PHI306 Final Exam Questions
1. Thompson argues that women have a right to abortion. She uses an example involving a violinist with kidney failure. Explain how the example is supposed to show that women have a right to abortion.
In Thompson’s analogy a woman wakes up one morning (after being kidnapped) to find herself in a hospital bed connected to an unconscious man. The man is a famous violinist with kidney disease. The only way for him to live is to be connected to this particular woman for nine months. If the woman disconnects herself form him, he will certainly die. Thompson does not deny that the violinist has a right to life. Rather she says that the violinist does not have a right to use another’s body to stay alive. If the woman chose to stay plugged into the violinist she would be kind and generous, but if she chose not to she would not be immoral. In the same way a woman who finds herself connected to a fetus is not morally required to stay connected. It would be kind and generous but not required of her.
2. One objection to Thompson’s argument is that the analogy only seems to work in cases of rape. Explain why it only applies to rape and explain how the example could be amended so as to apply to cases of pregnancy through consensual sex.
In Thompson’s original analogy a woman wakes up one morning (after being kidnapped) to find herself in a hospital bed connected to an unconscious man. The man is a famous violinist with kidney disease. The only way for him to live is to be connected to this particular woman for nine months. A woman pregnant through rape finds herself, through no choice of her own, linked to a fetus in much the same way as the person is linked to the violinist. Thompson’s example can be amended to extend beyond cases of rape. A woman finds herself to be connected to a violinist, not because she was kidnapped but because she went to the hospital to visit a friend and when she got into the elevator she carelessly pressed the wrong button and ended up in a section of the hospital normally visited only by those who have volunteered to be connected to patients who otherwise would not survive. The doctors think that the woman is the next volunteer and therefore connect her to a violinist. A woman pregnant through consensual sex finds herself, through carelessness and ignorance, linked to a fetus in much the same way as the person linked to the violinist.
3. not on exam
4. Some defenders of abortion appeal to the doctrine of double effect in order to defend their view. Explain what the doctrine of double effect is and how it is supposed to support the moral legitimacy of abortion.
The doctrine of double effect states that if a person intends to do A and A has the consequence of B then the person is only morally responsible for A and not B. The doctrine of double effect is supposed to support the moral legitimacy of abortion by saying that the intention of abortion is to terminate a pregnancy (A) and that the death of the fetus (B) is a side effect. The mother is only morally responsible for the termination of the pregnancy (A), which Narveson regards as morally permissible, and not for the death of the fetus (B).
5. “The accused admitted the crimes but claimed that he had done nothing morally wrong.” He said, “’I intended to get some money to feed my children. I did not intend to burgle the house; I did not intend to kill the occupant.’” Explain how this example can be used to argue against the doctrine of double effect.
This example can argue against the doctrine of double effect by revealing several problems it has. First, like in the burglary incident, it is hard to determine what someone’s intentions are. Did the robber really intend to get some money to feed his children? And how would we know? Second, how can we distinguish means from side effects? Surely one is responsible for anything that one foresees. The burglar must have known of the possible complications that breaking and entering would pose. Third, the doctrine goes too far. Anytime something bad is done the wrongdoer could just claim that it was a side effect. And under the doctrine of double effect one is not morally responsible for side effects. The doctrine of double effect would have us believe that the burglar is not responsible for murdering the home owner, but surely this doesn’t seem right.
6. It might be argued that although a fetus is not a person, it is a potential person and thus has the rights of a person. Present one objection to this argument. Saying that a potential person has the rights of a person is like saying that Al Gore and George W. Bush both have the rights of president simply because they are potential presidents, but this is not so. Gore will not have the rights of president until he becomes president; the same goes for Bush. A potential president is not the same thing as a president, and a potential president does not have the rights of a president.
7. Both Narveson and Singer think that abortion is morally permissible, and both admit that their arguments may justify infanticide. Explain why the arguments they offer in favor of abortion appear to permit infanticide too.
Both Narveson and Singer explain that abortion is permissible because a fetus is not a person. It is not a person because it is not rational and self-conscious. A newborn infant is not rational and self-conscious either, therefore under Narveson and Singer’s arguments a newborn infant is not a person. Because Narveson and Singer agree that it is okay to kill something so long as it is not a person, they would also agree that killing an infant is permissible.
8. There is a slippery slope argument against abortion--that there is a continuous line between a fetus and an adult, and as we cannot kill adults, we should not kill fetus’s either. Present one objection to this argument.
The difference between a fetus and a person may be continuous, but there is still a very important difference between the two. It’s not clear exactly when a fetus actually becomes a person thus any line drawn to distinguish between the two would be arbitrary. But the dividing line will not be totally arbitrary if it is drawn in the right ball park.
9. Narveson argues that we have a right to commit suicide. How does he respond to the objection that life is a gift from God? Is Narveson’s response adequate? Explain.
