Is Euthanasia Wrong? Is Euthanasia Wrong? III III.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Unit 4 Law and order Word power. Words related to law 1. a dishonest, violent, or immoral action that can be punished by law. Last night a woman was.
Advertisements

Does It Make Any Difference? Part 6 The doctrine of faith alone, a spirit of compromise.
Again, Jesus said, “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
Death Is Life Series: The Upside Down Way of Jesus.
Free will and determinism
For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.
Our Reason For Hope Our Reason For Peace Our Reason For Joy Our Reason For Love.
The idea of morality as a social contract offers an explanation of why its reasonable to act in accordance with the dictates of morality As such it provides.
The Reality of Hell! (Luke 16:19-31). Luke 16:19-31 The Rich Man and Lazarus 19) "Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine.
Anselm On the Existence of God. “Nor do I seek to understand so that I can believe, but rather I believe so that I can understand. For I believe this.
Meditation IV God is not a Deceiver, Truth Criterion & Problem of Error.
Why Abortion is Immoral
Step-Up. 2 What Does it Mean to STEP UP? Prosocial Behavior – Any act performed with the goal of benefiting another person Bystander Intervention Intervening.
What’s So Wrong With Killing People? By Robert Young.
Morality As Overcoming Self-Interest
Unit 2 I used to be afraid of the dark. I used to be afraid of the dark. 北京市十一学校 吴湘波.
Insights of a Godly Warrior Subtitle: What Appears Bad is Good.
Godly sorrow is a change of heart that leads to a change of action that changes your life!
1 Is Abortion Wrong? I I. 2 Some Background 1 st Mo.2 nd Mo.3 rd Mo.4 th Mo.5 th Mo.6 th Mo.7 th Mo.8 th Mo.9 th Mo. Conception “Zygote” “Embryo” “Fetus”
The Categorical Imperative
1 Voluntarily Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana.
Killing and Letting Die Is there a moral difference?
Topics in Moral and Political Philosophy War. Justice in war Jus in bello principles: concern the justice of conduct within war (which types of weapons.
1 I I Is Pre-Emptive War Wrong?. 2 Phillips’ Central Claim On the principle that just war requires both justice in going to war (jus ad bellum) and justice.
ETHICS BOWL kantian ETHICS.
Introduction to Ethics Lecture 22 Active & Passive Euthanasia
Euthanasia Euthanasia I I.
1 II Is Euthanasia Wrong?. 2 Sullivan’s Project Sullivan argues that Rachels misinterprets the AMA doctrine, and that, when read correctly, the doctrine.
Euthanasia Euthanasia II II.
The Existence of God and the Problem of Evil
The soft determinist response. the incompatibility argument 1)Determinism is true. 2)If Determinism is true, then none of our actions are free. 3)None.
Natural Law Theological Ethics. Natural Law Two approaches to Theological Ethics Natural Law and Divine Command.
Ethics VIII: Morality & Advantage
Famine, Affluence, and Morality. The Facts There is a massive amount of suffering in the world due to lack of clean water, malnutrition and easily treated.
“The Trolley Problem” Judith Jarvis Thomson
Topic 12 Attempts Topic 12 Attempts. Topic 12 Attempts Introduction If a defendant fully intends to commit a crime but for some reason fails to complete.
Michael Lacewing Emotivism Michael Lacewing
Moral Problems Chapter 1. Moral Problems What is Ethics?
Euthanasia & Assisted suicide
thinking hats Six of Prepared by Eman A. Al Abdullah ©
EUTHANASIA AND ASSISTED SUICIDE: ACTS OF MERCY BY: MACKENZIE RACE.
7th Grade Do not let me forget. You need field trip permission slips today! Today: Assign debate topics Debate guided notes Stretch You need to have at.
Paper #2 (due 2/6/13) After reading Chapter 7 in the textbook ("Arguing a Position"), read David Crystal's article, "2b or Not 2b?" (pp in your.
FACTS AND VALUES 1. Extrinsic value vs. Intrinsic value  If something has an intrinsic value, it has the value by itself.  It has the value not because.
1 Abortion III Abortion. 2 Marquis’ Project Thesis: In the overwhelming majority of cases, deliberate abortions are seriously immoral. Don Marquis: “Why.
1 III World Hunger & Poverty. 2 Arthur’s Central Argument John Arthur: “World Hunger and Moral Obligation” 1)Ignores an important moral factor: entitlement.
Philosophy 1050: Introduction to Philosophy Week 10: Descartes and the Subject: The way of Ideas.
Business Ethics Lecture Rights and Duties 1.
The Killing/Letting Die Argument
1 Is Abortion Wrong? III. 2 Brody’s Project Brody argues that, given Thomson’s presumption that the squidge has a full right to life, her argument that.
(Later Essays too).  Determine what you are being asked.  Figure out your idea/ opinion and write it in one sentence. THIS IS YOUR THESIS for the paragraph.
Euthanasia. The intentional termination of the life of one human being by another—mercy killing—is contrary to that for which the medical profession stands.
Killing and Letting Die. Two ways of being involved in someone’s death: killing letting die Is one worse than the other?
Unit 3: Believing in God In this unit you will learn about what Christians believe about God and how they come to believe this, and why some people do.
Hamlet: Act 3 quiz. 1. Good night. But go not to my uncle’s bed. Hamlet In this play we are shown over and over again how powerless women are in their.
Euthanasia Part II Ethics Dr. Jason M. Chang.
BES-t Practices Training Phase 3 Counseling – Behavior Modification.
E THICS (V OLUNTARINESS ). V OLUNTARINESS : I TS IMPORTANCE TO ETHICS Ethics deals with the study of human acts (voluntary acts of man) It is the amount.
QUESTIONNAIRE: TRUE OR FALSE?. 1. PEOPLE WHO TALK ABOUT SUICIDE DO NOT ACTUALLY KILL THEMSELVES. False Most people who die by suicide talk with at least.
OUR FIRST DEBATE You are going to pick a number for your first debate. The lower the number the more topics you can pick form, the higher the less topics.
AS Ethics Utilitarianism Title: - Preference Utilitarianism To begin… What is meant by preference? L/O: To understand Preference Utilitarianism.
3. TURNING STEPS Now we are not christians by being born into a christian family, confirmed, baptised, taking communion, reading your Bible, going to church,
By: Abby, Fiona, Gabby, and Willa. Look for the Facts Since the U.S. first created a legal drinking age many people have been trying to change and break.
Introduction to Ethics Lecture 21 Active & Passive Euthanasia By David Kelsey.
Active vs. passive killing
euthanasia Key Words Learning objective:
ETHICS BOWL kantian ETHICS.
What is good / bad about this answer?
Medical Ethics – the end of life
The Morality of Euthanasia
Presentation transcript:

