Philosophy 332 Notes

Philosophy 332 notes

These are unrevised / uncorrected notes from students in the class. They will be of use to those who wish to check their understanding of the class and to those who have missed a class, but they are by no means official. Caveat lector.

Monday Jan 13, 2014 – Veronica Farley

Conditions for Moral Responsibility (conditions don’t have to be 100% for you to be held responsible, but if all the criteria meet little luck shrugging off the blame): 1. Free & willing (action not necessary or forced; in your power to do otherwise) 2. Aware of action (know what you were doing at time the action was undertaken) 3. Wanted to do (voluntary action) 4. Choose to do what you did (after deliberation) Ex: > If you were driving over to someone’s house planning to kill them & you accidently ran them over as you were driving you are not responsible (could still be held accountable however – for instance if your driving was reckless because of your murderous rage then you could be brought up on charges) Ex: (counter) > If you parked in a parking zone even if you were unaware it wasn’t allowed you could still be held accountable. Ex: (counter) > Younger members of the Barker gang claimed they had been raised to think little of theft and murder and that they were told to commit the crimes by their mother. However, ignorance of such universals is unconvincing. They ought to have known better. Student Questions:  Spilt second decisions (#4) – are people still responsible?  Stockholm Syndrome (#1, 2) – if they knew at one point what was right can they still claim to have temporarily been unaware? Principle of Double Effect ~ a morally good or morally neutral act (basically an act that isn’t inherently evil such as turning your car to the right) with two consequences; both consequences are known but only one is intended. One of the consequences cannot result in the other effect - the effects must be simultaneous. In addition, good effect has to be so important we will tolerate the evil effect. Ex: Buying coffee. The intention is to obtain coffee to drink but by drinking that coffee you are supporting a system that exploits land and impoverished people. Ex. Taking a drug to treat a disease you suffer from when that drug can have the side effect of aborting fetuses. Intended consequence is to live and unintended is to stop possibility of new life. Ex. Bombing a military structure. It is intended that you destroy the military structure but you also kill nearby civilians or civilian support staff because bombs can’t distinguish between potential threats & non threats (Student Question: Can bombing be morally neutral?)

Abortion ~ the expulsion of a fetus from the womb before it is viable Distinctions: 1. Spontaneous abortion/miscarriage v. induced abortion 2. Indirect abortion v. direct abortion (see: principle of double effect) 3. Person v. Human 2

 Human = a biological category. Best tested by DNA as our other senses can be fooled. (Who knows? One of our classmates could be an android collecting information for Mars.)  Person = a being who is free, self-aware, rationally and morally aware, capable of entering into an emotional relationship, has a notion of self as continuing self (past/present/future), has a plan of life 4. Values included: common good (overpopulation, family’s ability to support), life (of mother, of possible infant)

Objections to person definition:  How does legal definition fit in? Ex: Women not people in Canada until recently.  Can you only count the person’s relationship to others? A woman can feel a deep relationship with her fetus even though the fetus is not yet capable of doing so.  When not self-aware (drunk, asleep, etc) are you still a person? Student answer: As long as there is a reasonable belief you will regain self-awareness (sobering, waking up, etc)

January 15, 2014 - Alishya Franklin Readings for Monday: 1. J.J. Thompson – A Defense of Abortion

2. Don Marquis – Why Abortion is Immoral

Things to keep in mind – Theories, Facts, Values - Think about the assumptions made in each argument. All issues do have facts involved.

o Distinction between intended abortions and unintended abortions. Ask yourself: How is it that the abortion came about?

o What is the factual distinction between a person and a human?

. Person as an ethical and philosophical distinction

. Things that are persons but not humans? Humans and not persons? – sentient aliens, angels, demons, brain-dead, a fetus

o Can anything that is not a person only find value instrumentally?

. Kant: the well-being of animals is ethically relevant not for themselves but in regards to how we treat them can relate to how we treat others

- What are the Values involved? If life has value than the destruction of that life would be bad.

o If an asteroid hit the earth, destroying all life, making it so there was no one to mourn the passing. What would be bad about this? 3

o Are there certain kinds of life that have more value than others?

o We seem to have this belief that it is important to protect life

o Right to life?

. Life of the fetus

. Right of the person to determine what s/he will do with his/her own body

. The common good of society (how, if at all, should this factor in?)

. The obligations of the person – after a time of war, a husband to his wife, a wife to her husband

. The protection of life

- Is there and should there be a difference between Legalization and Morality?

o Ex. Lying is immoral but should it be illegal?

o Is it immoral to speed?

o It would seem that it is not entirely different but that there definitely should be some separation between the two concepts.

