Phil 3281 Exam #3 Final Copy-2

pdf

School

East Carolina University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

3281

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

pdf

Pages

Uploaded by DeaconFalconPerson1006

PHIL 3281 – On-Line Kendell Holshouser Professor Smith Exam #3 Final Copy

Essay #1: “Summarize the relevance of the several documents in RQ 71 to the aspects of philosophical ethics that we are learning in our course.” [To be accurate, you should explain: -- what LS means by that presupposition and how science is not adequate for ethics; --what is lacking with ideologies that prevents genuine ethics; --what President Lincoln says in his addresses that shows he understands moral pluralism and its basis. – and what the clergy and MLK, Jr. present that is relevant to our course.] There have been several aspects of philosophical ethics that this course has prompted us to dive deep into to develop a firm understanding of how ethics play a major role in not just our lives but in our society as a whole. For this essay I will be showing how the course provided sources in RQ 71 are relevant. The first documents that I will address are those from Leo Strauss. In regard to the most fundamental presupposition of all, Strauss believes that what it means “to be” is the answer. He says that “to be” is to be “ concrete ” meaning that for something to be real, in the case of our argument we are referencing reality, it must be seen. Strauss continues by saying that “true reality is seen from the inside” which is one of the reasons that science is not adequate for ethics. To be seen from the inside implies that those that are observing must be the subject otherwise they will be the object and miss the “ concr ete” of what they are viewing. Diving further into his thoughts Strauss now looks at nature and its correlation to ethical philosophy. He states that nature is recognized as the authority of philosophy and that by submitting to authority ( i.e. nature) philosophy specifically political, would lose its very character and would thus fall into the category of theology or ideology. Strauss understands that science focuses more on the physical whereas philosophy focuses more on the metaphorical.

Secondly, I will look at how ethics impacts politics in the documents pertaining to the civil movements that happened in Burmingham Alabama and the response of MLK Jr. And the public officials. In their public statement, the eight clergymen of Alabama focus on how to “properly” handle the racial problems happening. They are strong to emphasize the importance of a local response vs an outsider's response which in a backwards way of thinking resembles the view of Thomas Pogge. MLK Jr. Responded to them in a letter from jail which throughout only called for a peaceful approach to things. In said letter, his use of self-validation, negotiation, and appeal to morals showed how flawed the civil laws were, seeing that his non-violent campaign had still landed him in custody. Finally, I will look at how President Lincoln shows his understanding of moral pluralism. Throughout his speeches one thing is made very clear, Lincoln sees and understands that there are two main differing views held by the country and both sides have logical reason to think they way that they do. This is a main premise of moral pluralism. Lincoln knows both “sides” have experienced loss and conflict, and he recognizes that throughout his speech. He shows that his overall goal is to bring the country together in one unified state. Lincolns appeal to unity and acknowledgement that multiple views can be valid is a strong representation of MP that we have focused on in this class.

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

Essay #2: “Summarize the issues that you should address in the Palo Alto CSA and show specifically what Professor Glover means by “human flourishing” such that you are thereby guided in your argument formation. [To be accurate you should explain: what specific choices the three persons make and what principle or principles they rely on and how Professor Glover’s ideas help you frame what premise; --what conclusion you wish to support and what all the premises you need are; --what you think human flourishing requires.] This case is mildly disturbing to me to say the least. To start we are presented with a situation where three people, Michael, Rachel, and Kevin, have lived with each other for 5 years and have decided that the three of them want a child. We are then presented with a list that they were also provided which lists all the various ways that the trio can have a child, ranging from traditional conception and pregnancy to using genome-constructed female and male germ cells w/in vitro fetal gestation. The latter is the choice decided upon by all three. It is stated that the three chose this option because it is “easiest” . They have also opted to remove their future child's genes responsible for sexual response because they personally believe that people are better off without them. I personally think that this is outrageous and borders on the line of build-a-bear for humans. These three are choosing to change natural elements of their unborn child that could be crucial in the child's character development. The parents see the human sexual interaction as something that is filled with nagging burdens. I think that this is the first problem with this case. The parents are taking something that they see as a burden and automatically assuming that it would have been a burden for their child. They have absolutely no way of knowing if their child would have ever had a problem with this. I think that the thinking of Professor Glover in his book Choosing Children is very useful in this case. He holds the view that what is a disability, so some is only an inconvenience to others. Glover brings up this idea of human flourishing in his

