Ethical Issues and Life Choices Test Study Guide for Test 2 A Explain the following You will be asked to explain three different concepts ideas Please explain these clearly and coherently use examples where appropriate Not all of the concepts below will appear on the test but you will have some choice with regards to what concepts you will explain Each of these three answers will be weighted at 20 of your total grade 1 Weak paternalism Control or restriction of an individual s behavior when he or she fails to meet the conditions for autonomy i Example a person has a tumor that is disallowing them to think clearly and they want to kill themselves Weak paternalism would apply in this case because the person is not rational and understanding the consequences of their action 2 Strong paternalism Control or restriction of an individual s behavior for his or her best interest 3 i Example A person realizes that smoking will possibly give them cancer or possibly kill them but they think its okay and want to continue smoking An advocate for strong paternalism would want to still restrict them from smoking Inherently dangerous from LaFollette in relation to guns Guns being inherently dangerous is referring to the fact that guns are designed to harm and improved by making them better at harming Their sole purpose is to harm This argument is meant to question the idea that people have a prime facie derivative right to own guns a Some objects are inherently dangerous We know these objects will cause great harm by looking at their nature and design Objects made and designed for causing harm used to intentionally cause harm Idea within gun control guns unlike cars are not inherently dangerous Guns are designed to cause harm cars are not Cars were not made to harm people Control inherently dangerous objects more than objects that are not Objects that are not inherently dangerous get better when they become safer Guns on the other hand get better by causing more harm 4 Fundamental moral right from LaFollette Gun Control Fundamental rights protect fundamental interests Fundamental interests are common to everyone and concern our living good lives i Example Owning a gun is not a fundamental interest it is not a constitutive element of our own flourishing thus owning a gun is not a fundamental right ii Fundamental rights do not harm society Allowing gun ownership harms society thus owning a gun is not a fundamental right b Rights that are universal with everyone and necessary for you to live a good life i Ex drinking alcohol is not a fundamental moral right ii A fundamental right to free speech doesn t mean you can say whatever you want whenever you want Cant shout slander outside someone s window at 2 am Ethical Issues and Life Choices Test Study Guide for Test 2 iii Fundamental rights protect fundamental interests 5 6 8 9 Fundamental interest from LaFollette Gun Control Interests common to everyone and concern our living good lives i Example Owning a gun is not a fundamental interest because it is not a constitutive element of our own flourishing b Example Fundamental interest of speech Derivative moral right from LaFollette Gun Control Derivative rights are rights that we have that derive from fundamental rights i Example we have a fundamental right to non interference I am free to do what I want as long as I do not post harm to others My drinking alcohol does not harm others Therefore I have a derivative right to alcohol b Rights that derive from fundamental rights More specific Get justification on basis of fundamental moral rights c Example right to free speech is a right because it protects a fundamental interest 7 Equality retributivism from Stephenson An Eye for an Eye Regarding death penalty and punishment Doing to someone exactly what he or she did to someone else Retribution An eye for an eye i Example repaying criminals with punishments equal to their crimes ii Criminal cuts an tortures someone we cut and torture them iii Stephenson says this is a bad principle because we would have to rape those who rape or torture those who torture Bad because it binds us to give out cruel and unusual punishment and because it doesn t tell us how to actually deal with them like people who kidnap someone or hijack a plane Proportional retributivism from Stephenson An Eye for an Eye Punishment that is proportional to the crime committed Doesn t require you punish someone exactly in the same way Gravity of punishment measures up with gravity of the crime Punishment given in hierarchy More serious crimes given more serious punishment i Example Murder is the most extreme crime murderer should be punished by the most extreme punishment Preferential affirmative action from Pojman Why Affirmative Action Giving preference to someone based on his or her race gender or ethic background a Pojman makes a distinction between preferential and procedural Procedural is weaker and makes sure that different minorities are equally well supported when applying for a job i Example A black person gets preference over a more qualified white person 10 Moral Nihilism about War Moral considerations do not apply to war Questions regarding morality do not arise in connection with war Normal standards of what is right and wrong do not apply to context in war Ethical Issues and Life Choices Test Study Guide for Test 2 i Regarding questions of just war theory Don t make sense to ask if something is morally right or wrong because moral considerations do not apply to war ii All is fair in war 11 Antiwar pacifism Wars are always or almost always morally wrong It is never permissible to wage a war All intentional killing of human beings is morally wrong Three types Absolute conditional selective i Absolute 1 Against all war ii Conditional lives overall iii Selective 1 More selective war only fine if payoffs are great and improve 1 Types of weapons never allowed to be used in warfare Engaging in war may be permissible but using certain kinds of weapons never is 12 Terrorism from Valls Can Terrorism be Justified Defined by Valls as violence committed by non state actors against persons or property for political purposes 1 This definition does not make out terrorism to be morally wrong by definition and is close to everyday usage a Important because if we are going to discuss moral implications of terrorism we should do so in an unbiased manner With a neutral definition close to ordinary usage we aren t prejudiced for or against
View Full Document
Unlocking...