2023 Spring Phil 108 Homework 3
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Santa Ana College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
109
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by ConstableManateePerson977
Brandom Baertschi Philosophy 108
Homework 3
Fall 2023
Deadline for Submission: Sunday, 2/26/23, by 11:59 pm.
Provide a medium-paragraph length answer to each question below (using full and complete sentences). The answers must be completely in your own words. Each answer should demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of the material. The questions are about the readings in the course module for Week 3.
1.)As discussed in “Euthanasia” by Mark Dimmock and Anthony Fisher, what is the quality of life argument in favor of euthanasia? What is the personal autonomy argument in favor of euthanasia? 1.) According to the quality of life argument in favor of euthanasia, this relatively simple idea is that sometimes life is actually less preferable than death. On such occasions, when quality of life is so dreadful that a person would be “better off” dead, then euthanasia would be morally justifiable. The personal autonomy argument in favor of euthanasia is Pro-Euthanasia: Argument Three. This argument proceeds from the plausible assumption that people should have the right to make their own decisions in their lives and should be able to decide the paths of their own lives as well. If the right to choose our own path applies in life, then why would this not apply in respect of our choice of how and when we choose to die?
2.) As discussed in “Euthanasia” by Dimmock and Fisher, what is the slippery slope argument against euthanasia? 2.) The slippery slope argument against euthanasia is Anti-Euthanasia: Argument Three. The slippery slope argument is that if euthanasia were to become legal in some
situations, then it would lead to euthanasia becoming legal and acceptable in
situations where it is morally undesirable. If morality is determined by consequences, and consequences justify euthanasia, then we seem to be slipping down a dangerous slope to euthanizing people without their consent.
3.) In Bouvia v. Superior Court
, why was Elizabeth Bouvia suing her hospital? What were the reasons that Court gave for ruling in favor of Bouvia? 3.) In the Bouvia v. Superior Court case, Elizabet was suing her hospital because they refused to take out her feeding tube which would leads to her death, even though she was mentally competent to make the decision of if she wanted to continue living (with the quality of living
state that she was in) or not. The reasons that he appellate court gave ruling in her favor was that the court acknowledged that a competent adult has the right, in the exercise
of control over his or her own body, to determine whether and to what extent to
submit to medical treatment and that a competent patient also has a basic and fundamental
right to refuse any medical treatment, even if it may save or prolong his or her life. The court further recognized that a patient’s right to self-determination regarding
medical treatment is based upon the patient’s being mentally competent and able to
understand the consequences of withdrawal or refusal of care. The court noted that
Ms. Bouvia was mentally competent, and completely understood the risks involved in refusing being tube fed, and any objections to her refusal of the feeding couldn’t be based on those grounds either.
4.) In “Euthanasia: The Smith and Jones Thought Experiment,” how does James Rachels use the Smith and Jones examples to support his view that there is no moral difference between killing and letting die?
4.) In “Euthanasia: The Smith and Jones Thought Experiment. James Rachels argues that, since killing and letting die are morally equivalent, we must conclude that
active and passive euthanasia are also morally equivalent. He uses the example of the one uncle, Smith, physically drowning the nephew because he wanted the inheritance, and then the other uncle, Jones, had the intention of going to kill the nephew but then accidentally scared him which resulted in the nephew falling and dying on his own and drowning while Jones didn’t do anything to try to save the nephew which is why he says that killing and letting die are morally equivalent.
5.) In your own view, is Smith’s conduct morally worse than Jones’s conduct? Or is the conduct of Smith and Jones morally equivalent (that is, equally immoral)? Explain the reasoning behind your view. Also, do you agree with Rachels that there is no moral difference between killing and letting die? Again, explain the reasoning behind your view.
