• 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

1/119

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;

119 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Categories for arguments against legalization
1. Arguments from effects on society

2. Arguments from effects on the user
Arguments from effects on society?
1. Lost productivity

2. Health care

3. Addicts victimize those with which they have relationships
Response to the arguments from effects on society
It seems as if one could cause all of these harms on society simply by 'being a loser', but that isn't prosecuted under law.
Arguments from effects on the user?
A. Modification of the user's incentive structures

B. Destruction of the user's empathy

C. Tendency to encourage or cause coercion
In what ways do the arguments against legalization from the effects on the drug user justify "Debasement"?
A. Other legal substances such as tobacco and alcohol, have more severe detrimental health effects on the user

B. Direct vs. Indirect causes of harm or debasement.
What is meant by "direct vs indirect bringing about of harm to the user" ?
If one could not use the law to prevent directly bringing about some 'evil', one cannot use the law to previent indirectly or potentially bringing about the same evil.
In the argument of "direct vs. indirect legal intervention" what can the law not be used to directly prevent?
1. Harm to relationships

2. Financial harm to oneself
Arguments for legalization
A. Natural right
What does the argument of "Natural Right" hold to justify legalization?
1. We have the right to control our own bodies

2. Drug use is a paradigm example of something which occurs nearly entirely around/within one's body

3. Therefore, we should not prosecute drug use
What does the argument of "Natural Right" hold to justify legalization?
1. We have the right to control our own bodies

2. Drug use is a paradigm example of something which occurs nearly entirely around/within one's body

3. Therefore, we should not prosecute drug use
Responses to the argument of "Natural Right"
A. Drug use harms others too and it is not one's natural right to harm others so drug use should be punishable.

B. People are psychologically compelled to use drugs.
Why does it seem unjust to punish drug users according to the response to the argument of "Natural Right"?
Since people are psychologically compelled to use drugs, it seems unjust to punish them because they're not morally responsible for their drug use.
Anti Abortion Position
Any position according to which abortion is a serious moral wrong that can be justified only in exceptional circumstances
Neutralism
Abortion is, in itself, morally neutral.

Secondary effects could raise moral consideration however
Positions on the Moral Status of Legal Restrictions on Abortion
1. Pro-Choice Position

2. Abolitionism
Pro-Choice Position
Extreme: There should be NO legal restrictions on the woman's right to get an abortion

General: Any position that opposes any significant restriction on a wonman's right to get an abortion
Abolitionism
Extreme: The state should prohibit ALL abortions

General: The state should prohibit abortion in all but the most exceptional situations
"Fetus"
The developing human being during all stages of gestation
What is the main question around which moral controversies concerning abortion are centered?
When does life begin?

Not just "life" but a certain kind of 'life'
Why is the issue not concerned directly about when the fetus is truly human?
Biologically, all cells in the body have human DNA, however nobody believes that each cell has the same right to life that a fetus does.
Personhood: What is the issue? What is a 'person'
The issue seems to be: When does a PERSON'S life begin?

A person is: The sort of being whose death is a very serious moral evil.
When do people usually argue that life begins?
A. Conception

B. During Gestation

C. Birth or later
Rationales for the answers:

A. Conception
1. Genetic Humanity

2. Continuity Argument:
What is the argument for:

Genetic Humanity?
The life of a person begins at conception because at that point the fetus has the full complement of human genes.
Criticisms of "Genetic Humanity"
What science establishes is that the fetus in genetically human.
Being genetically human is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for having a
right to life.
Why is being genetically human not necessary?
Because of the possibility of nonhuman intelligent beings.
Why is being genetically human not sufficient?
It is not sufficient because every cell of your body is genetically human—
scientific evidence proves this. But no one thinks that every cell of one’s body has a right
to life.
Continuity Argument:

The life of a person begins at conception because?
From that state on there is a gradual and continuous development into an individual that is clearly a person.we must hold that a person's life begins at conception.
According to the continuity argument, why must we hold conception as the point at which one becomes a human?
Conception is the only place to "draw the line" since development is gradual and continuous from conception forward.
What three things are assumed and not defended by the continuity argument?
1. That there must be a sharp line between those things which are and those things which are not persons with a right to life

2. That coception succeeds in drawing such a sharp line

3. That there is no other relevant place to "draw the line."
The assumption that there must be a sharp line at which a fetus is a person ignores what?
This assumption ignores the fact that many believe that a person's life does not begins at a particular instant.

