Class Notes (839,387)
Canada (511,321)
Philosophy (1,521)
PHL275H1 (146)
Tom Hurka (59)
Lecture

PHL275-oct21.doc

2 Pages
82 Views

Department
Philosophy
Course Code
PHL275H1
Professor
Tom Hurka

This preview shows 80% of the first page. Sign up to view the full 2 pages of the document.
Description
Wednesday October 21, 2009 Transplant case-the only way that you can save 5 peoples lives is by killing one person and giving his organs for transplants. If you kill the 1, there is one bad consequence in that one person dies, and 5 people are saved. If you don’t kill then 5 people die. If you just look at the consequences like utilitarianism does, then it seems like you should kill the one. If people think its wrong, its because they think that the first option has a bad consequence, and it is worse because of the way it brings about this consequence. 1)There is a moral distinction between doing evil and allowing evil by not preventing it. Consequentialism denies that is important, Hare says that it is not important. Williams both say that this distinction is important. The claim is that it is only morally more permissible to allow evil than doing it. Foot-There is a duty not to allow bad consequences come about but it is not as strong as the duty not to act in a way that brings about bad consequences. Absolutist version-it is never morally permissible to do evil to bring about good consequences. Non-Absolutist version-might be the duty to do harm to one if there is a lot more that can be saved. The duty to save the many outweighs the duty not to kill. Ex. Kill 1 to save 2 billion people 2) Double Effect Distinction-intending/foreseeing. Based on the distinction of what a person foresees and what he intends. Everything that is intended is foreseen. But not everything foreseen is intended. Examples: Forsee something but don’t intend it as an end or a means. -go out driving in the car on a summer evening. In the course of your drive you know that you are going to kill some mosquitos. You are not going out in order to kill mosquitos, you don’t intend the death as a means to your end. Train example-you are the driver or a runaway train that is going down a track, you can’t stop it. There are 5 people sitting on the track and if you do nothing the train is going to run them over and kill them. There is one person on the other track, if you switch the track you can kill the one person instead of the 5. If you switch to the other track, you don’t intend to kill the person. If he wasn’t there you would have still saved the 5 people. It was an unfortunate side effect that there was one person was killed. The death of the one was not the means to saving the one. You saved the 5 by turning the train, would have done so even if the person wasn’t on the other track. Two Cases in the Morality of War: It strongly prohibits bombing civilians in order to terrorize the enemy population and weaken the will of the enemy. It is not as stric
More Less
Unlock Document

Only 80% of the first page are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit