Ethics FINAL EXAM review

Meaning of Life: Leo Tolstoy - A Confession:

How would you characterize Tolstoy’s state of mind?

Tolstoy is in a state of depression. He has lost his will and purpose to live and feels the need to end his life. He sees far too much pain in living and cannot find happiness.

Meaning of Life: Leo Tolstoy - A Confession:

Why does Tolstoy believe that the natural sciences cannot provide him with any answer to his question? Do you agree?

Tolstoy believes that the natural sciences cannot provide him with any answer to his question because they don't even address the concept of life and consider life as temporary and accidental. Sciences like astrophysics and biology failed to answer his question "What is the meaning of life?"

Meaning of Life: Leo Tolstoy - A Confession:

Do you agree with Tolstoy's answer to the question "How am I to live?” Why? Support your position.

I agree with Tolstoy's answer that believing in faith guides us on how we should live and gives meaning to one's life. I feel that faith allows people to believe in existing beyond life on Earth and lets us have less fear for the end of our lives, allowing us to live more freely.

Meaning of Life: Leo Tolstoy - A Confession:

What kinds of knowledge does Tolstoy distinguish?

Tolstoy distinguishes between rational knowledge and irrational knowledge. According to him, rational knowledge is understanding the sciences that concern the state of the mind, such as philosophy. Irrational knowledge provides us with notions to believe in so that we can support our will to live. He believes that rational knowledge looks at life somewhat exclusively while irrational knowledge provides more importance to life.

Meaning of Life: Epicurus - Epicurus to Menoeceus:

Why is the study of philosophy important?

The study of philosophy is important because it is concerned with the health of the soul. Understanding philosophy trains us to live a fulfilled life where our actions continuously aim to better our physical/mental health.

Meaning of Life: Epicurus - Epicurus to Menoeceus:

When Epicurus speaks of pleasure as the main goal in life, what does he mean to say?

When Epicurus speaks of pleasure as the main goal in life, he means that pleasure and the absence of pain are the only two true goods. He states that evil and good are sensations, and anything that doesn't cause pain or pleasure is a matter of indifference. DEATH is a loss of sensation therefore we cannot feel anything anymore. DEATH ends it all we don't have to worry about death because the sensation ends.

Is Dying an Evil? Lucretius - On the Nature of the Universe:

Why do we not have to fear death, according to Lucretius?

Lucretius believes we do not have to fear death because there is no real pain that occurs to us when we're dead, and that death itself has no relevance in our lives except for the definition of the end. He states that it's foolish of us to fear death because we then cause more pain by fearing it than death causes itself.

Is Dying an Evil? Lucretius - On the Nature of the Universe:

Lucretius compares the time before we were born to the time after we are dead. Why does he make that comparison? Do you agree with his conclusion?

Lucretius compares the time before we're born to the time after we're dead because they are both times when no pain or pleasure occurs. Thus, he believes they are equal in indifference. I understand where he's coming from because both of these times are devoid of physical life. However, I don't agree with this conclusion, because the time before birth is filled with potential and the development of the soul, while the time after death is the end of the motion of life and starts a new journey of the soul's existence in the afterlife.

Is Dying an Evil? Lucretius - On the Nature of the Universe:

What is your vision of hell? What does Lucretius tell us about hell?

My vision of hell is a red-hot fiery underworld, where the souls of those who lived their lives to do or spread evil go to be punished in their afterlives. Lucretius believes that hell doesn't exist in the afterlife because one cannot bear eternal pain. Instead, he says that hell is a concept reflected in the lives of fools because our characteristics of hell are displayed in those lives. He claims that we reject all of the bad things in the world and the concept of hell.

Is Dying an Evil: Parfit - Why We Should not Be Biased Towards the FutureIs Dying an Evil: Parfit - Why We Should not Be Biased Towards the Future:

What does Parfit mean by our bias towards the future, and what does he think about it?

Parfit means that our bias towards the future is that we care more for events in the future than past events. He thinks we would be happier if we viewed the future and the past as equal.

Is Dying an Evil: Parfit - Why We Should not Be Biased Towards the FutureIs Dying an Evil: Parfit - Why We Should not Be Biased Towards the Future:

What are the characteristics of the person called “Timeless”?

The characteristics of "Timeless" are that they are persistent, content, and optimistic. They view the events of the past and the possibilities of the future as equal in importance.

