of an innocent person but with a goal worthwhile 6 According to Rachels and many others why can t you solve applied ethical issues by simply consulting the law Animal Rights and Welfare widely condemned uses a They act independently of one another some laws are unjust i e slavery in the past 7 Give examples of some widely accepted uses of non human animals NHAs and examples of some a Widely accepted uses b Widely condemned uses farming medical reasons etc killing for furs animal abuse etc 8 Though they both agree that many widely accepted uses of non human animals should be changed explain the difference between animal rights proponents i e Regan and animal welfare proponents i e Singer a Animal rights proponents Regan argues that society should change treatment of non human animals by abolishing all institutions of using animals as means for human ends i e animal farming treatment The goal is to not cause unnecessary suffering the benefits must outweigh the costs 9 What are Regan s arguments against indirect duty and utilitarian views on non human animals indirect duty to animals because someone cares about them Regan argues that welfare is the issue animals can be used with humane b Animal welfare proponents Singer Indirect duty although mentally handicapped people infants and the elderly also cannot be a part of a contract it would be morally wrong to treat them inhumanely regardless of who cares for them Regan argues that utilitarians leave out the individual by focusing on just pleasures and pains i e coffee in a coffee cup the cup is just as important as what is in it person themselves is left out only things that matter are pleasures and pains b Utilitarian views a 10 Why does Regan think the rights view is the correct one Cohen Abortion a Believes indirect duty and utilitarian views are wrong and that the rights view is the only one left Rights View those with inherent value have rights states that because individuals have inherent value they have equal rights to be treated with respect 11 What is the criterion for having inherent value according to Regan a Sentience to be a conscious creature experiencing life 12 What is speciesism Important do not get confused by Cohen s misuse of the term a Different treatment of species for arbitrary reasons 13 What reason does an aesthetic vegetarian give for not eating meat a Aesthetic vegetarians are disgusted by meat because they simply find it to be unappealing 14 Briefly summarize the following philosophers objections to animal rights welfare views Frey and argues that not all human life is of equal value and therefore animals are not of equal value a Frey either b Cohen because animals are not able to understand moral claims their rights cannot be violated argues that the moral community consists of those who can understand moral claims 15 In the debate over the moral permissibility of abortion what do abortion and fetus mean What are the two main questions in the debate the intentional termination of a pregnancy resulting in the death of a human fetus a Abortion b Fetus c 1 Does a human fetus have the same right to life as adult humans Are fetuses persons a developing or unborn human being between the stages of conception and birth 2 If fetuses have a 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 the claim that abortion is nearly always wrong a it is wrong to kill us what makes killing wrong is the effect on the victim The loss of one s life deprives one of all the experiences activities projects and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one s future b According to Marquis the obvious consequence of the wrongness of killing is that abortion is morally wrong The future of a standard fetus includes a set of experiences projects activities and such which are identical with the futures of adult human beings 17 Why does Marquis think the desire account of the wrongness of killing fails entails that is it not wrong to kill persons with little or no desire to live or a The desire account with a desire not to live b Marquis reply one s future can be valuable even if one does not value it 18 Briefly summarize the following philosophers objections to Marquis Paske Norcross and McInerney a Norcross b Paske argues that Marquis fails to distinguish morally between contraception and abortion argues that even if someone lacks a future like ours killing him or her is still wrong the something went wrong in his analysis of the wrongness of killing if it entails that contraception is immoral It makes no difference whether or not we are able to know which combination of sperm and ovum would be killed by
View Full Document
Unlocking...