Philosophy 213 Final

Front 1

Thomson's argument about using one's bdoy

Back 1

Just becuase antoerh's life depends on your body doesn't give them a right to it

Front 2

thomsons' precautions and speiccla responsibility

Back 2

if you use contraceptives and use precautions, you are not responsible or morallyobligated to that life

Front 3

Marquis' general thesis

Back 3

abortion is morally wrong becuase a fetus has the same future potential as a child or even an adult

Front 4

marquis' general principles to whichboth sides appeal

Back 4

anti-it is always wrong to take a human life and it is always wrong to kill
prochoice- Personhood is what gives intrinsic moral worth 2- only wrong to kill someone who is part of the community

Front 5

Feinberg's Psychological personhood

Back 5

someone cannot be a "person" unless they exhibit certain conciousness characteristics. only have value if they can fulfill the duties unless conscious

Front 6

Thomson's argument about using one's bdoy

Back 6

Just becuase antoerh's life depends on your body doesn't give them a right to it

Front 7

thomsons' precautions and speiccla responsibility

Back 7

if you use contraceptives and use precautions, you are not responsible or morallyobligated to that life

Front 8

Marquis' general thesis

Back 8

abortion is morally wrong becuase a fetus has the same future potential as a child or even an adult

Front 9

marquis' general principles to whichboth sides appeal

Back 9

anti-it is always wrong to take a human life and it is always wrong to kill
prochoice- Personhood is what gives intrinsic moral worth 2- only wrong to kill someone who is part of the community

Front 10

Feinberg's Psychological personhood

Back 10

someone cannot be a "person" unless they exhibit certain conciousness characteristics. only have value if they can fulfill the duties unless conscious

Front 11

Marquis' responsse to feinberg

Back 11

don't need pscyhological awareness to have rights, just duties. or else babies, vegetalbes, etc would have no rights

Front 12

Warren's genetic/moral personhood

Back 12

genetics do not determine personhood- the worth to the community is what determines moral value. memeberhship in community!

Front 13

warren's why birth matters

Back 13

that is when the two beings become seperate

Front 14

Warren's 6 requirements for personhood

Back 14

Smersc
sentience
Moral agency
emotionality
reason
self awareness
communication

Front 15

Warren's 2 principles

Back 15

1-worse to depreive person's right then to refrain from extendin rights to nonpersons
2- one has no duty to keep another alive unless contrastually obligated to.

Front 16

George/lee: 3 points about the fetus

Back 16

it is 1-distinct from mom and dad 2- human 3- complete though immature

Front 17

George/lee the "moral status" response to the no person argument

Back 17

humans dont' reach mental maturity and awareness for months after birth, so it doesn't apply. It depends on the type of being not on the stage of development

Front 18

george/lee's: special responsibilities argument

Back 18

in response to the bodily rights argument (which they say that pregnancy is less harm than death) we have speical responsibilities to faimly and those we are closelu linked to. not just contractual

Front 19

AA Pojman's weak AA
and strong AA

Back 19

weak AA- focuses on equal oppurtunity
strong AA- equal results, reverse discrimination and morally hienous

Front 20

argument from diversity

Back 20

it says we need diversity in our life to make us good people, culture, etc. We get enough diversity- not wroth the risk of putting unqualified people in positions

Front 21

Pojman's argument for role models

Back 21

role models should not be based on race, espcieally if doesn't earn name or earning the place. stigma of undeservedness

Front 22

pojman's argument from compensation

Back 22

unclear who the victims/perpetrators are:

Front 23

pojman's argument from compensation for innocent beneficiaries

Back 23

people innocnelty benefit and are not at fault

Front 24

pojman's argument from equal results

Back 24

no sirry: human nature is identical, so porportionate % should be everywhere to population

Front 25

poyman's not deserving talent

Back 25

no one has claim to anything , so society should distribute jobs, etc. society can override qualifications of talents for jobs. what is best for society

Front 26

Mosely' Frank the tennis player

Back 26

He wants to see ratial catagories preserved, but this keeps them victimized and reinforces impediments, 'acting white'

Front 27

AA. Celia Wolf divine's obligation, compensation, foreknowledge

Back 27

if you don't have foreknowledge you don't have to comensate and don't have obligation. COMPENSATORY IS backward loking, but there is no way to give to the immigrants originally the law doesn't allowsomeone toreviececompensation from diseased,sowe need to move on!

Front 28

SSM Rawls' approval vs. tolerance

Back 28

you can enforce tolerance but not approval

Front 29

SSM Raw's minority vs majority rights

Back 29

the majority has the right to express the collective approval, but the minorites have the right go be tolerated. THe majority has more rights becuase it can speak for the collective. limiting gay marriage to hetero couples does nt infringe liberty becuase they still do what they want to do, justnot with approval

Front 30

Rauch SSM 3 reasons for marrying

Back 30

1-children
2-domesticate men
3-caregiving

Front 31

Rauch's sssm argument

Back 31

caregiving and domestication applies to homo's too- let them participate in familyness

Front 32

Kurtz SSM' slippery slope

Back 32

if we legalize gay marriage there is no way to black group marriage and will cease to be a 2 way relatinoship good for society. The destruction of marriages increases out of wedlock births, destablizing society