Narveson states that if life is a gift from God then it is mine and I can do what I want with it. His response is not adequate though. Ownership does not always imply all right of disposal (i.e. ownership of a listed building). Narveson goes on to say that when life was given the person who was given life had no choice in the matter and could not have refused it. Narveson thinks that it would be unjust of God to force a person to keep it. But if God insists then he insists, and if He is unjust then He is unjust. Lastly Narveson explains that if God is good then he would allow suicide when suicide is the best option. This answer beings up whether or not suicide is ever the best option.
10. Are there morally important differences between suicide and voluntary euthanasia?
Suicide is the taking of ones own life. Voluntary euthanasia is death assisted by others and requested by the patient. The only difference between the two is that one involves others and the other is administered by oneself. This difference is not a moral one. If a person is morally allowed to die whenever they choose then it does not matter if they die by their own hands or with the help of someone else.
11. Singer considers various differences between killing and letting die, and explains that they are not obviously relevant because they are only extrinsic differences. Use one of Singer’s examples to explain what he means by an ‘extrinsic’ difference.
An extrinsic difference is one that can change without effecting the moral importance of a situation. A person might say that there is a difference between killing and letting die because deliberate killing has identifiable victims while letting die usually does not. Singer counters this by saying that although it happens to be the case that letting die does not have identifiable victims there are cases in which it does have identifiable victims. Singer’s example explains that if a person sells contaminated food there are no identifiable victims, but the person has acted very wrongly in doing so.
12. The killing/letting die distinction can be seen as an instance of a more general distinction between doing and allowing, or action and inaction. Why is it difficult to make sense of this distinction?
It is difficult to make sense of this distinction because in some cases refraining from a given action is like actually doing something. Suppose I am introduced to someone at a party. This person sticks out their hand to shake mine and I don’t stick my hand out in return. At first glance it would seem that I have done nothing, but I obviously have. By refraining from shaking this person’s hand I have insulted him. Thus my inaction was actually an action. Rachel’s has another good example. In his first scenario evil uncle goes into the bathroom intending to drown his nephew in the bath. Evil uncle drowns the nephew. In the second scenario evil uncle goes into the bathroom intending to drown his nephew in the bath. The nephew is already drowning on his own, and evil uncle lets him die. In both cases evil uncle has behaved badly even though one scenario had him killing and the other had him letting die.
13. Singer suggests a principle of aid: if we can prevent something very bad from happening without thereby sacrificing anything of comparative moral significance, we ought to do it. Somebody might complain that the principle doesn't tell us anything about when we ought to assist. Explain how that objection would work.
Singer’s principle is empty because it makes assistance relative to a person’s views.
14. One objection to Singer’s view that we have an obligation to help the poor is that we have property rights in general, and we have a right to keep our money. Singer responds that this objection is not strong because there are different accounts of the justification for property rights. Give an outline of an account of property rights that would be consistent with an obligation to help the needy and explain why it is consistent with an obligation to help the needy.
Aquinas believed that the institution of property is for the good of mankind in general; therefore, property rights cannot conflict with the good of mankind in general. If not giving money or other forms of property to the poor conflicts with the good of mankind in general then we must give aid. This is consistent with Singer’s view because it requires that a person give aid.
15. What is a policy of triage and what is the justification for a policy of triage concerning aid to the poor?
Triage explains that there are three categories of populations. The first are those who will be able to feed their populations without help. The second are those who will be able to feed their populations if given help. The third are those who will probably not be able to feed their populations even with help. Triage says that society should only help those who will be able to feed their own population if given help. The justification of triage explains that helping those in poverty will increase overpopulation and thus increase poverty. Garrett Hardin illustrates this through what is termed the lifeboat analogy. If we let too many people onto the life boat, the boat will sink.
16. One response to a policy of triage is that it is so horrible we should not even contemplate it. Explain why Singer is not happy with this response.
Singer agrees that only a horrible person would not be repulsed by triage, but he says that we have to take the long term consequences of giving aid seriously. If by helping the poor now we will incur even greater poverty later then we shouldn’t help. Singer wants what will produce the greatest happiness, and if giving aid will end up resulting in greater suffering than not giving aid, then he thinks we should not give it.
17. Why does Singer think that we should give aid now but do all we can to slow population growth rather than adopt a policy of triage?
The policy of triage has a certain horrible outcome. Those who will not be able to feed their populations even with help will die. The justification of triage explains that helping those in poverty will increase overpopulation and thus increase poverty, but if we can somehow slow population growth then giving aid would be a better alternative because it does not have a certain horrible outcome. There is hope in this notion because as poverty decreases, birth rates tend to fall. Also, aid programs can be tailored in such a way as to encourage population declines.
18. Narveson claims that we do not have an obligation to help the needy. Present what you believe is the best argument he gives for this claim.
Narveson’s use of the killing and letting die distinction is his best argument for this claim. He says that if he did not cause the starvation then he is not killing. He does concede that inaction can be morally relevant but only in cases where a person had a responsibility to do the thing that he doesn’t end up doing. Also, he explains that there are other things of value other than just welfare. Some people might think that giving money to say opera does more for humanity than giving money to a homeless shelter, and because of these different points of view people should have the freedom to do what they want with their money, whether it be to help the starving or to help the opera. This argument of freedom depends on the distinction between killing and letting die.