5.) In my own opinion, I feel as if both Smith’s and Jones’s conduct was equally moral because they both had the intention of wanting to kill the nephew and just because Jone’s got lucky and the kid fell, he still could’ve tried to save him which makes me want to say that yes killing and letting die are the morally equivalent for this case but I think it could be different depending on the case. For example, my girlfriend’s mom had stage 4 cancer that progressed very fast and wad
metastasizing and causing her excruciating pain, when she was taken to the hospital for being to weak to even stand up because she wasn’t able to eat food due to the chemo, she requested a DNR so I think for this instance them taking her off the ventilator and letting her pass away is different than the Smith and Jone’s example.
6.) According to Michael Sandel (in “The Case for Equality: John Rawls”), what is Rawls’s principle of justice known as the “difference principle”? How does Rawls argue that this principle is more just than competing libertarian and meritocratic principles of distributive justice? 2
6.) John Rawls has a theory of social distribution based on two principles. The Difference Principle is the second principle which states that any inequality that is permitted in society should only be permitted on the basis that it benefits the least favored in society.
Under the Difference Principle, Rawls favored maximizing the improvement of the "least-advantaged" group in society. He would do this not only by providing "fair equality of opportunity," but also by such possible ways as a guaranteed minimum income or minimum wage.
7.) Identify and explain two objections to Rawls’s difference principle that Sandel discusses.
7.) Sandel claims that decisions in Rawls' theory are arbitrary; that goodness is thinly conceptualized; and that the theory does not represent human beings accurately. After describing the theory of the person to which he finds Rawls committed, Sandel claims that Rawls fails because of the inadequacy and extreme individualism of this notion of the person. This individualism doesn’t allow for the role of the community in constituting the person, nor does it allow for the possibility that a person’s meaningful identity is more of a matter of cognition than choice. Sandel develops each objection into a major line of critique. In the first objection, Sandel
argues that the theory of the person to which Rawls is committed is inconsistent with Rawl’s difference principle. Sandel’s second objection emphasizes that Rawls is committed to a thin, denuded notion of the person, a person separate from all ends, commitments, and capacities. This
self is so sparse that is can’t constitute an object for self-reflection. It can only be a subject that is, at most, capable of arbitrary and ultimately meaningless choice.
8.) As discussed by Sandel, what is John Rawls’ concept of the “veil of ignorance,” and how does he use this concept to find principles of justice that he believes everyone would accept if they were objective? 8.) The Veil of Ignorance
temporarily prevents us from knowing anything about who or what we are. We do not know our class, gender, race, ethnicity, political opinions or religious ideas. We also do not know our advantages or disadvantages in life. If no one knew these things we would choose from an original position of equality. Since no one would have a superior bargaining position, the principles we would agree on would be best. When people are under the veil of ignorance, Rawls thinks that the unfairness is explained by the idea of a hypothetical agreement made behind a “veil of ignorance.” For example, people would not agree to a system of liberties for men only if they didn't know whether they themselves would wind up being men or women.
The decision makers are assumed to be purely self-interested, but their decisions are constrained by the absence of information that they could use to select principles favorable to their personal circumstances. Rawls referred to this epistemically restricted state as being behind a “veil of ignorance.
9.) As discussed by Sandel, how does Rawls argue that hypothetical contracts may be more just than actual contracts?
3
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
9.) Rawls's main idea is that the principles of justice are the object of an original agreement: “Thus, we are to imagine that those who engage in social co-operation choose together, in one joint act, the principles which are to assign basic rights and duties and to determine the division of social benefits”
10.) What are the similarities between Michelle Alexander’s thought experiment about being re-
born in the future (in “What If We’re All Coming Back?”) and Rawls’s veil of ignorance thought
experiment? In what way does Alexander think that Rawls’s thought experiment is distorted? 10.) According to Michelle Alexander’s similarities with Rawls’s veil of ignorance encourages us to imagine a scenario in which we’re equally likely to be rich or poor or born with natural talents or limitations. But the truth is, if we’re reborn in 50 years, there’s only a small chance that
any of us would be rich or benefit from white privilege.
4