Front 33

Kurtz SSM Ethos of monogamy

Back 33

gets eroded if gay marriage is allowed, destroys that marriage means fidelity to one companion.children need to be reared in a stable envirnment with monogamy and companinate

Front 34

Sullivan SSM: rejection of homo's and disruption of families

Back 34

if reject gay marriage, tear apart more familes homo's need an institution to break cylcle of rampant behavior

Front 35

Sullivan SSM conservative agenda

Back 35

conservatists want men married but won't let them mary eahother

Front 36

Sullivan SSM hierarhcy of choices

Back 36

1.marriage2.gay marriage 3. civil union

Front 37

20% sullivan SSM

Back 37

never more than 20% of population will be gay, thereofre never fear

Front 38

Singer WP Greater Evil Moral Principle

Back 38

if you have the power to prevent a bad without great cost or sacrifice to yourself, you are morallyobligated to do so

Front 39

Singer WP Drowning child analogy

Back 39

morally obligations

Front 40

Property righs and Greater Evil singer WP

Back 40

richvspoor. better for them to live than for me to have a rolex

Front 41

Singer WP the relation between economic security eduation nad population growth and triage

Back 41

triage is the priority based on urgency of how to help people. singer states we just need to throw money into the system, but others say that will cause popluation growth and other problems that will be worse

Front 42

Shikwati WP:

Back 42

development aid weakens local markets, promotes corruption, teaches to be beggars, not independant

Front 43

Aruthur WP 2 types of equality

Back 43

1- jeffersonian- equal rights to life and liberty
2- like amounts of happiness and suffering are equal no matter hwo they are experincing htem. this does not include equal distribution of necessiites

Front 44

Aruthur WP equal consideration argument

Back 44

by spending moneyon luzury we are saying that itme is morimportant than another's life. thus leading to GME thus calling for a redistribution of wewalth

Front 45

Arthur WP moral rights: positive and negative rights

Back 45

negative rights- rights against other's interference
positive rights- right to reviece some benefit through obligations or contracts

Front 46

Arthur WP consequencesof ridding of 'desert' in favor of the GME principle

Back 46

1.people are only moticated to prevent evil
2.people woudln't work as hard and be less productive
3. guilt and resentment help for overacheivers in society

Front 47

Nielsen WP: values that fare better with socialism and why he thinks so

Back 47

Socialism provides better: freedom: more people enjoy freedom and basic necessities
autonomy; more people have the power to be independant moral agents

Front 48

Nielsen wp; his point about self direction, respect and autonomy

Back 48

autnonmy- more people have the power, and in capitalism these things breed greed and restirct liberty.

Front 49

Murray wp; the ultimate reason for capitalism/limited governmnet

Back 49

happiness and sociality

Front 50

Murray Wp; egalitarianism and ency

Back 50

egalitarianism creates envy becuase someone cannot be innocently better off than another without causing societal distress. euality itself is not durable as an ideal.

Front 51

Murray WP; Socialism and constrained political optinos

Back 51

NOT SURE people won't apply themsevles as much, lower self expectations "eachaccording to their abilites, each according to needs"

Front 52

Kant DUTY

Back 52

goodwill is acting from duty and is what gives moral worth

Front 53

Kant actions according to duty from against inclindations

Back 53

fear the consequences,don't want to. ex pay taxes

Front 54

kant; actions according to duty becuase of direct inclination

Back 54

want to do it

Front 55

Kant; actions according to duty with no inclinations

Back 55

act purely from duty, the best and most clear examples of moral worth. ex.heroes.

Front 56

Kant; FUL

Back 56

Formula of uniceral Law; a type of typothetical imperative. maxim must be applicable univerally in order to be moral

Front 57

Kant FHE

Back 57

formual of humanity as ends, can't treat people and self merely as means

Front 58

Kant Ful- contradiction in conecption and contradiction in will

Back 58

can't universailive becuase:
will- reaonsabley does not makes sense
conception- aganet would be unable to act on that maim if it was univeral: generated when agent trie to will his mazim and the the univeratilization at the same time

Front 59

Kant DUTY'

Back 59

what one would do if fully rational

Front 60

Utilitarianism- consequentialist

Back 60

right and wrogness of act is determeined by the result, it is the end not the means that matters

Front 61

Utilitariansism- greatest happiness principle

Back 61

actions are right in porportion as they tend to promote happiness: high in pleasure, love in pain

Front 62

Act-Utilitariansim:

Back 62

act is right if it reslults in as much good as any avialbe alternative

Front 63

rule utiliatrins

Back 63

act is right if it is required by a rule that itslef sets the greatest good for the greaest number

Front 64

Psychologocial egoism: argument of wanting/motive

Back 64

i do eveyrhtin that i want to therefore i am selfishe

Front 65

Psychological egoism; arugment of pelausre

Back 65

we dothings solely fro peasure/gratification. higher and lower pleasure (counter- pleasure is by product, peace of mind depends on caring for something)

Front 66

Ethical egoism

Back 66

one ought to pursue one's self well being and one has no unchosen obligations to serve the interests of others

Front 67

Malm; 2 principles

Back 67

1-i'm not obligated to prevent a death if it will bring significant harm to self
2-cannot harm another innocent person to prevent serious harm to myself
(the duck/shield principle)