PHIL 120W Final (1)

docx

School

Simon Fraser University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

120

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by DrSnowLeopard31

Schemmann 1 1. Week 9, McPhersan. Describe why McPhersan thinks it is problematic to hold both that (1) it is wrong to make animals suffer, and (2) killing animals is a matter of moral indifference. (roughly 250 words) McPhersan believes that it is wrong to kill animals under most circumstances and that inflicting suffering on animals is unacceptable. He states that most people would never adopt a puppy and torture it until it dies, but they have no trouble eating a steak. McPhersan makes three main arguments: 1) It is wrong to make animals suffer 2) If it is wrong to kill animals, then it is wrong to eat meat 3) It is wrong to eat meat McPhersan’s essay mentions that killing animals is a matter of moral indifference. Inflicting suffering on an animal can be permissible if it is necessary to save the animal’s life (such as going to the vet to get shots), but saving an animal’s life can justify inflicting suffering, and that would be wrong. McPhersan states “It is hard to understand how taking that animal's life could be a matter of ethical indifference” (p. 4). On page 4, Marquis’s statement was mentioned. He argues that it is unethical to kill animals as it deprives them of a future of value. Much like humans, animals are capable of joy, suffering, and happiness, and killing them would deprive them of all these things. If one were to kill a cow or pig now, then they will not have a chance to enjoy their future endeavors which is possibly the greatest loss one could endure.

Schemmann 2 Word count: 226 Week 8, Marquis 2. Explicate Marquis’ reasoning behind why he thinks the future-of-value view provides a plausible account of the wrongness of killing. (about 250-400 words) Marquis makes the argument that it is morally unethical to terminate a pregnancy. He states that the loss of one’s life is the greatest loss one can suffer and therefore abortion is wrong (p.4). The effects of losing a biological life is also the loss of activities, projects, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted a future permanent life. When the fetus is killed by the mother, they are deprived of these things. He states that life begins at conception and therefore it is always prima facie wrong to end a human life. He states that some parts of his future are not valued by himself now, but will come to be valued by me as he grows older and as his values and capacities change. When one is killed, they are deprived both of what they now value, which would have been part of their future personal life, but also what they would come to value. Therefore, when the fetus dies, they are deprived of all of the value of their future. Inflicting this loss onto them is ultimately what makes killing wrong. This being the case, it would seem that what makes killing any adult human being prima facie wrong is the loss of his or her future. Marquis claims that what makes killing wrong is the loss of the victim’s future is directly supported by two considerations. In the first place, killing is especially wrong because it deprives the victim of more than perhaps any other crime. In the second place, he argues that people with AIDS or cancer (who know they are dying) believe that dying is a very bad thing for them. They

Schemmann 3 believe that the loss of a future to them that they would otherwise have experienced is what makes their premature death a negative thing for them. Word count: 305 Week 7, Thomson 3 . Explain how the violinist example and the Henry Fonda example combine to show what's wrong with the argument from the right to life. (You should be able to do this in about 200-250 words, but can use up to 500. You do not need to describe these two examples; you can assume the reader knows the details and just explain what they are designed to show and how that defeats the argument, according to Thomson.) Thomson argues that abortion is not impermissible. She argues that abortion is sometimes permissible and grants that there are scenarios in which obtaining an abortion would be immoral. Thomson assumes that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. She attempts to show that even if this concession is made, abortion is morally permissible in many cases. Imagine waking up in the morning to an unconscious violinist who has been found to have a fatal kidney problem and you have been found to have the correct blood type to save him, and so the violinist’s circulatory system has been plugged into yours. To unplug him is to kill him and it takes nine months to save him (maybe even more). One might also think that having the right to life means that one has the right not to be killed. Again, Thomson thinks that the violinist case shows this to be false; of course one can unplug themselves at any time, even though to do so would kill him. If one attempts to alter the definition by suggesting instead that having the right to life means having the right not to be killed unjustly, then one has done little to advance the

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Schemmann 4 debate on abortion. Whether the killing of the fetus is just or unjust is precisely what is at issue. The point Thomson is trying to articulate is that it would be outrageous to request such an act. Arguably, violinists are people too, but imagine if the director of the hospital gave you no such choice to choose whether or not you would like to rent out your body to the sick violinist. Thomson argues that if they are sick unto death, and the only thing that will save their life is the touch of Henry Fonda's cool hand on their fevered brow, they have no right to be given the touch of Henry Fonda's cool hand on their fevered brow. It would of course be very nice of him to fly in from the West Coast to provide it, but they have no right at all against anybody that he should do this. Word count: 357 Week 11, Parfit 4. Select any one of the three examples (Acme Chemical, My Sister’s Keeper, or Never Let Me Go) and explain how it illustrates the Identity problem. (Make sure to explain how it does not make the person who is intuitively wronged worse off). (500 words or fewer) This puzzle by Parfit is called the “identity problem” as it has to do with the identity or lack of identity between two sets of people. For example, Acme Corporation decides that in order to continue to profitably operate a certain chemical plant, it must adopt a policy of disposing of pollutants, which it foresees will kill or injure many people over a number of years. If Acme did not adopt this policy it would not have been

Schemmann 5 possible for it to remain open. Person A and person B, having been offered employment at the plant. They meet, get married, and have a child (who is person C). If the plant had not continued in operation they would never have met. C’s life is very much worth living, but by the age of 14, he develops cancer caused by the pollutants released by Acme. C and his parents think that a wrong has been done to C as the bad effects of the policy harmed C. We think the choice is wrong mostly because of the bad effects the policy has on the child, C. Yet it is also the case that this choice was not worse for C. However, when putting everything together, without the factory, person A and person B would have never met and C wouldn’t have existed. In other words, no pollution equals no life, but ultimately, life plus cancer equals no life as well. The pollution policy does not make things worse for C, in fact, if an act or policiy does not make one worse off, it does not harm them and therefore the pollution policy does not intuitivelly wrong C. Word count: 277 Week 5, Quong 5. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that killing in self-defense may be justified because "the victim, also the attacker, is the author of his or her own misfortune." Which of the three characters introduced in the opening paragraph of Quong's paper would this rationale apply to and why? Explain why Quong disagrees with this way of rationalizing self-defence and briefly characterize his preferred rationalization. (Note: this is not asking you to cite his principle, but to explain the basic conceptual difference between his view and the Court's view expressed in the quoted sentence.) (250 words)

Schemmann 6 Quong speaks on four different agressors: 1) The villainous Aggressor: someone who culpably intends to kill. 2) The innocent Aggressors: someone who nonculpably intends to kill. 3) Innocent Threats: someone who threatens to kill but exercises no agency at all. 4) Bystander: someone who has no significant causal involvement in whatever threatens my life. The extreme view is that it is acceptable to do anything to anyone in order to save one’s own life. For example, it is permissible to use a bystander as a human shield to protect oneself from oncoming bullets. Everyone who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force, if indeed the force he uses is not intended to cause death or bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself. Quong states that a person is not guilty of an offence if they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person. In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act. There are many factors, such as the nature of the force or threat; (b) the extent to which the use of force was used and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force. Quong states that self-defense is a justification based on the principle that it is lawful in defined circumstances to resist force or a threat of force with force. The victim,

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version