Is Dying an Evil: Parfit - Why We Should not Be Biased Towards the FutureIs Dying an Evil: Parfit - Why We Should not Be Biased Towards the Future:

How does the bias towards the future affect Lucretius’ argument [please note: Parfit refers to it as Epicurus’ argument] that our attitude towards our future non-existence should be the same as the attitude towards our past non-existence.

Our bias toward the future affects Lucretius' argument because we are selective in what we look back on from the past, and often we regret things of the past, so then we fear things in the future. According to Parfit, the only way Lucretius' argument works is if we don't have a bias towards the future and we don't regret the past, which no human is currently capable of. BIASED to the future is more important than the past. We have past experience that influence out future outlook.

Is Dying an Evil: Parfit - Why We Should not Be Biased Towards the FutureIs Dying an Evil: Parfit - Why We Should not Be Biased Towards the Future:

How does Parfit support his statement that we should not be greatly troubled, if we have nothing to look forward to?

He supports his experiment with a thought experiment/diagram. Being at the end of one's life is similar to being at the start of one's life because they each have little to regret. Parfit claims that we should not be greatly troubled if we have an equal outlook on both the past and future. If we are at the beginning of life, we have nothing to look back to and we can only look toward the future. If we are at the end of life, while we may not have anything to look forward to, we still have all of our past to look back on.

Is Dying an Evil: Parfit - Why We Should not Be Biased Towards the FutureIs Dying an Evil: Parfit - Why We Should not Be Biased Towards the Future:

Why would we be happier, if we were like “Timeless”?

We would be happier if we were like "Timeless" because we would have an equal amount of joy and lessons learned for the future because they mirror the joys and mistakes of the past. Thus, we would be contemptuous of both the past and the future.

Is Dying an Evil: Glover - Suicide and Gambling with Life:

a) What are the views Glover is arguing against, and b) what is his own position?

Glover argues against the view that suicide doesn't raise a moral question because it's either a symptom of mental disturbance or the free choice of an individual. His position is that suicide raises moral questions for the person who wants to commit suicide and the people trying to prevent suicide.

Is Dying an Evil: Glover - Suicide and Gambling with Life:

What kinds of suicidal and near suicidal acts does Glover distinguish?

He distinguishes suicidal acts as people who kill themselves in conformity with altruistic motives, people who are happy but kill themselves as a result of temporary depression, and people who kill themselves to escape from pain or incurable illness. He claims that near-suicidal acts are either a gamble on life or a cry for help that may end one's life but doesn't have the full intent to do so.

Is Dying an Evil: Glover - Suicide and Gambling with Life:

What do you think it means to gamble with one’s life? Do you know people who gamble with their lives? What do they do?

I think to gamble with one's life means to have less care about whether someone lives a longer or healthier life, and instead do acts that have the risk of ending one's life. In Glover's terms, I do know a couple of people who gamble with their lives, due to excessive drinking. However, they don't attempt to end their lives, they just simply struggle with an addiction.

Is Dying an Evil: Glover - Suicide and Gambling with Life:

What are the two moral questions Glover raises with regard to people who choose death or risk death?

The two moral questions that Glover raises about people who choose death or risk death are "Should they kill themselves or risk their lives?" and "Should other people intervene to prevent suicide?" They both rely on predicting the future, which is challenging and makes it hard for the individual to find the best answer for themselves.

Is Dying an Evil: Glover - Suicide and Gambling with Life:

If we contemplate suicide, what are the questions we should ask ourselves?

If we contemplate suicide, we should ask ourselves "What would my own future life be like, and would it be worth living?" and "What effect would my decision to kill or not kill myself have on other people?" For question 1, we must calculate how likely or unlikely it is for life to improve. We must also talk to loved ones and consider a less radical step. For question 2, we must calculate how our loved ones would be affected by our death. We must ask whether people would be better off if we were dead. They must also consider the emotions of others who will be affected and how much they contribute to society. These are difficult questions to answer because we believe our lives are so bad that they are no longer worth living. However, we should talk to others to find an alternate and healthier solution.

Is Dying an Evil: Glover - Suicide and Gambling with Life:

What are the principles that should guide intervention? What are, according to Glover, the implications of the principle of autonomy for suicide-intervention? Do you agree?

