Exam #2

Question 1

what’s the double of doctrine effect? (Aquinas)

Answer 1

killing is only okay when that wasn’t the intention
- according to Thompson, the intention doesn’t matter but the alpha (action) does

Question 2

foreseen vs. intended consequences (Aquinas)

Answer 2

We should only be held responsible for the actions that we intend, not that we could foresee (Good vs. Bad example w/ the Children’s hospital)

Question 3

justification vs. excuse: difference & definitions (Thomson)

Answer 3

justification: an action is justified when it is widely considered morally permissible to commit, and the reasons for doing it are sound

vs.

excuse: an action may be excused when it would otherwise NOT be morally permissible, but bc of the unique circumstances of the action the agent is not blameworthy

difference: justification is ALWAYS morally permissible whereas an excuse requires special circumstances

Question 4

What is a Violent Aggressor, and is it an allowable case for killing in self-defense? (Thomson)

Answer 4

When the only way to save your life is to end the attackers.
- Ex. the malevolent truck driver that keeps trying to run you over.

Permissible?: Yes, it would be permissible to use an anti-tank gun and kill them

Question 5

What is an Innocent Aggressor, and is it an allowable case for killing in self-defense? (Thomson)

Answer 5

When someone not out of their own free will is attacking you.
- Ex. drugged driver

Permissible?: Yes, for Thomson the most important consideration is that these people are otherwise going to kill us. The person who initiates the attack just automatically loses the right to life; by violating my right to not be killed they are violating their right to life.

Question 6

What is an Innocent Threat, and is it an allowable case for killing in self-defense? (Thomson)

Answer 6

An innocent person posing a threat to your life, whom you have to kill in order to save your own life.
- Ex. the large man falling

Permissible?: Yes, it would be okay to roll out the awning to cover yourself and for him to hit and fall off.

Question 7

Define “Substitution of a Bystander” and is it an allowable case for killing in self-defense? (Thomson)

Answer 7

Ex. a villain has set a trolley loose on you, in order to live you deflect the trolley towards the bystander.

Permissible?: No, bc. you may not substitute another party who is removed from the situation as a victim to save your own life.

Think RIGHT TO LIFE

Question 8

Define “Riding Roughshod Over a Bystander” and is it an allowable case for killing in self-defense? (Thomson)

Answer 8

Ex. Forcing someone off a bridge that can only hold one person to get him out of your path of exit

Permissible?: No, because that person would not otherwise kill you

Question 9

Define “Use of a Bystander” and is it an allowable case for killing in self-defense? (Thomson)

Answer 9

Using an innocent bystander to defend oneself
- Ex. a human shield as a defense against bullets

Permissible?: No, you can’t use someone else’s life to save your own

Question 10

What’s the irrelevance of intentionality to permissibility thesis? (Thompson)

Answer 10

Ex. Alfred is intending to kill his sickly wide. Unbeknownst to him, the “poison” he is about to give her would actually cure her illness

• Alfred would be at fault if he gives his wife the “poison” with bad intentions, however (knowing what we know) it would still be permissible to do say bc. it would save her life.

*Essentially, the action matters more than the intention in terms of permissibility. Ex. Going above the speed limit is not permissible, then it doesn’t matter why one would be speeding because the action is not permissible. If someone were to be having a baby, the action of speeding would be excusable but not permissible.

Question 11

What’s the irrelevance of fault to permissibility? (Thompson)

Answer 11

It’s irrelevant to the question of whether X may do action (alpha) whether X would be at fault in doing it.

Question 12

What’s the Doctrine of Double Effect, with the Strategic vs. Terror Bomber example? (Thompson)

Answer 12

Killing is okay as long as it wasn’t the intention

• Strategic Bomber: bomber from country Good bombs munitions factory in Bad and HAPPENS to hit a children’s hospital next door (even if it was foreseeable)
• Terror Bomber: Good pilot ordered to boom Bad children’s hospital.

Question 13

What does “Right to Life” mean? (Thompson)

Answer 13

[????]

Question 14

What does “Bystander Inviolability” mean? (Otsuka)

Answer 14

It is never okay to use, substitute, or run roughshod over a bystander in self-defense.

