Phil 164 Exam 2 Meacham

Sumner's criticism of the "typical pro choice argument"

Sumner's criticism of the "typical pro choice argument"

>Okay to kill before birth
>Bad to kill after birth; like killing a normal human adult

pro-choice example

kill baby right before born= okay; nothing wrong

Sumner's belief

says that moral status comes gradually and in degrees

pro-life example:
1- Drunk driver
2- Drunk CDC Tech
3- Drunk fertility tech

drunk fertility tech is worse for killing 300,000 fertilized eggs before conception

Sumner's criticism of the "typical pro-life argument"

>Okay to kill before conception
>Bad to kill after conception; like killing human adult

Sumner's criticism of life #1

Worry #1: life is too broad
Not bad to kill rocks or plants/bacteria; but if life is between the two, its is bad to kill plants

Sumner's criticism of life #2

Worry #2: doesn't gradually come in degrees

Sumner's criticism of rationality (the ability to reason)

>Life is narrow;
killing human adults is wrong and above rationality but there are many things that fall below rationality: animals, severe mentally handicapped adults, babies

Sumner's account of when and to what extent it is bad to kill something

the degree of which it's inherently bad to kill something, is proportional to the degree to which its sentient

higher sentience=higher moral status=

worse to kill

sentience

the ability to perceive or feel things, distinguished from intellect or thought

Sumner: 0-5 months of pregnancy

fetus has no moral status= abortion okay

Sumner: between 5-7 months of pregnancy

develop moral status= questions about abortion

Sumner example:
Save 8mth fetus or 9 mth old baby

9 month old because more sentience

Sumner example:
Save NHA or Cow

Human because more sentience
>>> can reject because cow does have sentience but humans feel wider range of pain

Sumner example:
Save Cow vs chicken

Cow because more cognitively developed; feel more things

Sumner example:
Save NHA vs. baby

NHA because more sentience=higher moral status

Sumner example:
Save NHA vs. SMHA

NHA because more sentient and more rational
>>>SMHA not rational

Sumner example:
Save Chimp vs SMHA

depends how handicapped the adult is

Sumner example:
Save Cow vs 9 mth old baby

Cow

Marquis' account of when and to what extent it is bad to kill something

The degree to which it's inherently bad to kill something is proportional to the degree to which it's deprived of a valuable future like ours

Advantage #1 of Marquis' account

Explains why killing is so bad.
>>>Deprives person being killed so much more than anything else you can do.

Marquis: explanation of advantage #1

Deprives person being killed so much more than anything else you can do.

Advantage #2 of Marquis' account

Explains why euthanasia isn't as bad as "normal" killing.
Euthanasia is mercy killing

Marquis: explanation of advantage #2

Euthanasia is mercy killing

Advantage #3 of Marquis' account

Explains why killing non-humans can be bad

Advantage #4 of Marquis' account

Explains why killing babies is at least as bad as killing NHA's.

Contraception/chastity objection to Marquis

contraception≈ Murder ?! (Chastity)

Marquis: Interpretation #1
Don't know which sperm & egg combo deprived, so not bad.

Example:
>>Poisoning Milk
Cyanide injected in milk
Reply: Doesn't matter if you don't know who is deprived.

Marquis: Interpretation #2: Indeterminate which sperm & egg combo deprived, so not bad.

Ex: Schrodinger's Captives
>>Gas released into either one room or another, 50% chance that someone will die
Reply: Doesn't matter if who is deprived is indeterminate.

Marquis: Worry #1

Why is a fetus "one" thing?
Ex: Siamese-Twin Surgery
Possibility for one twin to die or both
Letting them die instead of doing the surgery, did doctor do something bad?

Marquis: Worry #2

Depriving two things of a shared valuable future can be bad.
Ex: Frankenstein

Marquis: Worry #3

Depriving one thing of a valuable future needn't be bad.

Marquis: Should you save?
NHA vs Cow?

Save human bc more valuable future

Marquis: Should you save?
Baby vs Cow?

Save baby bc more valuable future

Marquis: Should you save?
SMHA vs Cow?

Toss-up

Marquis: Should you save?
Grandma with alzheimer's vs UMass?

Umass bc more value

Marquis: Should you save?
Baby vs UMass?

Baby bc has more time to have a valuable future

Marquis: Should you save?
1-day zygote vs Umass?

1-day zygote because more time

Marquis: Should you save?
3 month fetus vs mother?

Fetus because more valuable future

Tooley's account of rights #1

Right to X entails (all and only) that others shouldn't deprive you of X.
Ex 1. Ugly Lamp
Ex 2. Masochism

Tooley's account of rights #2

Right to X entails (all and only) that others shouldn't deprive you of X if you
want X.
Ex 1. Depression
Killing them because they wanna die
Ex 2. Coma
Taking their stuff
Ex 3. Hypnosis
Hypnotizes people to give you stuff

Tooley's account of rights #3

(≈ Tooley): Right to X entails (all and only) that others shouldn't deprive you of X if you want X under normal circumstances.

Ex 1. Rock and Right to be Untouched (Trivial right)
Trivial right: a right that has no implications regarding how we should behave.

