PHIL 1320 Exam 3
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Texas State University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
1320
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by knausecaleb
1.
Active Euthanasia vs. Passive Euthanasia:
Active Euthanasia: In active euthanasia, a person takes a deliberate action to end another person's life, typically with their informed consent. This may involve administering a lethal dose of medication or performing a medical procedure to hasten death.
Passive Euthanasia: In passive euthanasia, medical treatment or life-sustaining measures are withheld or withdrawn, allowing the patient to die naturally. This may involve discontinuing artificial ventilation, stopping medications, or not initiating potentially life-
saving treatments.
Morally Relevant Differences:
Some argue that there is a morally relevant difference between the two because active euthanasia involves an intentional act to cause death, while passive euthanasia simply allows the natural course of events to take place.
Others contend that the distinction is not morally relevant, as both involve decisions regarding the
end of a person's life, and the ethical assessment should focus on the intentions, motives, and consequences.
2.
Missing Property Argument: The missing property argument is a philosophical argument proposed by Michael Tooley. Tooley argues that the moral status of a being is determined by the possession of certain properties, such as the capacity for rational thought, self-awareness, and desires about the future. Newborns and those with severe disabilities are argued to lack these properties, thus making their lives morally different from fully developed individuals.
This argument implies that, according to Tooley's view, the moral status of newborn babies and those with
severe intellectual disabilities is diminished compared to competent adults. Some may find this perspective controversial and argue that all human life should be valued equally, regardless of one's cognitive or developmental capabilities.
3.
Strong Affirmative Action: Strong affirmative action is a policy or practice that goes beyond mere
equal opportunity or simple diversity initiatives. It involves actively providing preferential treatment to historically disadvantaged groups, such as racial or ethnic minorities, to rectify past or ongoing discrimination and to promote equal representation in various sectors like education, employment, or government.
Argument in Favor of Strong Affirmative Action: Supporters of strong affirmative action argue that it is a necessary means to address systemic inequalities and promote social justice. They contend that historical discrimination and structural racism have created disparities that can only be rectified through proactive measures. Strong affirmative action helps level the playing field and promotes diversity, leading to a fairer and more inclusive society.
4.
Structural Racism: Structural racism refers to a system in which public policies, institutional practices, cultural representations, and other norms work to perpetuate racial and ethnic inequalities. It is not necessarily the result of individual racist attitudes but rather the cumulative impact of systemic biases and historical injustices.
Evidence supporting structural racism includes disparities in areas such as education, criminal justice, healthcare, housing, and employment. For instance, disparities in school funding, mass incarceration rates, healthcare access, redlining practices, and hiring biases are indicative of structural racism. These
systemic factors disproportionately disadvantage racial and ethnic minority groups, leading to significant disparities in outcomes.
5.
Mill's Harm Principle vs. Paternalism Principle:
Mill's Harm Principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill, asserts that the only justification for limiting an individual's liberty is to prevent harm to others. It emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy and self-determination and argues that individuals have the right to
make their own choices as long as those choices do not harm others.
The Paternalism Principle, on the other hand, allows for restricting individual freedom to prevent harm to oneself. It assumes that authorities can intervene in a person's life, even against their will, if it is believed to be in their best interests.
Applying the Harm Principle to the legalization of drugs in the U.S., Mill would likely argue that if drug use does not directly harm others, individuals should have the freedom to make their own choices regarding drug consumption. Legalization would be supported as long as regulations are in place to minimize external harm (e.g., through safe consumption spaces and educational programs).
6.
Deontological Arguments for Cosmopolitanism and Anticosmopolitanism:
Huemer's Deontological Argument for Cosmopolitanism: Huemer argues that individuals have a moral duty to help those in need, regardless of their nationality. He believes in a strong deontological principle that compels us to assist people suffering from severe harm, irrespective of borders, as long as we can do so at a reasonable cost to ourselves.
Wellman's Deontological Argument for Anticosmopolitanism: Wellman argues that individuals have special obligations to their compatriots that take precedence over obligations to non-compatriots. He believes that our responsibilities are tied to the particular relationships and commitments we have with our fellow citizens, which limit our obligations to outsiders.
Macedo's Deontological Argument for Anticosmopolitanism: Macedo suggests that the principles of justice and fairness are inherently bound to political communities, and our moral obligations primarily extend to those within our own political community. He argues against universal duties and in favor of recognizing the importance of democratic decision-making within political borders.
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