Ethics final exam

Rawls SCT

Rawl thinks that each person possesses and inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override

Rawls SCT

He says a moral person must have a sense of justice, and an ability to have and follow a conception of the good life

Warrens approach on abortion

the fetus isn’t a person

Moral status of abortion depends on what

who has moral status

The standard pro life argument

1.) it is wrong to kill innocent human beings

2.) fetuses are innocent human beings

3.) therefore, it is wrong to kill fetuses

Genetic vs moral human

whether our moral compass is shaped by biological inheritance or by environmental and cultural influence

Characteristics of personhood

consciousness, rationality, emotional experience, moral agency

The rights of the mother are stronger or weaker than the fetus

stronger

Thomson on abortion

• we don’t have a right to some things

• Self defense-innocent threats may be killed

• right to an unproblematic life

The violinist case

Thomson asks you to imagine this scenario:

• You wake up in a hospital.

• A famous unconscious violinist has been plugged into your kidneys.

• He needs your body to filter his blood for nine months.

• If you unplug yourself, he will die.

• You did not consent to this arrangement.

• Thomson argues:

• Even if the violinist is a person with a full right to life…

• You are not morally obligated to let him use your body.

• A right to life is not a right to someone else’s body.

• Therefore, abortion can be morally permissible even if the fetus is a person.

The extreme view

The Extreme View says:

• The fetus has a right to life.

• The mother also has a right to life.

• But the fetus’s right to life outweighs the mother’s right to control her body.

• Therefore, even if the mother will die, abortion is still wrong.

In short:
You may not kill the fetus even to save your own life

Right vs. Decency: An Early Hursthouse

Hursthouse argues that even if abortion is within a woman’s rights, it may still be morally indecent depending on her motives and character. Rights tell us what is permissible, but decency tells us what a virtuous person would do

Against The Voluntariness Argument: Open Window & People Seeds

Opening a window doesn’t invite burglars, and installing screens doesn’t mean you consent to people‑seeds growing in your house. Likewise, having sex—even with precautions—does not automatically mean you consent to pregnancy. Therefore, voluntariness does not make abortion always impermissible.

The problem of infanticide

The Problem of Infanticide is the objection that some pro‑choice arguments say abortion is okay because fetuses lack personhood traits (like rationality or self‑awareness), but infants also lack those traits, so the argument seems to allow infanticide, which is unacceptable. So the pro‑choice view must explain why abortion is permissible but killing infants is not

The Deprivation Account: Why It’s Wrong to Kill Us

• We have a valuable future full of things worth having.

• Killing us takes that future away.

• So killing is seriously wrong because it causes the loss of a “future like ours.

Marquis on Abortion

By aborting them, fetuses are deprived of their future of value, which is one of the worst things that can happen. Abortion is prima facie very seriously morally wrong

Indirect Support: Active Euthanasia

If ending suffering is a good reason to let someone die, then it can also be a good reason to actively help them die.

Indirect Support: Children & Infants

If we allow euthanasia to reduce suffering, then why not allow it for children or infants who suffer even more but cannot express a choice?

This creates pressure on euthanasia supporters to explain why adults can receive euthanasia, but children and infants cannot

Scruton on animals

-Animals are not persons

-only persons have rights

-rights require consent and impose duties

-animals do matter morally, contra Kant

-Scruton agrees with singer that animal suffering matters, but so do special relationships

Scruton on animals

-Traditional animal agriculture brings animals into existence

-If animals have a good life and good end, then there is no moral objection to be made

Donovan on Animals

• Donovan rejects moral rationalism, which dismisses emotions

• rationalism reflects male bias

• sympathy is cognitive

• industries that use animals deliberately hide the suffering they cause from human sympathy

The Famine Relief Argument: Strong Version

The Famine Relief Argument: Moderate Version

The moderate version says we must help famine victims, but only up to the point where giving more would require sacrificing something morally important to our own lives.

The Drowning Child & Global Poverty

Singer uses the famous drowning child analogy: If you can save a drowning child by ruining your clothes, you must do it. The cost is trivial compared to the child’s life. He argues famine relief is morally the same situation.

Singer on global poverty

objection 1: radical moral revision

objection 2: too demanding

objection 3: government responsibility

objection 4: population control

Marginal Utility: The Moderate Principle Superior?

• Strong principle: Give until you’re almost as poor as the people you’re helping.

• Moderate principle: Give until giving more would hurt your well‑being in a serious way.