(The fact that there is no place to draw the line does not mean that we must call an acorn an oak.)
Why is it an unjustified assumption that conception succeeds in drawing such a sharp line in one's life?
The process of conception is, in itself, a gradual process that cannot be seen as a singular process.

(does conception occur when the sperm enters the cytoplasm of the egg?...touches the egg?...DNA transcription begins?...etc.)
Why is the continuity argument making an unjustified assumption when it assumes that there is no other relevant place to draw the line other than conception?
Because of this assumption, this argument cannont be taken as conclusive until all suggestions for "drawing the line" have been refuted.
Common arguments and points cited as life's beginning sometime during gestation?
1. Heartbeat

2. Viability

3. Spontaneous Movement

4. Brain Activity

5. Physical Similarity
How is HEARTBEAT often argued to mark the beginning of a person's life?
Since the stopping of a spontaneous heartbeat marks one's death, the beginning of a heartbeat marks the beginning of one's life.
Why do some say that HEARTBEAT FAILS TO MARK the beginning of one's life?
We do NOT mark the end of a person's life by the cessation of a spontaneous heartbeat:

Life Support

Medical technology

Defibrillation
Why is meant by VIABILITY in reference to its effectiveness as an adequate trait to mark the beginning of one's life?
A person's life begins when:

Its life can be sustained outside the womb
When is a fetus typically viable outside the womb?
5-6 months after conception
When does fetal heartbeat typically begin?
~18 days after conception
Why do some say that VIABILITY FAILS to mark the beginning of one's life?
Technological advances can determine and change when viability is possible however technological advances DO NOT change the time at which a person's life truly begins.
Why is meant by SPONTANEOUS MOVEMENT in reference to its effectiveness as an adequate trait to mark the beginning of one's life?
A person's life begins when it is capable of spontaneous movement.
Criticism:

Spontaneous movement marks the beginning of life.
Spontaneous movement is not necessary for a person to be alive.

Even a fully paralyzed person may be alive.
Why is meant by BRAIN ACTIVITY in reference to its effectiveness as an adequate trait to mark the beginning of one's life?
Since we mark death with the cessation of brain activity, we must mark the beginning of life with the onset of brain activity.
Positions concerning the Moral Status of Abortion
1. Anti-Abortion Position

2. Neutralism
When does brain activity typically begin?
~6 weeks after conception
Criticism:

Brain Activity marks the beginning of one's life.
Not all brain activity gives a person qualities that are respected as those of life.

(Simply because homeostasis is maintained in the most basic ways by the brainstem e.g. body temp., if other parts of the brain were absent, the person would hardly be assumed to have the right to life.)
Why is meant by PHYSICAL SIMILARITY in reference to its effectiveness as an adequate trait to mark the beginning of one's life?
From a very early point in pregnancy, the fetus looks like a person; it has fingers, toes, nose, etc.

Extreme view: The right to life is actually based on physical similarity to a normal adult human

General view: Physical similarity to normal adults is good evidence that something has a right to life.
Criticism:

Physical similarity marks the beginning of one's life/right to life
Physical similarity between a fetus and a normal adult human is neither neither NECESSARY nor SUFFICIENT evidence.
Why is physical similarity between a fetus and a normal adult human NOT NECESSARY for a right to life?
Consider the sort of intelligent nonhuman life imagined by science fiction writers.
Why is physical similarity between a fetus and a normal adult human NOT SUFFICIENT for a right to life?
Consider:

A monkey surgically altered to look like a human

A human whose cerebrum and cerebellum have been completely destroyed
Rationale for the answers:

Life begins at BIRTH OR LATER
1. Spontaneous Breathing

2. Self-Awareness
Why is the advent of spontaneous breathing argued to be the beginning of the right to life?
Since the end of life is marked by the cessation of spontanous breathing, the beginning of life should be marked by the advent of spontaneous breathing.
Criticism:

Spontaneous breathing marks the beginning of one's life at birth
The breathing impulse occurs much earlier than the time of one's birth.

