Ethics Test 2 Study Guide PDF

Death Penalty (Capital Punishment) Capital punishment: The practice of deliberately executing individuals in response to actual misconduct. Central Question: Is the state's deliberate killing of offenders a morally justified response to criminal conduct? Arguments Justif...

Death Penalty (Capital Punishment) Capital punishment: The practice of deliberately executing individuals in response to actual misconduct. Central Question: Is the state's deliberate killing of offenders a morally justified response to criminal conduct? Arguments Justifying the Death Penalty 1. Retribution Theory Key Idea: Justifies the death penalty on the grounds of justice. Criminals deserve punishment. Punishment must fit the crime. Problems with Fitting Punishment: o Too Lenient: For example, one month in jail for rape, community service for serious crimes. o Too Severe: For example, death for petty theft, harsh laws (e.g., Ishani Shavia law: hand amputated for theft). Argument for Death Penalty: o Only the death penalty is seen as a fitting punishment for murder. o Murderers deserve the death penalty. 2. Deterrence Theory Key Idea: The death penalty justifies punishment based on the long-term consequences for society. The death penalty has better consequences for society than not having it. Principle: Policies should aim for the best consequences for society. Common Sense Argument: o What is feared more deters more. o Death is feared more than prison. o Thus, death deters more than prison. Objections 1. Objections to Retribution Theory Punishment Fit:  o What does "fit" mean in "punishment must fit the crime"? o Does it mean causing the same harm the criminal caused the victim? (Eye for an eye theory). Examples of Barbaric Penalties: o Torturing a torturer, raping a rapist, or other extreme penalties (e.g., eye for an eye). o Ridiculous Penalties: ▪ Should we give money to bribers? ▪ Lie to perjurers? ▪ Flash to flashers? ▪ Punish impersonators? 2. Objections to Deterrence Theory Flaw in the Commonsense Argument: o The logic assumes barbaric penalties (e.g., lethal injection being more feared than other forms of punishment) will deter crime. o However, unlikely threats do not deter. o Example: The risk of death while driving (e.g., on campus) is low, but people still drive recklessly. Immigration Definition: The act of coming to live permanently in a foreign country. Debate on Immigration: Should We Restrict Immigration? Arguments in Favor of Immigration 1. Economic Argument a. Immigration contributes to economic growth. b. Countries ought to help immigrants as they contribute to society's prosperity. 2. Freedom of Movement a. People have a human right to freedom of movement. b. Freedom of movement includes the right to immigrate. c. People have the right to immigration. 3. Nation of Immigrants a. America is a nation of immigrants.  b. A nation built by immigrants cannot rightly exclude others. c. America, as a nation of immigrants, should favor immigration. Arguments Against Immigration 1. Welfare Argument a. Countries should protect their welfare systems. b. Immigration restrictions help protect a country’s welfare system by reducing strain on resources. c. Countries are justified in restricting immigration to protect welfare systems. 2. Cultural Preservation Argument a. Countries should preserve their culture. b. Immigration restrictions help maintain cultural integrity. c. Countries are justified in restricting immigration to preserve culture. 3. Brain Drain Argument a. Immigration can result in a "brain drain" from poorer countries. b. Immigrants from poorer countries (e.g., doctors, skilled workers) seek better opportunities in wealthier countries. c. It’s harmful to take valuable talent away from poor countries, which are already struggling. Objections to the Arguments Objections to Freedom of Movement People do not have an unrestricted human right to freedom of movement. There are places (e.g., government areas, military bases, nature preserves) where movement is restricted for security reasons. Immigration is not the same as trespassing or entering restricted zones. Objections to the Economic Argument Not all immigration leads to economic growth. o Some immigrants may be dependent on welfare, reducing economic benefits. o Immigration may lead to lower wages for domestic workers.  Example: Imagine a lifeboat with a specific capacity. If the boat is full and more people try to board, it could endanger everyone’s safety. Adding more people (immigrants) might compromise the country's stability or resources. Objections to Nation of Immigrants Argument It is not always wrong for a nation of immigrants to exclude others. If a nation is facing overpopulation or needs to maintain its resources (e.g., colonies), it might be justified in restricting immigration. World Hunger: Is it Morally Obligatory to Send Aid to Starving Nations? Definitions Obligatory: Morally mandatory; failing to do it is morally wrong (e.g., feeding your own children). Supererogatory: Morally good but not obligatory; an act beyond duty (e.g., giving to charity). Arguments Against Obligatory Aid 1. America First Argument a. A: We should solve America’s problems first. b. B: Starvation in other nations is not a priority for America. c. C: We should not prioritize solving starvation in other nations. 2. Resource Argument a. A: We should not give away resources, as we need them for emergencies in our own country. b. B: Sending aid depletes resources that could be used in times of crisis. c. C: We ought not to send aid to starving nations. 