Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Ethics > Final exam-Ethics > Flashcards

Final exam-Ethics Flashcards

1
Q

What is a valid argument?

A

IF the premise is true, it guarantees the truth of the conclusion.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is a sound argument?

A

The premises are in fact true which makes the conclusion false.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

How is Abortion framed-Prolife?

A

a fetus=a human being=right to life
A person’s right to life is more stringent than a person’s right over their body.
They think it objectively wrong.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

How is Abortion framed-prochoice?

A

they argue the dangerous consequences of illegal abortion especially without the reliable contraception, and the cost of overpopulation-usually a UT perspective

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What theories are in Warren’s article?

A

She goes at it from a Kantian point of view-cannot use humans as a means, taking away abortion is taking away a person’s basic human right to control their own body.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is Warren’s definition of a fetus?

A

Any pregnancy from a zygote to birth

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is the Pro-choice argument?

A

Abortion is permissible because fetuses are not persons

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What are the premises?

A 
#1-Only persons have the right to life
#2-a person is rational
#3-Fetuses are not rational
Therefore-->Fetuses are not persons, do not possess the right to life, and abortion is morally permissible
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What did Warren change in the usual argument?

A

She extends the notion of what makes a person to six different things.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What 6 things(only need to be one) makes a human a person?

A

Sentience, Emotion, Communication in complex ways, rationale, some sense of self-awareness, and be a moral agent-you can choose your actions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

How does warren’s argument end up?

A

Fetuses are humans, but not persons in a moral community–>The mother is a person with rights greater than the fetus–>Abortion is morally permissible, because the right to life is greater for the mother.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

How does she address infanticide?

A

once the baby is born, the danger to the mother is gone and others can take care of them and a baby is now a sentient human being with a life. UT argument as to why we can’t go around kissing babies

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is an argument from analogy?

A

you take an argument in one sphere, apply it to another sphere and show that the logic holds in both cases (valid or sound) e.g. Thompson’s analogy in the case of rape

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Traditional Pro-life argument

A 
#1 All humans have a right to live
#2 All fetuses are humans
#3 therefore fetuses have a right to life
#4 therefore abortion is wrong
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What is Marquis issue with the traditional argument?

A

the definition of human is too broad and would give non-humans person status

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Marquis argument against abortion

A 
#1 It is wrong to kill you and I because it leads to the misfortune of a premature death
#2 Premature death is a misfortune because it is taking away a FLO (Future Like Ours)
#3 Fetuses have a FLO
Therefore, abortion is immoral
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

How does he create the idea of a FLO? What kind of argument is this?

A

This is a considered Judgement Argument with the FLO created by asking people why premature death is a misfortune

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What is a Worst of Crimes argument?

A

ask anyone and they will tell you it is wrong (present consciousness is not necessary condition for wrongness of killing)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Objection to Marquis

A

to vague for objectivity–>not everyone has a FLO

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What kind of argument is Singer’s for famine relief?

A

clear cut, non confrontational argument

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Singer’s two assumptions for famine relief

A 
#1 Suffering and death from a lack of food, shelter, & medical care are bad=suffering is bad
#2 If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral worth, we OUGHT, morally, to do it
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Two points about the second assumption

A

(It makes no difference between types of people–>Principle of equality); it doesn’t matter if it is just me or millions of others, I am just as obligated

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Supererogatory act. within what context and point?

A

you are morally permitted to do it (will be called a hero and praised), but you are not morally obligated to do it (would not be blamed or ostracized for not doing it). Uses the bunker/grenade example. This is related to how charity versus obligation is set up in our society

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What would Nietzche say about Singer’s famine argument?-Singer reply? What about Rawls?

A

That is too bad that you are suffering, pity is a ridiculous emotion and believed in natural nobility. Singer thinks we have moved on and we are morally EQUAL to one another.
Rawls-you didn’t choose where you were born and it is no fault of your own. It is simply immoral because you are not maximizing happiness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

What are the objections to Singer’s argument and his replies

A 
#1 It would change my lifestyle too drastically and is too extreme of a revision of my moral scheme-->Ethics is supposed to revise our moral scheme and if you accept my first two premises, you should act accordingly
#2 we should force the gov't to give aid-->cannot deflect moral obligation onto others and the government won't do it if you don't show them you care about it
#3 if we help now, we are prolonging the inevitable and starving helps w/ population control-you should work for population control if it worries you, but do not make people that are here now suffer
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

How is there virtue ethics in Singer’s argument?