We do not mark the end of one's life by the cessation of spontaneous breathing
Why is Self-Awareness considered to be a justifiable marker of the beginning of one's life/right to life?
Self awareness is a requirement for personhood and thus gives us the right to life because:

Taken to be the important mark of distinction between humans and animals.
Criticism:

Self-awareness marks the beginning of one's life.
1. Self-awareness develops well after birth.

2. Infants are not entitled to the right to life, but infantacide is obviously morally impermissible.

3. Therefore, self-awareness is not a good marker for the beginning of one's right to life
What does the criticism for the self-awareness argument not entail?
1. There is nothing morally wrong with killing infants for convenience.

2. The state does not have a very good moral reason for prohibiting acts such as infantacide.
If the defender of the position that self-awareness is not a good point to mark the beginning of one's life, as well as the position defending one's right to abortion, what must they explain?
Why it is wrong to kill infants even though they don't have a right to life... on grounds which won't entail that it is also wrong to have an abortion
Simple Bodily Rights Argument
A woman has an unconditional right to an abortion because everyone has a right to control her own body.
Appeal to Consequences
Abortion should not be prohibited or restricted to such an extent that women seek illegal abortions and are left to deal with the consequences.

The consequences of prohibiting abortions such as infections, sterility, death, etc, often occur when abortion is prohibited because women seek to have illegal abortions.
Criticism:

Appeal to Consequences
This argument assumes:

Prohibiting abortion would not reduce the number of women getting abortions.

The death of the fetus is not an extreme moral evil
If:

The death of the fetus were a great moral evil

and

Prohibition were to decrease the number of abortions

Then...??
The Serious harms to the woman would have to be weighed against the certainty of the great moral evil of the death of the fetus
Assuming that the death of the fetus is not a great moral evil begs the question against which position?
The Anti-Abortion Position
The Negative (Critical) Argument thompson uses does what?
Much of what Thompson is doing can be understood as criticism of a very common argument for prohibiting abortion.
What common argument does much of Thompson's work criticize?
Thompson criticizes the "Naiive Right to Life Argument" against abortion rights.

Thompson finds abortion morally permissible in some cases.
The Naiive Right to Life Argument:

i. Every person has ______

ii. The _____ is a person

Therefore,
iii. The _____ has a ______

iv. The right to life is _____ important than the right to _____

Therefore
v. The fetus's right to life is _____ important than the _____ right to _______

Therefore
vi. Abortion ought not to be ______
i....right to life
ii....fetus....

Therefore
iii....fetus....right to life
iv...more...control over one's body

Therefore
v.......more...mother's....control her body

Therefore
vi...permitted
Which premise of the Naiive Right to Life Argument is typically rejected by pro-choicers?
ii. The fetus is a person
Which parts of the Naiive Right to Life Argument does Thompson accept? reject?
Thompson accepts the NR2L argument through premise v. but claims the inference made from v. to vi. to be fallicious.
Why does Thompson claim that the inference from v. to vi. in the NR2L argument is fallacious?
It falsely assumes that the fetus's right to life conflicts with the mother's right to control her body.
Thompson argues that the right to life is a_____ right
....negative...
What is meant when it is said that Thompson believes that "the right to life is a negative right" ?
The right to life is the right not to be killed unjustly, not the right to have your life sustained.
Thompson believes that since the right to life is a negative right, it does not include the right to ___ another's _______for____
....use....body ... nine months
What belief of Thompson's is the unconscience violinist example supposed to establish?
The right to life is a negative right meaning that one has the right not to be unjustly killed, not the right to have their life sustained, especially through the use of another's body.
When do rights conflict?
When one person has a right that some specific action be done and another has a right that that action not be done.
If Thompson is correct about the nature of the right to life, then no conflict exists between which specific rights of which individuals? why does this conflict no longer exist if Thompson is correct?
There is no conflict between the fetus's right to life and the right of the mother to control her own body.

