Study Guides (248,410)
United States (123,379)
Philosophy (112)
All (1)
Final

COMPLETE NOTES: Great Philosophers (4.0ed this final exam)

5 Pages
56 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Philosophy
Course
CAS PH 110
Professor
All Professors
Semester
Winter

Description
• Kantian Approaches to Famine Problems o O’Neill’s Focus  What implications does the Humanity Formula have for famine relief?  If we are to act on maxims that do not use others as mere means, will this requirement impact our actions and policies regarding famine?  What maxims guide our actions related to famine relief?  Maxim: Try to reduce the risk or severity of poverty related problems • Does not include a ‘why’ to her maxim; can easily be added with the simple because poverty related problems are bad • can be reflected in a variety of different actions: a gift of money, political lobbying for aid, political lobbying against aid (indiscriminate food aid damages as area’s agricultural economy and do not lead to self-sustaining development) • Case Study o Grain dealer in a Third World village threatens to refuse an indispensible loan unless he is sold the current crop at a pitifully low price o The farmer is used as a mere means because he cannot genuinely consent to and “offer he can’t refuse” o Treating Others as Ends  To treat someone as an end requires actions that promote another’s capacities for autonomous action • We are finite rational beings and we depend on each other • To help others is a way to help them exercise their autonomy  We have a duty to help and support others in achieving their aims  Hunger, poverty, and powerlessness undercut the possibility of autonomous action  We have a duty to foster and secure others’ capacities for autonomous action  Therefore, we should do what we can to avert, reduce, and remedy hunger, poverty, and powerlessness o Perfect Duties: duties that people must constantly be doing throughout their daily lives; not to kill oneself or others; these always apply o Imperfect Duties: not required of people at all times, but still duties; can choose how to fulfill them; contributing to charity; these sometimes apply • Thomson Presentation o Many would say killing is worse than letting die  Alfred poisons wife versus Bert not giving his wife an antidote after she poisoned herself  Alfred is worse o Mrs. Foot  Positive duties are things such as saving a life  Negative duties are things such as refraining from killing  Example: • Frank is a passenger in the trolley and the driver passed out • Frank is faced with killing one person or letting five die • Frank cannot flip the switch o Thomson also considers who has more claim on life  Say five people on tracks were workers and knew of the dangers of the job while the one person was guaranteed safety on the tracks  The one person has more claim on life o Changing outcomes  You can manipulate things to change outcomes, but not people  Makes it okay to flip the switch of the trolley but not push a fat man off a bridge to stop it in its tracks  Differs from utilitarianism because it takes into account claim and circumstance of a situation, not just what creates the most happiness overall o Concerns  Grey area about what constitutes the values/validity of a claim▯ very subject to judgment  Only difference between driver and Frank is title • Driver is in a position of killing or killing; and therefore should chose the lesser of two evils by flipping the switch • Frank is in a position of killing or let die and therefore lets 5 people die; why is his circumstance difference just because of his title? • Responsibility is an issue here • Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem o Is killing worse than letting die?  Intuition: yes  Charles • Transplant surgeon who wants to kill a healthy specimen to transplant the heart in a sick person  David • Transplant surgeon who wants to kill one healthy person to save five other patients needed a transplant  Principle: Killing is worse than letting die; applications in abortion, euthanasia, distribution of scarce medical resources  Counterexample • Alfred hates his wife and deliberately poisons her • Bert hates his wife and when she inadvertently poisons herself he does not provide the antidote despite having it • Intuition: What Bert does is as bad as whatAlfred does • Conclusion: Killing is not worse than letting die • BadArgument o Alfreda knows that if she cuts offAlfred’s head, he will die o Bertha knows that if she punches Bert in the nose, he will die o Alfreda wantsAlfred to die, so she cuts off his head o Bertha wants Bert to dies, so she punches his nose o What Bertha did is as bad as whatAlfreda did o Therefore, cutting off someone’s head isn’t worse than punching someone’s nose o The Fallacy  Draws too general a conclusion from a specific instance  Makes a claim about every pair of acts of a specific type; all nose punchings and all decapitations  However, the argument only established the equivalence in a specific case  Edward and the Trolle
More Less

Related notes for CAS PH 110

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