book and explains how you can’t really put an exact definition to human flourishing because what is a good life to one might be the opposite to another. He also asks the question of “Does parental choice slide into Playing God?" In using this logic, we can look back on our situation with the trio and see that yes, in their mind they are optimizing the way for their child flourish, however, would the removal of this gene really be a flourishing point for the child if they never had a problem with it in the first place? Simply because technology has advanced to allow the manipulation of our children's genes doesn't mean it will result in a more flourishing existence. To conclude this case, I would say that the parents are doing the opposite of prompting human flourishment by eliminating this child's means of experiencing a “normal” sexual interaction and removing a part of their character. Essay #3: “Summarize how Roes v. Wade, Judith Thomson, and Don Marquis, each and all contribute possible guidance to Sue and do your own CSA on the case.” This case is a tricky one to handle. Sue finds herself in a situation where the needed outcome requires doing something that she is morally against. To find guidance as to how she could go about this unintended pregnancy we will look at three different sources. The first one being the case of Roe v. Wade. Put into effect in 1973, this case was the foundation for the pro- choice argument. The supreme court ruled that the right to have an abortion was supported by the 14 th amendment. In Sue’s situation, the ruling of Roe v wade would support her decision if she chose to have an abortion yet overall goes against her own moral values. The second source that would potentially aid Sue in her decision making would be the view of Judith Thomas. In her

essay “A Defense of Abortion” she ultimately concludes that the mother’ s rights and wellbeing are more important than those of the fetus. One example she uses is of a world-famous violinist. To summarize it, the violinist has a kidney problem and has been connected to you, against you against your will, so that your kidneys can keep him alive. You are his only blood match, and he will make a full recovery in 9 months if left connected. No one would see you as obligated to stay connected to him. She claims that in situations where the mother's life is at risk or rape has occurred, abortion is acceptable. Thomas also uses the view that why do you recognize a fetus as a person when we don’t recognize an acorn as an oak tree. This view would support Sue with her want end the pregnancy, and her view of abortion when the mother's life is at risk but ultimately would go against her moral views. The final source that could provide guidance to Sue is that of Don Marquis’ “Why Abortion is Immoral”. The root of Marquis’ argument is the future. He claims that killing an adult is morally wrong because it deprives them of the future that they would have otherwise had. The same can be applied to a fetus. Aborting it deprives it of the future it would have, thus Marquis concludes that in almost every case abortion is morally wron g. This would go against Sue’s desire to end her pregnancy but would support her view that in most cases abortion is wrong. Step 1 : My first reaction to this case is that it is a very interesting one. One thing that I have come to know is that people always say that they have a set belief on something or that they are on a specific side of an argument until they are the one faced with a challenging situation in which it is common to see people switch sides because the problem now relates to them. I share Sue’s views on abortion so naturally I ask myself what I would do if I were in her position and just imagining that makes me feel sympathy for her. Here we are presented with Sue who in today's time would be labeled as a pro-life supporter. Sue believes that abortions are only

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

justified when the life of the mother is in danger and even then, she states that abortion is not “ a moral duty but a moral option”. Ironically, Sue finds herself pregnant with her husband's child, whom she has separated from. Sue wishes to have no further connection to her husband, thus the separation, and doesn’t see how she can keep the pregnancy though she is against abortions. Step 2: The recourses used to help work through this case are The United States Supreme Court, Roe v Wade, Judith Thomson “A defense of Abortion, and Don Marquis “Why Abortion is Immoral”. Step 3: Argument Analysis Procedure S1 : P1: Abortion is acceptable if the mother’s life is in danger (MC) P2: Killing people is wrong in almost every case due to a loss in their future (MC) P3: Fetuses have a future just like adults (FC) P4: Sues life is not in danger (FC) S2 : Conclusion: For Sue to end her pregnancy would be morally wrong S3 : The evaluation of the primacies is as follow: P1: This is a moral claim and is acceptable. The claim is clear, it is appropriate to the context of this case, it is applicable, and it is consistent with the moral claims of individuals who hold the same view. P2: This is a moral claim and is acceptable. This claim is clear, it is adequate in the context of this case, it is applicable, and it is consistent with other moral claims that a reasonable person should hold. P3: This is a factual claim and is true. Fetuses do indeed have a future if not aborted. P4: This is a factual claim and is true. Sues life is not in danger due to the pregnancy or due to her husband.

S4 : The conclusion stated in S2 is necessitated by all premises stated in S1. S5 : Therefore, this argument is a sound moral argument. Essay #4: “Summarize how Bb materials including Yale Kamisar and Dan Brock guide you [if they do] in resolving the Carol Carr case [Google it] and then do your own CSA on it, using whatever resources you can find. ” To start my breakdown of this case I first looked at the views of both Yale Kamisar and Dan Brock on voluntary active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Kamisar speaks out against both physician assisted suicide (PAS) and Voluntary Active Euthanasia (VAE). He claims that many of the people how voice support or advocate for PAS will give heart wrenching stories of someone bedridden, suffering, and begging for death. It is easy to want to support PAS when that is the situation being presented, however, Kamisar goes on to say that in many patients that would qualify for PAS, getting treatment for their pain and symptoms dissipated their begging for dead and suicidal thoughts. I completely agree with Kamisar and his views. I think