Tooley: Can have a non-trivial right to?: Pain-free

Tree (No)
Dog (Yes)
Normal Human Adult (Yes)
Baby (Yes)
1-day zygote (No)

Tooley: Can have a non-trivial right to?: Attorney

Tree (No)
Dog (No)
Normal Human Adult (Yes)
Baby (No)
1-day zygote (No)

Tooley: Can have a non-trivial right to?: Life

Tree (No)
Dog (No)
Normal Human Adult (Yes)
Baby (No)
1-day zygote (No)

Tooley's argument against potentiality views
(Cat Serum Argument )

Potentiality Views (e.g. Marquis): Kill fetus = Kill I-cat ≈ kill NHA
"I": inject -w- smart cat serum
"N": neutralize
"I-cat": cat injected -w- smart cat serum less than 9 months ago.


P1. Kill NHA > Kill cat
P2. Kill cat = I-ing cat and N-ing cat & kill cat.
P3. I-ing cat & N-ing cat & kill cat = kill I-cat
C. Kill NHA > Kill I-cat.
=> Potentiality Views are false.

Marquis: reject P2?
Valid? Yes
Sound? ?

Argument against Human Intuitions

P1. If dog fighting is wrong, the typical LD50 testing is wrong.
P2. Dog fighting is wrong.
C. Typical LD50 testing is wrong.

Argument against Human Intuitions Option 1

Reject P1: There's an important moral difference between dog fighting and typical LD50 testing.

>Dog fighting -- entertaining/ pleasure
>LD50 -- safety

Replies to option one of H.I argument

>Does LD50 testing really improve safety?
>>>A typical use of the product
>>>Hard to get good predictive results
>What about the safety/well-being of the animals?
>LD50 -- product safety -- pleasure

Argument against Human Intuitions Option 2

Reject P2: Animal suffering doesn't matter (much)

Argument against Human Intuitions Option 3

Accept C: LD50 testing is wrong.

Argument from Marginal Cases

Ex. SMHA (severely mentally handicapped adults) LD50 Testing Factory
P1. If SMHA LD50 testing is wrong, then animal LD50 testing is wrong.
P2. SMHA LD50 testing is wrong.
C. Animal LD50 testing is wrong.

Option 1 for the Argument from Marginal Cases

Reject P1: There's an important moral difference between SMHA LD50 testing and animal LD50 testing.

Option 2 for the Argument from Marginal Cases

Reject P2: Non-rational suffering doesn't matter (much).

Option 3 for the Argument from Marginal Cases

Accept C: LD50 testing is wrong.

Singer's Position

>Sexism: To value the interest (e.g. happiness) of one sex more than those of another.
>Racism: To value the interests of one race more than those of another.
>Speciesism: To value the interests of one species more than those of another.
>Singer: Accept option 3 w.r.t. (with respect to) both arguments

Singer's test

Would you be willing to perform this test on a SMHA, or yourself?
>>Ex: Jonas Salk
Invented a vaccine for polio and tested it on himself and his family
Inventor of yellow fever vaccination first tested on himself
>>LD50 testing fails.
Singer: LD50 testing is wrong.

How would a Rawlsian Contractualist assess animal rights

We should act according to rules agreed by agents who are 1. rational , 2. Self-invested, 3. Behind the veil of ignorance

ANIMALS-not rational
But rawlsian agents will be rational and since they're self-interested, why give other beings rights?

Carruthers argument for why it's bad for humans to torture animals

P1: If dog fighting is wrong, then LD50 testing is wrong

Makes us more likely to hurt humans

>P1 of argument from Humane intuitions is false

Worries for Carruther's argument

1. Does dog fighting make us more likely to hurt humans?
2. Are dogfighting and animal LD50 testing distinct in this way

Carruther's "Social Stability Argument"
(goes against P1 for the argument of M.C)

P1: If our immediate relatives were "marginal", and had no rights, the state could seize them whenever it was in societies interest to do so
marginal= not rational
P2: If the state could do this, society would become unstable
P3: Rawlsian agents would never agree to rules which make society unstable
C: Rawlsian agents would give "marginal" humans rights

Worries for SSA

1. Would this make society unstable?
>>>P2 false
2. If we had rigid property rights, our "marginal" relatives couldn't be seized
>>>P1 false
3. Only follows that immediate relatives of rational agents get rights
>>>Makes argument Invalid
4. Can some argument be run for animals having rights?
>>>P1 of argument from M.C will be true

Cohen's account of when it's inherently bad to kill something

It's inherently bad to kill something iff it belongs to a kind whose typical member is rational

Cohen: Okay to kill?
SMHA (kind=human)

not okay to kill bc humans are rational

Cohen: Okay to kill?
Fluffy (kind=dog)

okay to kill bc typical dog isn't rational

Worry #1 for Cohen's account

What are the right kinds? (What justifies this choice?)
>chris? (kind= mammal)
Okay to kill bc most mammals aren't rational
>baby chris? (kind= baby human)
Okay to kill because the typical baby is not rational

cohen: explanation for worry 1

Cohen: Assumes kinds should = species
--Morally relevant kinds=rational/sentient but not
Rational/ living but not

Example: Fluffy? (kind= sentient but not rational)
>okay to kill bc not rational
Example: SMHA (kind= sentient but not rational)
>okay to kill bc not rational

Worry #2 for Cohen's account

What's typical of your kind doesn't seem morally relevant

Example: heaven vs hell
hitler, stalin, pol pot, ghandi, (HELL)
rosa parks, mother teresa, st. catherine, bathory the blood countess (HEAVEN)

Worry #3 for Cohen's account

Implausible Consequences
Example: Fido the Genius Dog (kind= dog)
Okay to kill because typical dog is non-rational
Example: Pluto People Pasture..... You? (kind=human)
Okay because typical humans would be considered not rational