A

Even if we act in self-interest, that doesn’t mean we ‘ought’ not to do it. if you agree, then you should live your life in accordance with those agreements. We study ethics because these theories are a path to becoming a better person and making the world a better place–>You need to put your theories into practice or you’re wasting your time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Are there objections to Singer’s assumptions?

A

Not really for #1 except a very egotisical self. #2 is critiqued by Arthur

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

How does Arthur go at his critique and argument?

A

From the entitlement theory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

What is arthur’s premise?

A

People are entitled to their earnings so they may be or SHOULD be allowed to keep them

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

What are the two ways of looking at equal rights?

A 
#1 Look at the Declaration of Indpendence-All men are created equal-->means that no man or woman is the moral inferior of another. 
#2 Equal consideration of interest-->Like amounts of suffering or happiness are of equal significance no matter who is experiencing them, therefore we should all strive for impartial objective considerations of interest=Singer used this meaning for his argument, UT uses it (Mill) and Arthur disagrees with this
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

What does Arthur call Singer’s second assumption?

A

The Greater Moral Evil

32
Q

What is the Greater Moral Evil?

A

He is saying that Singer says that a person is entitled to keep their earnings only if there is no way of preventing a greater evil by giving them away.

33
Q

What are the two kinds of rights that Arthur addresses?

A 
Negative Rights:rights that are against interference of others (e.g. I have a right to life so you cannot kill me, or a right to my property so you cannot take it)  They require to not interfere with other people for basic rights
#2 Positive rights:right to receive benefits from what you do (e.g. work=right to a paycheck) These rights require you to do something and then the right to keep what you get in return
34
Q

What does Aruthur say about the drowning child analogy?

A

This analogy is not based on the right to life for anyone in the situation-it is based on a duty (contract) set up on how we should treat others in our society, It would be a right if you were the babysitter and responsible for the child (it is still wrong not to save the child but the reason has changed)

35
Q

What are Just Desserts?

A

You have a right to keep what you have acquired. Based on Nozick and uses Nozick’s lazy farmer example

36
Q

Moral Code

A

a system of morals, rules, or other standards that guide people’s conduct…varies among communities.

37
Q

What is a valid argument?

A

IF the premise is true, it guarantees the truth of the conclusion.

38
Q

What does Arthur think is wrong with giving up some of efforts as a moral code?

A 
#1 Feelings of guilt would increase if you made it a rule and didn't do it yourself
#2 Unrealistic that people are willing to give up part of their income
#3Ideal moral code should not assume that people are more biased or objective then they really are...completely unrealistic that you could be objective or unbiased
39
Q

What are the three reasons that just dessert could be part of the moral code?

A
  1. People could be altruistic by Singer?s standard, but this is not realistic
  2. People would stop working as hard as the benefits of their work would not go to themselves
  3. People would fail to live up to idea code, leading to guilt and resentment
40
Q

Arthurs Conclusion

A

While Singer does get us to realize that entitlements are not absolute and we all have duty to help, the greater moral evil principle is a stretch to make this point

41
Q

How is Arthur is arguing against Singer’s idea of the greater moral evil principle

A

that seems to make sense initially or intuitively at least, but we also have this intuition that we are entitled to our earnings and at least in certain circumstances that entitlement comes first.

42
Q

Question. Are you really entitled and to what extent?

A

You are entitled to certain earnings but it is not like everything you have done is a result of your hard work, some are the result of chance, luck, or situations you may have fallen into. Arthur would say that no I choose my life and the things that I have chosen have led up to the things I am as a person and I should be entitled to whatever kind of assets I have accrued throughout my existence. Utilitarian: confront issue of making some sacrifice to make other better, know you are living a more luxurious lifestyle than most humans living today.
Libertarian: entitlement type of view, this doesn?t really come up as much.