The two principles that should guide intervention are that it's desirable to save a life worth living and it's also desirable to respect a person's autonomy. These two principles can conflict, because you may want to save the person but they may want to end their life. According to Glover, the principle of autonomy makes it so that you can persuade a suicidal person to not kill themselves at least once, but they should decide on whether to end or continue their life on their merit. He also says that you must save the maximum number of worthwhile lives with respect to the person's autonomy, meaning that you must also limit the number of times you prevent the person from killing themselves. Eventually, if the person keeps trying to commit suicide, you need to let them go and do as they wish with their lives. RESPECT the autonomy of the person

Is Dying an Evil: Glover - Suicide and Gambling with Life:

Do you think that intervention is justified when someone places his or her own life at risk?

I think that intervention is justified when someone places their life at risk because we have the right to preserve a life that is worth living. We should think about the benefits that result from taking the risk, the degree of the risk, and the consequences of the various kinds of intervention.

Interpersonal Relationships: Aristotle - Friendship:

What are the 3 kinds of friendships Aristotle distinguishes? What are their characteristics and what are the complaints they cause?

The three different types of friendships Aristotle distinguishes are useful, pleasurable, and virtuous friendships. Useful friendships are relationships where two or more people come together to work together to accomplish a goal, like teammates and coworkers. This is also known as the friendship of utility. There is a moral and a legal concept to these friendships, and when they're legal, complaining and fighting are more likely because people don't have any principles that fight against those notions. People in these friendships often don't truly like to spend time with each other. Pleasurable friendships are relationships where two or more people enjoy each other's company when engaging in certain activities. For example: friends you play games with, friends you go out to dinner with, and friends you visit social events with. Useful and pleasurable friendships are similar because they have upsides and downsides. They're casual, easy to form, and have simple foundations, but they also are easy to break down and disband. Virtuous friendships are relationships where two or more people help each other become better people when they're together. Virtuous friends concern the character and flourishing of each other, and each person wants the other to be a good person with a good life.

Interpersonal Relationships: Aristotle - Friendship:

Do you agree with Aristotle that one cannot have a perfect friendship with many people? Why/Why not? What is your experience?

I agree with Aristotle that you can't have perfect friendships with many people because it's tough to have such a strong connection with many people and spend quality time with each person at the same time. Virtuous friendships take a long time to develop and require a very deep understanding of each other while also devoting a great deal of time to spend together. It requires a certain type of love that is exclusive

Interpersonal Relationships: Aristotle - Friendship:

Why does Aristotle's state that "the friendship of base men is depraved"? What is your position?

Aristotle states that "the friendship of base men is depraved" because people who build their friendships based on easily changeable things like pleasures and goals can often find themselves friendless when those goals don't match others or when happiness runs out. I believe this is true because one needs to have a stronger foundation of trust, a sense of commonality, and equal caring for their friends to truly build a strong bond with them. True friends also look out for each other's well-being and they help each other become better people.

Interpersonal Relationships: Ringer - Looking out for # 1:

What is Ringer's definition of a friend and friendship, and what are the foundations of friendship? Do you agree with Ringer? Why? Why not?

Ringer's definition of a friend is someone who fills a need for you and then you do the same for them. The foundations of friendship are built on admiration/respect and rational selfishness. I agree that you need to have mutual respect to be friends, but I don't believe that you need rational selfishness as well. I think friendship requires a certain level of selflessness to be strong.

Interpersonal Relationships: Ringer - Looking out for # 1:

What model does Ringer use to describe friendship? What do you think of it? Does your experience with your friends support Ringer’s view?

Ringer uses the Weight-and-Balance Happiness Scale to describe friendship. It explains how one can weigh their friendships and see your and your friend's long-term best interests. I think it's a valid, yet selfish way to determine and think through your friendships. I also think my experience with friends doesn't exactly support Ringer's view because we make sacrifices for each other, which Ringer is against. I also believe in equity when it comes to friendship, not equality.

Interpersonal Relationships: Ringer - Looking out for # 1:

According to Aristotle, under which category would Ringer’s type of friendship fall?

According to Aristotle, Ringer's friendship would be useful because it is based on expecting something out of each other for each other's gain. These friendships can also be of high quantity.

Interpersonal Relationships: Ringer - Looking out for # 1:

Do you agree with Ringer that we take liberties with our good friends, we would not think of taking with our worst enemies?

I don't agree that if we take liberties with our good friends, we will not think of taking with our worst enemies because we treat our friends and our enemies differently. I think you should have more of an equity with good friends, while people you don't like should be treated with through a lens of equality.

