Ethics Test / Study Guide PDF

Ethics Test / Study Guide 08/30/2024 Philosophy: Rational investigation of the fundamental truth of knowledge and value. Rational investigation: Gather of reasons, arguments and evidence of both sides of the guest, and they critically evaluate them, to see which are the...

Ethics Test / Study Guide 08/30/2024 Philosophy: Rational investigation of the fundamental truth of knowledge and value. Rational investigation: Gather of reasons, arguments and evidence of both sides of the guest, and they critically evaluate them, to see which are the better reasons. Critical thinking: The paper assessment of reasons and claims. Fundamental truth: Philosophical guesses are the deepest of all. Ethics: Branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct. Ethics Theories 1. Moral anti realism: View that normality is what any objective truth, normality is not real. 2. Morality realism: the view that there is objective moral truth. Objective: Actual, real and corresponding to reality; Independent of the mind. Types of anti realism 1. Moral realism: View that morality is just a matter of beliefs. 2. Cultural relativism: View that morality is just a cultural opinion. 3. Subjectivism: View that morality is just a matter personal opinion-morality relative to individuals. Arguments for moral relativism (A, B the reasons. C conclusion) Disagreement argument:  A) People disagree about morality B) Whatever people disagree about is just a matter of opinion C) Morality is just a matter of opinion Feeling Moralities A) People's moralities are led by their feelings. B) Whatever is led by people's feelings is a matter of opinion. C) Morality is just a matter of opinion. No proof argument A) Morality cannot be proven B) Whatever cannot be proven is just an opinion C) Morality is just a matter of opinion Objections against feelings argument 1. Premise 2a is false, not all people's moralities are led by their feelings. 2. Not everything led by people's feelings is just a matter of opinion. Objections against no proof argument 1. Is the no prof argument a prof or not, if yes 3a, contradicts 3c. 2. There is a contradiction it cannot be true both that 3a is true and the non-proof argument proof 3c 3. What if the proof 3a, a mora relativism will say moral disagreements, but that no a proof of 3a, since4 that just the 1, disagreement argument. So, there is no proof for the non-proof argument for premise 3a. So, according to 3b, 3a is just an opinion. Objections against moral relativism itself (morality is just an opinion) 1. Logical objection: Moral relativism says all morality is just a matter of opinion, but this statement is itself a statement. 1. About morality: Morality is the statement subject's not nearly true, it is not the objective, universal truth about orality iso moral relativism refutes itself.  2. Atrocity objection (horrible actions): Moral relativism can never say that anything is truly wrong, the allows anything, even atrocities. Ex. Slavery Relativism must say none of these things are truly wrong. But that sums obviously too extreme. Moral realism The view that they are objective moral principles. Types: A) Divine command theory B) utilitiarism C) Kantianism -------------------------------------------------------------------- Divine command theory View that morality is determine by God, equivalent to gods' commands. Humans do not create morality, God does. If God does not exist, neither would objective morality. Arguments for divine command theory 1. Guidance argument: A) Divine command theory gives people guidance on how to live their lives B) Whatever must theory say people guidance on how to live their lives its true C) Divine command theory is true 2. Motivation arguments A) Only divine command theory gives everyone a reason to always do what is right B) Nly that theory gives everyone reason to always do what is good. C) Divine command theory is true. 3. Bible argument A) Morality comes from God, bilic says God gave the man 10 commands.  B) Whatever the bible says is true C) Morality comes from a god 4. Creator argument A) God is the creator of everything B) Morality is a thing C) God is the creator of morality 5. Flourish argument A) Only DCT allows a society to flourish B) Only that moral theory that allows a society to flourish is true C) DCT is true 6. Purpose argument A) Only divine command theory can give human beings a purpose B) Only that moral theory that gives human beings purpose to their lives is true C) DCT is true Objections Objection to 4: Creator of god, good is not the creator of everything Objection to 2: this argument does not give you moral actions, but gives you egoistic actions, if you do thing out of self-interest you are not moral but are egoistic. Arguments in favor of divine command theory. DCT gives people guidance of how life their life All that bible says is God, morality comes from God. Objection against guidance argument It is false; many others moral theories can give guidance to people on how to live their lives. 