Study Guides (238,486)
Canada (115,176)
Philosophy (363)


13 Pages
Unlock Document

Western University
Philosophy 1305F/G
Adam Yates

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 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? 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 Contributing to Famine Relief 07/12/2012 1:38:00 PM Singer  Suffering and death from lack of resources is bad o If you don’t agree- stop reading  It is in our power to prevent something bad from happening w/o sacrificing something of comparable moral value to ourselves. We should do it o (Weaker): “. We MUST do it. (Not as accepted) Analogy  If a child is drowning, you would save it, you’re only ruining your shoes. 1. Principle takes no account of distance or proximity  Proximity makes it more likely you’d save closer person o Doesn’t give less value to other person 2. No moral distinction between who is there to help/ should help Not everyone should help the same, only enough to ensure that the deed is fulfilled. Not everyone needs ruin their clothes/ donate $100. You’d waste. Slote  Sympathy vs. Empathy  Sympathy- someone takes on a favourable attitude toward another  Empathy- one takes on the feeling of others o Person who doesn’t save drowning child holds less empathy than not giving to famine relief  Altruism Empathy Hypothesis o Care/concern for another is a product of developed empathy Normative thesis  Actions are wrong/right whether a person displays proper amount of empathy for another  Moral Relevance of Empathy o The closer the situation is, the more vivid it appears  Seeing the situation evokes more sympathy  We naturally don’t feel as sympathetic to those we don’t see/know  We should feel sympathetic, but aren’t obliged to make ourselves feel sympathetic REVIEW Agree with Slote. Can Singer change the way a person feels? Duty to Parents 07/12/2012 1:38:00 PM English Relationships with parents are like relationships with friends  Every action performed in the relationship is one to nurture the friendship, therefore when the friendship ends, no party owes the other anything Favours create moral debts  Favours from friends do not  When you do a favour after being asked, you are owed Non-favours do not  If you do a favour without being asked, it would be nice for the person to reciprocate, but it is not necessary. Friendly gesture  Favours in friendships are non-favours. o They are to be nice, not because someone did something Duties of Friendship  Friends are motivated by love and affection  After friendship ends, duties end  Favours are limited by the friend’s ability to help Owing Parents  Duty’s to parents don’t cease once “debts” have been fulfilled o Quantity of parental sacrifice is irrelevant  If relationship fails, responsibilities fail Nixon  The pre-existing friendship between parent and child can still merit responsibility from the children o Even if relationship fails, child still has responsibility  Ex. You would rather help a former friend than a complete stranger o Discount former friendship if you treat that friend as a stranger  Treating the two the same would mean either o Inconstancy- instability to one’s commitments o Inauthenticity- lack of acknowledgement to your past  Residual Duties o Weaker than with current friends o If friendship ended poorly, residual duties may be diminished  Ties between parent and child are stronger than friendships o Friendship/ responsibility won’t be diminished  3 factors determine extent of obligations to parents o Extent of parental need/ cost to child o Depth/duration of formerly friendly relations between C/P o Reason for/ severity of argument that ended relationship REVIEW Agree with Dixon. Why? Same premise, I don’t think that the parental relationship ever fades. How can you discount everything that they’ve done for you? Never could be paid back… Possible disagreement: Absentee parents/ parents who abandon. They haven’t done endless amounts of work for you, what if they just had you and left you? He accounts for children that do not appreciate the sacrifices that their parents have made, but ignores that some parents have not made legitimate sacrifices/ sacrifices worthy of developing a friendship. Adultery 07/12/2012 1:38:00 PM Wasserstrom Impermissibility What makes adultery immoral?  1. Adultery involves breaking an imp
More Less

Related notes for Philosophy 1305F/G

Log In


Don't have an account?

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.