- Should abortion be illegal? Restricted? Banned? – Questions as to whether or not abortion is moral don`t necessarily seem to factor in.

- Who should be involved in the decision? – Woman? Father? Other Relatives? Society?

What are some arguments that someone could give to say that abortion should be morally allowed? 1) The parents might not be in a position financially to be able to support a child or the child may be unwanted resulting in a poor quality of life for the child should it be born.

a. To forbid abortion means that there will be unwanted children in the world.

i. Is A True: It is plausible, there are some parents who abuse their children terribly – People like that shouldn’t have children

b. Unwanted children often lead unhappy lives and make other people’s lives unhappy (no one gains by their existence)

i. Is B True: is “often” too strong a word? Perhaps “frequently” or “sometimes” would work better. 4

c. No child unwanted by their parents should be brought into the world.

i. There is no guarantee that the children after being born will continue to be wanted – it would be like saying “the best cure for depression is murder”

ii. Should we put unhappy people in a position where you are not actively killing them but leaving them in a position where they will die?

1. If we say yes to this then we are saying that only certain kinds of life have value - This is not unheard of as an argument. If we think about things like the “Overpopulation of the World Theory” – Should we just let people starve to death?

iii. Assumption = unhappy lives have less value – leading to the question: Who is to judge if your life has value? Yourself, but you have a vested interest? Other people?

iv. Does quality of life remain static? Is it a purely empirical issue?

v. If we say that this is true then should people be obliged to have an abortion?

2) The woman’s quality of life could be harmed or decreased if she carried to term. It is a question of a basic human right.

a. Women, like all people, have the right to do what they wish with their bodies

i. Do people, in fact, have the right to do anything they wish to their bodies? Is there a limit? What about mutilations like piercings and tattoos? How far is too far?

1. It is too far when the person is threatening their life?

ii. It does seem evident that, at least to a point, people have a right to certain modifications to their bodies, like haircuts and piercings.

iii. Why do we have a right to our bodies?

1. Is it the right of ownership? Where did we get this right of ownership?

a. Was it our parents? Did they own us and then grant us the right of ownership? 5

2. It would seem that humans as a biological creatures and personhood are connected like the connection between mind and body.

3. If my body is me, do I own me? If so can I give me away?

4. If we don’t own our bodies, who does?

b. A fetus is a part of the woman’s body

i. Is the fetus a part of a woman’s body? We certainly look in a woman’s body to find the fetus. Does it classify as a part of the whole that makes up the woman’s body?

ii. What makes a thing a part of something else? – DNA? That is can exist independently? That it is of the same essence?

iii. Ex. The digestive tract can be considered to be something other than a part of the human body, and it contains other life that is not a part of the human biologically.

c. A woman has the right to do what she wishes with the fetus

a. In certain cases upon birth

b. Allowing human beings to be born with certain handicaps or dead is immoral.

c. If the woman knows that the child would be born with the handicap/dead then it would be morally allowable for her to have an abortion.

a. Fetus’ aren’t persons

i. Under our definition this certainly seems true

ii. A person could be something that can communicate thoughts and emotions

iii. Is personhood empirical? 6

iv. Just because we don’t seen them express any of the characteristics of a person, does that mean they do not express them? Is this a question for science?

b. Killing is only wrong when it involves the intentional taking of the life of innocent persons

i. Certain animals have the ability to communicate in some manner and yet it is still rather common or at least mostly acceptable to put them down.

ii. How much communication is necessary to be considered a person?

iii. Killing some non-persons is sometimes wrong

c. Therefore, the killing of a fetus is not morally wrong – we put down our pets when they are unwanted or gravely ill, does not the same logic apply for fetuses.

i. This argument makes the assumption that anything that is not a person has only instrumental value.

*It should be noted that for the argument to be valid the premises accompanying it must also be true.*

January 20th 2014 - Martin Helle

In Defense of Abortion; J. J. Thomson

Last class we concluded with the example of the “Cat Man” and proposed the question, do people have the right to their bodies? Does this permit mutilating one’s body like the Cat Man did? More relevant to the course do woman have the right to do as they please with their body were abortion is concerned.

- How do we go about evaluating a philosophical argument? 1) Figure out the author’s conclusion · J. J. Thomson’s conclusion; is that it is in certain circumstances just to have an abortion, there are certain circumstances where abortion is permitted but not obligatory.

