Test #1

Question 1

Subjective morality

Answer 1

based on personal opinion, dependent on us

Question 2

Objective morality

Answer 2

based on facts, absolute = always there/true, independent of us

Question 3

Validity

Answer 3

a necessary connection between the premise and the conclusion

Question 4

Invalidity

Answer 4

no necessary connection between the premise and the conclusion

Question 5

The invalid form of the Argument from Disagreement (reconstruction!)

Answer 5

1. There is a great deal of disagreement in people’s moral beliefs
   - ———————————————————————————
2. Therefore there are no moral facts

–> no connection between the two

Question 6

The valid form of the Argument from Disagreement (reconstruction!)

Answer 6

1. If morality were objective, then there would be no disagreement about moral stuff
2. There is lots of disagreement about moral stuff
   - ———————————————————————————-
3. Therefore, morality is not objective

Question 7

Consequentialism

Answer 7

how to distribute a limited resource, useful for questions of resource allocation (ex. Kidney transplant, drifter with viable organs)
–> right action brings about right consequence
(not always a utilitarianist)

Question 8

Utilitarianism

Answer 8

concerned with maximizing happiness, right action brings about the right consequence (always a consequentialist)

Question 9

Deontology

Answer 9

actions are right to the degree that they are performed from a motive of duty (right action that is with best intention and most follows the rules)

Question 10

Duty

Answer 10

the sense that you’ve done something right because it is the right thing to do, no consequence

Question 11

The Trolley Problem

Answer 11

–> blind kindergarteners going over a cliff on a trolley vs. pushing fat man in front of trolley to save kids
Deontology says: can’t push fat man, that’s wrong
Utilitarianism/Consequentialism says: push the man, save the most people

Question 12

Virtue Ethics

Answer 12

individual actions are not important, only goodness or badness of character (ex. Which of these actions will make me a better person?)

Question 13

The Naïve Argument for enhancement (reconstruction!)

Answer 13

1. If we have the ability to enhance human lives through biotechnology, then we should.
2. We have this ability.
3. Therefore, we should enhance.

Question 14

Sandel’s objections to enhancement (why they fail)

Answer 14

1. fairness: already a problem
2. access: begs the question in favor of enhancement
3. arms race
   - -> all beg the question (assume that enhancement is good)
   - -> we aren’t asking HOW we should enhance, but rather WHY we should enhance

Question 15

Begging the question

Answer 15

assumes that the thing you are trying to prove is already true (ex. enhancing is okay)

Question 16

Mastery of Nature

Answer 16

no longer letting nature take its course, overriding the natural way of life

Question 17

Giftedness of Life

Answer 17

no luck, no mystery, hand-picked characteristics

Question 18

Openness to Unbidden

Answer 18

assumes nature is always good, should be open to the unknown gifts of life from nature/God, letting life play out as it is

Question 19

Parents and children and enhancement

Answer 19

Sandel: bad to enhance children before birth, critical of modern parenting
Kamm: permissible to enhance ex-ante

Question 20

What are three consequences to enhancement in Sandel’s mind?

Answer 20

1. decrease in humility: parents get proud of the children they create, no luck allowed
2. increase in responsibility: parents who enhance children are more responsible if they don’t turn out right
3. end of solidarity: unable to identify with others, no obligation for those who are less off

Question 21

Kamm: Why is mastery of nature not a problem?

Answer 21

-Mastery over nature isn’t the real problem, it’s the type of mastery … actual mastery as a means vs. desiring mastery as an end in itself
1. mastery as a means: consistent with openness to the unbidden but don’t have to go
through things like cancer if there is a way to rid lives of them
2. good of the treatment must be greater than the bad of the mastery

Question 22

Treatment vs. enhancement distinction

Answer 22

Sandel: no distinguishing between two –> but inconsistent with initial statements
Kamm: distinction between ex-ante and ex-post (some forms are okay), criticized Sandel for inconsistency
Harris: no distinction –> any improvement = enhancement

Question 23

Argument for ex-ante enhancement of children (analogy to picking a romantic partner)

Answer 23

Ex-ante: enhancing before conception/birth, “before the child exists”
-we often “select” characteristics we would prefer in a romantic partner, but it doesn’t make us love them any less (“love a person, not a bundle of characteristics”) –> we can select traits that would be “best” for our children

Question 24

Parents and children and enhancement

Answer 24

Two types of love:

1. Accepting love: loving someone just the way they are
2. Transforming love: changing/allowing gifts to flourish
   - -> Sandel says parents need to balance the two

Question 25

Harris’ definition of enhancement (different than the others!)

Answer 25

an improvement of what went on before

Question 26

Harris’ bad objections to enhancement

Answer 26

1. precautionary principle: dangers should be considered more likely/of greater magnitude than benefits for some decisions
   - conservative/ “status quo” mentality
   - -> if we apply this principal to the status quo, it doesn’t endorse sticking to it (assume current state is good, but status quo may bring bad things)
2. goodness of nature/”playing God”: natural fallacy = nature is not always good

Question 27

Positive argument for enhancement—the refinement of the Naïve Argument (reconstruction!)

Answer 27

1. If we can enhance, and if the enhancement is sufficiently beneficial, and if the risks are acceptable, we should/must enhance
2. The conditions are met
   - ———————————————————————————-
3. We should/must enhance

Question 28

Coady: What does it mean to “play God” from a religious perspective?

Answer 28

suggests that some things that it is presumptuous for humans to do so because they are in the care of God
–> life/death issues are under God’s domain

Question 29

Coady: What does it mean to “play God” from a NON-religious perspective?

Answer 29

suggests we think about attributes that God would have (omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent), and not cross these boundaries because it would be going beyond human limits (humans are limited in power, fallible, and only partially benevolent)