Class Notes (837,347)
Canada (510,233)
Philosophy (1,521)
PHL275H1 (146)
Tom Hurka (59)


2 Pages
Unlock Document

Tom Hurka

October 26, 2009 Two Distinctions: between doing/allowing and intending/foreseeing, the two are separate, independent distinctions and can come apart 1) To allow and intend Rachels example of letting nephew drown in order to gain inheritance; or letting another patient die so you can harvest his organs for transplants to save five others 2) To do and foresee-trolley example, collateral damage from bombing; painkillers vs. active euthanasia The moral significance of the two distinctions is harder to assess when they are operating alone ex. Rachels nephew example vs. case where you actively drown nephew; one is not more morally objectionable than the other, so sometimes doing/allowing doesn’t make a moral difference. Also in the trolley case, doing/allowing seems to make little difference since the death of the one is merely foreseen. It’s hard to assess the two distinctions on their own, and to decide how much each counts when separated from the other; but this doesn’t affect central examples that deontologists use against utilitarianism and consequentialism more generally. This is because in those the two distinctions work together. One option is morally more objectionable in both respects and one is morally less so in both respects. Are these decisive objections to utilitarianism? In the sheriff case example-the utilitarian can point to long-term effects: it would be terrible if the deception were found out, and there’s a risk of that. Also, if you don’t catch real rapist, then you can’t continue to look for him, and therefore can’t imprison him and prevent him from committing future rapes. The utilitarian can also answer with indirect/two-level utilitarianism: it’s best if we have our strong intuitive response to these cases, since the overall consequences of our doing so are better than if tried to decide cases by directly applying the utilitarian standard; Hare pp. 362-63. Utilitarianism is a very simple moral theory, with just one principle telling us always to do whatever produces most happiness. The objections to it in effect say that it’s too simple, because it ignores factors that sometimes permit us not to produce most good, so it demands too much. It also ignores factors that sometimes forbid us to produce the most good, so it permits too much, e.g. in transplant, sheriff cases. Ross-there is a duty to promote the good, but there are also independent duties that can conflict and sometimes even outweigh that duty. -similar to Moore, was a non
More Less

Related notes for PHL275H1

Log In


Join OneClass

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

Sign up

Join to view


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.