Ethics exam 1 Review

Metaethics

Study of ethics at its core

What is the nature of moral truth?

Normative Ethics

What is the thing that decides if an action is right or wrong?

Metaethics Branches (broad)

Moral Realism

Moral Relativism

Divine Command Theory

Normative Ethics Branches

Utilitarianism / Consequentialism

Kantianism / Deontology

Validity

If and only if (iff) conclusion must be true if premises are true

Can have false premises which lead to a false conclusion

Example of valid but untrue/unsound premises

Pigs can fly

I am a pig

Therefore I can fly

Soundness

A valid argument with true premises

Does Not Beg the Question

If and only if an argument assumes in its premises the truth that the conclusion is trying to establish

(no “if” in premise → purely stating the conclusion is a truth in the premise → sometimes its not even sound)

Hume’s Law (Naturalistic Fallacy)

No argument is valid without a normative claim

(normative claim is basically an opinion)

Utitlitarian View on who has moral rights

If you have the capacity for suffering, you are considered conscious

Rule Utilitarian

Which rules, if universally adopted would have better consequences?

More realistic (avoids killing people as a surgeon)

Act Utilitarianism

More strict

Straight up Utilitarianism (kill people as a surgeon)

Categorical Imperative

Morally wrong to act on a maxim that cannot be justified without contradiction

Force of Morality is Universal

Always wrong to treat others as a means only, rather than also as an end

Thomson main stance

Pro abortion if voluntary + consensual

Fetus does not have right to use the mother’s body even if it has a right to life → killing it isn’t unjust

Thomson main moral code

Minimally Decent Samaritan

(vacation abortion)

Warren main stance

Pro abortion

Fetus is not an individual

Less harm is done for the world by legalizing abortions (more suffering otherwise)

Warren on personhood

innocent people shouldn’t be harmed, but a fetus is not a person

“person-like” does not warrant treatment of a person

Potential People

Personhood Principles

1) Sentience

2) Emotionality

3) Being able to reason

4) Capacity to communicate

5) Self awareness

6) Moral Agency

Marquis main stance

anti abortion

Everyone deserves their valuable future

does not grant fetus personhood

Does NOT argue personhood, just that killing is a prima facie wrong

Marquis on personhood

does not grant fetus personhood

him and peter singer beefed (Marquis doesn’t account for consciousness in granting fetus right to life)

Does NOT argue personhood, just that killing is a prima facie wrong

Moral Agent

Responsible

Autonomy

Has rights and responsibilities

Moral Patient

children

rights but no responsibilities

Potential People

Warren

Space invader example that doesn’t make sense

This example crumples her argument on the basis of killing an infant

Actual person > potential person

Objection to Warren

Allows infanticide

Murder is a societal issue, not a moral wrong by this (her response + Space Invader)

Sanctity of Life

Life is valuable

The arguments against euthanasia

Slippery Slope (will erode respect for life)

Harm argument (physicians should do no harm to their patients)

harm argument

doctors should not harm their patients

killing harms the patient

so euthanasia is wrong

slippery slope

if euthanasia is allowed, there will be no respect for life

we should not let respect for life erode

therefore we should not allow PAS

mainly used for physician assisted suicide

Is Steinbock for or against euthanasia?

Against. Unintentionally killing a patient is not euthanasia in his view

Does Rachels support the AMA policy for euthanasia?

No. He believes it should be rejected because passive and active euthanasia are both the same

Which analogy does Rachels use?

2 Uncles drown their nephew for money

One does it and the other watches

Both still killed the child!

Doctrine of Double Effect

Effects of an action can be known or unknown

if known, then the effects of that can be intended or unintended

ex) smoking → you know it can kill you, but the intended effect is dopamine. euthanasia → it might kill you, but the intended effect is to cure suffering

Which example did Steinbock use? (doctrine of double effect)

Action A) Bomb a German Munitions Factory

• Effect 1) End of WW2

• Effect 2) Kill many civilians → Morally wrong but is justified if and only if

  • a) the good of Effect 1 outweighs the good of Effect 2

  • b) Effect 2 isn’t intended

  • c) Action A is the only way to bring about Effect 1

Principalism’s 4 main principles

Respect for autonomy

Non-maleficence (do no harm)

Beneficience

Justice

(the doctrines)

3 types of death

Permanent cessation of the heart + lungs → traditional standard. no breathing and heartbeat

Irreversible destruction of brain → whole brain standard

Irreversible destruction to the part of the brain responsible for consciousness → higher-brain standard. NOT LEGALIZED

• vegetative state

• purely psychological, not biological

• we don’t know about the brain’s consciousness + which parts are connected in regards to mental illness. not enough to legalize this