Interpersonal Relationships: Kant - Friendship:

How does Kant define friendship?

Kant defines friendship as when someone cares for someone else's happiness and they do the same for them. It is a generous mutual care between two or more people where care is reciprocated.

Interpersonal Relationships: Kant - Friendship:

Why is friendship important to us, according to Kant?

According to Kant, friendship is important to us because it relieves us from the constraints of society where we don't disclose our true thoughts and feelings. Friends allow us to take off our masks and accept us for who we truly are.

Interpersonal Relationships: Kant - Friendship:

What are the positive and negative aspects of friendship?

The positives of friendship are that we find someone who is trustworthy and who will have a relationship with us that is free from malice and falsity. Our friends can also allow us to be our true selves, while also unburdening our hearts. They can also uphold our morals and correct us if we are morally wrong. However, friendship can also make us close-minded to those who are outside our friendship circle. Naturally, we like to join societies or clubs, but as a member of a group, we exclude others. Ideally, we should not exclude others.

Interpersonal Relationships: Kant - Friendship:

What holds a friendship together, according to Kant?

According to Kant, what holds a friendship together is sharing the same intellectual or moral principle. However, it's better if you think differently from your friend. That way you can learn from each other and better understand each other on a moral level.

Interpersonal Relationships: Marilyn Friedman - Friendship and Moral Growth:

How does friendship foster our moral growth, according to Friedman? Do you agree/disagree? Provide your own examples.

According to Friedman, friendship fosters our moral growth when it provides experiences that help us learn things that make us grow morally. The ways our friends are affected by society tell us something about its standards. Friends may affect our moral autonomy. For example, a student may want to go to sleep, but they get a sudden phone call from a friend who is having a panic attack and suffering from extreme anxiety. The student, in reaction to their friend's distress, will stay on the call and help calm down their friend, no matter how long it takes to do so. In this case, the student is putting the needs and well-being of their friend over their wants and needs, which is a sign of positive moral growth.

Interpersonal Relationships: LaFollette - Licensing Parents:

What does LaFollette argue for in this text?

LaFolette is arguing for the state for all parents to be licensed and why it's desirable.

Interpersonal Relationships: LaFollette - Licensing Parents:

Why should parents be licensed?

LaFollette believes parents should be licensed because parenting can potentially be very harmful to children, and a parent must be competent to avoid hurting the child. This is so that bad parents can't raise children in harmful ways.

Interpersonal Relationships: LaFollette - Licensing Parents:

What is the analogy between licensing drivers of cars and parents?

The analogy between licensing car drivers and parents is that driving requires safety to be functional, which requires a certain amount of competence. We use the process of licensing because an activity is harmful, safety in the activity requires a certain amount of competence, and we need a reliable procedure for determining competence. Thus, LaFollette says that we should have a similar process for parental licensing. When tests are reliable, promote safety, and are applied to harmful activities, they are affected. Parenting is harmful because some parents abuse their children, and some neglect their children through incompetence.

Interpersonal Relationships: LaFollette - Licensing Parents:

What are the theoretical objections against licensing parents? Do you find them convincing?

The two theoretical objections against licensing parents are licensing is not theoretically desirable, and that there aren't any procedures that can accurately license good parents. The first objection claims that licensing parents takes away the right for people to have children, which LaFolette claims that there is no such right and that even if there was, rights are mainly non-absolute. I disagree with this objection because it assumes that people have a civil right to have a child, regardless of circumstance. The second objection claims that we can't accurately predict who would be a good or bad parent. I agree with the second objection because someone could start as a great parent, but then later begin to abuse their child.

Interpersonal Relationships: LaFollette - Licensing Parents:

What do you personally think should be the criterion/criteria to decide whether or not someone should be allowed to have children or to adopt children?

I think if we were to be licensed to have or adopt children, I think the only criteria should be that one would go through thorough, enhanced training so that someone is fully ready to raise a child into a productive member of society.

Interpersonal Relationships: LaFollette - Licensing Parents:

Why is the claim that parents should be licensed not so extreme if we think about the case of adoptive parents?

The claim that parents should be licensed is not so extreme when it comes to adoptive parents because they have a smaller emotional attachment to the child since it didn't come as a result of their physical activity. Also, adoption procedures make it so that most adoptive parents have to be competent and not want to abuse the child to adopt them.