(Side) When speaking to media, and relevant when arguing philosophical position, the goal isn’t to answer the media’s questions but to ensure you get your message across. You want to control over your message and ensure you state your intended conclusion.

2) What are the premises/ reasons they are assuming they have but are not necessarily giving you. 7

· Implicit (assumed) & Explicit (premises, are they true, clear, relevant and do they contain sufficient evidence)

(Side) Principle of Charity: Understand the argument assuming the author is intelligent and thoughtful. If there is doubt in their premise, do not assume it is wrong or stupid, rather be charitable and give them the benefit of the doubt. Add a positive spin on the argument in order to make clear what you think the author is trying to get across.

The Undesirable Conclusion; Sometimes we must accept a conclusion we may think morally horrendous. However if they have a sound argument with true premises then we must accept the consequence no matter our individual disposition.

Actual Article:

Her conclusion: Is that abortion is not moral, but permitted in some cases, and equally in some cases it is not morally permissible.

· Just is equal to morally permitted · Justice affiliated with rights. In this case the Right to Life. · What is morally decent/ indecent · Decency equal to what one ‘ought to do” (Box of chocolates example; you are not obligated to share your box of chocolates that was given to you with your brother, you should since it is the decent thing to do. However it’s not unjust if you don’t, you’re just a greedy bastard.) · Abortion may be just, but it is not decent, you have a right to do it but should you? · There are hints of Utilitarianism in her approach, in the sense of emphasizing the course of action to take to ensure how people would be better off as a whole. a) Also a hint of “ethics of care’ and ‘right based theory’

Phases of J. J. Thomson’s Essay:

- Extreme Cases (Mothers life at risk) - Not so extreme cases - Moral decency

-She doesn’t dwell on the ‘person/ human’ distinction, and assumes fetus’ are persons for the sake of argument.

-She begins by giving a plausible premise, that the right to life is greater than a mother’s right to her own body.

- Violinist Analogy: you’ve been kidnapped and wake up to find your hooked up to a famous violinist who is dependent on your kidneys in order to flush out his ailment for the next 9 months. * Does one have an obligation to this violinist? 8

- Circumstances such as these are dependent on our own intuitions, were we have this inner sense of when something is right or wrong.

-Should all abortion be impermissible, even in the ‘extreme cases’ ?

-She is not saying people can do whatever they want in order to save their lives, rather she explains there are drastic limits to the right of self defense. You do not have the right to commit an evil act on a 3rd party, even if being threatened by a 2nd party, because that innocent person is not a direct threat. Despite the intention, a threat is a threat and when in mortal harm one has the right to remove them. In this extreme case there is not argument that you need to keep the fetus alive if it threatens the life of the mother.

-One has the right to defend even if the party did not have the intent to harm you, but they would without their knowing. (Ex. Prof. Sweet unknowingly pressing the death ray button that would kill a student, the student knowing their impending doom has the right to if need be dispatch the Prof., even if it is not the Prof. intent to kill the student).

* One is not responsible for the act of someone else so long as you have free will in the matter.

- If we have any prior claim to anything then it is our bodies.

* If this premise is to be contested or restricted then one needs some damn good evidence for doing so.

- The Right to Life includes being given the bare minimum. For J. J. Thomson the right to life entails the right to be protected from someone who is violently trying to interfere with someone’s life.

* Therefore the Violinist does not have the right to use your kidneys and you can justly insist to be detached from the violinist, making you morally innocent from letting the man die.

- The Difference Between ‘Aid’ and ‘Use’

* Aid: assistance/ help given voluntary and does not impede on your health/ wellbeing (To a degree) One has no ethical reason to aid but it is morally decent to do so if you can.

* Use: Involuntary, actually using you as a means to their ends. Benefits one at the expense of the other. You could volunteer to be used in this way, but once your consent is giving this is another issue completely.

Three Types of Samaritans:

- Good Samaritan: Sees someone in need & helps them at great cost and expense to themselves. You could strive to be this person though you do not have to be. 9

- Minimally Decent Samaritan: Helps to a degree, but at leasts helps. This is how we should all behave toward one another. - Bad Samaritan: They could care less and in no way makes an effort to help. This is the type of person we should avoid being.

