ATS1371 Life, Death, and Morality Semester 1, 2015 Dr Ron Gallagher ron.gallagher@monash.edu Tutorial 4 Office Hour: 1-2 pm Friday Menzies Bldg, Room ? Please make appointment Check your Monash email – check Moodle – check the Unit Guide NEXT WEEK GOOD FRIDAY NO TUTORIAL

When does a bunch of rules to live by become an ethical code? Last weeks results Robinson Crusoe Lord of Flies I’m a Celebrity don’t kill me Tarzan/Romulus and Remus Quotes “We killed all the Russians – it was self-defence.” “If someone’s behaving like a dickhead we’ll lock him up.” “I want to be a wolf – they don’t need ethics.” “We should take some of them hostage so that we can trade if they take one of us.” “We’ve decided to be communist and have no procreation.” “Without language there is no ethics.”

The philosopher and the magician and common-sense. What’s analytic philosophy? What’s common-sense? What was the trolley/transplant problem? – apparently it was inconsistent ethical judgements when we rely on intuition. Everything in the lectures has hinged on that being the problem. Maybe there was no inconsistency. Perhaps our reluctance to cut up the healthy patient and our readiness to sacrifice the “track-worker” are consistent with common-sense. JJT’s ‘contract’ explanations make sense but how many students thought that in week-one when they made the call on the scenarios? Did you instinctively know that track-workers sign up to get run-over? I think the JJT solution is not the solution to the ‘inconsistent ethical intuitions” problem that this discussion is predicated on. Here’s my solution. We don’t to ethical calculus – it’s common-sense. The Morris solution. It’s quality vs quantity. It’s a bird in the hand against two in the bush. The future “clone organ donor” scenario”. The ‘fat bastard’ scenario.

Lectures and Tutorials at Clayton (Ron G indicated)

GOOD FRIDAY NO TUTORIAL DON'T FORGET Weekly Reading Quizzes (x 10 @ 0.5% bonus each) Mondays 10am, weeks 2-11. 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.)

Assessment Summary Within semester assessment: 60% Exam: 40% Assessment Task Short Answer Questions: AT1.1:(5%), 400 words due Wed 18th March AT1.2:(10%), 400 words due Wed 15th April AT1.3:(15%), 600 words due Wed 6th May AT2: Essay (30%), 1100 words due Wed 20th May Weekly Reading Quizzes (x 10 @ 0.5% bonus each) Mondays 10am, weeks 2-11. Examination (40%)

AT1.2 (Due April 15 @ 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 This assessment task covers: Study Guide:
 ch. 1: § 4-6
 ch. 2: § 1-6
Readings A, B, C, D &

AT1.2:(10%), 400 words due Wed 15th April 1.Trolley (Study Guide, p.4) and Transplant (Study Guide, p.6) seem to demand different responses. What is that difference and does the idea that we ought not use people as means help explain this? Are there any further reasons why this is a promising or troubling explanation? (suggested 75-125 words) 5 marks 2.What does the doctrine of double effect imply about the rightness/wrongness of killing in Transplant 1? Do you think this is plausible? Be sure to briefly explain what the doctrine of double effect is in your answer. (suggested 100-150 words) 5 marks 3.Judith Thomson offers an explanation, in Reading C, of why it is permissible to pull the lever in Trolley. Preference utilitarians also have an explanation of why it is permissible to pull the lever in Trolley. Explain the key differences between their explanations. (suggested 125-225 words) 7 marks

1.Does the idea that we ought not use people as means help explain the supposed differences between our ethical intuitions in trolley and transplant? (Hint – focus on the scenarios from p4 and p6 Unit Reader and Handout 4.1 and week 4 lectures) 2 What is the doctrine of double effect? Apply it to the transplant scenario. (Hint – not yet covered go to chapter 2 pp42-43 Unit Reader) 3 What is Thompson’s explanation for trolley? What would preference utilitarians say about pulling the lever?

Loop variant of TROLLEY Here the tracks do not continue to diverge. They circle back. Now imagine that the five on the track are thin, but thick enough so that all five will be killed if the trolley goes straight. The bodies of the five will stop it and it will not reach the one. On the other hand the one is very fat so that his body will by itself stop the trolley and the trolley will not therefore reach the five. Should we divert the trolley?

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)