matters of life and death midterm review

Tooley euthanasia

Tooley argues that voluntary active euthanasia is morally permissible.

Tooley Premise 1

Individuals have the right to make decisions about their own life and death. Denying someone the option of voluntary euthanasia violates their autonomy and self-determination.

Tooley Premise 2

Intentionally killing someone is not morally worse than passively allowing them to die.

Tooley Premise 3

If a person’s life contains mostly suffering, and they would prefer to die, assisting in death is more of an act of compassion than harm.

Tooley Rebuttal 1

Some argue that people’s desires to die might be due to depression or fear.

Tooley Rebuttal 2

Some argue there are differences. Killing is an active decision but letting die is just allowing what is going to happen.

Tooley Rebuttal 3

Some argue that legalizing euthanasia could lead to a “slippery slope”, or could lead to justifying non-voluntary deaths.

Callahan euthanasia

Callahan believes physicians assisted suicide should not be made legal.

Callahan Premise 1

Individuals have the right to make choices about their lives but not to ask others to kill them. It becomes a shared moral act.

Callahan Premise 2

Euthanasia would corrupt the goals of medicine. Medicine is supposed to heal and preserve life. Doctors would have to judge life’s value.

Callahan Premise 3

Callahan thinks there’s no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia.

Callahan Rebuttal 1

Autonomy includes the right to decide how and when one’s life ends.

Callahan rebuttal 2

Euthanasia would enhance medicine by allowing doctors to relieve suffering.

Callahan rebuttal 3

Intent matters more than causation, the intent would not to kill but to relieve suffering.

Regan animals

Regan argues that using animals in harmful experiments for human gain is morally wrong.

Regan premise 1

All beings have value that’s independent of their usefulness to others. Many animals have memories so they should be treated with the same respect as humans.

Regan premise 2

Individuals with inherent value may not be harmed simply for other’s benefit. Animals are not tools to use in experiments.

Regan premise 3

Animal testing violates moral reasoning. It’s wrong to inflict pain or death on innocent humans for research so it’s wrong to do so on animals.

Regan rebuttal 1

Animals lack rationality or morality so they cannot have rights.

Regan rebuttal 2

animal testing saves human lives and reduces overall suffering.

Regan rebuttal 3

There are moral differences between animals and humans. Humans have higher cognitive abilities and morals, making humans more valuable.

Frey animals

Frey believes animal testing is morally permissible.

Frey premise 1

The moral worth of a life depends on the quality and richness of that life’s experiences.

Frey premise 2

The overall benefit outweighs the harm. Animal research can relieve human suffering and banning it could cause more harm.

Frey premise 3

Some humans have mental capacities to animals, but as a society we protect our species.

Frey rebuttal 1

Assigning worth based on mental capacity leads to discrimination or speciesism.

Frey rebuttal 2

This mindset allows immoral acts if they produce good outcomes.

Pojman death penalty

Pojman argues the death penalty is morally permissible.

Pojman premise 1

Murderers forfeit their right to life by taking another’s life. Restores balance and gets justice.

Pojman premise 2

The fear of death is a stronger deterrent than any prison sentence.

Pojman premise 3

A murderer knows the consequences and choosing to do so means they morally chose that.

Pojman rebuttal 1

Killing the murderer only adds more violence.

Pojman rebuttal 2

There are no proven studies that show that the death penalty deters murder.

Pojman rebuttal 3

There could be wrongful conviction.

Nathanson death penalty

Nathanson believes the death penalty is not morally permissible.

Nathanson premise 1

Punishment is not mirroring the crime, it should still be humane.

Nathanson premise 2

Every person, even murderers, has moral value.

Nathanson premise 3

The death penalty fails in practice, it does not deter, application is inconsistent, and it cannot be reversed.

Nathanson rebuttal 2

Executing murderers honors their dignity by holding them fully accountable for their actions.

Nathanson rebuttal 3

Even a small deterrent could justify capital punishment if it saves innocent lives.