If Thompson is correct, this conflict no longer exists because it is accepted that the right to life does not include the fetus's right to use the mother's body to sustain itself.
Assuming Thompson is correct about the nature of the right to life:

The abortion conflicts with the ____ of the fetus, but not with its right to life because_________________
....life.....the right to life does not include the right to uthe use of the mother's body
One objection to the accuracy of the violinist example with respect to abortion makes what distinction between the two cases?
In the case of the violinist, the woman is simply removing support and ALLOWING the violinist TO DIE

while,

In the abortion case, the fetus is KILLED in the process.
How might one respond to Thompson if they believe that the right to life is indeed a negative right in a way that allows them to support the prohibition of abortion?
The right to life is the right not to be killed (negative) not the right to have your life sustained.

Although the mother is responsible for sustaining the life of the fetus in the same way that the woman is responsible for sustaining the life of the violinist, the act of the abortion kills the fetus directly

Killing the fetus directly violates the right to life because the right to life is the right not to be killed. In the abortion case, the fetus is killed, while in the violinist case, the violinist is simply allowed to die.
The argument that abortion violates the fetus's negative right not to be killed, while the violinist does not because he is simply allowed to die, relies on what distinction?
This objection depends on drawing a sharp moral distinction between:

Killing vs. Letting Die
Even if sharp distinctions are made between killing and letting die, one could reply that abortion would be morally permissible by what method?
Severing the umbilical cord, removing the fetus and allowing it to die due to lack of support (letting die)
In the violinist example, the woman's action results in the death of the violinist by a _____ process. But the removal of the fetus is an ______ Intervention in a _____ process.
...Natural....Unnatural....Natural
Who might try to augment the Naiive Argument?

In the argument of what position might this strategy be employed?
Defender of the Naiive Argument against abortion.

Concede that the violinist's right to life does not entail a right to the use of the woman's organs.
What might one argue- who Augments the Naiive Argument- as the difference between the right to life of the violinist and the fetus?
The fetus's right to life DOES INCLUDE the right to the use of its mother's body.

The Violinist's right to life DOES NOT inclue the right to use the woman's body.
Why can it be argued that the fetus's right to life conflicts with the woman's right of bodily control while the violinist's right to life does not?
The fetus's right to life includes the use of it's mother's body but,

The violinist's right to life does not include the right to use someone's body to sustain himself.
Replacing the Naiive Argument:
Granting that the fetus's right to life does not entail a right to use the woman's body does not grant that the fetus does not have a right to use her body.
What does one who argues by Replacing the Naiive Argument concede with this argument?
The fetus's right to use the woman's body is NOT derived only from a right to life.
One might argue that, where pregnancy results from___________, That act itself has given the fetus a right to the use of the mother's body.
...Consensual Sexual intercourse
How does the argument that that the fetus has the right to the use of the mother's body if the pregnancy resulted from consensual sexual intercourse, replace the Naiive Argument?
Unlike the Naiive argument, this argument:

Does not derive the objection to abortion from the presumed right to life of the fetus.
If the pregancy resulted from consensual sexual intercourse, the right to use the mother's body is claimed to follow from something other than _________
The fetus's right to life
What might explain why defenders of the naiive argument focused on the right to life?
Unless the fetus has a right to life, one might argue that it cannot have a right to use the woman's body to sustain its life.
What does Thompson's Positive Argument attempt to show?
That there is no plausible theory which will show that the fetus has a right to use the mother's body.
What type of argument is the Positive Argument intended to respond to?
Those used to REPLACE the Naiive Argument against abortion rights that are based on the right to life of the fetus.
Thompson attempts to counter replacement of the Naiive Argument against abortion rights with the Positive Argument by showing what?
Even in cases of consensual sexual intercourse, the woman has typically done nothing wrong that constitutes granting the fetus a right to use her body.
Positive Argument attempts to show that:

Even in cases of __________, the woman has typically __________________ that constitutes _____________________________.
...consensual sexual intercourse

...done nothing wrong..

