This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Util vs. Deont. Authors of intended harm is worse b/c it fails to treat people as ends in themselves – doctrine of double effect: Warren Quinn, Allision Hill Immanuel Kant: only thing that is good in of itself is the will. Value from perspective of will. Categorical imperative: if an action can be universalized, can’t use a person to a means as an end: steven angstrom – says that kantism is the form of practical reason Christine korsgaard: practical reason Kamm – reduce . there’re other statuses of persons that matter besides inviolability Otsuka – Kamm on the morality of killing, Casper lipperrt-rasmussen moral status and the impressibility of dismissing violations Very difficult to justify inviolability is important Arthur applbaum – our violations ever right. Status of mattering is inviolable (not a very good card) Nozick –people’s rights have to be respected as a side constraints Answering Deontology Question act vs. omission- no distinction b/c act of free will as to which action you should take. There has Question act vs....
View Full Document
- Spring '10
- Burma, Warren Quinn, Otsuka – Kamm, distinction b/c act, gov b/c state