Jan. 27 – Katie Gilbert

J.J Thompson- Article on Abortion

- Look for: o Presuppositions o Theories underlying o Conclusions o Thought experiments o What is her argument?

a) A pregnant women can (always), without injustice, have an abortion b) In certain circumstances, abortions are morally indecent

 ‘Justice’ vs. ‘Moral Indecency’

Argument for First Conclusion (A):

1. “We have a just prior claim to our bodies” a. Before anyone else has a claim on my body, I do

2. [Therefore] We can do what we want with our bodies (providing that we do not violate other [overriding] just claims)

3. In extreme cases, no person has a right to another’s body - I have a basic, absolute right to save my own life - I have the absolute right to give, or refuse to give, another person a right to my body, (or)  o “Nobody is required to make large sacrifices to help another”

3. a) [Therefore, in extreme cases, no fetus has the right to a mother’s body]

Why do we have a prior claim to our own bodies?

- Because we know what’s happening in our own body o Knowing = claim to it - We are embodied beings  we have a prior claim to that body - I have a fundamental stake in myself o Therefore I have a prior claim to my body 10

- I need a body to function (intuitionistic)

 It is not too obvious that all people have a ‘just prior claim’ to their own body o Slaves still exist today . Slaves may also be benefitting from slavery regimes  making more money, health benefits, etc. o Many religious traditions might argue with this statement . Some utilitarian thinkers may be opposed to this claim  Thus, not obvious that all people have a ‘just prior claim’ to their body

Q: Do we have an absolute right over ourselves? - Could we give ourselves away? - Sell ourselves into slavery? Do we have that right (to give up our own body?) o Thompson argues  “We have an absolute right to our body”

- If we have a just prior claim over our body, does that mean we are also allowed to do whatever we want with our own body?

RIGHTS  The right to life = the right to not be killed unjustly

4. In non-extreme cases, no person has a right to another’s body a. A person’s right to life does not entail that s/he has the right to the means to stay alive [only, ‘the right to not be killed unjustly’]

5. Whatever a person has the right to do to him/herself, s/he can request another person to do

6. A pregnant women can, without injustice [i.e., depriving no one of a right], have an abortion

7. A physician can provide an abortion on request of the pregnant women

Argument for Second Conclusion (B):

1. “If you can do something to help someone else at no significant cost to yourself, then you ought to do it”

1. a) “If you can keep a person alive at no significant cost to you, then you ought to do it”

2. If you refuse to do what you ought to do, then you are a morally indecent person [though not unjust]

3. In certain circumstances, keeping a fetus alive is of no significant cost to the mother 11

4. Thus, in certain situations, keeping a fetus alive is what a mother ought to do

5. Thus, in certain situations, refusing to keep a fetus alive [i.e., abortion] is morally indecent

“ Morally Indecent”: Not helping someone (or doing something) that you should have, although you were not morally obligated

- Where does the “ought” come from?  Burn money or give it to charity? o A moral obligation

← January 29, 2014 ← Margaret MacAfee ← Arguments Against Allowing Abortion  There are number of ‘Criticisms’ of the argument in favor of aborting  But these are not necessarily arguments against allowing abortion  You may take the position of agnostic and say you do not have a view ← J.J. Thomson  Clear?  True?  Relevant? o Is it true we have a right to our own body? o Natural law, utilitarian and theologian would not agree o Are the premises relevant? Do they have efficient evidence? o Does it follow? ← ← Anti-Abortion ← Arg. 1  A fetus is a person, it has rights (eg to life)  It’s wrong to violate the right to life o Therefore it is wrong to abort ← ← Arg. 2  Mothers have a responsibility to care for their child  A fetus is a child o Therefore it is wrong to kill the fetus 12

 Arg.1 vs. Arg. 2=Right to life vs. Duty ← ← Arg. 3  Wrong to take life IF there is another option  There are other options to abortion o Therefore is wrong to abort ← ← Arg. 4  Sometimes social goods trump individual choices  Sometimes outlawing/restricting is nec. For a social good o Therefore abortion should be left up to the state ← ← Persons are the beings to have rights  Free Agent  Capable of a knowledge of the good  Capable of working to the good ← What about infants and elderly? ← ← Arg. 1 Is it clear what a ‘fetus’ is? ← Is it true fetus is a potential person? ← A person can be a potential prime minister but that does not give them the rights of the actual prime minister. ← Arg. needs evidence to stand ← ← Arg. 4 Should the state have the power to decide whether a woman shouldn’t have an abortion.