...Granting the fetus a right to use her body.
What does Thompson use the Burgalar Example to show?
That you are not required to support someone who becomes dependent on you, even if you could have prevented that dependency by taking proper precautions.
Burglar Example used to show:

That you are not required to _______ someone who _____________________ even if you could have __________________by __________________________.
...Support....
..is dependent on you...
...prevented their dependency..
...taking the proper precautions..
What defect does Thompson attempt to remedy through the use of the People Seed Example?
The defect in the burglar example:

A burglar is clearly guilty
What does the analogy of the conscientious driver who hits a pedistrian show?
In reality, people do not act as if they truly believe that people are responsible for the outcomes of any risk taken, even if they act to minimize that risk.
The People Seed Example seems only to work in what types of cases?
Cases in which precautions were taken
Strong version:

1. Principle: If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without thereby sacrificing anything of ____________, we ought, morally, to do it.
...COMPARABLE moral importance...
2. _____ by _____ is something bad; it is a significant ________
....Death....Starvation....

....moral evil.
Strong Version:

3. We spend a lot of money on things which have moral significance much _______ than that of ____________
.....less....

...death by starvation....
Weak Version:

3. We spend a lot of money on things which are ____________.
...not morally significant.
4. We can stop some people from starving by_________.
...donating to charities.
5. Therefore: We ought to________ instead of spending it on___________
...give money to charities...

...luxuries.
6. Once we have given some money to charity by _________, we are still___________ than those who are starving.
...sacrificing some luxuries...

....much better off...
Strong Version:

7. Therefore: We ought to give money to charities until we would _____________ in order to stop deaths by starvation.
...sacrifice something of COMPARABLE MORAL SIGNIFICANCE....
Weak Version:

7. Therefore: We ought to give more money to charities until we are___________ in order to stop deaths by starvation.
...making SOME morally SIGNIFICANT sacrifice
According to the strong version of Singer's argument, when has one sacrificed enough by giving to charities?
When the sacrifice renders the giver into the same situation as those he was trying to prevent

Until he is as poor as thos to whom he gave his money to help

About 80-90% of one's income
According to the Weak Argument, how much given to charity is morally acceptable?
Until we are making a sacrifice that causes us to lose something of any moral significance.

About 10%+ of our income
According to Smith's drowning example, what would be considered a significant moral evil?
Letting someone drown for the sake of making $30.
The conclustion of Smith's example _______ on the size of the ________
...does not depend....
...sacrifice.

(Whether it requires us to give up $2 or $200,000, letting someone drown when you could have stopped it is still a significant moral evil.)
What conditions make letting someone drown a significant moral evil in smith's argument?
Giving up the money is your reason for letting them drown.

Aside from the money, saving them would be of minimal cost to you.
Conclusion of Smith's Example:

3. Neither does it matter that the person is ________

**Example?***
It doesn't matter whether or not the person is PRESENT.

(Someone dying from a snakebite in australia calls you and needs you to take an hour to find a poison expert.)
Conclusion of Smith's Example:

4. Neither does it matter that it be money_____ rather than money you _______.

**Example?***
...coming to you... already have...

(It doesn't matter whether you're forgoing the opportunity to make money or losing money that you already have. You should still save the person, regardless.)
In what way can one save a life by giving a relatively small amount of money?
Giving money to charities
Smith concedes that if one allows those peopple to die for lack of money, one is just as bad as______
If someone DOESN"T GIVE money to save people from starvation, they are equally as morally bad as the one who DOESN"T SAVE the DRONER for financial reasons.
Repetition:

Once one has given to charity, it seems as though one is back to the same situation:
There are still people to save

We can still help them

The cost of helping them still pales in comparison to the good done by giving.
According to Smith's example with respect to giving to charity, what seems morally obligatory if one ends up in the same situation as they were in before giving to charity?
Giving money to charity, over and over again UNTIL GIVING would truly HARM us.
According to the notion of Radical Charity:

We are all as morally bad as the person who walks past the drowner until when?
Until we give some TRULY SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT to charity.