that allowing PAS can be very detrimental to our society. When studies have been proven to show that people can come out of their suicidal ways of thinking and hearing the testimony of suicide survivors and how much they regret what they did, I think that PAS shouldn’t be allowed seeing that the participants could be deemed as not thinking rationally. Dan Brock has a view that supports the idea of voluntary active euthanasia. He believes that if the patient had decided that life is no longer a benefit, they can cancel all life sustaining treatment. Step 1 : My first reaction to this case is that this is a very complicated case in regard to what is morally right or wrong. If I am to look at just the fact that Carol Carr shot and killed both of her sons then it would be easy to dismiss this as a morally wrong action because I believe it is wrong to kill someone, however, when I look at the situation in its entirety it is not so easy to say if it is right or wrong. I can see and understand the claim for both however I will say that I lean more towards the side where life is not taken. Step 2 : The resources that I used were an overview report of the Carol Carr case on acedemic-accelerator.com, the provided class documents on Kamisar and Brocks views, Kamisar’s paper “Physician Assisted Suicide: A Bad Idea”, and Dan Brocks “Voluntary Active Euthanasia”. Step 3: Argument Analysis Procedure S1 : P1: Euthanasia is acceptable if the individual is suffering (MC) P2: Both of Carol Carr’s sons had Huntington’s disease, leaving them unable to move or speak (FC) P3: VAE requires a proxy to act on the individual's behalf (FC) S2 : Conclusion: Carol Carr’s actions are morally acceptable on the premise of VAE S3 : The evaluation of the primacies is as follow:

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

P1: This is a moral claim and is acceptable. The claim is clear, it is appropriate to the context of this case, it is applicable, and it is consistent with the moral claims of individuals who hold the same view on euthanasia. P2: This is a factual claim and is true. Carols two son’s Randy and Andy were bedridden at the SunBridge nursing home due to Huntington's disease. P3: This is a factual claim and is true. Due to the individual being unable to complete the last act, voluntary active euthanasia (VAE) requires a proxy or aid S4 : The conclusion stated in S2 is necessitated by all premises stated in S1. S5 : Therefore, this argument is a sound moral argument.

Essay #5: “Summarize how Bb materials, including Thomas Pogge, might guide you [if they do] in resolving the Madisyn Whitfield case [Google it] and then do your own CSA on it, using whatever resources you can find.” This case is a somewhat hard one to breakdown simply because it was extremely relatable, and I kept applying things to my own personal case instead of Madisyn Whitfield’s case. There were quite a few of the resources that can help guide this case and they are as follows. One resource that was provided that I didn’t really focus on for this case was the

Thomas Pogge article. In his paper “Responsibilities for Poverty - Related Ill Health”, he voices how we have a greater moral response to want to help someone if we have been a contributing factor in what caused them harm. I think that in this case that could be applicable in relation to the medical workers potentially feeling a responsibility to provide Madisyn with adequate care. Another source that helped me in this case breakdown was Tris Engelhardt. Engelhardt had a view that “dire need does not create a secular right to be rescued”. This is a view that I agree with. I know that might sound harsh but when we look at the specifics of this claim they would go as follows: saying someone has a right to be rescued would also imply that someone would be required to save them, which is not possible in all cases. The last source that helped in this case breakdown was the views of Laurence B. Cullough. She concluded that we have a natural right to receive a successful minimum level of healthcare. This was helpful in seeing the other side of the argument that I would take and help me to strengthen to thoughts on the Madisyn case. Step 1 : My initial reaction to this case is that I feel sympathy for Madisyn and the situation that she is in but feel that she indeed should be allowed to refuse the treatment at the hospital. Looking at this case it would be easy to agree that she should receive the medical treatment because if left untreated her condition could worsen and it could lead to something much more serious and even potentially be fatal, however, looking at it from a broke college students point of view whose parents are also tight on money I complete understand her reasoning for denying treatment. Step 2 : One of the resources that I used was an overview of the Madisyn Whitfield case that I found on google through Chegg. Another source that I used was the course provided document of the view outlines of Thomas Pogge, Laurence B. McCullough, and Tris Engelhardt. Step 3: Argument Analysis Procedure

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

S1 : P1: Madisyn is without health insurance and cannot afford medical treatment (FC) P2: Dire need doesn’t create a secular right to be rescued (MC) P3: There is currently no basic moral right for humans to have healthcare (FC) S2 : Conclusion: Madisyn is allowed to forgo treatment is that is what she choses S3 : The evaluation of the primacies is as follow: P1: This is a factual claim and is true. We are told in the case that Madisyn is no longer covered under her parent's health insurance and that she doesn’t h ave any coverage of her own. P2: This is a moral claim and is acceptable. The claim is clear, it is appropriate, it is applicable, and consistent to people who share similar views basic rights. P3: This is a factual claim and is true. There currently is no basic human right that guarantees healthcare. S4 : The conclusion stated in S2 is necessitated by all premises stated in S1. S5 : Ultimately, this argument is a sound moral argument.

Phil 3281 Exam #3 Final Copy-2

Related Documents