Ethics Final
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Colorado, Boulder *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
1001
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
Pages
7
Uploaded by DrTreeWallaby30
Topic 5 - Rights Theory
1)
(a) State UR, the Utilitarianism of Rights theory.
An act is morally permissible if and only if it minimizes rights violations.
(b) Assuming that there are only negative rights, what does UR say is the right thing
to do in the Footbridge case, and why? (Assume that no person is responsible for
putting the 5 people on the track nor for the fact that the trolley is out of control.)
UR says that it would be wrong to push the man off of the footbridge because negative
rights prevent you from interfering and violating the fat man’s rights.
(c) Assuming that there are only negative rights, what does UR say is the right thing
to do in the Punish-the-Innocent case, and why?
UR says that the police chief should authorize the frame-up because he is violating fewer
rights by doing so; he is only violating the rights of the innocent man.
2)
(a) Explain the difference between a negative right and a positive right. Give a
plausible example of each.
NEGATIVE
-
Rights of non-interference
-
Easy to respect: one just has to leave others alone
-
EX) The right not to be killed
POSITIVE
-
Rights against others that they provide a good/service to one
-
One must do things in order not to violate these rights - sometimes costly
-
EX) The right to education
(b) State RT, our generic rights theory.
An act is morally permissible if and only if it does not violate any rights.
(c) Assuming that there are only negative rights, what does RT say is the right thing
to do in the Punish-the-Innocent case, and why?
RT says that the police chief should not authorize the frame-up because RT says that an
act is only ok to do if it “does not violate any rights,” and by framing the man, the police
chief is violating the innocent man’s rights to life.
3)
NRT, our Nozickian Rights Theory, is RT plus a doctrine about
who has rights
plus
a doctrine about
what rights there are
.
(a) Explain NRT's doctrine about who has rights.
Persons; rational beings with the following abilities
- to reason and respond to reason
- to use language
- to have a self-concept
- to make and understand moral claims
(b) Which of the following rights does NRT
not
include?
(i) a right to your body, and the use of it, without interference from others
(ii) a right to your property, and the use of it, without interference from others
(iii) rights deriving from agreements with others
(iv) rights against others that they provide certain goods or services to you.
4)
Amia Srinivasan writes, "Suppose I’m walking to the library and see a man
drowning in the river. I decided that the pleasure I would get from saving his life
wouldn’t exceed the cost of getting wet and the delay. So I walk on by. Since I made
no contract with the man, I am under no obligation to save him
. . . .
The Nozickian
view implies what, from the perspective of common sense morality, is absurd: . . .
that there’s nothing wrong with walking by a drowning man."
(a) Put Srinivasan's objection into a line-by-line argument of this form (where 'P' is
NRT):
Counterexample of a Moral Principle
P1. If the general moral principle Ps is true, then act x has moral feature M.
P2. But act x does not have moral feature M.
C. Therefore, principle P is not true.
P1. If NRT is true, then there is nothing wrong with letting the man drown
P2. But according to common sense, it absurd to walk by and not help the drowning man
C. Therefore NRT is false
(b)
In your opinion, is this a sound argument? If your answer is Yes, give a
rationale for each premise (that’s the reason the premise is supposed to be true); do
this separately for each premise. If your answer is No, say which premise is false
and why, and then give a rationale for the other premise (unless you think that it too
is false, in which case explain why).
YES; P1 is true because NRT does not state any positive rights (you are not required to
provide rescue service to the drowning man); P2 is true because it is the right thing to do
according to most people to try and help others in need (common sense – sympathy).
5)
On factory farms, animals are treated in ways that, if a human being were treated
that way, would be described as torture. For example, cows, pigs, and sheep
routinely have their tails removed without anesthetics; chickens are debeaked
without anesthetic; and animals live out their entire lives in cramped quarters,
never experiencing the outdoors.
(a) Formulate a valid, line-by-line argument against NRT based on the case of
factory farms.
P1. If NRT is true, then there is nothing wrong with the way animals are treated on
factory farms.
P2. If a human being were treated that way, it would be described as torture, and it is
wrong to torture animals.
C. Therefore NRT is false
(b) In your opinion, is this a sound argument? If your answer is Yes, give a
rationale for each premise (that’s the reason the premise is supposed to be true); do
this separately for each premise. If your answer is No, say which premise is false
and why, and then give a rationale for the other premise (unless you think that it too
is false, in which case explain why).
