_Exam 2 Ethics REVISED

pdf

School

Florida International University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

2600

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

pdf

Pages

Uploaded by JusticeFreedomLyrebird27

Intro to Ethics 11 December 2021 Section 2 Q4 What is the only thing that is desirable for its own sake according to Mill? How does he argue for this claim? Do you agree with him? Can you supply a counterexample? According to Mill, the only things worth having for their own sake are pleasure and freedom from misery. He makes the point that pleasure is the only thing that is wanted for its own sake among those things. He also claims that it is debatable since some pleasures are superior to others and because there are so many varieties. He also claims that in most circumstances, when people are faced with the choice between sensuous and intellectual pleasure, intellectual pleasure is preferred. (15, Utilitarianism) To some extent, I agree with Mill. In my own opinion and experience with life as it is, I do not find pleasure or escape from suffering to be the focus of my desire for their own reason. Other than pleasures, I find other things that make me happy. Worldly joys are fleeting; they will neither accompany me to Heaven nor provide me with permanent contentment on this planet. Jesus offers me happiness in my life and in my personal beliefs, and the calm and healthy sense of a home that the church provides me is more than enough satisfaction to make "pleasure" superfluous. I believe that pursuing after pleasures for the purpose of the sensation it gives me is sometimes the right thing to do, but that not all pleasures are the right thing to do. Some people, for example, may find "pleasure" in

consuming alcohol on a regular basis; yet, they may be utilizing that "pleasure" to hide their suffering and repress their emotions, even if they believe they are doing it for the "pleasure" or enjoyment that comes with it. This is an example of a period when pleasure is desired for more than its own sake. Other things are wanted for the sole purpose of the action rather than for their own sake. Returning to my religious views, I wish to live according to what the Bible teaches, not because it gives me joy, but because it is the proper thing to do, and I desire it for its own reason of meaning. It's not merely a concept I'm following in the hopes of finding pleasure one day; it's something I want for the sake of truth and correctness. Section 3 Q4 Can you think of any examples of feelings or actions that might be morally right for one person but not for another? What would Aristotle say about this? The problem of abortion is an excellent illustration of an emotion or action that is ethically correct for one person but unethical for another. One opinion holds that murdering an unborn child is ethically acceptable, while the other holds that abortion is unethical since it involves the murder of a kid who has not yet emerged from the womb. This is a particularly significant subject to discuss since it has become a source of a political agreement for some. People may mistakenly identify their social and moral standards with their political party, which is incorrect. Everyone should be considerate of other people's lives, and abortion should not be permitted or promoted since it is murder. Although my point of view on abortion may be moral, I believe it should be a widely held belief. It's a baby in a womb that has the chance to live but is quickly denied the freedom and right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that it so well

deserves. Unborn infants are deprived of their right to life, with the majority of them being killed as a result of bad judgments and a lack of protection. Most abortion cases for example, in 2004, were found in a study to be of the reasoning of: “having a baby would dramatically change my life” (74% out of 100%) and “I can’t afford a baby now” (73% out of 100%). (Lawrence B. Finer, et al.) According to this study and many others, most women just do not want their children. If you do not want a kid, keep protected or don't put yourself in danger of having one if you are so concerned. I believe Aristotle would state that the conflict between people's moral standards would not be addressed, but that they should try to reach some moral accord to resolve the matter. He proposes looking into the practical reasons why one point of view could develop an unethical character in one individual but not in another. I believe Aristotle would regard himself as a moral individual who upholds the worth of human life and would agree not to kill the unborn. He believes that favoring one life over another is unfair and that the mother is acting immorally by prioritizing her own life over that of her kid.

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

Section 4 Q4 What does Hobbes mean by the “war of every man against every man”? Is it possible to escape this condition? If so, how? Hobbes, in my perspective, is pointing to the discussion about how if a society's citizens do not have a government that provides some type of protection, they risk losing the protection that comes with the "social compact" of being a citizen under this protective power. (Pg 1, The Central Idea) He goes on to say that, while people are capable of rational thought, they would be selfish and disagree on many topics if there is no clear legislation in place. (Chapter 20, The Social Contract) Personally, I believe it is difficult to escape this situation; humans are not only protected by the government, but they also have the ability to defend themselves against one another and outside dangers. When the government breaks its social contract with the people and it is up to us to protect and rule as citizens, we are fighting a man-to-man conflict. Although it is impossible for a government to reign over people without the ability to protect them, individuals should be able to assess each other morally and fairly. This is one escape possibility, but there is another. Based on governments that have been seized by drug cartels, the first alternative appears to be unreliable; the people will be dominated by some authoritative figure, even if it is not by choice. The second alternative, which is what I would do, is to let everyone fight for themselves and their rights that were established before the government chose to turn it into a man-versus-man situation. For example, if the United States made it a man vs. man free for all, I would urge everyone to keep armed and exercise their second amendment rights to protect themselves. But, to get out of this situation, I would advise a community to adopt its own moral

norms and agree as a group on goals to live by that are equitable to all. People should be able to make moral judgments in the absence of laws. Section 5 Q2 CH25 What standard anti-abortion argument does Warren discuss? What is her objection to this argument? Do you think it is a good one? The standard anti-abortion argument that Warren discusses is that some argue that because fetuses aren't considered members of the moral community, killing newborns is acceptable at any time because they, like dolphins, monkeys, and other human-like creatures, aren't considered members of the moral community. The counter-argument claims that, because of their near resemblance to humans, murdering a baby or human-like animal has never been permitted. It says that killing people is immoral unless there is a compelling moral reason to do so. The counter-argument simply states that they are too close to humans to justify killing them. (Pg 10, The Person Argument) It is utterly erroneous to attempt to rationalize the "morality" of murdering a baby; she is effectively stating that killing a fetus is OK since it isn't near enough for a human being to be justified as a member of the moral community. It's completely false; babies have a heartbeat, eyes, a brain, toes, fingers, and everything else a human has EXCEPT the capacity to be aware of their surroundings and leave the womb. The few characteristics that distinguish a fetus from a human are so minor that they cannot be used to justify the murder of unborn babies. I don't believe her argument is good since she attempts to exploit the fact that a fetus is "too unhuman-like." Is this the first time she's seen a photo of a baby in the womb?

Killing any human life form is wrong unless they deserve the punishment because of a crime or are fighting in a war. Human choice is not a reason to kill an unborn baby, a broken condom that got someone pregnant is not a reason to kill an unborn baby, accidents are not a reason to kill an unborn baby, and nothing else is a reason to take the life of another human. Works Cited Dennis , Tony. “Cahn_Exploring Ethics_Pt. IIKantMillVirtueContracts.pptx.pdf.” Canvas Instructure , https://fiu.instructure.com/courses/114486/files/18773375?module_item_id=4896824. Dennis, Tony. “Abortion Debateppt(1).Pdf.” Canvas Instructure , https://fiu.instructure.com/courses/114486/files/18773415?module_item_id=4896836. Dennis, Tony. “SCT.pdf.” Canvas Instructure , https://fiu.instructure.com/courses/114486/files/18773371?module_item_id=4896828. Finer, Lawrence B, et al. “Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions ... - Guttmacher.org.” Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives , https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf?source=pos t_page)

Your preview ends here

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