Test #1 Flashcards
Subjective morality
based on personal opinion, dependent on us
Objective morality
based on facts, absolute = always there/true, independent of us
Validity
a necessary connection between the premise and the conclusion
Invalidity
no necessary connection between the premise and the conclusion
The invalid form of the Argument from Disagreement (reconstruction!)
- There is a great deal of disagreement in people’s moral beliefs
- ——————————————————————————— - Therefore there are no moral facts
–> no connection between the two
The valid form of the Argument from Disagreement (reconstruction!)
- If morality were objective, then there would be no disagreement about moral stuff
- There is lots of disagreement about moral stuff
- ———————————————————————————- - Therefore, morality is not objective
Consequentialism
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)
Utilitarianism
concerned with maximizing happiness, right action brings about the right consequence (always a consequentialist)
Deontology
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)
Duty
the sense that you’ve done something right because it is the right thing to do, no consequence
The Trolley Problem
–> 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
Virtue Ethics
individual actions are not important, only goodness or badness of character (ex. Which of these actions will make me a better person?)
The Naïve Argument for enhancement (reconstruction!)
- If we have the ability to enhance human lives through biotechnology, then we should.
- We have this ability.
- Therefore, we should enhance.
Sandel’s objections to enhancement (why they fail)
- fairness: already a problem
- access: begs the question in favor of enhancement
- 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
Begging the question
assumes that the thing you are trying to prove is already true (ex. enhancing is okay)
Mastery of Nature
no longer letting nature take its course, overriding the natural way of life
Giftedness of Life
no luck, no mystery, hand-picked characteristics
Openness to Unbidden
assumes nature is always good, should be open to the unknown gifts of life from nature/God, letting life play out as it is
Parents and children and enhancement
Sandel: bad to enhance children before birth, critical of modern parenting
Kamm: permissible to enhance ex-ante
What are three consequences to enhancement in Sandel’s mind?
- decrease in humility: parents get proud of the children they create, no luck allowed
- increase in responsibility: parents who enhance children are more responsible if they don’t turn out right
- end of solidarity: unable to identify with others, no obligation for those who are less off
Kamm: Why is mastery of nature not a problem?
-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
Treatment vs. enhancement distinction
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
Argument for ex-ante enhancement of children (analogy to picking a romantic partner)
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
Parents and children and enhancement
Two types of love:
- Accepting love: loving someone just the way they are
- Transforming love: changing/allowing gifts to flourish
- -> Sandel says parents need to balance the two
Harris’ definition of enhancement (different than the others!)
an improvement of what went on before
Harris’ bad objections to enhancement
- 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) - goodness of nature/”playing God”: natural fallacy = nature is not always good
Positive argument for enhancement—the refinement of the Naïve Argument (reconstruction!)
- If we can enhance, and if the enhancement is sufficiently beneficial, and if the risks are acceptable, we should/must enhance
- The conditions are met
- ———————————————————————————- - We should/must enhance
Coady: What does it mean to “play God” from a religious perspective?
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
Coady: What does it mean to “play God” from a NON-religious perspective?
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)