NO; P1 is true because NRT defines that only persons have rights and farm animals do
not have the qualities to be a person under NRT; P2 is false because NRT does not
provide rights to non-persons, thus farm animals do not have the same rights as a human
being in NRT; torturing animals is thus allowed.
Topic 6 - A Rights-Oriented Position on Abortion
1)
Thomson rejects the claim that one person's right to life always takes precedence
over another person's right to decide what happens in and to their body. Present in
detail her counterexample to this claim and explain why it is supposed to refute it.
You were kidnapped and wake up in bed connected to a famous violinist. The doctors tell
you that they had no other choice but to connect you for 9 months in order for the
violinist to survive.
Counters P2 – “It is wrong to cause the death of an innocent being with a full right to life
unless your own life is at stake.” – because
2)
State, in line-by-line format, Thomson’s Positive Argument for the permissibility of
abortion.
P1. It’s morally ok for you to unplug yourself from the violinist.
P2. Unplugging yourself from the violinist is morally on a par with a woman’s having an
abortion.
C. Therefore, it’s morally ok for a woman to have an abortion.
3)
Perhaps the most common objection to Thomson's Positive Argument is the
Responsibility Objection.
(a) Clearly state the morally relevant difference between the case of the violinist and
a typical case of an unwanted pregnancy that this objection puts forth.
In a Typical Unwanted Pregnancy, the woman is partly responsible for the fact that there
is this individual who needs to use her body in order to survive .
But in Famous Violinist, you are in no way responsible for the fact that there is this
individual who needs to use your body in order to survive .
(b) Describe the variant case "Hunting Accident" (or a case of your own invention)
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
that suggests that this difference is indeed morally relevant, and explain why it
shows this.
If I am hunting and accidentally shoot a runner who has the right to be running where
they are, then I am responsible to some degree for shooting the runner, thus I am
obligated to try to save the runner.
(c) In your opinion, is this a good objection to Thomson's Positive Argument? Why
or why not?
This is a good argument because it shows a key difference between an accident where
you are not at fault and one where you are at least partially at fault.
4)
According to another objection to Thomson's Positive Argument, the case of the
violinist and a normal case of unwanted pregnancy fail to be morally on par
because, in voluntarily having sex, a woman
tacitly consents
to let a fetus that might
consequently come into using her body for life support.
(a) In your view, is this true? That is, is it true that, in voluntarily having sex, a
woman tacitly consents to let a fetus that might consequently come into using her
body for life support? Why or why not?
False if the woman took as many precautions as possible when having sex (ie safe sex).
(b) Suppose, as Thomson does, that a fetus has a full right to life. And suppose that,
in voluntarily having sex, a woman does indeed tacitly consent to let a fetus that
might consequently come into using her body for life support. It is a further
question whether this consent generates an obligation on the woman's part to let the
fetus use her body for as long as the fetus needs it to stay alive. Describe a "variant
case" of the case of the violinist to test this (i.e., to test whether consenting to let a
fetus use her body generates an obligation to let the fetus do this for as long as it
needs to). What is the result of your test? Explain.
This time, rather than kidnapping you, the violinist contacts you and begs you to plug in. You
think it over and consent to plug in. But after a week of being plugged in, you realize you’ve
made a horrible mistake and cannot bear to do this any longer.
I think that your own self preservation comes before anyone else’s; due to that statement, if you
are not able to live freely due to someone else, then your rights are being violated. The one
currency that you can never get more of is time; thus even if you made an obligation of your
time, yet you are truly unhappy, then it is your duty to yourself to withdraw from that obligation.
Topic 7 - Moderate Deontology
1)
(a) Define 'prima facie duty'. Illustrate the idea by means of an example of your
own invention (something structurally analogous to Ross's promise-accident
example, but one of your own invention instead).
An act is a prima facie duty when there is a moral reason in favor of doing the act, but
one that can be outweighed by other moral reasons.
An example of this: I am a heart surgeon - the only one in my rural town. I promised to
be there for my best friend’s court hearing, but the morning of I was called into the
emergency room to operate and try to save someone's life. I have a
prime facie duty
to be
there for my friend because I promised, but I have a
prima facie duty
to go into surgery
because this would prevent serious harm to someone.