Marquis  Why is it wrong to take a life anyway? o Human life is intrinsically o Wrong to take a life if another option o Marquis says – It is always wrong to take a life except in exception circumstances ← Marquis says killing is wrong because:  Makes the killer brutalize the one who is killed  Others would feel great loss ← But really, the greatest possible losses on the victim  No future is the worst possible loss  Idea of premature death seems so bad because children have the largest future  Some nonhuman animals also have a right to a future (chimps, dolphins) ← ← Marquis arg.  It is (normally) wrong to kill a thing because it deprives it of a valuable future  It is normally wrong to kill us, because it deprives us of a valuable future  An analogy: suffering  A fetus has the capacity for a valuable future  “A fetus is the sort of being whose life it is seriously wrong to end”  Conclusion: ”Abortion is, except possibly in rare cases, seriously immoral… it is in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being.” 13

Valuable –positive value -Values take place

But is the arg. clear, true, and relevant?

Feb 3, 2014: Tyler MacDonald

Assisted Suicide - Dworkin, Callahan, Rachels (active/passive), Rodriguez - Question to answer: should people be legally allowed to end their lives with the assistance of a physician? - not a moral question, a legal one. No matter what you think morally, it can still be legal

- what counts as assistance? - “Dr. Death” and his suicide machine (active or passive?). Not actively there, but he provides all the means for the patient; they just have to press a button. - a doctor deliberately does the act which kills someone (active) - a doctor does not provide treatment (DNR or similar, passive) - this question counts for all forms of euthanasia. Active/passive is a question of intent. Even if the effect is the same, does the intent change the nature of it?

- voluntary vs. involuntary vs non-voluntary euthanasia (Aristotle?) - voluntary: in control of yourself and intend to die. Clear and explicit - involuntary: die against one’s will (generally not argued for in papers) - non-voluntary: person can’t decide for themselves at the moment (coma, vegetative state, etc.). Somebody else makes the decision (this is the nitty gritty of euthanasia)

- if euthanasia is legal, should it be an absolute right or restricted? - Rodriguez case: person soon to be useless. Sufficient grounds to allow? - Belgian twins, blind, can’t stand life without seeing each other. Is psychological suffering sufficient enough grounds?

- what is the value of life? - sacred/good on its own vs. certain kinds of life having value. - does a braindead person live a valuable life?

- if allowed, then why are they allowed? - end of (unnecessary) suffering (of patient or the family/friends), autonomy of one’s own body - prohibition can violate the spirit of laws to protect individual freedom and common good (but those ideas can conflict...) - common good can mean thinking of how to allocate resources; keeping a vegetable alive is a drain which may help another - what if somebody decides to give themselves to the common good? (Soylent Green-type world) - what are the implications of these arguments beyond assisted suicide? 14

Wednesday, February 5th - Holly MacLeod

Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Sue Rodriguez Case - Appealed different sections of the Charter. Appealing to certain basic rights. - Dignity? Where does that fit?

Absolute Right VS. Inalienable Rights - Inalienable creates problems: means that they cannot be taken away - Absolute Right is only the extent, meaning nothing can stop it.

A right to life argues against capital punishment, because it takes your life away. - This is a moral and legal argument.

Arguments for the Rodriguez case 1. A principle of liberty/security of the person. 1) "The individual is sovereign over her/his mind and body". 2) To be sovereign over a thing means to have control over that thing. 3) Therefore individuals (should) have control over their bodies and minds. 4) No one should limit individuals conduct (unless necessary on social grounds) - unless your action, or the way one conducts themselves, is interfering with society a negative way, or interfering with another individuals rights. 5) Therefore, no one should prevent an individual from ending her/his life.

Should we buy this argument? What are the exceptions? - Extreme mental illness: causes individuals to not have control with respect to the rights of other individuals. ex: Schizophrenia - Infants: not considered to have 'sovereignty' over their body. Their parents would be sovereign over them. - The Queen is the sovereign but does not have "sovereignty. (The exceptions weaken this argument)

Control over the mind? To an extent. - Ex: The room full of people. If you are standing in front of a room full of students, can you look at them and see an empty room? No. If you look, you will see the room full of students.

Free will - "We do not have free will; we always have to make choices." This can be argued by many different philosophers. - Freedom does not necessarily mean free will.

2. Prevention of Cruelty 1) It is cruel to force patients to stay alive when they are in constant pain. - And cruel to the one's loved ones: is it not cruel to let one's family suffer 15

psychologically and financially. 2) Cruelty is wrong. (Not the same thing as being 'treated cruelly'). 3) Therefore, forcing patients to stay alive when they are in constant pain is wrong. 4) Therefore, no one should limit patients from ending their lives.

Problems with this argument: - Saying 'constant' might be misleading. Consider saying 'terminal' to imply that the illness/disease cannot be cured. Saying 'constant' can apply to cancers that may be curable. - The decision has to be in the interest of the patient, and what the patient wants. - However, sometimes the best interest of the patient and what the patient wants is not the same thing.

