Final exam study guide Phil 150 Corin Fox PDF

Preview

Summary

Phil 150 ethical reasoning Corin Fox...

Description

A Helpful Guide to Study for the Final *All of the items on ‘A Helpful Guide for Studying for the Midterm’ *All of the items on ‘A Helpful Guide for Studying for Test 3’

*Who are the parties in the standoff Marquis discusses? - “anti- abortioners”- wants to accept ethical principles, like killing all “X’s” is wrong-such as to make the class “X’s” broad enough to include fetuses o it is always prima-facie seriously wrong to take a human life. o it is always prima-facie seriously wrong to end the life of a baby. - “pro-choicers” – wants to accept ethical principles- like, killing all “X’s” is wrong-such as to make the class of “X’s” narrow enough to exclude fetuses o being a person is what gives an individual intrinsic moral worth o it is only prima facie wrong to kill rational agents (although there are cases where it is permissible ) *What point in the dialectical exchange does Marquis call a ‘standoff’? - where one could “not unreasonably” charge one’s opponents principles with being either too narrow or too broad - the debate is typically about the plausibility of one’s opponents ethical principles - a participant in the debate typically works to show that under analysis one’s opponents ethical principles lose their plausibility. *What two sorts of problems does Marquis say arise when parties to the debate seek to alter their ethical principles in order to make them less broad or less narrow? - 1. There are counter example problems - 2. There are ambiguity problems *What is the counterexample problem for the pro-choicer principle? - The pro-choicers – “it is only prima facie wrong to kill rational agents” doesn’t entail that it is wrong to kill mentally ill people o But it IS wrong to kill them o So a mentally ill person is a counterexample to the principle o So the pro-choicer needs to make their principle less narrow *What is the counterexample problem for the anti-abortionist principle? - The anti-abortionist – “it is always prima facie seriously wrong to take a human life” seems to entail that it is wrong to end the life of a human cancer cell. o But is isn’t wrong to do that o So a human cancer cell is a counter example to the principle o So the anti-abortionist needs to make their principle less broad

*What is the ambiguity problem for the anti-abortionist? - The anti-abortionists “human being” is ambiguous. - Either human being is a biological category or it is a moral category - If it is a biological category then the anti-abortionist still needs to explain why something’s being counted by some biological category makes a moral difference. - If it is a moral category then the claim that a fetus is a human being cant be used as a premise because it presupposes what needs to be proven. *What is the ambiguity problem for the pro-choicer? (YOU ADDED) - The pro-choicers ‘person’ is ambiguous - Either ‘person’ is defined by psychological properties or it is a moral notion - If it is defined by psychological properties then the pro-choicer still needs to explain why something’s having psychological properties makes a moral difference - If it is a moral notion, then the claim that a fetus is not person cant be used as a premise because it presupposes what needs to be proven. *What features does Marquis accept/reject as wrong-making features of killing? - “both the anti-abortionist and the pro-choicer/lifer uses incorrect ethical generalizations with their ethical laws” - progress can be made, he says: “if we focus on killing itself and on why it is generally wrong, rather than on ethical generalizations like killing all X’s is wrong *What does Marquis say counterexample problems turn into, when participants in the debate work to alter their ethical principles? - The anti abortionist’s change to “it is always prima facie seriously wrong to take a human beings life” results in disagreement about the arbitrary application of ‘human being’ - The pro-choicer change to “it is only prima facie wrong to kill rational agents and people with great social utility” results in disagreement about the arbitrary application of ‘person’ and ‘with great social utility’. *What does Marquis say we should focus on (other than on the ethical generalizations that are often debated) in order to make progress past the standoff? - Both the anti-abortionist and the pro-choicer/lifer uses incorrect ethical generalizations with their ethical laws. - Progress can be made, if we focus on killing itself, and on why it is generally wrong rather than on ethical generalizations like killing all “X’s” is wrong. *What is Marquis’ Premise 1? - (P1) killing us (adult humans) is typically wrong *Does Marquis argue for premise 1? - NO he doesn’t

-

The considerations he provides to support premise 2 could easily be crafted into an argument