(b) Present Ross's list of seven basic prima facie duties. For each duty, say in a
sentence what the duty is.
1.
Fidelity
: “If you make a promise, you have a prima facie obligation to keep it.
2.
Reparations
: ““If you have wronged someone, you have a prima facie obligation
to repair it.
3.
Gratitude
: “If someone has benefited you, you have a prima facie obligation to
benefit them in return.
4.
Justice:
“See to it that benefits and burdens are distributed in a just or fair way”
5.
Beneficence
: “Help a brother out.”
6.
Self Improvement
: “Make yourself a better person”
7.
Non maleficence
: “There is a prima facie obligation not to harm others.”
2)
(a) State an "absolute" rather than a merely "prima facie" version of the duty of
non-maleficence.
If an act is an act of harming than this is a absolute obligation to not harm others.
(b) Present your own counterexample to this "absolute non-maleficence" principle.
If someone is trying to kill you then it is ok to harm them out of self defense.
(c) Explain whether this example is also a counterexample to Ross's prima-facie
version of non-maleficence, and why or why not.
No because prima facie allows harming someone in only some cases including self
defense. – “
one that can be outweighed by other moral reasons”
3)
(a) State Ross's Theory of Prima Facie Duties (RTPFD).
An act is morally right if and only if it has the greatest balance of prima facie
rightness over prima facie wrongness, as compared with the alternatives – where prima
facie rightness and wrongness is determined by the list 1-7 above.
(b) What would RTPFD imply about Srinivasan's drowning-man case, and why?
You promised to meet a friend but an accident occurred. Should you break the promise,
(you have a prima facie duty to help another out but you also have a prima facie duty to
keep a promise) A- promise makes 1000 units, B- helping makes 1001 units. Because
they are so close the promise outweighs helping.
Topic 8 - A Deontological Position on Reparations for Slavery
1)
(a) What is Robinson's Thesis about slave reparations as we formulated it in class?
The U.S. government has a strong prima facie moral obligation to compensate
present-day African Americans for the harms it wrongfully caused them through its past
support of slavery and its aftermath.
(b) What is the main moral principle that is at work in Robinson's Argument for
Reparations? What other moral principle that we saw in our course does this
principle most resemble?
The duty of reparations
is the main moral principle at work.
The Compensation Principle
: (Boonin’s term) If X wrongfully harms Y, then X incurs a
strong prima facie moral obligation to compensate Y for the harms that X wrongfully
caused.
(c) What is the other premise in Robinson's Argument for Slave Reparations, as we
formulated it in class?
The U.S. government wrongfully harmed present- day African Americans through its
support in the past of slavery and its aftermath (X = the US Government – same gov that
did the wrong)
2)
(a) What three claims directly support this other premise? Don't just give a label
for the claims; state their content.
Historical Claim: The U.S. government supported slavery and its aftermath from the
government’s beginning until at least the 1960s.
Moral Claim: That was wrong.
Causal Claim: Present-day African Americans still suffer harm as a result of this wrong.
(b) Describe two specific ways that the U.S. federal government supported slavery
or its aftermath.
The Civil War officially ended slavery, but the Federal Government allowed Southern
states to treat those freed as they saw fit (
literacy tests for voting, Jim Crow laws
reinforcing racial segregation, redlining, no wage standards in jobs commonly
worked by african americans)
(c) Describe two specific ways in which African Americans today are, on average,
worse off than white Americans.
-
Incarceration rates for black Americans are over five times higher than for
white Americans
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
-
Infant mortality rate for black Americans is 2.3 times that for white
Americans
3)
Pick one of Horowitz's objections to reparations.
(a) Explain the objection.
III.
ONLY A TINY MINORITY OF WHITE AMERICANS EVER OWNED SLAVES,
AND OTHERS GAVE THEIR LIVES TO FREE THEM
(b) Explain a response that Robinson could give to it.
The US Government is to blame not just slave owners; US Gov. endorsed slavery and
racism in our country by law and hundreds of thousands of slaves were still utilized in
our country, even after slaves were freed the government continued implementing
legislation that endorsed racial segregation.
(c) Say whether, in your opinion, this is a successful response, and why.
Yes because it addresses that the target of the reparations is not white Americans, but the
American Government – ultimately the perpetrators of the wrong-doing. At one point in time,
American tax dollars were put towards legislation that supported slavery and racial segregation.