Interpersonal Relationships: LaFollette - Licensing Parents:

Why do many of us find the idea of licensing parents abhorrent?

Many of us find the idea of licensing parents abhorrent because these beliefs have adverse effects on children and parents, as parents should raise their children so that they become functional adults in the future.

Intrasocietal Issues: Mill - Speech in Favor of Capital Punishment:

Mill is a utilitarian. He looks at the consequences of the action to determine whether or not an action is right. Please list all the utilitarian arguments Mill provides in order to support his view that the death penalty should not be abolished. What do you think about them?

They want to produce the least amount of pain for the greatest amount of people. Punishment should be the least painful. He believes that the death penalty kills two birds with one stone, as thinks that forcing the person to live the rest of their life in prison is a harsher punishment. Additionally, he believes in the deterrence of the death penalty. I don't exactly agree with his points because deterrence has been proven wrong, and the death penalty in practice has been used unjustly.

Intrasocietal Issues: Mill - Speech in Favor of Capital Punishment

What is Mill’s response to the view of the sanctity of human life?

He thinks that the suffering of people should be considered. He says it's unreasonable to think the death penalty shows a lack of regard for human life because we don't view fining and imprisonment as a lack of respect for property or personal freedom. Since we value personal property, freedom, and human life, we're willing to fine, imprison, and use the death penalty as punishment to show our respect for those values.

Intrasocietal Issues: Mill - Speech in Favor of Capital Punishment

Which argument against the death penalty does Mill give serious consideration?

He says that the only argument that Mill gives serious consideration to is that capital punishment be replaced with penal servitude, as this also takes the freedom and life away from the criminal.

Intrasocietal Issues: Nathanson - An Eye for an Eye?:

What are the seeming advantages of lex talionis?

The advantage of lex talionis (CLASSICAL FORM) is that it allows us to treat others in the way that we were treated by them. This follows traditional philosophical thought. This can be barbaric and seems easy at the surface level but in reality is rather complex. However, it can't tell us in many cases how to punish (ex: drunk driving, arson, rape, hijacking a plane, etc.). FOCUSED ON THE TOPICS ON "What someone deserves"

Intrasocietal Issues: Nathanson - An Eye for an Eye?:

Explain what Nathanson means by the two problems with retributivism (lex talionis).

Nathanson sees that retributivism doesn't provide a solution to instill morality into those who've committed the worst of crimes, and it doesn't provide adequate criteria for determining appropriate levels of punishment.

Intrasocietal Issues: Nathanson - An Eye for an Eye?:

Why do proportional retributivism and equality retributivism not provide support for the death penalty?

Equality retributivism doesn't provide support for the death penalty because it calls to do the same to the criminals as they have done to society, meaning that they should be burned if they committed arson and tortured if they committed torture. It tells us neither what criminals deserve nor how we should treat them. Proportional retributivism doesn't support the death penalty because it doesn't outright say that murderers should be executed, it just says that those who murder should be punished with a proportional punishment on the scale. TWO CONCERNS are inhumane and the crime cannot be repeated to the person

Intrasocietal Issues: Nathanson - An Eye for an Eye?:

Go over the thought experiment (rescuing a drowning person) in on page 78 (ch. 6). Who deserves the least and who deserves the most praise in your opinion? Come up with your own ranking of the four examples and explain the reasons for your ranking.

1st: F in #3 because she risked her own life to save E, without thinking of any reward except saving a worthy life.

2nd: Superman in #4, because he is a superhero and uses his powers to save a worthy life. However, he was in no way risking his life to save G.

3rd: C in #2 because she saved D's life, but only because she wanted a chunk of D's wealth as a reward for saving his life. She wouldn't have saved D if she didn't think about the reward.

4th: A in #1 because he only saves B's life to get the money that they both robbed. A then tries to kill B to keep the money for himself. He wouldn't have saved B's life if it weren't for the money.

- Nathanson believes that we must consider reasonable effort when it comes to these situations. WE CANNOT determine what someone deserve.

- We distribute punishment so that society is protected.

Intrasocietal Issues: Reimann - The Justice of the Death Penalty in an Unjust World:

Why is “the question of the justice of the death penalty in principle” different from “the question of the justice of the death penalty in practice”?

