EXAM 3 PHIL 130

What is the main ethical dilemma presented in the Trolley Driver Case?

Whether the trolley driver should actively switch the trolley to a track with one person, sacrificing one to save five.

What ethical issue does the Transplant Case explore?

Whether it's morally permissible to actively kill one person to save five patients in need of organ transplants.

What is Principle 1 in Judith Thompson's arguments?

Killing one is worse than letting five die.

What does Principle 2 state regarding killing?

Killing five is worse than killing one.

How does the Bystander Case challenge Principle 1?

It pressures the idea that pushing someone to save five is more culpable than letting five die.

What does Thompson say about the Transplant case regarding Principle 2?

It raises whether killing one for the sake of saving five is morally worse than letting five die.

What does 'Using as a Means' refer to in ethical discussions?

Treating someone solely as a tool to achieve an end.

What is the Distributive Exemption?

An action is permissible if the burden or harm is distributed across a group rather than focused on a single individual.

What is the Mayor Example in relation to Distributive Exemption?

It involves deciding to allocate resources to save more lives but at a moral cost.

What is Taurek's main example used to illustrate his argument?

The Drug Case, where one person has a life-saving drug and several need it.

In the Drug Case, what does David's ownership of the drug represent?

David's rights do not override the moral obligations to help others regardless of numerical advantage.

What does Taurek argue about Overriding Moral Obligations?

Moral obligations to individuals are not dependent on numerical outcomes.

How does Taurek think we should approach moral decision-making in the Drug Case?

By treating each individual as having equal moral worth, without prioritizing the larger number.

What complex issue does the Dresden example shed light on?

The difficulty of assigning moral responsibility within collective action scenarios.

What does Kutz's Complicity Principle indicate about moral responsibility?

Individuals can be morally responsible for harms only if they knowingly and voluntarily participate.

How does Kutz suggest determining accountability in collective harm situations?

By examining individuals' control over the action and their knowledge of the harm caused.

What is Sinnott-Armstrong's central claim regarding moral responsibility?

Individuals are not morally responsible for collective harms unless their actions contribute significantly to the harm.

What contrast does Sinnott-Armstrong make between the cyanide case and wasteful driving?

Cyanide pouring is a clear harm, while wasteful driving is less directly harmful and less morally culpable.

What does Sinnott-Armstrong infer about moral principles?

Principles like harm, contribution, and gas principles are often unhelpful for individual moral culpability in diffuse harm cases.

What is Sinnott-Armstrong’s view on obligations beyond wasteful driving?

We have an obligation to avoid activities that contribute to significant, large-scale harms.

What challenges do collective action problems pose for consequentialism?

They question whether individual actions can significantly affect large-scale outcomes.

What distinguishes Triggering cases from Imperceptible difference cases?

Triggering cases involve noticeable changes caused by an individual's actions, while imperceptible cases do not.

What is the significance of the Chicken case in moral decision-making?

It is a triggering case where one person's action causes a significant effect on others.

How does Kagan address imperceptible harm cases?

She argues that individuals can still be morally responsible for contributing to a larger wrong, even if their actions seem insignificant.

What kind of actions does Nefsky focus on in collective impact cases?

Actions where an individual's contribution is small but part of a larger effort with significant effects.

What assumption does Nefsky reject regarding moral reasons to act?

The assumption that one must make a noticeable difference to justify moral action.

How does Nefsky define 'helping'?

Helping is acting in a way that supports a moral cause without needing to show a measurable difference.