43
Q

Genetic engineering

A

creating desirable traits and offspring through genetic interventions-2 Types

44
Q
  1. Gene Therapy
A

altering genetic structures to treat disease

45
Q
  1. Gene Enhancement
A

: altering genetic structures to enhance a person?s traits (usually intelligence, athletisim, personality) Seems to imply enhancing above normal although I think normal is awfully relative

46
Q

3 Arguments in this article from Savulescu for genetic enhancement

A
  1. Argument from Analogy -Neglectful vs. Lazy Parents- 1st one: child has high IQ, must give a dietary vit. to maintain the I.Q. 2nd one has a normal child, but could give a pill to make it better
    Neglectful=Maintenance, Lazy=enhancement
    *If we question this-it is already a loaded assumption because what is considered high I.Q. and what is the role of a parent
    This Argument from Analogy indicates that #1 is the same as #2, therefore if you believe 1 you must believe 2=If you have biological interventaion to enhance or maintain, we have a moral obligation to enhance children
  2. Argument from consequentialism/utilitarianism-We already enhance our children by putting them in healthy environments-this can change biolody for ?there is no difference in one sphere versus the other sphere. There is no difference between environmental enhancement and genetic enhancement, therefore if you believe in one you should agree with the other method. (Objection-there is a difference)
  3. Argument from consistency-If you accept Gene Therapy, then you should accept Genetic Enhancement. *Only if you look at the consequences (Objection: everyone agrees normal is not as good as enhanced but it is better than below normal)
47
Q

Objections and Savulescu?s responses to objections

A
  1. Playing God: Nature made us, but has no regard for your well-being, but you do so you should like genetic enhancement; People play God all the time even to the point of changing own character; If there is no distinction between environmental and genetic traumas then his point holds
  2. 2 tier society?widens the gap between the enhanced and the normal: Natural lottery is already unjust and the opposite will occur-Genetic enhancement would actually make things more egalitarian
  3. World would cease to be an interesting place: We would not all choose the same traits and the environment would make a differences in personality
  4. Doesn?t this go against human nature? No-Huamans are rational animals and rational animals use all things to make themselves better
48
Q

Sandel-against Genetic Enhancement-Thesis

A

Life is a gift and genetic enhancement highlights that we are only our own will trying to master the world

49
Q

Objections against enhancement and his response

A
  1. Strips autonomy of the child-bad argument because it implies that children are free to make their own choices anyway which isn?t true. It also doesn?t address objection to gene therapy for diseased
  2. Won?t allow for a fair playing field-but natural Lottery is already unfair
  3. Genetic enhancement is ultimately self-defeating-Everyone is doing the same thing so no competitive edge
  4. Sex Selection (practical concern of things getting out of balance, bad incentives to chose one or the other, too much testosterone=more unstable and violent societies)–Bad argument because it could be controlled with rules to keep things even
50
Q

Sandel?s Argument against genetic enhancement

A

Humans have a ?Promthean aspiration? (he stole fire and gave it to humans) to rule the world. *Once you go somewhere you shouldn?t go, it will affect the species for eternity

  1. Appreciate the Gift of Life
  2. He is trying to re-appreciate the sacred/reverence (is this religious? Can it be a nonreligious view?)
51
Q

ANIMAL RIGHTS–What is Peter Singer Trying to establish?

A

That a reciprical relationship between animals and humans exists

52
Q

What would Kant think of this animal rights idea?

A

Must have rationale which creates choice which creates autonomy; thought similarly to Decartes that animals are automated little machines. His quote ?I think therefore I am?

53
Q

What Singer is trying to do is establish?

A
  1. a Moral Progress: extend the realm of moral consideration beyond humans by looking at sentience. Similar to how people said it was only men, then added women, then added African Americans, etc.. Something that was ludicrous 30 years ago is now acceptable
    Moral Consideration does not equal Treatment. Consideration is a lot less of a moral obligation. Treatment-e.g. giving the right to vote, etc?, which would give animals all the rights of others through the moral definition of this.
  2. So?Principle of Equality-
    Prescriptive=?ought?-everyone ought to be equal, normative
    Descriptive=?is?=factual, everyone is equal, absolute and justifies oppression
    What is wrong with sexism or racism? They are arbitrary in the moral realm. ?All men are created equal?-a moral evaluation that all men are equal because factually they aren?t all equal
54
Q

Why do we give moral consideration?