Question 15

What’s the Moral Equivalency thesis? (Otsuka)

Answer 15

IAs and ITs are no different tan a bystander (and therefore shouldn’t be permissible to kill).

Question 16

What’s a bystander according to Otsuka?

Answer 16

An individual in a scenario who will not kill you.

Question 17

Why is it wrong to kill an Innocent Threat according to Otsuka?

Answer 17

Just because an innocent person just HAPPENS to be trapped temporarily in the body of a Threat of Aggressor does not give us the moral license to kill us.

These people would not otherwise kill us were they in a rationally state of mind. It is morally wrong to kill someone who would not otherwise kill you.

Question 18

Why is it wrong to kill an Innocent Aggressor according to Otsuka?

Answer 18

Just because an innocent person just HAPPENS to be trapped temporarily in the body of a Threat of Aggressor does not give us the moral license to kill us.

These people would not otherwise kill us were they in a rationally state of mind. It is morally wrong to kill someone who would not otherwise kill you.

Question 19

What are the Self-Defense Requirements according to Fletcher?

Answer 19

1) Immediacy of Attack (Imminence) vs. pre-emption vs. retaliation

2) Attack if unlawful/unjustifiable

3) the level of force must be necessary

4) and proportional (don’t use more force than the attacker)

5) the intent must be to DEFLECT the attack

Question 20

What are the differences between a Subjectivist Interpretation of Imminence and a Objectivist? (Fletcher)

Answer 20

Subjectivist: [????]

Objectivist: [????]

Change from Ob. to Sub. opens the door to allowing mistakes to be justifiable.

Question 21

Define the Subjectivist Interpretation of Imminence (Fletcher)

Answer 21

Sub.: based on personal expectations/thoughts
Ob.: based on societal expectations/thoughts

Ex. Ally goes to ask Dr. Meyer how his weekend was, he then says “well that’s rude”. Subjectivist would say that’s a permissible response because Dr. Meyer really thought Ally was being rude, Objectivist would say that Dr. Meyer wasn’t really being rude so therefore the action isn’t permissible.

Question 22

Define the Objectivist Interpretation of Imminence (Fletcher)

Answer 22

[????]

Question 23

What’s the relation of past relationships of dominance to the justification of self-defense according to Fletcher?

Answer 23

past relationships of dominance can’t and shouldn’t affect analysis of justification.

There are two things that should stay out of the typical self-defense justification:
1) we can’t allow imminence to be decided on belief only, there needs to be evidence
2) can’t let this defense rest upon a history of domination (abuse) bc. All things being equal it doesn’t change what happened in this attack

Ex. a woman who kills her abusive husband shouldn’t be let off bc. of the history of abuse

Question 24

What’s the role of state in understanding imminence and necessity of self-defense? (Fletcher)

Answer 24

If self-defense is a justifiable defense, then there was no time for the st to respond (i.e. couldn’t wait for the police).

Question 25

What’s the difference between self-defense and retaliation in relationships of domination? (Fletcher)

Answer 25

If what we’re taking about objective immediacy, people who kill their abusers are not actually presently under attack during the attack and therefore are not justified. Unless they are responding to several intended of abuse.

Ex. A woman kills her abusive husband while he is asleep

Question 26

Define Utilitarianism (Hurd, SYG)

Answer 26

promotes the greatest amount of good or the least amount of harm

Question 27

Define Deontology (Hurd, SYG)

Answer 27

that which follows a moral rule

Question 28

What are Hurd’s objections to the Proportionality Principle?

Answer 28

based on utility principle (the law should minimize harm to persons & property). As such, one may never:

1) use force to defend against a non-forceful wrongdoing

2) use deadly force to repel non-deadly force

3) use force unless lesser means of defense have been exhausted

Question 29

What are the alternatives to Deontology? (Hurd)

Answer 29

• you either have rights or you don’t
• if “one has a right to be doing what they are doing, they need not flee from another’s wrongdoing.”

Question 30

Define the Utilization account of Punishment

Answer 30

• deterrence
• rehabilitation
• recognition of the potential evil of punishment itself