Study Guides (390,000)
CA (150,000)
Western (10,000)
PHIL (400)
Final

Philosophy 1305F/G Study Guide - Final Guide: Mens Rea, Extramarital Sex


Department
Philosophy
Course Code
PHIL 1305F/G
Professor
Adam Yates
Study Guide
Final

This preview shows pages 1-3. to view the full 13 pages of the document.
Non-Combatants in War 07/12/2012 1:38:00 PM
Fullinwider
Wrong to believe that
supportive non-combatants= innocent
reluctant combatants= guilty
Example:
Jones is walking down the street, Smith shoots at him, Jones is allowed to shoot and kill
o Legitimate b/c of self-defense
Jones’s life was under direct + immediate threat
If Smith was being coerced/ encouraged…
o Still legit for Jones to fire at Smith (immediate threat)
o People encouraging Smith cannot be killed
Immune b/c not immediate threats
Encouragers are morally culpable (should be punished)
o Would be killed in revenge, not self-defense
These killings have 2 points of view
Killing in self-defense (immediate/ direct threat)
Killing for revenge (guilt vs. innocence)
Only people who pose immediate/ direct threats are liable to be killed
Principle of self-defense only justifies killing combatants
Therefore, non-combatants cannot be killed
Nations can exact punishment during war, but cannot kill non-combatants
Punishment does not allow killing innocent people
Cannot attack defending nations unless they discover a perfectly discriminatory attack
method (ie. Controllable missile)
Since nations cannot kill solely for punishment, they can only claim to attack under self-defense
Alexander
In an on-going war, non-combatants and combatants may be killed
Example:
Jones should kill morally guilty encouragers if that would remove the threat to his life
4 conditions that explain if you can kill someone under self-defense
Great enough threat/danger level
Killing X would remove that danger
Killing fewer or no people would not remove the danger
More desirable options wouldn’t remove the danger to the same extent
Millions of morally innocent soldiers vs. handful of guilty non-combatants

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Any person holding threat to someone else’s life is liable to be killed:
There are situations where an innocent non-combatant may need to be killed
o Coerced bomber pilot, children strapped with bombs
REVIEW
I support Alexander’s view.
Why?
Still maintains that people can only defend the threat to their lives
Fullinwider’s ignores defeating the guilty non-combatant threat, when it is sometimes
necessary/ better
What is a potential opposition?

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Killing and Letting Die 07/12/2012 1:38:00 PM
Rachels
Passive Euthanasia- sometimes permissible
o Withhold treatment, allow a parent to die
Active Euthanasia- never permissible
o Direct action taken to kill the patient
2 cases
Patient dying of painful and incurable cancer
Baby born with Down’s Syndrome- cannot live if left untreated
3 arguments
Passive Euthanasia is cruel
Passive Euthanasia leads to deciding life/death on irrelevant grounds
People think killing is worse than letting die
Rachels: no moral distinction between the two. Equivalence thesis
Bare difference argument (determines if killing is worse than letting die)
Two exact same cases only difference is killing/letting die
Smith kills nephew for inheritance. Jones plans entire killing, sees nephew die in the same
way, doesn’t help.
No moral difference- killing=letting die
Rachels:
Why withhold treatment if you don’t want to kill the patient?
“Not doing something” is a decision/action
Determining cause of death is irrelevant once it is determined that death is desirable (death is
no worse than life, not bad to kill)
Nesbitt
There is a moral difference between killing/letting die
Accepts that we judge Smith/Jones the same
Reprehensible Preparedness Principle
o What someone is prepared to do plays a big role in moral evaluation
o Not only what someone does
Both are guilty of the same moral offense- being prepared to kill
If Smith thought killing was wrong, Jones is worse
REVIEW
I agree with Rachels more
They took action
Impossible to tell what a person would do until they get to the LAST moment, especially with killing
Jones may not end up wishing to kill his nephew
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version