1b implies all those theories are true at the same time, but that is just a contradiction, so 1b is false. Objection against flourish argument 5a is false; some societies flourish without the DCT. Objection bible argument We don't see to have proof a good evident everything in the bible is true. On the religious believe have their own sculpture and some buddy's ones say morality does not come from the gods Not everything in the bible is true. For example, it says all prenatural sex is wrong, Slavery is allowed. Objections to Divine Command theory itself DCT depends on the existing of God and the one that gives commands to humans. But this does not see like it can be proves, if so, then the dct has no proven foundations. Different religions command different, they say God commands different things, example, Catholics, budism, Hinduism... Accortding to dct, to know what is right or wrong you must know which of the thousands of religions is true are the true faith in true command of God. But this seems provide to do, if so, then it is impossible to know what is right or wrong on the dct. -------- Utilitarism The truth of moral statement is determined by the consequences in terms of happiness of happiness produced. Principle of utility ´Always seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number. ´ Morality is equal to maximizing overall happiness, that action is right which of all the alternatives produces the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness for all those affective the action. In favor: Equality: It threats people equally, everyone's happiness and equal so Democratie: If you want to make everyone happy make the majority happy Scientific: It makes morality quntitity with precise and objective answers. It often gives the right moral answers. Utilities Example, Trolly case There is one person attached in the railroad of a train, and 5 other ones in other trail, you must choose where the train is going to pass over. Common sense morality says switch track to save 5 persons instead of 1. Objectivism to utilitarian Utility only focusses on maximing overall happiness, it will allow the violations of rights, of minorities or individuals if it maximizes overall happiness. Kill one guy to save 5 with his organs. Slavery case, 90 percent of country where free, happy only 10 percent are unhappy. ------------ Kantianism The truth of moral statement is determined by reason. Morality is equal to reason Consistency: all consistency is irrational since it contradictions cannot be true. Valuing reasoning: following the best reasons, following the best reasons valuates the reasoning process and those capable of reasoning valuate beings. Moral principles Universal rule Act only on that making that you can be a universal law. Act only on those principles ya accept everyone else's, also action on unusually.  You do not accept others lying to you so you cannot allow yourselves to lie to others. Like the golden rule. Humanity rule Always treat humanity as an end and not as a means. All morality good act treats humans as having intrigue value as being valuable in themself. Objections to universal rule: All consistency requirements, lie the golden rule and this, leave a problem with consistent wrongness Consistency is not enough for true morality Ex. Publicity nudity Objections to humanity rule Morality sometimes allows is not to treat others as having ruthenic value. Self-defense killing, and injuring. Ex. Punishment 2 types of values Instrumental value Something is valuable in it means to something else. Ex: Lottery ticket If it loses, it throws it away. Intrusive value Something valuable. Ex: pleasure, happiness, love, friendship, beauty, virtue, knowledge. All morally bad actions treat humans as only having instrumental value, as being more means, more objects, to be used. --------------- Abortion Intentionally induct termination of a pregnancy by the destruction of the Imbrium or fetus. Possible permissible conditions  A) When parents don't want a child B) Parents cannot afford a child C) Type of rape D) Mothers' life in danger Objections to A B and C This reasons well not justify the killing of a newborn baby. So, it is being assumed that there is a major reason between a fetus and a newborn. Objection again D: Trail case with a baby and a mother. Mother will prefer safe the baby than herself. Pro-Choice A) A woman has a right to do with her body what she wants B) A fetus is part of a inside of the woman's body C) The woman has a right over the fetus to do what she wants Objections against womans right argument 1. This argument will allow abortions a moment before birth, but this seems absolutely wrong. 2. Premise a need a necessary qualification, if she violates more Elses rights. Bu now the question is does this fetus has rights? If so, this woman is allowed over her body will not allow an abortion. 3. So, a second argument is needed to show fetuses have no rights. But it could just be assumed. Pro Life Argument Marquin Argument A. Depriving a being of a human future is wrong B. Abortion deprives a being of a human future C. A abortion is wrong Potential argument A) Fetus is a potential human being B) Killing potential human is wrong C) Killing a fetus is wrong Human argument A) A fetus is an actual innocent human being B) Killing actual innocents human being is wrong C) Killing a fetus is wrong Objections to potential argument 2B is false, killing a potential human is not always wrong. Example: Prince william, potential king, but no riught of an actual king 2B is false Objections to the marquis argument Depriving a being of a human future is not always wrong. Ex: kill the sperm that would have fertilized in a egg. What 9is the criteria for the right to life? Whhere it is gained? Possible candidates Conception Conecption, individual gains a right to life. This is the criteria pressupossed by human arguments. All abortion is therefore wrong. Arguments for Conception Full human dna argument A) At conception, the individuals gains full human dna B) What has full human dna has a right to life C) All conception the indivbiduals gain right to life Souls argument A) At conception the individual gains a soul