3. Combination of 1 and 2 - Autonomy

Conditions of Euthanasia (6 conditions) 1) Disease is presently incurable. 2) Disease is beyond help of respite or remission. 3) Suffering of the patient is intolerable. 4) Suffering of the patient is unmitigated. 5) The patient has a fixed desire to die. 6) The patient has an unalterable desire to die. - These conditions take away freedom.

Conditions of Involuntary Euthanasia - Conditions 1-4 - In these cases, the decision is left to the family, qualified physician, or other qualified professionals.

How? How is euthanasia supposed to occur? - Active (life support) - Passive (withdraw treatment) Who? Who performs euthanasia? - In the case of Rodriguez, she wanted to start the machine. Who has the right to end someones life?

4. Function of Government 1) Government exists to protect individual freedom and the common good. 2) Prohibiting individual freedom when it is inconsistent with the common good. 3) Government should not prohibit exercising their freedom to end their lives.

Positive Arguments against Euthanasia (voluntary) 16

- Can we determine genuine consent? Is this what the patient really wants? - Abuse of the system

Practical Arguments 1. Difficult to know what conditions might be met. (Important as a legal matter). a) How "voluntary" is the decision? When made under the influence of pain medication. b) Can we be certain that a person at the stage is rational/clear? c) Might there not be a sense of an "obligation" to other to die? Thus the act is not voluntary.

Consequentialist Arguments (wait and see?) 2. Moreover, a respect for life is an important value in any social order, euthanasia will serve to lessen such respect. - Euthanasia promotes the attitude that the dying are of no value and should be able to determine. - it is important to see death as a "part of life". 3. Will lead to a decline in medical care and attention.

Euthanasia might be “corrupting influence”. (Utilitarian) - Physicians might decide that one is better off dead, and therefore might not try to save someone. Ex: Dr. Riley had a stroke at age 61. Another man went to the same hospital after having a stroke at age 81. Where they treated and cared for the same?

Deontological view on Euthanasia - Natural law arguments. - Believes in preserving life, yet also believes in capital punishment. 4. Euthanasia sets us against nature - Ex: our inclination to continue living does violence to our dignity. 5. Life is sacred - Respect for the sanctity of life precludes either allowing death to occur unnecessarily or the deliberate taking of life. - It is morally better to preserve life than to not. - Directly intending to take a life is always wrong. 17

Feb 10 - John Moore

Euthanasia:

Premises must be the focus when breaking down arguments.

Rights seem to initially be the focus of both this and abortion arguments, however, there are other issues at play. In even speaking of this as a right, what are the caveats?

-fixed, unwavering consent. -terminal, incurable disease.

How can we know when these are met?

Consequentialist arguments: -will our respect for life diminish? -will it lead to a decline in medical care? These can be answered by looking at empirical evidence (has this occurred where euthanasia is legal?). If these are not present in cases studies, then it is permissible (potentially with certain safeguards).

Deontological/Natural Law arguments: -people seek survival, this sets us against our nature. It is the act, not it's consequences which are immoral in this argument.

Is a life worth living subjective or objective? Natural law says it is intrinsic.

Rights normally imply duties in a reciprocal manner. Sometimes, they can also be simple privileges.

If I have a duty to preserve my life, is that the ultimate duty, or do other supercede it?

Do people who do not see their value still have it?

From the perspective of the state, suicide can be legal (or decriminalized) but it is not the states duty to assist.

Assuming euthanasia has justification, how can it be practiced? Passively (letting die), actively (killing)? By whom? Can I transfer my right to die to others?

If I put a price on something, it becomes a commodity. It loses its inherent value and becomes instrumentally valuable. Not all rights can be transferred because it commoditizes that right.

February 12, 2014 - Kennedy Murphy (x2010mvo)

Active & Passive Euthanasia 18

See Rachels article in textbook Should euthanasia be legalized? If so, who can do it and how? How can a right be transferred to someone else? • I have a right to give away my child to someone more fit to raise them but I do not have the right to sell my child to that same person (or anyone else) • Selling our bodies turns it into a commodity and violates our dignity •  There are limits on how rights can be transferred/enacted To exercise a right doesn’t mean that it is right to do so. • Example: If I work hard in this class and I deserve an 80% for my final mark, but I get a 79%, then I have a right to an 80% but it isn’t a wrong if I do not receive that extra 1%. • Example: A hero cannot be expected to sacrifice his life to save someone, because if he is, he is no longer a hero. Claiming that an act is necessary for survival does not mean that the act is a good act. • Example: Being paid to be a surrogate mother to pays the bills isn’t a good act because it is necessary to pay for food, shelter, etc. • The lesser of two evils— choose a small evil in order to avoid a greater evil. The Who — who should have rights • Rights achieve a purpose • Rights are not valid on themselves; they are dependent on an end or a value— if an action opposes this end or value, then you don’t have the right to do the act. Passive euthanasia • “let die” i.e. letting nature take its course • Intending to kill by withdrawing treatment • In his article, Rachels most likely is talking about the second form of euthanasia (intending to kill) • Killing may be more humane that letting die — contradicts American Medical Association Thought experiment: A 6 year old cousin is in the way cousin is in the way two people inheriting a large amount of money. One drowns the child in the bathtub, and the other intends to do the same but instead, watches the child slip, hit his head and drown himself in the tub. • Is there a difference between the two? Both have the same motivation and result. • They have different intentions the moment the child dies. The first is intending to kill and the second is intending to let die. But, they both have the same result. • Letting die is the same as killing  passive is the same as killing What has Rachels not shown? Where is the argument in the text? • Thought experiments • Appeal to intuition • No straight foreword argumentation. Can we conclude what Rachels concludes?

February 16th – Luke Redden

Arguments for freedom of expression a) related to freedom of the human conscience b) there are social and personal benefits, provides communication of knowledge 19 c) liberty is basic human right, it is self evident d) freedom is related to dignity, It is essential to our nature e) There is no good argument against freedom of expression. Since no good reason against it, why not have freedom of expression?

All these premises are not necessary true. Your belief of ethical theories will dictate which premises you accept to be true.

Question about freedom of expression What morally justifiable legal limits if any can be placed of the freedom on the freedom of expression? To whom does the limits apply to?

Harm principle - peoples freedom of expression is allowed to be limited if there expression is to cause harm to others why is the harm principle a legitimate limit on liberty? Why should people be prevented from cause harm to others? So society can function effectively without offensive distractions. - People generally believe in a universal agreement not to bring harm to one another. - if people did whatever they want, this freedom of actions may bring harm to others and interfere with others people liberty - If people were allowed to harm other, it would eliminate liberty. It would create a society of being ruled by force.

What is harm? -To restrict or damage someones personal value. - To cause pain and suffering, both mental and physical

The risky nature of an action can to lead to harm. Risky actions increase the chance of harm

Is the harm principle a justifiable reason to limit freedom of expression? - definition of harm is too vague. Physical harm is obvious but psychological harm is difficult to detect - Is harm always a bad thing? sometimes the truth can be harmful. can we distinguish good harms from bad harms?

Conclusion about the harm principle - by itself it is inadequate, the concept of harm is too vague of an idea - fails to distinguish good harms from bad harms - fails to distinguish between acts that are harmful but not properly the subject of legal limitation, an example would be lying - fails to address offensive actions that not harmful - fails to address immoral actions that are not harmful

Harm principle does not cover enough ground, there are other reasons to limit the freedom of speech. -offensiveness is a legitimate reason to limit freedom of speech -offensiveness is unpleasant, but does not cause physical pain. -offensiveness does cause shame, embarrassment, disgust 20 offensive might not cause pain or harm, but causes a type of distress. -offensiveness seems to violate social norms rather than moral principles should we make offensive actions illegal? - violates social norms, people do not have the right to cause distress to others - violates people right to be in public place without the presence of offensive material - people have to right to be warned about the presence of offensive content

Feb 17 - Adrian Nickerson

Last class: Euthanasia - Issue of killing vs letting die - no right answer, lots of good and bad answers - writer of article may may have assumed that the rerader agrees with their basic assumption of the value of life - Any solution to this question may have major implications for other issues, such as quality of life issues (better to euthanise then help?)

Today: Freedom of speech Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms section 2 lists the freedoms Canadians have.

Why is there freedom of speech, and what is this freedom limited by?

Freedom of speech is a basic freedom Why is freedom of speech a basic freedom? -It is essential to human wellbeing by allowing people: -To point out issues/problems in society -To ensure human creativety is not constrained; arts and science examples of what might be constrained -Allows people to pool and increase human knowledge.

Freedom of expression is a means to an end, allows freedom of though, belief, etc. Its a self evident freedom, meaning it is obvious we have it, doesnt need to be described further. If we dont have freedom of speech, how are we considered human? Humans can speek and think and express themselves.