The two questions are different because the principle simply creates an objective system that distributes penalties for various crimes, while the practice can be determined subjectively and can either be carried out fairly or unfairly to those who committed the crimes. When we adopt a policy, we don't simply use it for everything but we choose a sequence of events that requires that policy to be carried out. We hold people responsible by giving them harsh consequences for their actions, despite whether they believe the consequences are fair or not. Thus, we apply a policy that is just in principle but administered unjustly, it's just that we chose an unjust policy. REIMANN BEILVES THAT IN THOERY DEATH PENALTY IS CORRECT BUT IN PRACTICE IT IS NOT BECAUSE THE FOUR CONDITIONS

Intrasocietal Issues: Reimann - The Justice of the Death Penalty in an Unjust World:

How is Reiman going to proceed in his paper?

Reiman will provide a connection between the moral evaluation of policies in principle and the moral evaluation of policies in practice. He'll ask whether the death penalty is just in principle and whether it's just in practice in society at that time.

Intrasocietal Issues: Reimann - The Justice of the Death Penalty in an Unjust World:

What is Reiman’s view of deterrence and retribution?

Reiman's view of deterrence when it comes to capital punishment is that if it was a better way to prevent potential murderers, then it would be non-controversial. The problem is that it's hard to tell whether it is more effective than life without parole or other less brutal punishments. This approach is utilitarianist in the way that people must find the least amount of suffering when it comes to capital punishment. He doesn't like the deterrence approach much because it focuses too much on the effects on people other than the person who committed the crime and requires too much research to find non-impactful statistics to support capital punishment. However, he does like retributivism because it focuses on its impact on the murderer, and forces them to face moral guilt. He agrees with the "eye for an eye" perspective, as he thinks it makes murderer understand that they are equal to their victims, and as long as the punishment is devoid of revenge it is valid.

Intrasocietal Issues: Reimann - The Justice of the Death Penalty in an Unjust World:

What are, according to Reiman, the four conditions which characterize the imposition of the death penalty in the United States, and what are the implications for “the question of the justice of the death penalty in practice”? Do you agree with Reiman’s conclusion?

According to Reiman, the four conditions that characterize the imposition of the death penalty in the United States are discrimination in the application of the death penalty among murderers, discrimination in the definition of murder, discrimination in the recruitment of murderers, and life on death row as torture. The first pertains to how racism plays a huge role in who's given the death penalty (more black people are sentenced to death, and murderers of white people, especially women, are more likely to be sentenced to death). The second alludes to how many different forms of murder aren't given the death penalty, but take similar effort or motive to do so. The third point addresses how most people on death row are poor. The fourth states that we torture prisoners for a long period, and then sentence them to death, which is extremely harsh. These come together to create a very unjust policy that is wrong to adopt in practice in the U.S. I agree with his conclusion because historically the death penalty has been disproportionally given to minorities who murdered or accidentally killed people, while many white murderers have been given life in prison or less.

Contemporary moral philosopher Michael Walzer (mentioned by Adele Cortina) has developed an approach to ethics that

is based on a distinction between 'a thick and particularist morality', embodied in each particular society, and 'a thin and universalist morality', able to spread beyond the frontiers

Adela Cortina mentions two major disadvantages of utilitarianism to become a global ethics. Please complete: 1) It is a comprehensive doctrine of the good that is not shared by all the social groups of societies with liberal democracy, and even less so by non-liberal cultures.

2) It is aggregationist and, therefore, it permits sacrificing the rights of the individual for the rights of the community when necessary

Adela Cortina claims that ethical relativism is unsustainable in daily life

yes

Intergenerational Issues: Glover - What Sort of People Should There Be?

What is Glover's text about and what is his thesis?

Glover's text is about what kind of people there should be and how genetic engineering could be used. He sees that the stance against genetic engineering that "we should stop trying to play God" is used by those who do and don't believe in God. His thesis is that we shouldn't fear the risk of genetic engineering. He's for genetic engineering and suggests that we should accept it.

Intergenerational Issues: Glover - What Sort of People Should There Be?

Glover asks: “If we can make positive changes at the environmental level, and negative changes at the genetic level, why should we not make positive changes at the genetic level? What makes this policy, but no the others, objectionably God-like?” (46) What is Glover’s answer? Do you agree?

Glover answers that genetic changes can have more drastic consequences and can support the extreme case of playing God where people have control over others' lives. I agree because making genetic modifications to people can have many adverse effects and has a higher potency than modifying the environment.

