ATS1371 Life, Death, and Morality Semester 1, 2015 Dr Ron Gallagher Tutorial 2 Office Hour 1-2 pm Friday Menzies Bldg, Room E664 Please make appointment

Lecturers Dr Paul Silva (Unit coordinator) Contact hours: see Moodle site A/Prof Toby Handfield Contact hours: Schedule Appointments at:

Lectures and Tutorials at Clayton (Ron G indicated) RonG Ron S111

Part 1 Lectures: Caulfield: Monday 12–1, H126 Clayton: Monday 2–3, S4 Clayton: Monday 4–5, H5 Part 2 Lectures: Caulfield: Tuesday 4-5, H125 Clayton: Wednesday 3–4, E1 Clayton: Wednesday 4–5, H4 Ron’s Tutorials Friday 10am-11am S111 Friday 11am-12pm S107 Friday 12pm-1pm S107 Lectures and Tutorials at Clayton

DON'T FORGET Weekly Reading Quizzes (x 0.5% bonus each) Mondays 10am, weeks Note: The section you need to read for the quiz is the one indicated for the week beginning the day the quiz is due. (Not the week just gone past.)

Two essential texts LDM Reader and Study Guide Peter Singer, Practical Ethics 3rd ed. Cambridge University Press,2011 –At the Monash bookstore or other bookstores

Assessment Summary Within semester assessment: 60% Exam: 40% Assessment Task Short Answer Questions: AT1.1:(5%), 400 words due Wed 18 th March AT1.2:(10%), 400 words due Wed 15 th April AT1.3:(15%), 600 words due Wed 6 th May AT2: Essay (30%), 1100 words due Wed 20 th May Weekly Reading Quizzes (x 0.5% bonus each) Mondays 10am, weeks Examination (40%)

Hurdle requirements There are three hurdle requirements: 1.Attendance and participation in at least 75% of your tutorials (that will generally be at least 9 weeks of class throughout the semester), as per the Faculty policy. 2. You must not fail more than one of the compulsory assessments (that is: not more than one of AT1.1, AT1.2, AT1.3, the essay, and the exam). 3. You must achieve a grade of 40% or more on the final exam. Failure to satisfy any requirement will result in a grade cap at 50%.

Weekly Online Reading Quizzes Weekly Reading Quizzes (x 0.5% bonus each) Due date: Mondays, 10am, weeks 2-11 Details of task: We want to motivate you to keep up with the weekly readings. It also might be helpful to you if you are anxious about the other parts of the assessment: if you get the bonus marks each week, it gives you a bit of a buffer zone in case you are disappointed with your result on one of the usual assignments. The quizzes are online, accessible through Moodle. Each quiz will consist of a six true- false questions, and are designed to test that you have read the prescribed readings for that week’s lectures. Provided that you get at least 5 correct, we take that to be a pretty good sign that you have made a good attempt at the reading, and you will earn a 0.5% bonus mark. So if you do all the quizzes successfully, you'll earn a 5% bonus towards your final grade.

Weekly Online Reading Quizzes How to do the Reading Quizzes 1.The reading quizzes are administered via MOODLE (Moodle). 2. Log onto MOODLE via your my.monash portal. 3. Once you have logged onto MOODLE, follow the link for your campus, and then click on the link for the reading quizzes. No late submissions will be accepted for the reading quizzes. Make sure you save your answers before you submit your assessment.

AT1.1 (Due March 5pm) 1.Hitler was responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people. Suppose someone--call him Dr Who--had the opportunity to kill Hitler before he had the opportunity to have millions of people killed. *Briefly* state what implications the Sanctity of Life principle has for whether Dr Who should kill Hitler. Then discuss two reasons for or against these implications. (You may present one reason for, one against; or two reasons against; or two reasons for.) [ words] 2.Singer endorses a version of consequentialism. State, very briefly, what his view is and identify some potentially problematic implications of his view. [ words] 3. Suppose you had the opportunity to intervene in some one's life so as to prevent them from experiencing all kinds of severe suffering due to addiction. Would you have a moral responsibility to intervene according to classical utilitarianism? Or is it sometimes wrong to intervene according to that view? Explain your answer. [ words]

AT1.1 (Due March 5pm) Please note that the closing date given at the bottom of this page is NOT the due date but the date after which you will not be able to submit your work in Moodle AT1.1 covers: LDM Study Guide, chap. 1, sections 1-3 (including sections in Singer that are noted there). Prior to the submission deadline, you can revisit the AT as often as you like. But note that your answers to the questions will not be saved until you click on the 'Next' button at the bottom of the page. It's wise to prepare your answers to short answer questions in a word processor and then copy and paste into the AT when you are satisfied with your answer. This AT contains three questions. Clicking on 'Submit all and finish' submits the AT, so select it only if you are sure you're ready to submit!

AT1.1 (Due March 5pm) continued… Citation Requirments First, there should be NO direct quotations from the text. You should be paraphrasing the points you're getting from the readings--paraphrasing is a skill that demonstrates your understanding. Second, you must cite the page numbers of the course texts you use in answering the questions (and you are not to use material apart from assigned readings to answer these questions). So, for example, if you are telling me about Singer's consequentialism, you must cite the page from the course readings from which you are getting the information. Example: Singer's view is that…. (Study Guide, p.13). Or if you're getting your info from Singer's book: (Singer, p.44). There is no need to include a bibliography, we know what texts you've been assigned. An HD grade will require conformity to these policies.

Two Puzzling Cases Case 1: TROLLEY (or THE RUNAWAY TRAIN) A trolley is coming. Currently the trolley is directed to head down the track where there are 5 people. The other track has only 1 person on it. You are standing by the railway track with a lever that will divert the trolley to the other track with the 1 person on it. And switching or not switching is the only option open to you to save anyone’s life. Is it permissible to divert the trolley?

Case 2: TRANSPLANT (‘spare parts surgeon’) Five patients in need of life saving transplants. One relatively healthy patient has five healthy organs that could be used to save the five. Is it morally permissible for the surgeon to kill one to save five? (Assume that the surgeon could pass off the killing as an accidental ‘slip of the knife’ during minor surgery.)

What kinds of rights are there? Positive – the right to...(eg freedom, privacy, life, defend oneself) Negative – the right to not… (eg be killed, be robbed, be used for spare parts)

Sanctity of Life It is always wrong knowingly to kill an innocent person. Best Consequences One ought to act so as to bring about the best achievable outcome. Ethics is about justification from a universal point of view. We are in search of a fundamental universal principle that can explain our judgements about TROLLEY and TRANSPLANT.

Classical Utilitarianism (Bentham 1748–1832) Utility has two components: ⋅ the presence of pleasure ⋅ the absence of pain N.B. Utility is something we always consciously experience. Question: - Is the goal of your life to seek pleasure? Preference utilitarianism Utility is the satisfaction of preferences/interests. (Singer 1946–) N.B. Utility is not something we always consciously experience. Question: - Do you have any preferences? How do you know other people have preferences (or what those preferences are)?

Singer on Preference Utilitarianism For preference utilitarians, taking the life of a person will normally be worse than taking the life of some other being, since persons are highly future-oriented in their preferences. To kill a person is therefore, normally, to violate not just one, but a wide range of the most central and significant preferences a being can have. Very often, it will make nonsense of everything that the victim has been trying to do in the past days, months, or even years. (Singer 1993, 95)

“That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” [Ch.1 On Liberty] JS Mill - The Harm Principle:

The Harm Principle: “His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant [for interference]. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” [Ch.1 – JS Mill On Liberty]