Term
| Explain the fourfold distinction between "ancient ethics," "Modern Ethics," "Metaethics," and "Applied Ethics." |
|
Definition
Ancient ethics—a blue print for how to live the good life.
Modern Ethics—deontology,
Meta Ethics—Where we deal with what the terms mean. What does good
mean. Are they useful. Meta Ethics also ask are moral statements objective or subjective?
Applied Ethics—Where you apply one of the three theories to an actual
Instance. |
|
|
Term
| What is applied ethics? Specify and roughly explain at least two subdivisions of applied ethics. |
|
Definition
Two examples—Medical ethics and some theories on the subject of
Euthanasia
Enviornmental ethics. The application of the theory to the instance of wheater we are morally obligated to the environment |
|
|
Term
| How does James Rachels argue that there is no distinction between killing and letting die? Is Rachels' argument sound? Why or Why not? |
|
Definition
The Brother sister argument. Rachels argues that these two cases are essentially the same. We think that the first case illustrates killing and that the second case illustrates letting die. Rachels says that our moral intuition says that they’re equally bad, and if this is true then there would seem that there are no distinctions between the two.
Is the argument sound? Suggestions: There may be a false analogy. That killing and letting die are not analgous with active and passive Euthanasia. (deontological approach to the view of Euthanasia. |
|
|
Term
| State and explain at least two objections to Rachels' thesis that there is no distinction between active and passive euthanasia. |
|
Definition
1. False analogy
2. There is a difference in the two instances because in the first case she dies at the hands of her brother and in the second case she dosen’t. This says that there is a difference between the two. |
|
|
Term
| Explain Phillipa Foot's distinction between killing and letting die via her two types of cases. How does one case illustrate killing whereas the other case illustrates letting die? |
|
Definition
Imagine one case where we hear that five people are going to die from some type of wave if we don’t get into a truck and go get them. Along the way we hear that some one person needs our help. Sadly Foot says that if this happens we have to let the one person die because if not then we would be killing the five other people. The morally right thing to do is let the one person die. Numbers don’t matter.
Second case same five people need help. But instead there is a person in the middle of the road. To save the five we have to run over the one person. She says that this time we should let the five people die instead of killing the one person. |
|
|
Term
| State Foot's two types of rights. How do they illuminate the distinction between killing and letting die, or active and passive euthanasia? |
|
Definition
1. The right to non-interfierance. (Negative duty)
2. The right to goods and services.
If we were to violate ones right to non interfierance we would be in affect killing that person we would be engaging in active Euthanasia.
Violating goods and services is letting die while violating the right to non interfierance is killing. |
|
|
Term
| What is the Trolley thought experiment? How can it be used as an objection to Foot's argument for the distinction between killing and letting die (or active and passive euthanasia)? How does Foot respond to the objection? |
|
Definition
One track there are 5 people, the other track has 1 person. Our moral intuition says that numbers do matter. That it would be better to kill 1 than 5. This experiment says that either way you are killing and that there is no distinction between killing and letting die.
Foot says that you are not actually killing because you are not the one that originated the sequence. The only thing you could do is avoiding the five. We are just letting the one person die. |
|
|
Term
| How does Judith Thomson argue that abortion is sometimes permissible--even assuming that a fetus is a human person? What is problematic with her argument? How might Thomson respond? |
|
Definition
| Thomson says that assuming the fetus is a person the baby is like a person who needs to be on life support then the person like the mother is not obligated to be hooked up because she is in control of her body. |
|
|
Term
| Explain at least two of Peter Singer's arguments for the claim that we are morally obligated to relieve famine in distant countries? |
|
Definition
. 2 of Singer’s arguments.
1. Suffering from famine is morally wrong.
2. If we can prevent something morally wrong from happening like famine and the effort that would go into relieving famine wouldn’t harm ourselves or our family then we should relieve famine in distant countries.
3. Relieving famine would not be a burden to ourselves or family members,
Conculsion: therefore we are morally obligated to relieve famine in distant countries
1. Morality is essentialy concerned with fairness or equality we want to treat everyone with an impartial manner. That’s the essence of morality.
2. If we were to allow someone in a distant country to suffer from famine we are disregarding the fairness element that everyone should have the same rights regardless of geography.
3. If we don’t treat anyone impartially we are morally obligated to relieve famine in distance countries, because if we don’t we are disregarding the essence of morality. |
|
|
Term
| How does Singer's Utilitarianism play a crucial role in his argumentation? |
|
Definition
| Well singer is a utilitarian and utilitarians say that our ethical obligation is to max. the comm. Happiness to min. its pain. Singer thinks that the comm. Includes the world not just a town or a state. Since our ethical obligation is to max. the com. (world’s) happiness it would seem that we have to stop famine because to not stop famine it would mean to bring pain to the world comm. |
|
|
Term
| What is Singer's argument for the claim that there is no distinction between duty and charity, that there are no "superogatory" acts? How might a deontologist respond to Singer's argument? |
|
Definition
Superogatory acts are things we don’t have to do things that go beyond duties. Singer says there is no distinction and part of the reason is because of his utilitarianism and because part of it says that the essence of morality is fairness and because the world is the comm. He says since we have to make the community happy then doing things that are “charitable” or Superogatory are just duties not superogatory.
A deontologist would say that Duties are in a sense essential for a society where as charitable acts are in a sense inessential. It would be nice to give to these sorts of countries but it’s not essential for our society. Deontologist would say you don’t have a duty to relieve famine. |
|
|
Term
| According to Elliot Sober, What is environmentalism? |
|
Definition
| The environmentalist claim that our main ethical obligation is to preserve the ecosystem. The whole you might say. For the environmentalist our major obligation is to maintain the whole ecosystem not as much as individuals. So we have an obligation to preserve endangered species and geological structures since they too are part of this ecosystem. The discrimination that our species is more important is known as speciism |
|
|
Term
| How does Sober argue that environmentalism is guilty of the fallacy of arguing from ignorance? How might an environmentalist respond? |
|
Definition
Environmentalist don’t really know if a certain species if it were to go extinct would harm or help the environment one way or the other. If they don’t really know then how would they say that we are obligated to save an endangered species. The environmentalist do seem to know that if one goes extinct it would hurt the ecosystem too.
An environmentalist would say how do you know singer we believe that the ecosystem is interconnected. Well we maintain that the ecosystem is interconnected that if one part were to go extinct it would adversely hurt the environment. He’s overlooking the fact that our species could harm other species. |
|
|
Term
| What is Sober's slippery slope argument against environmentalism? How might an environmentalist respond? |
|
Definition
According to Sober the environmentals believe that if 1 or 2 species or geological extinctions happen everything will eventually go extinct. This may not be true.
Environmentalist maintain that it will. Not all slopes are slippery. Given that the ecosystem is interconnected then it would seem that if one part went missing then it would have catastrophic effects. Not all slopes are slippery it would happen. In this case it would lead to a domino effect because of the interdependent parts. |
|
|
Term
| How does Sober argue that there is no distinction between that which is natural and that which is artificial? How is it supposed to undermine an argument for environmentalism? Does it undermine the argument environmentalism? |
|
Definition
Environmentalist say that man made products are ok to allow to perish or go extinct because it’s not natural because it’s a product of our making.
Environmentalist say that natural things are independent of our works so we have no rights to allow natural things to perish or go extinct.
So this would seem to suggest that we are more morally obligated to the natural stuff.
Sober says no there is no distinction between natural and what’s artificial. Our products our works are part of this interconnected system so a sweetner is as natural as a lake.
The environmentalist would say it would seem like there would have to be a difference between natural and artificial |
|
|
