Singh
01:730:105:01 Gaurav W11
Midterm Review
Moral Relativism-view that it is possible for opposing moral judgments to be correct
Situational Relativism-morality depends on features of a context/situation
Cultural Relativism-people in different cultures have different moral beliefs
Two ways of being wrong:
1. tensions between moral beliefs
2. false empirical belief
Thomson Article-A Defense of Abortion
Main Claims
1. people have a right to decide what will happen in/to their bodies
2. if the fetus is a person with a right to life, it does NOT follow that abortion is
unjust
3. the right to life does not entail a right to use of somebodys body
4. the right to life is not the right not to be killed, but rather the right not to be killed
unjustly
5. Abortion is morally justified in some cases
6. Abortion can be morally justified, even if the woman consented to having sex and
became pregnant
Arguments for Claims
3) Violinist thought experiment (abortion in case of rape is permissible)
6) People seeds flying in air-take precautions to prevent them from entering home, but
once in a while you leave window open/consensual sex leads to pregnancy
Acorn vs. Oak tree
CANNOT DECIDE WHEN ACORN BECOMES AN OAK TREE
Sperm/egg vs. Human
CANNOT DECIDE WHEN AN EGG IS A HUMAN
Gaurav Singh
01:730:105:01 W11
Midterm Review
Circularity in Main claim 4
right to life is understood as right not to be killed unjustly
another argument of what justice means
defining rights and justice is circular
Form of Thomsons Argument
1. If its permissible to unplug the violinist, the it is permissible to have an abortion
in a case of rape
2. It is permissible to unplug the violinist
Conclusion: It is permissible to have an abortion in a case of rape
Modus Ponens Rule
1. If P, then Q
2. P
3. Q
Valid-premises are true, conclusion has to be
Sound-if its valid and premises are true
Don Marquis-Why Abortion is Immoral
Main Claims
1. killing is wrong because it deprives the victim of a valuable future like ours
2. embryos can be harmed even if they lack sentience
3. the Desire Satisfaction Account is FALSE. If people do not desire to live, it is
okay to kill them
4. The Discontinuation Account is FALSE
Questions?
1. accidental generalizations
2. how the valuable future like ours providing a sufficient condition for the
wrongness of killing makes it immune to certain objections-we do not know, can
be wrong for other reasons
3. Why valuable future like ours account does not entail that contraception is
immoral-doesnt sperm/zygote being terminated miss out on valuable future
experiences
a. Response: No one is harmed with contraception
b. therefore, contraception is not immoral
c. Unless it is immoral to bring new people into the world
4. Discontinuation theory
5. Cases where beings lack valuable future
6. How do we define valuable future?
7. Karen Quinlan case
Gaurav Singh
01:730:105:01 W11
Midterm Review
Arguments for Claims
1) intuition
3) okay to kill suicidal people? FALSE
a. thwarts continuation of life-affects others as well
b. Desire Satisfaction Account
Modus Tollens
If DSA is true, then it is okay to kill suicidal people(intuition)
It is not okay to kill suicidal people
Conclusion: DSA is FALSE
4) Discontinuation Account-wrong to discontinue someones experimental
life/conscious life
a. not wrong to kill fetus-no experience to cut off
b. DA suggests that it is right to discontinue a life of sufferinghowever,
this is not always the case
5) Karen Quinlan is brain-dead, no mental properties. She is a vegetable
a. Marquis says in order to have a right to life, you must have a mental
capacity for society
b. fetus have no mental capacity?
Presidents Speeches
Obama:
potential benefits on embryonic stem cell research
lifting ban on research-allow funds to create/destroy human embryos
limited research
Why allow funds?
save lives that would otherwise be lost
majority of Americans want this-majority rule
Utilitarian argument-used person of faith
strict guidelines-oversight
no cloning
science should be based on facts, not ideology
no mentioning of embryos
Bush:
did allow funds for some kinds of research (umbilical and placenta research) and
embryos created for in vitro fertilization or destroyed anyway
Bush acknowledges potential benefits but have radically different conclusions
share common faith but have different conclusions
Why not fund stem cell research?