B) What has a soul has a rifght to life C) At conception the individual gains a rightr to life Viability When the fetus could survive outside the womb, it gains a right to life – 22 weeks into development Human lenght criteria When the fetus gains distantly human brains patters, it gets a right to life 30 weeks in the development Distinction argument A) Whatever distinguiish humans for animalsm give the right to life B) Human brain waves distinguish hum,ans from animals, and so for C) Human brain give a right to life. Personhood criteria Only persons have rights 1. Conciusnes 2. Reasoning 3. Communicate 4. Self motivated activity 5. Self awareness Both 1 and 2 are neccessary to be a person with a right to lofe. No fetus ever has 2 so no fetus ever has a right to life, so all abortion is permisible because feturese are never persopns, no reason ability.. Hearthbeet Cryteria When an individual gets a heartbeet, gets a right to life 6 weeks development Before this abortion is okay, after is not. Objetions to heartbeat 1. Some individuals have heartbeets, but no right to life. Ex: brain-steem human 2. Some individuals have a right to life withuit heartbeets. 3. Patient who flarline in emertency room have a ight to being resusitated. Objections to soul argument 1. No proof fdor soul existing on humans having them 2. Humans getting then at conception Objection to viability 1. Some individuals are viable but also not have a right to life Objection to DNA argument Not everything with full human dna has a right to life. Ex: brainteemhuman, human cells, human tumors. Objection to persnhood criteria This will allow us to kill newborns babies since they cant reasoning either But killing newborn babies is obviouisly wrong Objection to Human bvrain waves 1. This is too late, there are premature babies born be 22-30 weeks that have a right to life but an c, it okay to kill them. So c is wrong 2. Against the distinctive argument There another thing aside brain waves that alistinguish humans from animals. Ex: Human appearance, Human DNA So, the distingtintion argument cannot prove that human brain waves give the right to life Conciousness plus human DNA Having a right to life must have the capacity for consciousness plus human DNA. Human DNA gained at conception consciousness gained at 20 weeks. So, before 20 w, it is okay, after it is not okay. In favor: 1. It includes on having a right to life wwhat we think has it. Example: newborns who cant reason, disable humans. 2. It excludes from a right to life what we think should be included: Ex, sperm, eggs, human cells. This fits in will fetal pain laws an abortion: no abortion once a fetus can feel pain ------ Euthanasia  Taking of a life, allowing to die of a ill patient, typically in pain terminal. Types of euthanasia policy 1. Physiciancy: Assisted suicide. When the doctor provides the newls to the patient to commit suicide. Ex. Prescription for a overdose, legal in 8 states. 2. Active euthanasia: When doctors become direct cause of the patient death, lethal injection. 3. Passive euthanasia: Life sustaiment treatment is either with heal a withdsraft from patient, ex, no blood transfusion given it is a johans witness. 4. Voluntary euthanasia. When it is done on a competent patient. DNR DO NOT RESUSITATE orders and advances directives. 5. Nonvoluntary euthanasia. When it is done in a incompetent pation. Removing the feeding tube of a comatose patient passive non voluntary euthanasia. Arguments against instinct argument Natural instinc A) VAE violates natural instincs, to live B) What violates natural instincs is wrong C) VAE is wrong Self interest A) Violates its possible could get better found, spontaneous remission, therapy could finally work B) What violates your self interest is wrong C) VAE is wrong Bad effects argument A) VAE will give reasons doctros will give up so easy B) What would have such seriously bad effects is wrong C) VAE is wrong Purpose of Medicine A) VAE violates the purpose of medicine B) What violates the puróse of a thing is wrong C) VAE is wrong Killing argument A) VAE kills an innocent humannbeing  B) Killing innocent human being is wrong C) VAE is wrong Arguments for VAE A) We have a right over our body to do whatever we want, as long as we violates no ones rights B) VAE violates no one else rights C) We have a right to VAE Objections to self interest 1. It is our self interest to follow probabilitis, not never posibilities. 3Ex, 9/11 jumpers 2. Not everything violates your self interest is wrong Objections to Natural instincs 1. 1B is false, its no always wrong to violates a natural instinct. Ex, selfishness 2. VAE fulfills the natural instinct to avoid pain, and one natural instinct can avoid the other, to avoid the pain Objections to purpose argument 1. The purpose of a thing is not always wrong, newspapper slambutt 2. VAE fulfills a purpose of medicine, to aliviate or eliminate pain. Objections to bad effect argument 1. The list of bad effects also possible with passive euthanasia 2. Mistakes can be maket yet passive is legal in all states 3. Thi list of bad effects is not so strong to makes something illegal Objections to killing argument 1. Killing a human being being is not always wrong on a request of a intern adult patient 2. Concenst make the difference for a terminally ill parient in pain, so consent should make a different with active euthanasia Objections to Body rights argument 1. We dont always think you can do anything to your body, while no violating rights, like incompetent people or having your legs cut off 2. But VAE seems obviously something to be a benefit for you