Textbook Notes (368,566)
Canada (161,966)
Philosophy (97)
PHIL 1050 (25)
Chapter 1

PHIL - Chapter 1.docx

4 Pages
37 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Philosophy
Course
PHIL 1050
Professor
Mark Mc Cullagh
Semester
Winter

Description
Chapter 1: What is Morality? 1.1. The problem of the definition: - Moral philosophy = study what morality is & what is requires of us - Socrates = “how we ought to live” & why 1.2. First Example: Baby Theresa: - Theresa Ann Campo Pearson = Baby Theresa - Had Anencephaly = babies without brains (important parts of the brain – cerebrum + cerebellum are missing) One of the worst disorders - Knowing she would die soon her parents volunteered her organs for immediate transplant - Organs were not taken because Florida law forbids removal of organs until donor is dead - 9 days later Theresa died = too late, her organs had deteriorated to much - “Ethicists View” – most disagreed with parents and physicians - “Seems to horrifying to use people as means to other peoples ends” - “Unethical to kill person A to save B etc.” The benefits argument: supports transplant: - Parents reasoning for choice = “if we can benefit someone without harming anyone else, we ought to do so” - Transplanting the organs would benefit the other children without harming baby Theresa. - Therefore we ought to transplant the organs = ultimately correct Reasons why parents are right: - Being alive is only a benefit if you can carry on activities and have normal functions = thoughts, feelings etc. - Without such things existence has no value Argument: We should not use people as means: - “Autonomy” = the ability to decide how to live your own life according to desires and values - Ethicists = “it is wrong to use people as a means to other peoples end” - Taking baby Theresa’s organs does not violate her autonomy – she has none, no functions - When people can’t make decisions for themselves + others have to do it = 2 guidelines that might be adopted: - 1) What would be in their own best interest - 2) If she could tell us what she wanted, what would she say (good for people who have preferences, or once had them= people in coma’s) Argument: From the wrongness of killing: - “Wrong to kill a person to save another” - Few people believe it is always wrong to kill (self-defense) - New understanding of death = not only when heart stops beating, it can also be when brain stops functioning - “Brain death” = new end of life standard - Brain death solved transplant problem, could still have healthy organs - Heart deteriorates after death, not suitable for transplant 1.3. Second example: Jodie and Mary - Conjoined twins: spines fused, 1 heart beat, 1 pair of lungs - Jodie = Stronger + providing blood to Mary - Without intervention both would die in 6 months - Only hope = separate and save Jodie, Mary would die - Parents against it = Catholics, nature should take its course, “God’s Will” - Hospital took it to court and won, saved Jodie - “Who should make the decision” + “What should the decision be” Argument: We should save as many as we can: - A poll showed that 78% of people agreed with the operation - Better to save one that none (most people) Ar
More Less

Related notes for PHIL 1050

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