A
  1. Those who are equal to us ?in some manner? get moral consideration
  2. Irrelevant if you can be a moral person, relevancy is the manner of equality
  3. Only get consideration if have an Interest: If you feel pain you have an Interest in not feeling pain
55
Q

Difference between Vital and trivial interests

A

1.?????? Vital-necessary for life 2.?????? Trivial-Unimportant

56
Q

What does Singer?s Argument from analogy bring us to

A

Specieism-Prejudice or bias based solely on being a different species

57
Q

Singer’s Sentience argument

A

Sentience is the capacity to suffer of feel enjoyment

  1. You know someone feels pain by inference (behavioral responses)-I would feel pain in that situation (*This is not a capacity argument)
  2. Nervous system is the same as ours
    * To get moral consideration must be linked to interests which is sentience
58
Q

Where does Singer go wrong? Objections?

A

Equal consideration versus just consideration-he doesn?t quite get to equal.
Maybe the problem is UT-measuring happiness-how we can decide that for each other
This is a slippery slope-what about animals?

59
Q

Regan-animal rights-what theory is used?

A

Kantian view, although Kant doesn?t think animals have rights

60
Q

Goals of the animal rights movement-Very Radical View

A
  1. Total abolition of use of animals in science
  2. The total dissolution of commercial animal agriculture
  3. The elimination of commercial and sport hunting and fishing
61
Q

Argument from consistency

A

if you believe in this than you must believe in that

62
Q

Animals have rights in One of Two ways

A

Indirect or Direct Rights

63
Q

Indirect Rights

A

Don?t have an obligation to the animal but to the animal?s owner
a. Contractarianism: Rawls-original position, behind a veil of ignorance, as long as you are a rational individual, you get a seat at the table, get to decide rules of society. Regan says the problem is that doesn?t work because society includes mentally ill and children, who, like animals aren?t sitting at the table
b. Deontology (Kant)-Animals don?t have rights, but people have a duty to animals for two reasons
i. Duty to the person who owns the animal
ii. Duty not to be offensive to society
Regan says the problem is the use of UT because Pain is Pain, period

64
Q

Direct Rights

A
  1. have an obligation to that animal-this is the issue of ethics a. Cruelty versus kindness argument: but cruelty isn’t always cruel, nor kindness kind b.Utilitarianism (only consequences matter) i.GHP: can’t measure aggregate happiness, nothing is sacred in UT, so it never wins
    ii. Principle of Equality: everyone’s interests count equally; these interests are the same as feelings. Regan says that people are more than just feeling this doesn’t work either
65
Q

Regan starts a new argument

A
  1. Animals have inherent value as and are subject-of-a-life
    a. Defined as: we have a welfare of importance to us
    b. In other words-animals care if you hurt them
  2. Since they have inherent value they must be treated equally
    a. Cannot be treated as mere means-solely as a tool or resource
    b. May be treated as a means but with respect, not as an object
66
Q

What would Kant say about Regan’s argument?

A

that they do not get moral consideration because they are not rational, but Regan says that we give moral consideration to the mentally ill, etc?

67
Q

Antropogenic Climate Change

A

Human created climate change

68
Q

Greenwashing

A

What is your intention—looks good but not so good?Fugi H20 example

69
Q

Three Responses to climate change

A

Scientific, Economic (and political) and Ethical

70
Q

Scientific response to climate change

A

Explained to Congress in 1988-Set up the IPCC, now comprising 2500 scientists from >130 Countries

a. Virtually certain-99.9%
b. Highly Likely-90%
c. Likely-66%

71
Q

Economic Response- 3 Waves

A

a. Ignore
b. Deny (we have our scientists that say something different)
c. Embrace! Be a forerunner or green wash it

72
Q
  1. Political response
A

1992 Rio Earth Summit=Voluntary measures to cut down; 1997 Kyoto Protocol—We opt out in 2001; EU and Australia answer=Cap and Trade economy (not going so well).

73
Q
  1. Ethical Response
A

a. Save the Planet (save the polar bears)-what if you don?t care about polar bears?
b. Save future generations!-what is you are an ethical egoist or not having kids
c. Save fellow humans is the current argument-weather is getting out of control and people are dying and suffering

74
Q

What is Gardner’s response?

A

intergenerational aspect

75
Q

intergenerational aspect

A

Our generation: consumption w/out guilt and Future Generations-stop emitting or curb consumption of fossil fuels. How do we connect the two?

Ethics (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions