PHL 406 Lecture Notes - Lecture 8: Stomach Cancer, Consequentialism, Triage

19 views3 pages

liamiannarelli

17 Dec 2021

School

Ryerson University

Department

Philosophy

Course

PHL 406

Professor

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

You have a moral obligation to help those in need. If there is no intrinsic difference between killing and letting someone die , then spending money on luxuries instead of donating it makes you a murderer. Singer will prove that this notion is false. But we can also not justify our belief that killing is worse than letting die. You are not going out of your way to kill someone. The person who buys a luxury wants to enjoy that luxury , not end a life e. g. , buying a speaker simply to enjoy music. The lack of malicious motivation lessens responsibility, but not enough. Speeding motorist may not be motivated to kill, but if they do they are responsible. Not hard to act in accordance with the rule to not kill anyone. Very hard to obey a command to save every life possible. The ease of something does not say anything about the rightness or wrongness of an action.

Related Questions

Two loudspeakers are placed on a wall 3.00 m apart. Alistener stands 3.00 m from the wall directly in front of one ofthe speakers. A single oscillator is driving the speakers at afrequency of 800 Hz. (a) What is the phasedifference between the two waves when they reach the observer?(Your answer should be between 0 and 2π.) Answer: I got 5.65 rad but i can't figureout part B!!! (b)What is the frequency closest to 800 to which the oscillator may beadjusted such that the observer hears minimalsound?
 
Please help with part B, I keep getting it wrong,thanks!

Six parallel-plate capacitors of identical plate separation have different plate areas A, different capacitance C and different dielectrics filling the space between the plates.

Part A: Rank the following capacitors on the basis of the dielectric constant of the material between the plates. Rank from largest to smallest. To rank items as equivalent, overlap them.

1. A = 1 c m^2 , C = 1 n F

2. A = 4 c m ^2 , C = 1 n F

3. A = 8 c m ^2 , C = 2 n F

4. A = 2 c m ^2 , C = 8 n F

5. A = 2 c m ^2 , C = 4 n F

6. A = 4 c m ^2 , C = 2 n F

All of the capacitors from Part A are now attached to batteries with the same potential difference.

Part B Rank the capacitors on the basis of the charge stored on the positive plate. Rank from largest to smallest. To rank items as equivalent, overlap them.

blackskunk846

Brief and detail

If relativism is true, can you ever judge something as being morally wrong? Consider some really horrible actions, genocide, murder, slavery, torture or add your own. If you feel a relativist could say that these things are actually wrong, what gives them this ability? If they can't, why not?

Agree or disagree

Similarly to what I said in the first discussion on what morality means to us, I think everyone has their own set of moral principles and obligations. So I do think that relativism is true, to a point however. I used Adolf Hitler and the Nazi empire as an example in the first discussion so I will use that here. Hitler knew in his brain that what he was doing was good for his nation and arguably the world. Now, as a modern day society we can agree that was wrong. For him, it was good. In his own mind, he is right. But it is relative to the person. Generally speaking we all have similar notions of what is right and what is wrong. Most people would say that going out of your way to help someone else is a morally good principle. Selflessness in society is seen a good thing by the vast majority of people. When I say that relativism is good to a point, I mean that there is a general basis in society that deems actions as good or bad. And since most of us would all agree that hitlers actions were bad, then we say that he had bad moral principles, even though to him, they were good. It’s a little confusing even for me to put into words. Basically, if you actions are generally viewed in society as good, then you have good moral principles even if they vary from person to person. No one will have the exact same moral standards, but generally they all are very similar in society. So relativism is true until the point where the majority of society would deem your actions and wrong. I hope this makes sense.

Agree or disagree

If relativism is true, I don't think judging something as morally wrong is possible. Because the definition of ethical relativism is the moral standard only being correctly relative to each person/society, this means that the moral standard is created by you and/or the society you identify with and therefore eliminate the existence of an absolute moral principle. Since the moral standard is different for every individual, we cannot say that someone is morally wrong. If relativism is applied, that is. If a relativist were to say that they could judge someone as morally wrong, then that would contradict the main component of being a relativist. That every moral argument of yours is correct, therefore everyone else's is also correct. Quite problematic but that is my understanding on the matter

ell25

PHL 406 Lecture Notes - Lecture 8: Stomach Cancer, Consequentialism, Triage

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

PHL 406 Lecture Notes - Lecture 9: Involuntary Euthanasia, Voluntary Euthanasia, Preference Utilitarianism

PHL 406 Lecture Notes - Lecture 4: Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Psychological Evaluation, Indictable Offence

PHL 406 Lecture Notes - Lecture 7: Enmeshment, Judith Jarvis Thomson, Beginning Of Human Personhood

Related Questions