Is Euthanasia Wrong? Is Euthanasia Wrong? III III

Winston Nesbitt: “Is Killing No Worse than Letting Die? ” Nesbitt’s Project Nesbitt argues that the examples employed by Rachels (and Michael Tooley) to show that killing is no worse than letting die are faulty, and that, in fact, killing is worse than letting die.

The “Difference Thesis”: There is a moral difference between killing and letting die: it is morally worse to kill someone than to let them die. It seems that common moral intuitions favor the Difference Thesis. Consider two cases: Case 1: I push someone who I know cannot swim into the river, thereby killing her. Case 2: I come across someone who is drowning, and who I could easily rescue, yet fail to do so, thereby letting her die. 88 It seems that my behavior is morally worse in the first case than the second. We assume some malicious motive in the first case, but perhaps only fear or indifference in the second.

The “Difference Thesis” James Rachels and Michael Tooley argue that we favor the Difference Thesis because most cases are not adequately set up. Tooley: Besides motives, there are other morally relevant differences between typical acts of killing and typical acts of failing to save which make us judge such cases differently. Typically, saving someone requires more effort than refraining from killing someone. An act of killing necessarily results in someone’s death, but an act of failing to save does not (someone else may come to the rescue). 88

The “Difference Thesis” Tooley concludes that if one wishes to appeal to intuitions, “one must be careful to confine one’s attention to pairs of cases that do not differ in these, or other significant respects.” Rachels & Tooley: When we compare a case of killing with one which differs from it only in being a case of letting die, we will agree that either agent is as culpable as the other. We tend to think killing is worse than letting die because we tend to think of cases that differ in other morally relevant respects. 88

Rachels’ Smith and Jones Cases: Recall: Both Smith and Jones stand to gain if their respective six-year-old cousins die. Smith sneaks in while his cousin is bathing, and drowns him in the tub. Jones is planning to do the same, but sneaks in to find his cousin drowning all on his own. He stands ready to drown the child if need be, but the child drowns without Jones having to lift a finger. 88