Moral dilemma- human life is a sacred gift and not be destroyed
Gaurav Singh
01:730:105:01 W11
Midterm Review
Consequentialism
the morality of an action depends on consequences of that action /how good they are
morality is about maximizing good actions/consequences
The morality of an action is determined by the consequences of the action
Deontology
certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong
morality of an action can be determined by its intrinsic features
Kant-treat humans as ends, not as a means
Utilitarianism
morality of an action is determined by the pain and/or pleasure it produces
most utilitarianists are maximizers
maximize pleasure, minimize pain
total amount of pain/pleasure for all
George and Tollefsen
Main claims
1) Utilitarianism is FALSE
Arguments:
a. Pleasure is not the only good that matters. There are other goods
Modus Tollens:
1) If utilitarianism, then pleasure is only good
2) It is not the case that pleasure is the only good
3) Conclusion: Utilitarianism is FALSE
Some pleasures are incommensurable
Some pleasures are bad; Nazi vs. Mother Teresas pleasures
2) Kantian ethics is incomplete
Arguments:
Kant does not have a view of the good
Consequentialist argument=expected value for embryonic stem cell needs to be worth it
Gaurav Singh
01:730:105:01 W11
Midterm Review
George and Tollefsen-What is at stake in the Embryo Experiment Debate. We are
essentially Human Organisms
Main Claims
1. Embryos are human beings-homo sapiens
2. the moral status of a being depends on/determined by its essential
properties(what it is essentially), not by accidental properties but by essential
properties
3. The Developmental View is FALSE
a. you dont become a person unless you have higher capacity for
thought
b. you become a moral person only after becoming a person
4. The Attribution View of Personhood is FALSE
a. moral worth is decided by someone else
Arguments
Developmental View
1. If developmental view is true, we do not become moral persons until some
time well after we are born
a. this is not the case
2. If developmental view is true, then the right to life comes in degrees, but the
right to life does not come in degrees, then developmental view is FALSE
3. Embryos have the capacity for self-consciousness, language, etc
4. Killing as a means and letting die
they argue it is wrong to kill or let the embryos die
they are equally as important than the 5 year old girl
5. Special relation to embryos-make it morally permissible
a. bad response. amounts to cheating-keep two sides balances and focus on
morality of embryos
6. 4 pregnant women vs. 6 men? Whom to save?
a. not good argument
Gaurav Singh
01:730:105:01 W11
Midterm Review
Eugene Mills-The Egg and I
Main Claims
1. I did not originate at biological conception
Argument:
either I was once a zygote, or I was never a zygote
if I was never a zygote, then I did not originate at conception
if I was a zygote, then I did not originate at conception
Conclusion: I did not originate at conception
2. Conception does not create a new being
Argument:
conception if creates a new being, then its kills an egg cell
conception does not kill an egg
Conclusion: conception does not create a new being
SUMMARY
The first is the argument for the claim that if I was once a zygote then I was once an
unfertilized egg.
The second is the argument against notable anti-abortion positions such as Marquis'
"valuable future like ours account".
Questions on reading:
why is it that conception must kill an egg in creating a new being?
Fission puzzle
If I was once a zygote, how old am I?
Gappy existence?
rescuing eggs?
analogies
Mills Cross Time Identity
identity through space
Shelley Kagan-philosopher
Train example
Gaurav Singh
01:730:105:01 W11
Midterm Review
Is it the same train I pointed at the beginning of walk?
Cross Time Identity
Fission Puzzle
Gappy Existence
if I was never a zygote, I began to exist only after conception
Rescuing Eggs:
Marquis killing is wrong because it robs us of a valuable future
What about contraception?
contraception is wrong for the same reason
contraception is same category as murder? does that mean abstinence is terribly,
morally wrong?
1) If Marquis view is right about wrongness of abortion, then contraception is
wrong
2) But contraception is NOT wrong
3) Conclusion: Marquis is wrong about morality/wrongness of abortion
RECAP: Mills Main Arguments
1) If I was once a fertilized egg, then I was once an unfertilized egg
2) if I was once a zygote, I was once an egg
a. Argument-fertilization destroys an egg
b. egg is destroyed at conception
Response: Conception brings a new being, it does not destroys an egg. Egg and new
organism come to exist in same region of space.
Gaurav Singh
01:730:105:01 W11
Midterm Review
What is the moral consequence if we accept this metaphysical premise?
could say wrong to kill embryos because it destroys valuable future
George and Tollefsen argue embryo is human being
Contraception is morally wrong? abstinence?
is it murder? failure to rescue someone? eggs
How you respond to George and Tollefsen/Marquis?
Response: When egg is fertilized, it is on course to become a person prior to
conception. It is not, it just lies there.
Eric Olson-Was I ever a fetus?
Are we human organisms?
