• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/16

Click to flip

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;

16 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
. Why does Aristotle believe that human beings have a natural function?
· He believes that all things have a function and that goodness comes when that function is fulfilled (you have done it well)
Why does Aristotle believe that the natural function of human beings is to live rationally?
· He believes that function is based on what is distinctive and he believes that rationality is what is distinctive about human beings · Rationality is distinctive about humans
Using the example of a courageous action, explain what Aristotle mean when he says the mean that characterizes a virtuous action is “relative to us?”
· Situation For fear/ over confidence mean= courage,o deficiency=cowardice o Excess =rashness. o There is a fire and someone is trapped · Cowardly: You’re too scared to help· Rash: You’re going to run in and not have a plan, and not be effective in helping the person· Courageous:You’re going to have just the right amount of fear so that you will think through a plan and enough confidence that you will be willing to do something to help. Therefore, you will be able to effectively help the person. You can vary in how courageous you are; as long as you are in the “courageous range”you are still close enough to the mean to be virtuous · “Relative to us”o The mean depends on everyone (you take everyone’s extremes and find the average). BUT different people can vary slightly and still be close enough to the mean to be considered virtuous. Thatis what “Relative to Us” means
Explain the different ways Aristotle and Mill believe virtuous character traits are valuable.
· Millo Mill believesthat virtuous traits are good as a means to happiness. They are good because they bring about more happiness · Aristotleo Believes thatvirtuous traits (=excellent traits) are good because they enable us to act in accord with reason, are the average, contribute to social harmony, and enable us to correctly feel and have intentions o The goal of human life is constituted by the virtues, they are part of what makes human good people, for their own sake o Live a life for us to become good people
According to Aristotle, what is the difference between acting virtuously and just acting the way a virtuous person does?
· Acting virtuously requires that one 1. Intends it2. Has knowledge of it 3. Chooses it for its own sake · A virtuous person cannot do a virtuous act by chance · Acting the way a virtuous person does not require that those 3 things be fulfilled · A person who is truly acting virtuously will hold that character trait and act on it
What is the initial anti-abortion argument that Thomson discusses in her essay? How does she try to use the violinist thought experiment to show that the argument is not sound.
· Initial anti-abortion Argument 1. All personshave a right to life 2. A fetus is a person 3. The right to life is stronger than the right of a woman to decide what happens in her own body 4. Therefore,abortion is immoral · Violinist thought experiment 1. You wake up one morning and find that you have been attached to a famous violinist who needs to use your body in order to survive (specifically, to filter a toxin from your body)2. The society of Music Lovers did this to you and tells you that you have to stay attached to the violinist for nine months otherwise he will die 3. Are you obligated to remain attached to the violinist? a. No, the right to life does not give one the right to another person’s body
What is the people seed thought experiment that Thomson gives? What isthe point of it
· People seeds float around and if they enter your house and take root a person will grow. You buy the best screen for your window you can, but it still gets in. You can kill it because you tried to prevent it. · The point o It is about contraception and abortions o If you’re really trying to keep the “people seed” out then there is no need for you to remain pregnant · Some people say that if you’re a woman and you agree to have sex then you are agree to letting a fetus use your body Thomson states that that is not true and just because you agree to sex does not mean you agree to a baby if you’re trying to avoid pregnancy
What is the personhood theory of what makes it the case that something has a right to life? How do proponents of this view argue for the moralacceptability of abortion
· Personhood Theory1. Consciousness and in particular the capacity to feel pain 2. Reasoning 3. Self-motivatedactivity (outside of genetics)4. The presence of self-concepts and self-awareness · Must possess most of these in order to be a human being in a moral sense (not genetic sense); the more you possess, the closer you are to a person and the closer you are the more right to life you have (that’s why dolphins, elephants, ect. Need a good reason to be killed)· They argue that a fetus is not a person and therefore doesn’t have the right to life. Since itdoesn’t have the right to life, killing it/abortion is okay with reason · The reason why its seriously wrong for someone to kill me is because I’m a rational being, im self-conscious being · A fetus doesn’t have any of those characteristics so abortion is not morally wrong because they aren’t rationally aware · This does not state why infanticide is wrong though o He believes infanticide is wrong for the same reason to kill someone like you or me o You have to either defend infanticide or come up with a special reason why its wrong · The personhood theory is wrong
What is the sanctity of human life view and how is this view used to argue against the morality of abortion?
· Every human life,from conception to death, is to be valued, respected, nurtured and protected.(Very typical religious argument) Therefore abortion (killing a human life in the form of a fetus) iswrong
What are the reasons Marquis gives for thinking his theory of what makes killing wrong is superior to the sanctity of human life view and the personhood view?
· FT= Marquis’sFuture Thesis (his main argument)1. FT explains why death is avoided and considered a great evil 2. FT allows that it may be wrong to kill beings other than humans 3. FT allows for Active Euthanasia in cases where no future worth living can be reasonably expected 4. Unlike personhood theories of the wrongness of killing, FT implies that killing babies and children is, in most cases, morally wrong
What is the psychological continuity view of personal identity that we discussed in class? How could a proponent of this view use it to argue against Marquis’ anti-abortion argument?
· Psychological Continuity Theory o A person at one time is the very same person as a person at a later time if and only if only if the person at the later time is the person at the later time is psychologically continuous with the person at the earlier time o There is a chain of person-stages connected by episodic memory· To have a future like ours assumes that one is identical to some person who will experience that future, but a fetus is not a person, and so it cannot be identical to any future person · Indeed, none of the relations deemed relevant to the identity of persons are present between a fetus because a fetus lacks a psychology with memories, beliefs, desires, and a general character capable of establishing any sort of plausible connection to a future experiencer, so that any experiences that experiencers undergoes cannot be the fetus’s future experiences. · Since they don’t have a future like ours, it rejects Marquis’s theory
How might one argue for animal rights based on the hedonistic utilitarian moral theory?
· Suffering andpain are bad things that should be minimized.· Animal sufferingis not a exception and therefore should be avoided as well
Explain how Regan uses the “Aunt Bea” example to try to argue against utilitarianism? How is this example similar to the organ harvesting surgeonexample
· He shows that it deemphasizes the individual· The best balance of consequences (what a utilitarian would choose) is not always the best for everyone involved (Aunt Bea suffers a great deal for the good of everyone else). · It also allowsany evil/violation of rights to be committed if it makes a number of peoplesignificantly happy
According to Regan, what is it that is fundamentally wrong about the way human beings use animals?
· He believes that animals (as experiencing subjects of a life) have inherent value and therefore rights. Human beings do not treat animals like they have rights
How does Regan argue thatphilosophers like Kant are wrong to think that only rational beings haveinherent value?
· All individual“experiencing subjects of a life” have inherit value (have moral standing or intrinsic value, a type of value not reducible to use/instrumental value for others)· Inherent value doesn’t come in degrees, so rationality isn’t important…inherent value does not have to be earned · Having inherent value= possessing rights = it is wrong to treat an individual with inherent value as a mere resource or thing or instrument that exists for the sake of others benefits "
In what way is Regan’s view of moral obligation similar to the Kantiantheory
· Regan believesthat it is wrong to use animals merely as a means and not as an end inthemselves, just as Kant believes it is wrong to use human beings merely as a meansand not as an end · Only rationalbeings have a moral value