Matters of life and Death Exam 1

Tooley’s first defense of voluntary active euthanasia 

Active and voluntary euthanasia is morally permissible and should be legal because:

1. There are circumstances in which a person’s death is in their own best interest 

2. If death is in their best interest, then it is also in their best interest to commit suicide

3. A person in such circumstances must also satisfy two conditions: (i) their suicide does not violate anyone else’s rights, and (ii) it does not make the world a worse place

4. A person’s committing suicide that satisfies the above conditions is morally permissible

5. If an action is morally permissible, then it can’t be wrong for a 3rd party to assist in that act

1. Therefore, active voluntary euthanasia is permissible (at least in certain circumstances)

tooley’s second defense of active and voluntary euthanasia

1. Voluntary passive euthanasia is not morally wrong in itself

2. Intentionally killing a person (active) and intentionally letting a person die (passive) are morally equivalent 

3. The only difference between active and passive euthanasia is that one is a case of killing and the other is a case of letting die 

4. therefore, voluntary active euthanasia is not morally wrong 

callahan’s case against euthanasia 

Physician-assisted suicide is morally problematic and should not be made legal

1. the argument from the right of self-determination

2. the argument from beneficence 

3. There is no difference in active vs. passive killing 

The argument from the right of self-determination 

You have the right to end your life because self-determination is an important liberal value (you have the freedom to make decisions about yourself)

Response: euthanasia is not a private, but a social act. (ex, duels used to be socially acceptable forms of social killings, and accepting euthanasia would open the door to another form of socially accepted killings (other than self-defense, war, and the death penalty). There would be difficulties in regulating it due to doctor-patient confidentiality. The nature of medicine is to protect life and not end it.

The arguement from beneficence

Doctors also have a duty to relieve suffering, and euthanasia is one way to do so

Response: The duty is not absolute and does not override other competing moral obligations

There is no difference between active vs. passive killing

Response: In the case of passive euthanasia, it is the disease that is the cause of death and not the doctor

Regan animal rights and vivisection

Animal vivisection is immoral because animals have rights that no human benefit, if there is any, is worth violating.

Animals have a different anatomy from humans, so the benefits found in studies with animals are not always translatable to humans.

There is no way to weigh benefits versus harms across species

moral rights belong to those who are subjects-of-a-life and animals are moral subjects so they have rights

animals and their medical use - R.G Frey 

Animal lives may permissibly be used in experimentation because some lives are more valuable than others (even when talking about human life) 

The abolitionist argument is too extreme and does not allow for discussions, the extremist argument is also too extreme

quality determines values

• Normal adult life is much more valuable than animal life because of autonomy and agency 

a defense of the death penalty - pojman 

Capital punishment is morally permissible because a murderer deserves to die (retribution) and it helps prevent future killings (deterrence)

deterrence arguement - pojman 

common sense arguement 

• What people fear more will have a greater deterrence effect

• People fear death more than any other human punishment 

• The death penalty is a human punishment 

• Therefore, people will be deterred more by the death penalty than by any other human punishment

best bet argument - pojman

Even if there is no anecdotal evidence (due to the rare use of capital punishment) it is still the best bet at saving the most lives

retribution argument - pojman

When the right to life is violated, the murderer (1) forfeits their right to life, and (ii) deserves to die

Holds 3 claims:

1. All the guilty deserve to be punished 

2. Only the guilty deserve to be punished

3. The guilty deserve to be punished in proportion to the severity of their crime 

There is a difference between capital punishment and revenge killing:

• Revenge killing is personal, emotional, and motivated by bloodthrist

• Retribution is impersonal, rational, and motivated by concerns of justice and just desert

• Legal retribution is a safeguard, so people don’t take vengeance in their own hands

why we should put the death penalty to rest - nathanson

capital punishment is an immoral practice, and is inconsistent with valuing justice and respecting human persons both in theory and in practice 

why the death penalty is wrong in theory

The death penalty is believed to be a deterrent, but we can imagine that there are other punishments (inhumane) that have a greater effect. Defenders of the death penalty must accept the risk that some innocent people will be capitally punished, but consider it an acceptable price if it means saving a much greater number of innocent lives

Nathanson attacks a specific brand of retributivism: lex talionis

Eye for an eye: this principle states that “if one person harms another, then the perpetrator should suffer the very same harm as the victim” (p. 178)

Nathanson: in order to defend the death penalty, you need to defend lex talionis. which would be the defense of inhumane punishment

why the death penalty is wrong in practice

if a penal system cannot effectively and reliably accomplish those two things, then the results it generates will be unjust

• Race: research suggests that sentencing in capital cases is influenced by both the race of the offender and the race of the victim

• Socio-economic status: the poorer you are, the more likely you are to receive the death penalty for the crime of murder

• Quality of legal representation: if you can’t hire a competent lawyer, but are stuck with a court-appointed lawyer, you are 2.6 times more likely to receive a death sentence