Rachels’ Smith and Jones Cases: Rachels assumes that we will agree that Smith, who kills his nephew, is no worse, morally speaking, than Jones, who merely lets his nephew die. Rachels argues that if letting die were in itself less bad than killing, Jones’ defense that “I didn’t kill him; I only let him die” would carry some weight. So we conclude that Jones is just as reprehensible as Smith. But what is the ground of our judgment of the agent in each case? 88

Rachels’ Smith and Jones Cases: Note that Jones was perfectly prepared to kill his nephew, and would have done so had it proved necessary. “[S]omeone who is fully prepared to perform a reprehensible action, in the expectation of certain circumstances, but does not do so because the expected circumstances do not eventuate, is just as reprehensible as someone who actually performs that action in those circumstances.” (49) To think otherwise would seem to place some moral value on one person having opportunity or luck and the other not. We should judge Jones just as harshly as Smith, given what he was prepared to do, even if he had not let his nephew die. 88

Rachels’ Smith and Jones Cases: Modified Jones Case: Jones manages to slip and fall and knock himself unconscious before he can drown the child, which he is attempting to do. By the time he regains consciousness, the child (unaware of Jones’ intentions) manages to call his parents, and Jones’ opportunity is gone. Here, Jones neither kills his nephew nor lets him die, but “it would be agreed that given his preparedness to kill the child for personal gain, he is as reprehensible as Smith.” (49) 88

Tooley’s Smith and Jones Cases: Case 1: Jones wants Smith dead, and shoots him. Case 2: Jones is about to shoot Smith, when he sees that Smith will be killed by a bomb unless Jones warns him, as he easily can. Jones does not warn Smith, and the bomb explodes, killing Smith.

Tooley’s Homicidal Sons Case: Two sons are looking forward to the death of their wealthy father, and independently decide to poison him. Son #1 puts poison in his father’s whiskey, and is discovered doing so by Son #2, who was just about to do the same. Son #2 allows his father to drink the poisoned whiskey, and refrains from giving him the antidote, which he happens to possess. Tooley says that the agent who kills is morally no worse than the one who lets his victim die.

Revisiting the Cases: We judge Jones to be just as reprehensible as if he had killed Smith, but since he was fully prepared to kill him had he not been saved the trouble by the bomb, we should make the same judgment even if he had neither killed Smith nor let him die (say, if both the bomb and the bullet were duds).

Revisiting the Cases: With the homicidal sons, the son who didn’t kill was prepared to do so, and given this, would be as reprehensible as the other even if he had not “let his father die” (say, if he did not have the antidote).

Revisiting the Cases: Both Rachels and Tooley overlook that what determines whether or not someone is reprehensible is not simply what he does, but what he is prepared to do. While Rachels is correct that we will be inclined to judge Smith and Jones equally harshly, it is because they were both prepared to kill for motives of personal gain. The same is true of Tooley’s examples. In their efforts to ensure that each person in their cases does not differ in any morally relevant way, they make the agents too similar: each agent is guilty of the same moral offense.

Revisiting the Cases: What modifications do Rachels’ and Tooley’s cases require if they are to be used to legitimately gauge our attitudes towards killing and letting die? With Rachels’ case of Smith & Jones, we must remove Jones’ being prepared to kill the child: it must be the case that, though Jones was prepared to let his nephew die, he was not prepared to kill the child. It further cannot be the case that he is not prepared to kill the child because he fears punishment, or that he is too lazy, or that the idea simply hadn’t occurred to him. Rather, he must be reprehensible enough to let the child die for his gain, but not enough to kill the child. With these modifications, Smith’s behavior is, indeed, morally worse than Jones’.

The Social Argument: The reason we have morality is to make it possible for people to live together in reasonable peace and security. It is clearly preferable to have (modified) Jones-like people around than Smith-like people: we are threatened by the latter, but not by the former. This is why killing is, indeed, morally worse than letting die.

Back to Euthanasia: Nesbitt does not reconnect the killing/letting die distinction back to Rachels’ central topic of interest: euthanasia. If killing is, indeed, worse than letting die, would active euthanasia thereby necessarily be worse than passive euthanasia? If Nesbitt’s larger social theory about morality is correct, does it back up the idea that active euthanasia is worse than passive euthanasia?