Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Phil203 Study Guide (Euthanasia (According to John Paul II, euthanasia is…

- - - - Well-informed and competent
    - - taking direct action to end a patient’s life
  - - - Comas, vegatative state
  - - - Double Effect Doctrine
        
        Can't be means to the end
        
        Make sure its proportional
        
        Doing a morally good thing is alright even if bad side-effects happen
    - - You're running away from them
    - - By pulling off euthanasia, you're taking death into your own hands
      - "takes control of death and bring it about before its time"
- - - - Standard Debate
        
        Why does Marquis think that the pro-abortion views are based on the too narrow principle?
        
        Just because you're psychologically a human, doesn't mean you have moral standing
        
        Because we have psychology, we're able to process morality
        
        Now has moral duties but never given moral rights
        
        No moral relevance why death is bad
        
        Why does Marquis think that the anti-abortion views are based on the too broad principle?
        
        Are cancer cells humans?
        
        "If you're killing a fetus youre killing a baby"
        
        It's too broad because no distinction between biological and psychological sense
      - According to Marquis, which of the following is NOT the advantage of his FLO (Future-Like-Ours) theory?
      - According to Marquis, what makes his FLO theory different from the argument that fetuses are potential persons?
        
        FLO Theory: Hey actually, why is it wrong to kill someone
        
        The victim is deprived of what she values now and what she would come to value in the future.
        
        so to kill a fetus, you're going to deprive that entity from experiencing future value
        
        The future of a regular fetus has a future that young children also have
        
        Doesn't depend on if that object is alive or not, its death will deprive it
        
        Wrongness of killing does not depend on biology
        
        Theory simply does not proclaim the sanctity of human life
      - Necessary vs Sufficient condition
        
        FLO is not a necessary condition, simply a sufficient condition
        
        Necessary: only thing that can cause conclusion
        
        If X, then Y
        
        if/then causality
        
        Sufficient:
        
        the x in causality is two or more things
        
        not only one thing has fill it in
    - - P1. Killing us is wrong because it deprives us of future things that we value/a future of value
      - P2. Fetuses have Future-Like-Ours
      - P3. Abortion is depriving fetuses of FLO
      - C. Therefore, Abortion (at least the majority of them) is wrong
  - - - False
      - Fonda is the famous actor who will save your life if he puts his hand on your face. It would be nice if he helped you, but he isn’t required to.
      - Similar to there being no moral obligation to you to donate your kidney.
    - - Relies on the premise that the fetus is a human being
    - - The right of life does not entail the right not to be killed
      - A violinist got hooked up to you, and now you have to carry it around for 9 months
        
        the violinist has the right to life, meaning that unplugging means murder
    - - There's limits to it
        
        Deciding between only two parties, one who's life is threatened and the one who threatens it
        
        Bystanders can't interfere but the person threatened can
      - Uses house example
        
        you're sitting in a house with a rapidly expanding baby that will slowly crush you
        
        Bystander can't decide between lives but you can
    - - Right to life is to be not killed unjustly
      - Violinist example: at his current state, he would die without you
        
        killing him is not active but passive :warning:
        
        what if you see a kid drowning right next to you
        
        also the chocolate example
    - - Pregnancy due to mistake
      - Person opens the window and then a burglar comes in
        
        The person didn't commit the crime the bugler did, no reason the blame the person
        
        "Ah now the bugler can stay"
    - - Minimally Decent Samaritans, but not Good Samaritans.
      - Good Samaritains
        
        at some cost to himself
      - Minimally Decent Samaritans
        
        :warning:
    - - To keep a fetus is being a minimally decent Samaritan, but no other laws require you to be a minimally decent Samaritan
      - Kitty Genovese
        
        minimally decent to at least call the police
        
        nothing in lawbooks
    - - not arguing for the right to secure the death of the unborn child.
      - whole paper is about how the anti-abortion debate doesn't work if you give the premise that the fetus is a person
    - - T
      - Right to life means not taking the life away not other people sustaining the life
    - - In many but not all cases.
      - Can't fall below minimally decent
    - - Anti Abortion argument fails
      - Gives premise that Fetus does count as a person
      - Arg 1: Fetus has a right to life that outweights mothers life to choice
        
        The extreme view: can't save mother's life
        
        Act of Self Defense
        
        Third party is okay
  - - - It isn't the mere fact that you're a genetic human. Difference between human genetic and human moral
      - Set of Criteria to determine if morally a person
        
        Consciousness: Capacity for complex pleasure & pain
        
        Reasoning: Developed capacity to solve problems
        
        Self-Motivated activity: Activity that's not genetic (breathing) or externally placed
        
