1) According to the British Courts, the twins Jodie and Mary have a right to life. a. Explain why Narveson would disagree.
Narveson would disagree with the British Courts for several reasons. First and foremost, he believes that a creature must be a person in order to have any sort of moral right. To qualify as a person a creature must be able to make “contracts.“ In order to do this, a being must be rational and self-conscious. In this case, Narveson would point out that because infants lack the capacity for reciprocity, they are outside the moral realm, and therefore, they do not have rights on their own accord. Any claim to life that the twins might possess would come from the rights of their parents (derivative rights). In this specific case, the parents do not wish their children to be separated; the courts did not hold to these wishes thus causing the parents’ rights to be violated.
b. Explain why Singer would disagree.
Singer does not believe in “rights.” Despite this, he would explain that it is worse to kill creatures who have desires and plans for the future than it is to kill creatures who do not. In order to have these desires and plans a creature must be rational and self-conscious, which infants are not. On these grounds Singer would object to the courts assumption by saying that the twins do not have a strong claim to life.
2) Present the argument that is, in your view the strongest in favor of a moral distinction between killing and letting die.
I believe that Narveson’s real difference/responsibility argument is the strongest in favor of a moral distinction between killing and letting die. If I kill someone, I have caused his/her death, but if I let someone die I have not caused his/her death because the person would have died if I had never existed. Singer would explain that this is not a moral difference, but it is a moral difference if a person accepts the non-consequentialist perspective. Under this belief, each person is only responsible for what he/she makes happen. On the other hand, if a person accepts the consequentialist perspective then there is not a moral difference.
3) Present the argument that is, in your view the strongest argument against a moral distinction between killing and letting die.
I believe that Singer’s consequentialist argument is the strongest against a moral distinction between killing and letting die. This argument explains that what really matters is the consequences of an action or an inaction, especially when those consequences are foreseen. The doctrine of double effect cannot be used as a distinction between killing and letting die as it is flawed. This doctrine explains that intentions are what really matter, but it is hard to determine what someone’s intentions are.
4) Explain why it is difficult to apply the moral distinction between killing and letting die in the case of Jodie and Mary.
First, if the surgery is performed Mary will die but Jodie will live. Second, if the surgery is not performed both Mary and Jodie will die. In the first case it would seem that killing is involved, but those who accept the doctrine of double effect would explain that the intention was to save Jodie and that the death of Mary is a side effect. In the second case it would seem that both Mary and Jodie are being left to die. Letting die requires that a person could have been saved, but if it is not possible to save a person then it is not letting die. It is impossible for Mary to live. In either scenario she will die. But, Jodie has a chance to live if the surgery is performed; therefore, if the surgery is not performed then she is being left to die. The first case can be taken in two respects. Mary is killed or Mary’s death is a side effect of saving Jodie. The second case has only one respect. Jodie is left to die. In any event it seems that the argument gets muddled up in this case.
5) Which of the following issues are relevant to the morality of the situation?
a. Mary is physically dependant on Jodie.
I believe that this is a relevant issue with regards to the morality of the situation. Mary lives only because she is attached to Jodie. She “sucks the lifeblood out of Jodie and her parasitic living will soon be the cause of Jodie ceasing to live” (The Guardian).
b. Mary is severely mentally disabled, Jodie is mentally normal. Justify your answer.
I believe that this is an irrelevant issue with regards to the morality of the situation. First, Mary is going to die very soon no matter what course of action is taken. Her disability (low IQ, bad quality of life, etc) is irrelevant to her chances of survival. Second, Jodie’s chances to live depend on what course of action or inaction is taken. Her chances do not depend on whether or not she is mentally normal.
6) The parents’ wishes were overruled in this case. Present a general argument to support the view that parents do not have a right to decide whether their children should live or die.
It seems as if it would be obvious that as a general principle parents do not have a right to decide whether their children live or die. This conclusion is easily illustrated by an example. If a parent decided to kill their child simply because the child had become too much of a financial burden few would think this were morally okay. First because the child’s interests, desires and plans for the future would outweigh the parent’s desire to unload a financial burden. Second because children have a negative right to life; others must refrain from killing them.
7) Does the courts’ decision in this case demonstrate commitment to a general principle that if we can save one life by sacrificing one, we should do so? If not, why not?
The court’s decision does not demonstrate a commitment to a general principle that if we can save one life by sacrificing one, we should do it. If this were the case then anyone could be killed so long as their death would save the life of another. I do not believe this is what the court was trying to say. What the court does seem to be saying is that this was a special circumstance in which both outcomes had grave consequences. The court chose what they felt was the lesser of two evils. Also, even if the court were trying to commit to such a general principle, it would not work because the interests of the person who would be killed would be equal to, if not outweigh, the interests of the person who would be saved.