Canadian Law states we have freedom of speech, unless specifically restricted ie. hate speech.

Limits -Harm to others -Offensiveness to others -morality (vague topic) 21

-harm to oneself

Example of limited speech: Criminal case that was emailed to us

Violates section 319 (due to hate speech vs Jews) A professor taught hate vs Jews and required that it be reproduced in exams and papers. Consisted of accusing Jews of being child killers, greedy, amonst other examples.

What is the difference between harm and offend? -Must first define what it means to cause harm.

What is it to harm? -Cause restrictions to be placed on people ie. not offer jobs or benefits -"cause us to be less well off" -pain, suffering, -psycological harm -negatively affect personal interests and integrety.

Is risky behavior harmful? -In and of itself, not harm -Consequences of risk outcome may cause harm.

ESSAY TOPICS HANDED OUT.

Wed. April 2 - Keith Searing

Q: Do we have a duty to alleviate suffering in the developing world?

3 Possible Answers: 1.) We do have a duty to alleviate suffering. 2.) It is good to do so, but we do not have a duty to alleviate suffering. 3.) We have a duty not to alleviate suffering

(Answer type- 3.): Garret Hardin- Life Boat Ethics

Analogy: Life on Earth (especially in developed countries) is like living on a lifeboat. -The Earth is like a sea with lifeboats in it; big lifeboats are like rich countries, they are not over- crowded and they have enough resources on board to feed everyone. Over- crowded boats are like poor countries, they do not have enough. Each boat has a safety capacity; if too many passengers are on board, then the boat is unsafe and cannot support the passengers. - Two criteria for selection of passengers: 1.) Need (not all boats can meet the needs of all passengers, so need is not a relevant criteria) 22

2.) a Selection- If selection, what are the morally relevant conditions for choosing? Either way we are still going to restrict some passengers. What about guilty feelings or impartial decisions?

(Lifeboats: Resources:: Passengers: Populations)

2 Solutions to Problem of living on a Lifeboat:

1.) World Food Bank- If there is enough surplus in developed countries to meet the needs of all the other countries, then there should be a world food bank to redistribute surplus to developing countries. Problems: a.) Not really how banks function/ ought to function; really just rich countries giving to the poor, the bank will never be able to invest or make any returns. b.) Net result is an increase in population. If population allowed to increase and resources stay the same, then increase in population will lower the supply of resources and result in famine and starvation. c.) Tragedy of the Commons: as long as there is commonly owned resources, then the increase in population will only have negative effects on the environment and our future ability to extract resources efficiently.

2.) World Government (real solution)- The only way to control population growth effectively is to have a world government. Until then, there is no way to solve the problems associated with living on a lifeboat. Therefore, we ought to adopt “lifeboat ethics”, which states that if there is no solution to the problem, then we have a duty not to solve them until there is an effective solution.

Hardin’s Central Argument:

1.) If there is no way to solve the problems of living on a lifeboat effectively, then we ought not to do anything at all. 2.) There is no way to solve the problems (until we institute a world government) 3.) Therefore, we have a duty not to help the poor.

Evaluating the Argument:

2 Kinds of Objections are possible: 1.) Practical Objections 2.) Principled Criticisms

(1) If Hardin’s analysis is correct, then what kind of government would be necessary to control population to the extent that he deems necessary? If we cannot accept the kind of authority that would need to be in place to govern populations at the level of world demography, then should we reject his claims based on their impracticality given our understanding of efficient government? 23

(2) Hardin’s argument seems to rely on egoist assumptions. His main concern is “what are the consequences on my own interests and needs when I attempt to act for another?”; what are the underlying assumptions here? Does Hardin view all humans as essentially self-loving and not altruistic? If we cannot accept his assumptions here, then there may be something wrong with the argument because it presupposes false beliefs.

For an Argument to be considered sound or acceptable, it must be/ have: a.) true or acceptable premises b.) a valid structure or some kind of logical flow c.) relevant premises and information/ data d.) adequate or sufficient information/ premises that lead to the conclusion

Hardin likely succeeds on validity, relevant premises and information, as well as adequacy insofar we are willing to accept the truth of his premises. But premise (1) may not follow logically for if there is nothing I can do about solving hunger in the world, I may still have a moral duty to help a starving person who I am close to or simply to help even if it doesn’t succeed in solving the problem. Premise (2) is likely false in my view because based on irrelevant or misinformed demographic theory (Thomas Malthus), which has recently been called into question and has unfortunate racist implications.