thesis!! Flashcards
suicide: extreme consequentialism
mostly impermissible due to negative consequences. exception would be if death of one leads to greatest consequences of many, then it could be permissible (and even required under extreme consequentialism)
suicide: moderate consequentialism
mostly morally impermissible for same reasons as extreme consequentialist. may grant that strict consequentialist view is self-defeating in some senses.
suicide: VE
impermissible as it in and of itself impedes flourishing. question as to cases where flourishing is not a possible end (eg. cases of physical disabilites)
suicide: formula of humanity
impermissible, violations of perfect duty to onself
suicide: formula of universal law
cannot be rationally willed (against nature)
famine relief: extreme consequentialism
permissible as long as within your means. different requirements on affluent vs. vulnerable:
- robustly demanding on affluent
- minimally demanding on vulnerable/destitute
*singer
famine relief: moderate consequentialism
same duty to help, less demanding because of sophisticated consequentialist (railton)
- should not come at a cost to one’s self
famine relief: VE
the virtues of genorosity, magnifiance and beneficience all point to one’s duty to help. but also we have a duty to onself to flourish. therefore, must do the right thing to help, within reason (which the virtuous person will do)
famine relief: formula of humanity
gnenerally supportive to support people’s happiness/ends while still supporting their agency, beneficience. important that you are offering only the help that they want in repesecting their autonomy/dignity.
famine relief: formula of universal law
because beneficience is an imperfect duty, we do have the duty to help others. but you cannot universalize famine releif because it is too speciifc. can universalize the more general maxim to help, because this leaves lattitude
selling organs: extreme consequentialist
really depends on circumstance, as long as done without exloitation it will be good.
*harris organ lottery example, consequentialism is not above requirement without compensation
selling organs: moderate consequentialist
also supportive, requires proper government regulation to protect against exploitation
selling organs: VE
aristotle and hursthouse
Aristotle: would see the commodification as unvirutous, impeaching on the virtue of self-care
Hursthouse: would not seek to prescibe, but allow for nuance if compensation would allow for flourishing
selling organs: formula of humanity
the commodification makes the transaction unethical
selling organs: formula of universal law
seeing people as commodities cannot be rationally willed, therefore cannot be universalized.
abortion: consequentialist
nuanced, *not a lot to say
abortion: VE
Hursthouse: no clearcut answer, instead based on a sense of what is worthwhile. possible to come to either decision in a virtuous way (facts of biology, saliency)
abortion: formula of humanity
depends on whether you ascribe personhood to the fetus. 3 maxims of reason. has does perfect duty to self and others come into play. whether or not a party is being treated as a ‘mere means’ depends on who is being treated as a person
abortion: formula of universal law
cannot universalize either option
coercive wage offers: extreme consequentialist
not necessarily opposed/prohibit, but very circumstantial
coercive wage offers: moderate consequentialist
less likely to identify any scenarios where it is permissible
coercive wage offers: VE
essentially evil, lacking mean state. cannot flourish under coercion
coercive wage offers: formula of humanity
violates autonomy, treats employees as mere means
coercive wage offers: formula of universal law
cannot universalize an exploitative society