*What is Marquis’ Premise 2? - (P2) the wrong-making feature of killing us that it deprives us of the value of our future: o it deprives us of: i. what we value how ii. what we would have, given our current propensities, valued later iii. what we would have come to value iv. (ASK FOR CLARIFICATION OF DIFFERENCES) *Does Marquis argue for premise 2? - Yes in 3 parts *If so, what is the argument and what are its parts? Support for premise 2: 3 parts Part 1 (to argue against 2 rival theories) - rival theory 1: it is wrong to kill because of the impact on the killer. It brutalizes the killer - rival theory 2: it is wrong to kill because of the impact on the victims friends and relatives. Other people lose a lot. *Why does Marquis reject Rival theory 1? - Marquis says: theorizing tat killing is wrong because it makes the killer brutal does not explain why the act itself, prior to the killer being brutalized was immoral. - He concludes generally: the effect on the killer does not explain why acts of killing are themselves wrong. *Why does Marquis reject Rival theory 2? - Marquis says: this theory would not explain why it is wrong to kill hermits or why it is wrong to kill people with independent lifestyles who do not have an close friends or family. - He concludes generally: the effect on the friends and relatives does not explain why acts of killing are wrong. Part 2 (the value- of-their-future) - Marquis: the value- of-their-future theory for why killing is wrong helps us explain 2 important intuitions we have: o Intuition 1: we think that killing is one of the worst crimes. We punish it with some of the most severe punishments.  The value- of-their-future theory can explain this. It is one of the worst crimes because it deprives the victim of more than perhaps with any other crime. o Intuition 2: we think that people with terminal illnesses, have had something very bad happen to them.

The value- of-their-future can explain this. It is a very bad thing that has happened to them because it deprives them of a future that would have otherwise experienced. o Marquis: a better theory of the wrongness of killing must point to a different natural property to explain why this and other things are bad. But it is unclear what that property would be. Part 3: 4 implications of value- of-their-future - The value- of-their-future theory has 4 important implications 1. It allows that it can still be wrong to kill beings tha are not biologically human, so long as they have futures a. We can imagine the possibility of non-human beings on another planet, which have futures like us, but who we shouldn’t kill. 2. It leaves it open whether it is wrong to kill certain actual non-human animals a. That is, it doesn’t by itself settle certain animal rights issues 3. It doesn’t entail that euthanasia is wrong for the severely and incurably ill a. Other theories imply that it is always wrong to kill. This allows it to be permissible in cases where one has no future. 4. It entails that it is seriously morally wrong to kill infants and children a. Other theories that focus on ‘personhood’ have a harder time accounting for the wrongness of killing infants and children. 

*What is Marquis’ Premise 3? - The future of a standard fetus includes a set of experiences, projects, activities which are identical with the futures of adults and young children *What is the main conclusion of Marquis’ argument? - Abortion is prima facie seriously morally wrong o Does marquis argue that all abortions are morally wrong?  NO! given the value- of-their-future and how/who killing affects, there is a strong assumption in favor of abortion being wrong.  There are some cases where abortion is morally permissible and some where it is morally impermissible. *What are the two rival theories of the wrongness of killing which Marquis discusses? - rival theory 1: it is wrong to kill because of the impact on the killer. It brutalizes the killer - rival theory 2: it is wrong to kill because of the impact on the victims friends and relatives. Other people lose a lot. *What are the two intuitions Marquis alleges his theory helps us to explain? o Intuition 1: we think that killing is one of the worst crimes. We punish it with some of the most severe punishments.

The value- of-their-future theory can explain this. It is one of the worst crimes because it deprives the victim of more than perhaps with any other crime. o Intuition 2: we think that people with terminal illnesses, have had something very bad happen to them.  The value- of-their-future can explain this. It is a very bad thing that has happened to them because it deprives them of a future that would have otherwise experienced. 

*What are the four implications of Marquis value-of-their-future theory, which he discusses? 1. It allows that it can still be wrong to kill beings that are not biologically human, so long as they have futures a. We can imagine the possibility of non-human beings on another planet, which have futures like us, but who we shouldn’t kill. 2. It leaves it open whether it is wrong to kill certain actual non-human animals a. That is, it doesn’t by itself settle certain animal rights issues 3. It doesn’t entail that euthanasia is wrong for the severely and incurably ill a. Other theories imply that it is always wrong to kill. This allows it to be permissible in cases where one has no future. 4. It entails that it is seriously morally wrong to kill infants and children a. Other theories that focus on ‘personhood’ have a harder time accounting for the wrongness of killing infants and children....