Intergenerational Issues: Glover - What Sort of People Should There Be?

In a nutshell: what is the objection about that we should not be playing God?

The objection that we should not be playing God states that a small group of people shouldn't be able to dictate the lives of many others. He argues that people should be able to make their own decisions about their lives and bodies.

Intergenerational Issues: Glover - What Sort of People Should There Be?

What are the reasons why a genetic supermarket subject to some central regulations may be preferable to purely central decisions regarding the engineering of human beings?

A genetic supermarket subject to some central regulations may be preferable because it would allow parents to choose their children's characteristics instead of having the child affected by forces outside of their family (media, neighborhood, peers, etc).

GATTACA

What are the main topics the movie addresses?

Genetic modification

Stereotypes applied to people with medical conditions or mental illness

Burden of being expected to amount to nothing and the burden of being expected to become everything

Talent vs Work Ethic

GATTACA

What are the philosophical questions the movie raises?

Is it morally right for parents to want their children to be perfect or the best version of themselves?

Is it wrong to expect so much or so little from someone based on their genetics?

How far should one go to pursue their dreams and aspirations?

Can genetic modification make someone truly "perfect"?

GATTACA

How realistic do you think the movie is in presenting the topics and questions?

I believe the movie is realistic in the sense that it predicts genetic modification. For instance, in the scene where Vincent's parents can choose their ideal child and sibling for him, they can choose the sex of the child, much like parents can do now. Also, I think the movie was on the mark with how society would perceive others if we were to condition generations of people to strive to be genetically "superior" to others.

Intergenerational Issues: Liao - Selecting Children: The Ethics of Reproductive Genetic Engineering

What does Liao mean by reproductive genetic engineering?

By reproductive genetic engineering, Liao means the genetic editing that is used for research purposes and/or for developing treatments for diseases. This selects and creates new beings, and can be used for therapeutic purposes.

Intergenerational Issues: Liao - Selecting Children: The Ethics of Reproductive Genetic Engineering

Briefly summarize the main arguments for and against the moral permissibility of reproductive selection. State the advantages and weaknesses of each of the positions.

Perfectionist View: Supports the practice of reproductive genetic engineering so that one can be born with immunity to all natural born diseases, it is morally obligatory to use what technology we have to give humans the best life possible

Libertarian View: Supports the practice of reproductive genetic engineering, stating that we should be allowed to engage in the selection of modifying any being within ethical reasoning. There are two versions: permissive and life worth living. Permissive says it’s a moral right, while life worth living allows for any child to be who they are with the protection of having a worthwhile life.

Human Nature View: Does not support reproductive genetic engineering because it believes that it will cause us to lose our humanity and push people to want to be the same ideal human being. States that we shouldn’t interfere with nature and what makes us human.

Motivation View: Does not support reproductive genetic engineering, believes that the practice of selecting one’s genes can fall into the control of others and give extreme power to people who oversee the process

Intergenerational Issues: Liao - Selecting Children: The Ethics of Reproductive Genetic Engineering

What are the factors an adequate theory of the ethics of reproductive genetic engineering should take into account?

The factors an adequate theory of the ethics of reproductive genetic engineering should take into account are the likeliness of having the best life for a child, reproductive liberty, the effect it could have on the human species, moral agency, human flourishing, and appropriate motivation.

Changing DNA can affect future generations

Negative is removing defects while positive is adding improvements

Kwame Anthony Appiah - What will future generations condemn us for?

Three signs will expose whether future generations will condemn a present practice

1. The first is that there is a viable argument against that practice

2. Second is that the defense of the practice fails to use moral position and rather uses the history of tradition

3. Lastly, people will choose to be ignorant about the truth of the practice which could make them face evils

For prison: research has shown the immoral treatment of prisoners, the defense of prison points to its necessity in the past, and many choose to ignore the adverse effects incarceration has on inmates

For industrial meat production: Studies back in the 18th century showed that animals were being tormented in the meat industry, people don’t use moral justification to defend the industry, and many turn a blind eye to the truth of the industry because it puts food on their table

For the institutionalized and isolated elderly: Elders are restricted from human contact and kept away from families, we rarely defend the situation anyway, and we put it out of our minds when we can

For the environment: We know the harm done by deforestation, pollution, greenhouse gases, etc., defenders believe we need to use natural resources for our survival and fail to address moral concerns, and we often turn a blind eye to the issue