3. Hardin’s Argument (The "Lifeboat" Argument) a. A: Sending aid to starving nations will worsen their situation by overpopulating them. b. B: We should not contribute to worsening their situation. c. C: Therefore, we ought not to send aid. 4. Impossible Argument  a. A: Solving world hunger is impossible. b. B: We should not try to do the impossible. c. C: Therefore, we should not try to solve world starvation. Objections to Arguments Against Obligatory Aid 1. Objection to the "Impossible Argument" a. A: The claim that solving world hunger is impossible may be false. b. B: Solving world hunger might be possible if we send more aid and help develop nations to control overpopulation. c. C: Even if we cannot save everyone, we could save some. 2. Objection to Hardin’s Argument a. A: Some forms of aid (e.g., agricultural, fishing, economic) may improve their situation rather than worsen it. b. B: Support programs can help nations become self-sufficient, reducing dependency on aid in the future. 3. Objection to the "Resource Argument" a. A: A starvation crisis in America is unlikely, especially given the small amount of aid sent. b. B: Example: Giving a few dollars to a beggar doesn’t significantly affect your resources or your own crisis. 4. Objection to the "America First Argument" a. A: This argument prioritizes solving American problems first, but it does not deny the possibility of a secondary obligation to help other nations. b. B: Example: Saving a drowning child in another country (e.g., a Somali child) before an American child in a leaky raft. c. C: We can prioritize more urgent and serious problems over less urgent ones. Arguments for Obligatory Aid: Singer's Argument 1. A: Death by starvation is bad. 2. B: If we can prevent something bad (like starvation) without sacrificing something of comparable moral value, we ought to do so. a. Example: Bob must choose between saving a child or keeping his Bugatti; he would sacrifice the Bugatti because the child's life holds greater moral value. 3. C: We can prevent death by starvation without sacrificing anything of comparable moral value (e.g., giving up luxuries to send aid).  4. D: Therefore, we ought to prevent death by starvation by sacrificing luxuries. Objections to Singer’s Argument Premise B is false: We don’t always have to sacrifice something of lesser moral value to save something of greater moral value. o Example: You don’t need to sacrifice your daughter to save a stranger. Animal Rights Is eating animals morally permissible? Arguments for Eating Animals 1. Eat Each Other Argument a. A: Animals eat each other. b. B: Whatever animals do to each other, humans may permissibly do to them. c. C: Humans may permissibly eat animals. 2. Eat Us Argument a. A: Animals eat us (humans). b. B: Whatever animals do to us, we are permissibly allowed to do to them. c. C: We may permissibly eat animals. 3. Nutrition Argument a. A: Humans eating animals is necessary. b. B: Whatever is necessary for proper nutrition is permissible. c. C: Humans eating animals is permissible. 4. Food Chain Argument a. A: Humans eating animals is part of the food chain. b. B: Whatever is necessary and part of the food chain is permissible. c. C: Humans eating animals is permissible. 5. Environment Argument a. A: Humans eating animals is good for the environment. i. Example: Prevent cows from eating all the grass, reduce cows' contribution to global warming. b. B: Humans are permitted to do what is good for the environment. c. C: Humans are permitted to eat animals.  6. Necessary Argument a. A: Humans eating animals is necessary for survival. b. B: Whatever is necessary for survival is permissible. c. C: Humans eating animals is permissible. Objections to the Arguments Objection to Nutrition Argument (Argument 3) o 3A: False; eating animals is not necessary for proper nutrition. ▪ Example: Healthy vegetarians and vegans can thrive without eating animals. Objection to Eat Us Argument (Argument 2) o Not all animals eat us (e.g., herbivores), so the argument wouldn't permit eating them. o Not everything animals do to us is permissible to do to them (e.g., eating them alive or consuming monkey brains in Asia). Objection to Eat Each Other Argument (Argument 1) o Examples: ▪ Having sex with animals. ▪ Torture. Objection to Environment Argument (Argument 5) o Eating animals is not good for the environment. ▪ Examples: Vast amounts of land needed to feed them. Global warming gases from livestock. Toxic waste. Objection to Necessary Argument (Argument 6) o If humans used the acreage to feed humans rather than animals, more food would be available to humans. ▪ 6A is false. o Not everything necessary for survival is permissible. ▪ Example: Killing someone to survive (e.g., eating human flesh) is not permissible. Objection to Food Chain Argument (Argument 4) o Not everything in the food chain is permissible. ▪ Example: Cannibalism in all species that can kill and eat each other. ▪ Human tribes that engage in cannibalism: this would be wrong. Arguments Against Eating Animals 1. Unnecessary Argument a. A: Causing unnecessary suffering and death is mostly wrong. b. B: Raising and killing animals for food causes unnecessary suffering and death, as we do not need to eat them for nutrition. c. C: Raising animals for food is wrong. Cloning Overview Definition: Cloning is the process of creating a genetically identical copy of an organism or cell. How Cloning is Done 1. Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) a. Transferring the nucleus of a somatic (body) cell into an egg cell. b. Example: Cloning of a sheep (e.g., Dolly the sheep). Types of Cloning 1. Therapeutic Cloning a. Goal: To produce biological material (e.g., stem cells) for medical purposes. 2. Reproductive Cloning a. Goal: To create a whole organism (e.g., cloning animals). b. Note: Legal for animals but illegal for humans in many countries. Is Human Reproductive Cloning Wrong? Arguments Against Cloning 1. Unique Identity Argument a. A: Cloning violates the right to a unique identity, as the clone is a copy of the original. b. B: Violating a right to a unique identity is wrong. c. C: Therefore, cloning is wrong. Objection:  d. We don’t have a "right" to a unique genetic identity, as seen with identical twins (who are genetically identical but still distinct individuals). 2. Defect Argument a. A: Cloning could result in a higher rate of genetic defects. b. B: Anything with a higher rate of genetic defects is wrong. c. C: Therefore, cloning is wrong. Objection: d. Not all things with a higher defect rate are wrong (e.g., older women having children). e. With advancements in science, cloning may not have a higher rate of defects than natural reproduction. 3. Super Army Argument a. A: Cloning could be used to create a "super army" by selecting the best soldiers. b. B: Using cloning to create a super army is wrong. c. C: Therefore, cloning is wrong. Objection: d. Not everything that could be used for a super army is wrong (e.g., technological advances, AI, special forces). 4. No Consent Argument a. A: Cloning could result in individuals being cloned without their consent. b. B: Anything done without a person's consent is wrong. c. C: Therefore, cloning is wrong. Objection: d. Not everything done without consent is wrong (e.g., natural reproduction in cases of rape). Arguments For Cloning 1. Reproductive Freedom Argument a. A: We have a moral right to reproductive freedom (e.g., choosing a mate, how many kids to have, fertility treatments). b. B: Cloning is just another method of reproduction. c. C: We have a moral right to reproductive freedom as long as we don’t violate other rights. Genetic Engineering Overview Definition: The alteration of heritable traits by direct manipulation of genes. How Genetic Engineering is Done 1. Fertilize embryos. 2. Genetically screen embryos. 3. Remove genes for unwanted traits and replace with genes for desired traits. a. Example: CRISPR technology. 4. Implant embryos in the womb. Types of Genetic Engineering 1. Therapeutic Genetics a. Goal: Replace genes associated with abnormal or subnormal traits with normal genes. b. Example: Treating genetic disorders like Down’s syndrome or other genetic diseases. 2. Genetic Enhancement a. Goal: Replace genes for normal traits with genes that provide enhanced or superior traits. b. Example: Enhancing intelligence to "Einstein level." Is Therapeutic Genetics Morally Wrong? Arguments Against Therapeutic Genetics 1. Natural Limits Argument a. A: Therapeutic genetics violates natural limits that nature gives you. b. B: Violating natural limits is wrong. c. C: Therefore, therapeutic genetics is wrong. Objection: d. Not all violations of natural limits are wrong (e.g., using steroids, braces, or prosthetics). 2. Discrimination Argument a. A: Therapeutic genetics discriminates against the disabled by choosing against them. b. B: Discriminating against the disabled is wrong. c. C: Therefore, therapeutic genetics is wrong. Objection: d. Therapeutic genetics is not adverse treatment; it is beneficial treatment for those with diseases or disabilities. 3. Stopping Evolution Argument a. A: Therapeutic genetics could stop evolution by eliminating unknown mutations. b. B: Stopping evolution is wrong. c. C: Therefore, therapeutic genetics is wrong. Objection: d. Therapeutic genetics does not stop evolution; it corrects genes linked to disease and disability. Stopping evolution is not always wrong (e.g., living fossils). Arguments For Therapeutic Genetics 1. Preventing Argument a. A: Preventing disability and disease without violating rights is permissible (e.g., avoiding harmful behaviors like smoking or drinking during pregnancy). b. B: Therapeutic genetics prevents diseases and disabilities without violating rights. c. C: Therefore, therapeutic genetics is permissible. Is Genetic Enhancement Morally Wrong? Arguments Against Genetic Enhancement 1. Devaluation Argument a. A: Enhancements treat children as objects by evaluating them based on traits. b. B: Evaluating humans as objects is wrong. c. C: Therefore, enhancement is wrong. Objection: d. Choosing quality traits for a child is not the same as treating them as an object (e.g., choosing a mate or selecting traits like intelligence or physical ability).  2. Diversity Argument a. A: Enhancement could reduce human diversity, as everyone would be genetically similar. b. B: Reducing human diversity is wrong. c. C: Therefore, enhancement is wrong. Objection: d. Enhancement does not necessarily decrease diversity, as not everyone will choose enhancements. Preferences differ across cultures, communities, and families. e. Decreasing diversity is not always wrong (e.g., preventing defects or providing education). Arguments For Genetic Enhancement 1. Enhancement Argument a. A: Genetic enhancement benefits your child without violating their rights. b. B: What benefits your child without violating rights is permissible (e.g., immigration for better opportunities). c. C: Therefore, genetic enhancement is permissible.