Ethics Final Terms

PHL-220 Brett Hackett

 'S has a (moral) right to x'=df

S is a subject of experiences and other mental states, S is capable of desiring x, and if S desires x, then all other moral agents have a moral obligation/duty not to deprive S of X

 ‘x is supererogatory’=df

x is good but not obligatory

Presentism

only the present time is real

Growing Block

nly past and present times are real (the future is not)

Eternalism

all times (past, present, and future) are real

‘S has a right to life’=df

s is a subject of experiences and other mental states, S is capable of desiring to continue to exist as a subject of experiences and other mental states, and if S does desire to continue to exist as a subject of experiences and other mental states, then others have  a prima facie obligation to refrain from actions that would deprive S of S’s continued existence as subject of experiences and other mental states

'S has a concept of self'=df

1. S possesses the concept of a continuing subject of experiences (and other mental states), and

2. S believes that S itself is such a subject

 'state of affairs, e, is a counterexample to p'=df

makes some proposition, q, true, and q contradicts p

The Killing/Letting Die Question

is killing intrinsically worse than letting die?

'property F is intrinsic to x'=df

x’s exemplifying F does not entail the existence of any other thing, y

‘Property F is Extrinsic to x’ =df

x’s exemplifying F entails the existence of at least one other thing, y

Abductive Principle

 observation O counts in favor of hypothesis H if and only if the truth of H increases the probability of O

 'passive euthanasia'=df

allowing terminally ill patients who request to death, to die

 'active euthanasia'=df

killing patients who are terminally ill and who request death

'There is a public dilemma about p'=df

1. There is widespread disagreement about the truth/ falsity of p,

2. If the state were to take a stance toward p, there would be policies implemented to enforce the state's stance

 Resolution by Declaration

when the state takes a stance toward p and declares one side of the impasse the “correct side” 

Resolution by Accommodation

when the state refuses to take a stance toward p and implements only policies that 
“stake out a middle ground” between those who accept p and those who deny p”

The Public Accommodation Thesis (PAT)

whenever I) there is a public dilemma about some proportion, p, ii) a resolution by accommodation is possible , iii ) there are no overriding reasons to take a stance on p, then iv) the state should resolve by accommodation

 'word w is ambiguous'=df

 w has multiple, distinct meanings

'word w is problematically ambiguous'=df

both

i) w is ambiguous, and

ii) it is difficult or impossible to tell which meaning is intended by a given use of w, in a given context

'argument A equivocates on word w'=df

 in order for A to be valid, every occurrence of w must express the same meaning, but when w is used univocally, at least one premise is false

'S1 preferentially hires S2'=df

from a set of equally qualified applicants, S1 chooses S2 based on features of S2 that have no bearing on S2’s ability to perform the job

state  Marquis’ Abductive Strategy [W8]

tbh ??? idk

state and explain Marquis’ Anti-Abortion Argument (MAAA). [W8]

1. It is prima facie seriously immoral to kill an individual if both…

    i. That individual has a future of value, and 

    ii. That individual values or will come to value its future

        1.. [A and b are together the best explanation of the wrongness of killing that coincides with our moral convictions]

2. A standard/ normal human fetus 

    I.  Has a future of value

    II.  Will come to value it [quality of life varies, 

    III. But 2 holds for the vast majority of humans

3. SO, it is prima facie seriously immoral to kill a standard human fetus [1,2, MP]

state and explain Thomson’s Anti-Life-Support Argument (ALS). [W8]

1. It is morally permissible to detach yourself from the violinist. [the violinist has a right to life, but not a right to life support.]

2. The violinist case is analogous in all morally relevant respects to an unwanted pregnancy (__due to rape__ )

3. If (1-2), then (4) [analogical principle]

———— 

4. So, it is permissible to abort an unwanted pregnancy. (__due to rape _____ ) [1-4, MP]

explain analogical reasoning by using the Analogical Principle. [W8]

Example:

Mice are relevantly similar to humans, we test drugs on mice and if they don’t kill the mice then we test them on humans

state  and  explain  antecedent  and  consequent  markers  well  enough  to  identify  and  interpret  the  many synonyms  of  conditionals  (i.e.,  the multiple ways of  saying  ‘p  →  q’  in English).  You   put nonstandard conditionals in standard form. [W9]

???

explain Stevens’ counterexample to the conclusion of Tooley’s Conceptual Defense of (1) in TMA.  Know what it means to say that it is a counterexample.  [W10]

Stevens proof that (1) in TMA is false:

1. Smith has a right to the best treatment [his contract says so]

2. Smith knows nothing about the best  treatment [he doesn’t know about immune suppressive therapy]

3. If (1) and (2) then (4)

4. So one can have a right to x without having a concept of x

state and explain the Probably Worse Argument, addressing how it is abductive.  [W10]

Passive is a case of allowing, active is a case of doing. Actions taken to minimize suffering 

1. most observed cases of killing are morally worser than most observered cases of letting die [uncontroversially true]

2. The best explanation of (1) is that killing is intrinsically morally worse than letting die. [abductive principle]

——————

3.  So, killing is probably intrinsically morally worse than letting die. [strong abduction, “inference to the Best Explanation (IBE)” 

state the Bare Differences Strategy and explain how Rachels employs this strategy to prove that killing is not intrinsically worse than letting die (i.e., be able to walk me through the two Jones and Smith bathtub cases and explain how they are similar and what their “bare difference” is supposed to be).  [W10]

Bare differences: 2 stories (bathtub smith and niece) 

1. Compare two situations that differ with respect to one property (the property of interest)

2. Make all other morally relevant properties identical, and

3. Check to see whether the one difference makes a difference to your moral judgements

state and explain the strategy for exposing equivocation. [W11]

I. Find the problematically ambiguous word

II. Identify the meaning of the ambiguous word required to make one premise true and another meaning required to make the other premise true also 

III. Rewrite the ambiguous word in each occurrence, replacing it with its respective intended meaning

explain the Feminist Charge (against prostitution)—you may use either Ericsson’s formulation, or Pateman’s. [W12 & W13]

Ericsson: The Feminist charge: prostitution contributes to the de-humanization of women 

Pateman: prostitution subjugates woman so prostitution is bad

state and explain the three injustices that Simon claims result from Thomson’s program of preferential hiring in universities. [W14]

a) wrong recipients of benefits, b) arbitrary distribution of benefits, and c) arbitrary distribution of burdens