Exam 3

Question 1

Sandel against Enhancement

Answer 1

-Drive for mastery of nature: erodes appreciation for giftedness of life and people would become hyper-respondsible for there choices.
-Decreases soldarity for talents since enhancement would no longer make them special, therefore they would also be less likely to share.

Question 2

Savulescu pro enhancement

Answer 2

-The 1st argument involves the lazy v.s. neglectful paren which says that both parents not giving their child a supplement are analogous to enhancing or impairing the child.
-The 2nd argument involves that enviromental enhancements can be seen the same as genetic enhancements
-The 3rd enhancements involves comparing eliminating disease is the same as genetic enhancement because medicines that take away disease the same way that genectic enhancement could.

Question 3

Bostrom Ord- Reversal Test

Answer 3

-The test involves eliminating status quo bias therefore, if the answer is no to both cognitive enhancement and cognitive impairment means that the theory suffers from the bias
-The same amount of framing of treatment effects person’s descion-making.
-Optimum: Perfect as can be, which is extemely unlikely.

Question 4

Anstley- arguments she is objecting to; her problem with it

Answer 4

-The main argument consists of if parents didn’t enhance their childern against deafness than harm would be socially would imposed.
- The argument against includes if you are choosing against deafness by curinng it with enhancement, would led to more chooing enhancement, then to a decrease in power of deaf individuals, which would increase in social harm towards deafness.

Question 5

Arguments from Analogy

Answer 5

-Puppies vs. Animals: it is not morally relevant due to that puppies changed the perspective of the situation otherwise with pigs have theh same reaction.
-Dry+Liquid= Chemical Reaction: How does the salt affects reaction? The salt doesn’t change anything so it is not morally relevant.

Question 6

Variant Cases

Answer 6

If “X” is relevant? Change experiment to have “X”.

Question 7

Speciesism

Answer 7

-Treating members of one psecies as morally more important than membes of other species.
-Fred tortuing puppies is seen as a wrong for a humans personal gain but people eating farm animals along with, knowing the torture they go through is not seen as wrong.

Question 8

Argument from marginal cases

Answer 8

-The marginal question: Mora superiority of human over animals in attribution to exclude humans? Is there a moral reason to humans against experiment and for food as to use animals?
-Responses: We don’t discriminate against humans w/ lower capabilities therefore, we can treat animals with similar cognitive capabilities of humans, along with, giving more practical reason to treat them as equal

Question 9

Best explanation arguments

Answer 9

Data goes into the theory and is applied to controversial case like in Marquis Future like Our theory.

Question 10

Marquis’s Theory

Answer 10

Future Like Ours: It is seriously morally wrong to kill a fetus due to that it could value a future like ours or will come to value a future like ours,

Question 11

Objections, including: Contraception objection

Answer 11

-how it is relates to cognitive experience.
-anytime a person uses contraception they are going against a FLO, This is invalid due to no contraception is absurb.

Question 12

Thomson

Answer 12

All fetus’’s have rights to life and abortion brings about the death of a fetus therefore abortion is wrong.

Question 13

Objections: Voluntary vs. Non-Voluntary

Answer 13

If you consent to sex and get preganant you are adopting the role their the fetus is your fault and you are respondsible for it
-Variant case: Drunk Driver where the reasction isn’t changed and the harm is worse than could’ve been.

Question 14

Active vs. Passive

Answer 14

-Killiing someone with physical choice.
-Letting someone die naturally.

Question 15

Bare Differences argument

Answer 15

Smith is analogous to jones due to that the only difference between smith and jones is that one is killing a child and one is letting the child die therefore, no difference between killing and letting die along with, no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia.

Question 16

Sledgehammer Objection

Answer 16

Smith is less morally permissable to Jones but you can’t tell cause they are both so bad due to letting die is barely better than killing.

Question 17

Ubiquity

Answer 17

If nothing in one, whether in all
-Is O2 relevant to combustion? the wet match light in O2 rich compared to wet match in O2 poor still both equals no light.

Question 18

Foot on Killing vs. Letting die

Answer 18

-Ranger saving 5 and letting 1 die compared to Ranger saving 5 and killing 1
-Letting die violates postive duties and killing violates negative duties and both are equally bad however there is less to justify violating a postive duty.

Question 19

Doctrine of Double Effect

Answer 19

Intending vs. Foredoing
1) Action-Evil means to Good
2) Action- evil- not means t good
Side effect is good
3) Action- Good- Evil which is not to means
-Bystander is seen as ok in case 2 and the Bridge case is not okay in case 1.

Question 19

Trolley Problem

Answer 19

-Bystander case: Trolley is out of control, and person switch the spur to turn to aim for 1 person instread of hitting 5 workers. (90% of people say this is ok)
-On Bridge: same scenario but to save the 5 people but threw a big person infront of trolley (95% people say this is not ok)
-They have the same enpoint but people think one is worst than the other.

Question 20

Death Argument 1:

Answer 20

Death is not bad, in life we do not worry about death and we no longer exist after death.
-Things can only be bad for someone if they exist.

Question 21

Death Argument 2:

Answer 21

Before Birth is analogous to after death, no one thinks that before birth is bad therefore death is not bad

Question 22

Nagel Objection to Arg 2

Answer 22

He does not think that before birth is the same as after death because before death you can experienece more good things and if you move your birth to a eariler date then it is simiply not you.