        Capacity to Communicate: On any topics by whatever means
        
        Self-Awareness: I am a thing
        
        If it has none of these then it's not morally a person
    - - A fetus has no characteristics of personhood
    - - P1. Fetuses may or may not be genetically human
      - C. Fetuses are not innocent human beings, they have no morality yet
      - P2. To have moral rights, must be part of the moral community
      - P3. To be part of the moral community, must be a person
      - P4. One cannot be a person if they do not have any of the criteria
- - - - Deterrence
        
        Most common
        
        Keep individuals from doing crime in the first place
      - Retribution
        
        Just punishment for the act
    - - Kant said shut up
        
        Using means to an end
        
        :warning: elaborate more, does this use categorical imperative?
      - Doesn't really work
        
        Evil acts are not reasoned, but crimes of passion
        
        Statistics dont show nothing
        
        Criminals aren't rational
        
        Racist asshole
        
        Maybe yes? Internalize a set of restraints
    - - The poor, the uneducated, and members of racial minorities are disproportionately sentenced to death.
  - - - Jus Talionis (Eye for an Eye)
        
        Fair to do the same damage you did to the other guy
        
        Its proportional, not the exact same
        
        A rich person getting fined $20 is different from a poor person getting fined $20
        
        Murder is different
        
        Victim can no longer experience human value, but murderers will still be able to experience human value
        
        It's a boolean
        
        Only way to be proportional is to kill the person
        
        Only civil authorities can do retribution
  - - - The act itself is wrong
        
        Raping a rapist
        
        Life sentence is proportional lex talionis
        
        Most severe punishment on the scale
      - The actual punishment is wrong to perform
        
        Acts cannot be made right just because
      - Abolishing the Death Penalty
        
        Respecting the dignity of all humans no matter what
        
        Making only defensive violence justifiable
  - - - Humans that impose constraints on themselves have moral standing,
        
        If you don't impose those constraints, then you have no moral standing
      - How do criminals lose their morality
        
        The act of wrongdoing itself
        
        Not respecting the constraints
      - Murderers lost their moral standing, so can death penalty
        
        They're in a status of exile, not unjust to kill them
    - - Contractualism
        
        Fair contract that everyone agrees on, we'll all be good
        
        Morality comes as a set of rules that rational people obey for mutual benefit, given that others obey as well
      - Justice
        
        Making sure people get what they're owed
        
        What they can claim
        
        What they have a right to
- - - - Contrary to natural law
      - Suicide injures the community that its part of
        
        everyones gonna be sad
        
        youre part of a community so youre hurting the community
      - Violates duty to God
        
        Humans are creations of God
        
        not up to us to decide when our time is up
  - - - Theres a divine reason for everything
      - Can do everything in their power to do life
      - Objection
        
        Human life is exceptional
        
        Death is the domain of god
        
        We are caretakers of the earth
        
        can't leave our posts yet
    - - What if I become a burden to society
        
        I am compelled to kill myself
      - only ceases to do good
        
        no active harm done
        
        not obligated to do a small good to society for a great harm to myself
    - - Continued existence is worse than death
      - In align with our interests
- - - - Good or bad are relative to the person's desire
      - Happiness ("felicity") is only done in satisfying his r her desires
  - - - A life that lacks any one of these central capabilities, no matter what else It has, will fall short of being a good human life.
      - There is a list of central human capabilities that tell us what ‘good’ for humans is.
      - it is Nussbaums’ list.
- - - - Some of the principles for conduct in a just war that Rawls defends are:
        
        A. Just war is only for lasting peace between peoples
        
        B. Decent Democratic Society has to fight as a non democratic state
        
        Expansionist aims from non democratic
        
        C. Distinguish between three groups
        
        Leaders: Responsible
        
        Civilians: not responsible
        
        Soldiers: not responsible but can be attacked
        
        Leaders of nation theories
        
        D. Respect human rights of both soldiers and citizens
        
        Be a good example
        
        E. Always aim for peace during war
        
        F. Means to an end has to lie within limits
        
        Unless times of extreme crisis
        
        Have to be decent democratic society hurr
      - According to Rawls’ principles concerning the conduct of war, there be should be distinctions among state’s leaders, soldiers, and civilians because:
        
        Principle of responsibility
        
        Assume that enemy is nondemocratic
        
        leaders organized the war
        
        civilians under state propaganda, not responsible
        
        military exploited
    - - How might a utilitarian justify the atomic bombings of Hiroshima?
        
        Less people died overall
    - - Conflicted between utilitarian and absolutism
        
        bomb a village to halt a terrorist
        
        what will happen vs what youre doing
      - His Utilitarianism
        
        Maximize good and minimize loss
        
        there are some restrictions
        
        immediate benefits < long-term effects
      - His absolutism
        
        Can not justify certain acts
        
        "But this will happen !"
        
        Cannot be used