Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
10 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Explain the case of Dudley, Stephens and Parker. |
Dudley, Stephens, Parker and Brooks were shipwrecked with very little food. After twenty days, Dudley and Stephens proposed killing Parker in order to feed themselves. They carried through with this and it is likely the sustenance he provided ensured they survived until their rescue. |
|
|
What is a deontological response to this case? |
A deotologist or intrinsicalist would say killing Parker was wrong b/c it is wrong to kill innocent people. Deontologists believe actions are right or wrong in themselves regardless of consequences. |
|
|
What is a consequentialist response? |
Killing is permissible b/c it is justifies if and b/c it saves more lives. Consequentialists believe actions are right or wrong according to their consequences. They would say killing is wrong if it causes a worse outcome than not killing. |
|
|
What are some relevant factors in determining if killing has bad consequences? |
1. Does it cause the victim pain? 2. Deprives the victim of future happiness 3. Causes unhappiness in others (eg family) 4. Could it lower the threshold for killing ie make people more likely to kill again? |
|
|
Describe two versions of intrinsicalist views towards killing. |
1. Absolute pacifism: taking lives is always morally wrong 2. Non-Absolutism: Taking human lives is always intrinsically wrong. On this view it is sometimes permissible to kill a human being though, eg in self-defence. |
|
|
What appeal is often made in support of this view? |
Often intrinsicalists appeal to the doctrine of the sanctity of human life. |
|
|
How does this doctrine function in relation to life itself and consciousness? |
At first this may seem to suggest that life itself is intrinsically valuable. However, this does not explain our intuition that living in an irreversible coma is preferable to death. If life was intrinsically valuable, we would prefer the coma. The next logical step is then to suggest life is valuable as a vehicle for consciousness. This must refer to mere consciousness (awareness or having experiences) rather than higher consciousness (emotional responses and thoughts) otherwise it would exclude non-reflective beings. However there can be no intrinsic value to mere consciousness: if asked to choose between a universe where beings weren't aware of their environment and a universe where they had mere consciousness, it would be hard to justify picking either. What is valuable is experiencing emotions related to this consciousness. |
|
|
Why would it be wrong to appeal to higher consciousness as the reason why life is valuable? |
This may exclude some humans who are not capable of having 'higher' emotions eg the severely disabled. |
|
|
What does Glover suggest is actually intended? |
He says we have shown life is only valuable as a vehicle for consciousness and consciousness is only valuable as a vehicle for something else (since mere consciousness isn't intrinsically valuable). Glover suggests a life worth living has something above mere and higher consciousness. This is a life worth living and includes all the components of higher consciousness as well as a desire to keep living, a preference for being alive and the subject's free and autonomous will to carry on living. |
|
|
How can this collapse into consequentialism? |
If autonomy is so valuable, then we should maximise it. In the Dudley and Stephens cas for example, killing Parker might still be the best option as it preserves the autonomy of three individuals. This is a collapse into consequentialism b/c it provides no intrinsic reason why killing Parker is wrong, it merely says it is wrong b/c it has bad consequences. |
