ATS Exam Prep

Question 1

What is the idea of stringency for a right? Illustrate the idea with two different rights that might be of different stringency.

Answer 1

1. It is always wrong to deny someone rights
2. Rights are not considered absolute in certain circumstances the right action will involve ignoring someones right. this is called infringing as it can be justified.
3. Distinction violation and infringement
4. Not all rights are given equal weighting when considering what would justify infringing them thus arises the idea of stringency.
5. Rights in conflict with each other Illness
6. Stringency being a measure of how hard it is to justify infringing that right
7. Some rights may be considered infinity stringent or never justifiable

Question 2

What should a Utilitarian think about rights? Do right really exist? Would it ever be justified for a utilitarian, to respect rights, even if that lead to worse outcomes overall?

Answer 2

1. Seen as guidelines
2. don’t believe that they exist
3. Utilitarian justify his action if he considered it would lead to better outcomes
4. this is a primary problem with Utilitarian his actions are always justified if he/she is in pursuit of best outcomes
5. Utilitarian different levels of acceptance of rights

Question 3

What is Thomson’s preferred account of why it is permissible to pull the lever in Trolley? does the account succeed?

Answer 3

1. special case of unanimous consent to a prior policy
2. Explains why we can pull the lever in trolley
3. What it shows in transplant case is that we think it is wrong because the people involved think it is wrong. and would never consent to even if they weren’t involved.

Question 4

Utilitarians seem to be committed to some surprising conclusions about the morality of killing. Illustrate one or two of these conclusions and try to explain why the utilitarian has such a surprising view.

Answer 4

1. Killing is not considered intrinsically wrong its value can be replaced 2. self sacrifice will sometimes be mandatory

Question 5

Describe Michael Otsuka’s position with respect to using violence in self defense against innocent persons. explain the reasons for his view.

Answer 5

1. It is not justified to kill innocents in self defense this is because they are not morally responsible agents and so maintain there right to life
2. The presence or absence of harmful agency is morally relevant only in cases where person in functioning as a morally responsible agent.
3. Aware that they are exception included when innocent will not live long after and when innocent is killed in defense of lots of people
4. No moral difference between Bystander-Bystander in trolley-Innocent threat-Innocent agressor

Question 6

“Killing an innocent threat in self defense is wrong, but excusable”. Explain this claim, and discuss its plausibility.

Answer 6

1. You have done something you ought not to have done this is what makes it a wrong doing, not what sort of blame is delt out afterward
2. excusable - may lead to no moral condemnation as you have a very good excuse my life was in danger.
3. If a Third party had to save us from an innocent threat because we wernt able to they are less excusable then if we did it ourselves it seems plausible enough because it all it says is that some wrongs in our society will be punished greater then others.

Question 7

jjj

What is the Hobbesian rationale for a liberty-right to engage in self defence? What will the Hobbesian likely think about harming innocent threats in self-defence?

Answer 7

We all have liberty rights one of these that is not givin up when entering a convenat agreement to duty is self defence no one is under any duty to refrain from saving there life.

in the act of self defence people are not constrained by duties they do not make such a promise when entering a commonwealth.

Harming a Innocent threat would be considered within ones rights but a hobbesian would not take this right so far as to take action that might distablize the commonwealth. no pre emptive strikes punishment.

Question 8

What is singer’s principle of equality? How would our beaviour towards animals have to change if we were to adopt this principle? why?

Answer 8

1. POE We should treat all like interest equally
2. There is no moral difference between human pain and animal pain
3. Human pain may effect more preferences because we are persons
4. Experimentaion on non person humans/babies

Question 9

Does the principle of equality give us a good explanation of what is wrong with racism? Why/why not?

Answer 9

1. Treat all all like interest equally doesnt have alot to say about thoughts beliefs of racists. dosnt need to.
2. Shared interest build up majority racist society

Question 10

For Singer, the moraility of taking an animal’s life depends in part on whether the animal is a person. Explain why this makes a difference.

Answer 10

1. Singer does distinguish between the impact of killing human and animal. worse for future orientated being(person).
2. Personhood is not extended to all Homosapiens and may extend to some other species

Question 11

“Conventional liberal views on abortion are untenable. Either we must accpet that infanticide is no worse than abortion, or we must adopt a very conservative anti-abortion view” Discuss why a philosopher might think this is true.

Answer 11

1. Because it is hard to argue for a moral difference between a foetus and a newborn
2. Because there is no difference in the personhood of infants inisde or outside the womb
3. If we accept that it is wrong to kill a potential person then all abortion is wrong and the place we can draw the line at conception

Question 12

“Judith Thomson’s violinist case shows only that women have a right to remove a fetus from their bodies. Therefore her argument is not a successful defence of abortion.” Discuss (i) Why might someone say this? (ii) Is this veiw correct?

Answer 12

1. Because the purpose of an abortion is to kill the child not trying to remove the foetus from there body
2. The mother has a high enough moral obligation for society to hold that abortion is falling below minimally good samaritan
3. Society where children can be raised out of womb dosnt mean it has the right to expensive medical procedures
4. I dont think this veiw is correct the conclusion of thompson violinist case is that just because a person has the right to live dosnt mean it has the rights to everything required to live We have the right to unplug the violinist knowing he will die.

Question 13

Discuss the idea that abortion is wrong because of the potential properties possessed by the fetus( such as the potential for person hood or autonomy or some other morally significant property). Does this idea provide a good reason to think that abortion is morally wrong?

Answer 13

1. When argueing for poetentiality lets look at Don marquis veiw that what we rob them of is a future of value
2. this includeds the wonders of personhood automy future preferences
3. if accpeted it would make killing a foetus/child almost equivilant to killing an adult person. i say almost because there is not absolute certainty that they will have a future of value.

Question 14

How would you characterise the difference between virtue ethics and the approaches we have been looking at most of the unit?

Answer 14

1. focuses less on actions and more on the character
2. Generally its says not to try and look at the universal perspective but to focuses instead on a personal endevour that is to be virtueos
3. The virtues are chosen so that the cultivation of whats good inoneself will be acting in the best interest of the community

Question 15

Is there conflict between virtue of being a good parent and the principle of equality? Explain your answer.

Answer 15

1. Yes because the principle of equaltiy is a move towards complete equality the interests of other children would count equally to your own
2. In many cases your actions will serve to satisfy more interest if directed away from your own children
3. If you consider the special case interest of wanting to be loved by your family
4. but then again maby not in thinking about the principle of equality we understand it wont lead to equal treament maby the act of loving and providing for our own children will pprovide better interest satisfaction

Question 16

What is cultural relativism? If cultural relativism is true does it have any implications for how we should treat people from other cultures? In particular should we be tolerant of people from other cultures?

Answer 16

1. Cultural Relativism is the idea that what we ought to do depends on our moral climate
2. We cannot say they act wrongly unless it is wrong in the eyes of their culture
3. It implies that we should act towards other cultures however our culture dictates
4. If as alot of relgious cultures say that they should not be tolerant of believers in false gods then thats the path that cultural relativism suggests

Question 17

“If moral relativism is true, then people who apppear to disagree with one another about morals are actually talking past one another”. Explain this claim. Is this a good objection to moral relativism?

Answer 17

1. If Morals are relative then to talk about them is to talk about a relative point of veiw
2. Without some shared moral reference frame then there is nothing for comparison and nothing can come from discussion
3. If moral relativism is true people are not so much talking past one another as argueing about opinion. My culture disagrees with yours