Ethics Final
Here is a detailed study guide for your ethics exam based on all listed topics and prompts:
1. Importance of Motive: Utilitarianism vs. Kantian Ethics
Utilitarianism (e.g., John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham):
The rightness of an action depends solely on the consequences it produces.
Motive is morally irrelevant if the outcome maximizes utility (pleasure or preference satisfaction).
Example: Saving five lives unintentionally while acting selfishly can still be morally praiseworthy if the outcome is net positive.
Kantian Ethics (Immanuel Kant):
The moral worth of an action depends on the intention behind it, specifically if it is done out of duty and guided by the categorical imperative.
A good will is the only thing that is unconditionally good; consequences don’t determine moral worth.
Example: Telling the truth out of duty, even if it leads to a bad outcome, is still the right thing.
2. Dixon and Issues of Consent: Impaired and Regretted Sex
Dixon’s Argument:
Challenges the assumption that alcohol automatically negates consent.
Suggests consent exists on a spectrum and calls for clear criteria to distinguish consensual but regretted sex from non-consensual sex.
Impaired Sex:
Legally and ethically problematic when a person is intoxicated to the point of lacking the ability to make informed decisions.
Consent under significant impairment may not be valid even if the person doesn’t resist.
Regretted Sexual Encounter:
Post-hoc regret does not retroactively turn a consensual act into a non-consensual one.
Raises questions about the subjectivity of consent and its boundaries.
3. Mens Rea and Actus Reus
Mens Rea (Guilty Mind):
The mental state indicating culpability, such as intent, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence.
Examples: Premeditated murder vs. accidental killing.
Actus Reus (Guilty Act):
The physical action or conduct that constitutes a criminal offense.
In criminal law, both elements are generally required for conviction.
Relationship:
Without intent (mens rea), some acts may be wrong but not criminal.
Example: Killing someone while sleepwalking has actus reus but lacks mens rea.
4. Euthanasia: Types, Laws, and Arguments
Definitions:
Active Euthanasia: Direct action taken to end a life (e.g., administering lethal drugs).
Passive Euthanasia: Withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment.
Physician-Assisted Suicide: Doctor provides means (e.g., pills), but patient performs the final act.
U.S. vs. Belgian Laws:
U.S.:
Physician-assisted suicide legal in some states (e.g., Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act).
Requires mental competence, terminal illness, waiting periods, and multiple requests.
Belgium:
Euthanasia broadly legal, including for psychiatric conditions and some minors.
No requirement for terminal illness; suffering must be “unbearable and untreatable.”
Controversial for how broad and accessible it is compared to U.S.
5. Arguments Against Euthanasia
Argument from Self-Interest:
Patients may not act in their best interest (e.g., depression, pressure).
Potential for abuse, misdiagnosis, or future medical advances lost.
Slippery Slope Argument:
Legalizing euthanasia may lead to non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia.
Could devalue lives of disabled, elderly, or vulnerable populations.
6. Arguments For Euthanasia
Autonomy:
Respect for individual choice over their body and life decisions.
Especially relevant in end-of-life care.
Avoidance of Pointless Suffering:
No moral obligation to endure pain when there’s no prospect of recovery.
Some pain is beyond relief even with palliative care.
More Humane and Honest:
Acknowledges the reality of suffering rather than forcing patients into passive euthanasia or painful deaths.
Prevents people from taking extreme or violent measures on their own.
7. Genetic Control and Eugenics
Negative Eugenics:
Preventing the birth of individuals with perceived undesirable traits.
Methods: sterilization, selective abortion, prevention of reproduction.
Positive Eugenics:
Encouraging the reproduction of people with desirable traits.
Example: Using IVF to select embryos with high intelligence or athletic potential.
Lazy/Neglectful Parents Argument:
Criticism that genetic solutions are used instead of better parenting, education, or support.
Risks oversimplifying complex social issues.
Methods:
Sterilization: Used historically (e.g., forced sterilization in the U.S.) to prevent “unfit” reproduction.
Abortion: Terminating based on genetic testing.
Murder: Ethically and legally unacceptable.
IVF: Can involve embryo selection; raises ethical concerns about enhancement vs. therapy.
8. Gun Control Debate
Huemer’s Argument:
Gun ownership is a prima facie right grounded in self-defense and liberty.
Any restrictions must demonstrate substantial net benefit (e.g., large drop in crime rates).
Burden of proof is on government to justify bans.
Kellerman Study:
Found that having a gun in the home increased the risk of homicide.
Critics argue it doesn't prove causality and may involve selection bias.
Substitution Theory:
Removing guns may lead to criminals using other weapons (e.g., knives).
Questions the effectiveness of bans in reducing violence.
9. Child Welfare and Parental Autonomy
Three Points in Favor of Parental Autonomy:
Parents have a deep personal connection and knowledge of the child’s needs.
Diversity in parenting styles is valuable in a pluralistic society.
Too much government interference risks authoritarian control and undermines family integrity.
Medical Child Neglect:
Failure to provide necessary medical care violates child welfare obligations.
Can justify state intervention (e.g., faith-healing cases, withholding blood transfusions).
10. Lying and Morality
Conflicting Values:
Lying undermines trust, but truth can sometimes cause harm.
Ethical conflict between honest communication and preventing injury.
Three Views:
Absolutism (Kant):
All lies are wrong, no exceptions.
Truth-telling is a moral duty, even if it leads to harm.
Serious Harm Only:
Lies may be justified only to prevent significant physical or psychological harm.
E.g., lying to a murderer to save someone’s life.
White Lies and Harm Avoidance:
Small lies (e.g., complimenting a bad meal) are okay.
Broader scope for justifiable deception, based on intent and impact.
11. Theories of Well-Being
Philosophical Hedonism:
Definition: Well-being is pleasure and the absence of pain.
Features:
Mental and physical pleasures are equally valid.
All that matters is the quantity of pleasure over pain.
Stereotypical Hedonism:
Misguided focus on constant sensual or bodily pleasure (e.g., partying, drugs).
Experience Machine Objection (Nozick):
If plugged into a machine that simulates pleasure, most would decline.
Suggests people value authenticity, knowledge, and relationships beyond just pleasure.
Desire Theory:
Definition: Well-being is the satisfaction of a person's desires (whatever they may be).
Problem: Bizarre Desires — what if someone desires to count grass or harm themselves? Satisfaction doesn't always improve life.
Objective List Theory:
Definition: Some things are good for you regardless of your desires (e.g., health, knowledge, love).
Problem: Disagreement on what should be on the list and how to weigh them.
12. Free Will and Moral Responsibility
Libertarian Free Will:
People have the power to make undetermined choices.
Implies moral responsibility — praise or blame makes sense.
Supports legal and ethical accountability.
Hard Determinism:
All actions are caused by prior events; no one has true free will.
Implies no moral responsibility — people can't be blamed for actions they were determined to do.
Hatred and regret are irrational responses to determined events.
Let me know if you want this as a downloadable PDF, or if you want flashcards or practice questions added.