Main Claims
1) The Standard View is FALSE
a. why would anyone believe the Standard view?
b. changing brain with bodies? Lockes thought experiment with Prince and
Cobbler
c. What happens?
i. interpretation 1-just switched organs
ii. interpretation 2-actually switched bodies, standard view
Arguments against the Standard view (Olson)
you could exist in a vegetative state, you were once a mindless fetus
if the standard view is true, then you couldnt be a vegetable, and you were never a
fetus
Conclusion: The standard view is FALSE
2) The Termination View is FALSE
a. fetus ceases to exist
3) Co-Location view is FALSE
a. you and fetus occupy same space
Problem: If this view is right, what happens when the fetus is conscious?
organism that preceded you acquires mental properties
4) Hybrid view is FALSE
Gaurav Singh
01:730:105:01 W11
Midterm Review
Tim Campbell and Jeff McMahan Paper
Conjoined Twins
mental properties are necessary and sufficient for personal identity
Conjoined twins constitute evidence of the Standard view
Main Claims
1) Animalism is FALSE
Argument:
1) Abigail and Brittany are both persons
2) Abigail and Brittany share one organism, call it O
3) a) Abigail is the organism, Brittany is not organism
b) Brittany is the organism, Abigail is not
c) Abigail and Brittany are both NOT organism
4) Neither Abigail or Brittany are organisms
Midterm Review
Kantian ethics-Deontology vs. Consequentialism
incomplete, doesnt have view that is good
has a view about what is right or wrong, but no view of what is good
Utilitarianism- good is pleasure
pleasure is good that we are pursuing-what values should we be chasing? Kant
doesnt answer what we should pursue
Kants view-2 formulations of categorical imperative
1. act on whatever maxim that will become universal law; act on principle, ask, what
consequences would be on you if everyone did that?
a. example, cheating on taxes-if everyone cheated on taxes, IRS would audit
more people, your goals would be complicated and harder
b. George and Tollefsen-Nazi finds out he has jewish ancestry and believes
he should be eliminated
2. we are supposed to treat human beings as ends in themselves, not as a means
a. has implications on embryonic stem cell research
b. we are using embryos as a means to an end
c. compatible with consequentialism-treating large man as a mere means
but as a means
i. can still value him as a human
Gaurav Singh
01:730:105:01 W11
Midterm Review
ii. can treat someone as a means, but not merely as a means
iii. native Americans using whole buffalo-can value buffalo for what it
is but still use it all
Kantian deontology-some actions are right or wrong based on intrinsic features;
consequences do not matter
Consequentialism- morality determined by act, maximize the good
Example, Mark and the 2 guns, threatening to kill two people
Hybrid view of personal identity
transplant view intuition and acknowledges the biological view
Olson says hybrid view would be unprincipled
Why? If I was a fetus, then I am an organism
MILLS
1. If I was once a zygote, then I was once an egg
a. I did not begin to exist at biological conception
Argument:
1) Either I was once a zygote, or I was never a zygote
2) If I was once a zygote, then I did not originate at conception
3) If I was never a zygote, then I did not originate at conception
Conclusion: I did not originate at conception
Consequences for abortion/stem cell research
Marquis says it deprives VFLO
each of us were once a zygote
Mills says it would rob the unfertilized egg of a VFLO in contraception
Marquis has to say that contraception is same category as murder if abortion is
murder
o we should reject Marquis argument
1) If VFLO account is correct, and Mills is right about if I was once a zygote
contraception is seriously morally wrong
2) But contraception is not seriously wrong
3) Conclusion: VFLO account is FALSE
Gaurav Singh
01:730:105:01 W11
Midterm Review
George and Tollefsens arguments for permissibility of abortion
Attribution view- someone else needs to confer when you are a moral person and have
the right to life; decision made by community
Developmental view-human organisms become moral persons only after they have gone
through a developmental process
G+T arguments AGAINST Attribution view
absurd consequences
o Nazi community says jews do not have right to life so it is okay to kill
them-cannot be right
o clearly and decisively false
Moral relativism-different cultures think different things, no facts in the matter
G+T arguments AGAINST the Developmental view
infants do not meet requirements s infanticide is permissible? obviously not
if it is right, then right to personhood will come in degrees
o if you are more rational than others, then do you have more of a right to
personhood? self consciousness?
o mirror test-shows intelligence of higher animals
o naturally suggests that some humans have more of a right to life
o this is not true because right to life does not come in degrees, therefore we
have to reject the developmental view
If you have a capacity for mental ability, embryos and fetus have mental capacity.
o after you exist, you have capacity for consciousness/free will
WHOM TO SAVE