• 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

1/10

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;

10 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
The benefits argument relates to....
Rachel's argument of moral principle.
What is the standard form of the benefits argument?
1) if we can benefit someone, without harming another, we ought to do so.
2) Transplanting the organs would benefit other children sigh out harming baby Theresa.
----------
Therefore, we ought to do so.
Name the three arguments that support premise 2..
1) Degree of harm is minimal, if anything.
2) No quality of life
3) No prospects.
What objections are there to premise 2?
Is medical evidence unquestionably accurate? Is there any chance of baby Theresa surviving?
What is the chance of baby Theresa surviving?
Where this event occurred, America, majority of cases of anenphaly are found and aborted early in the pregnancy. Those that are not are still born (50%). And those that survive, only live a few days.
State the argument for Theresa's quality of life..
Theresa has no current quality of life, and would not suffer any harm if she were to die immediately, rather than in a few days.
Might Theresa have a chance at a meaningful life?
No. All previous cases, where a baby suffered from anencephaly, resulted in them only surviving a few days, at most.
The debate centres around what two arguments of Rachel's?
Wrongness of killing, we should not use people as a means.
What is the main objection to premise 2 of the means argument?
Should baby Theresa be counted as a person? With no quality of life, and no prospects, no chance of survival. We should reject that baby Theresa is a person.
Is there an objection to Rachel's argument that it is wrong to kill?
Baby Theresa has no chance of survival. Ultimately, she will face death sooner or later. Should other children that actually have a chance of survival be denied organs of a child who, in the most qualified surgeons eyes, have already considered dead? In this case, and in future cases, a level of leeway should be considered, in order to satisfy.