Term
| What, according to Rachels, does the example of the Greeks and the Callatians illustrate? |
|
Definition
| different cultures have different moral codes |
|
|
Term
| What, according to Rachels, does the example of Eskimo culture illustrate? |
|
Definition
| concepts of right and wrong differ from culture to culture |
|
|
Term
| What is cultural relativism? |
|
Definition
| a challenge of ordinary belief in the objectivity and universality of moral truth. says no such thing as universal truth only variations of cultural codes and nothing more. personal code is no special status, just one among many |
|
|
Term
| What 6 different claims have been made by cultural relativists, according to Rachels? |
|
Definition
1. Different societies have different moral codes.
2. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society code better than another
3. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is merely one among many
4. There is no 'universal truth' in ethics - that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times
5. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society that is - if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right then that action is right at least within that society
6. It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures. |
|
|
Term
| What is the cultural differences argument? |
|
Definition
| argues from facts about the differences between cultural outlooks to a conclusion about the status of morality. based around one fundamental ideal which basically says different cultures have different moral codes therefore there is no "objective" truth in morality. |
|
|
Term
What, according to Rachels, is wrong with the cultural differences argument?
|
|
Definition
| the conclusion does not follow from the premise meaning the premise, if true, could still lead to a false conclusion. premise is based on belief while the conclusion is what really happens so therefore things do not always follow people's logic |
|
|
Term
| What consequences, according to Rachels, would cultural Relativism have it it were true? |
|
Definition
1. We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own
2. We could decide whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting the standards of our society
3. The ideal of moral progress is called into doubt |
|
|
Term
Why, according to Rachels, does cultural relativism have the consequence that we could not criticize
the customs of other societies as morally inferior to our own?
What, according to Rachels, is wrong with the consequence?
|
|
Definition
| we could not criticize the codes of other societies it would stop us from criticizing our own. it becomes the enlightened, sophisticated level of thinking to how truth, right, and wrong, becomes relative to our outcome and our personal relationships. We would concentrate solely on others examples and live outside ourselves and we would never be able to make progress or grow to better ourselves. |
|
|
Term
Why according to Rachels, does cultural relativism have the consequences that we could determine what is right and wrong just by consulting the standards of our own society?
|
|
Definition
| because a few people think our society's code is perfect so we think of ways it can be improved. with relativism we are all equal therefore we can not criticize or improve on what we have and all is relative to each other so we look to our our society for rights and wrongs because we are all equal in society standards and codes |
|
|
Term
| Why, according to Rachels, does cultural relativism have the consequences that there is no such thing as moral progress? What, according to Rachels, is wrong with this consequence? |
|
Definition
| progress means replacing a ways of doing things with a better way yet relativism does not let us judge based on an old standard. it does not allow us to say our past is better or worse and holds our culture higher than others so we do not move or improve in anything. |
|
|
Term
| What, according to Rachels, is illustrated by the example of the poor society that refuses to eat cows because they believe that human spirits inhabit cows after death? |
|
Definition
| it shows that many factors work together to produce the customs of a society. society values are only one component along with religion and facts as well as physical circumstances. |
|
|
Term
| What factors, according to Rachels, contributes to determining the customs of society? |
|
Definition
| societies, religion, factual beliefs, physical circumstances |
|
|
Term
What is wrong with concluding that, because different cultures have different customs, they must have different values, according to Rachels?
|
|
Definition
| difference in customs maybe attributed to some other aspect of social life thus there maybe less disagreement about values. other outside factors play a role. |
|
|
Term
| Why, according to Rachels, must all cultural groups share the value of protecting their young? |
|
Definition
| because they would dies out if there were not people to replace the older generation |
|
|
Term
| Why, according to Rachels, must all cultural groups share the value of telling the truth? |
|
Definition
| because then no one would listen to anyone and our communication would suffer along with people fearing their lives looking for something stable and truthful instead of living in fear. |
|
|
Term
Why, according to Rachels, must all cultural groups share the value of opposing murder?
|
|
Definition
| because everyone would be living in constant fear and no one would be secure. people would then have to seclude themselves and become self sufficient and break up societies to form small groups and it then form groups around a non murder rule |
|
|
Term
| What two lessons, according to Rachels, should be learned from cultural relativism? |
|
Definition
1. cultural relativism warns us about the danger of assuming that all our preferences are based on some absolute rational standard despite many but not all of our individual practices are peculiar to each society.
2. always be able to keep an open mind. |
|
|
Term
| What is "active euthanasia"? |
|
Definition
| killing someone through lethal injections, etc. putting someone out of their pain either at their request or not |
|
|
Term
| What is "passive euthanasia"? |
|
Definition
| standing by and watching the natural process of death take over with no treatment no matter the pain |
|
|
Term
| If a patient suffering from an incurable disease requests that a medical treatment be stopped, is it better to simply allow that person to die or take steps to make them die more quickly and painlessly, according to Rachels? Why? |
|
Definition
| Rachels says we should take the steps because she is stopping treatment to die and she obviously wants to go in peace. allowing it to progress on only goes against her wishes and puts her in more agony. |
|
|
Term
| If a patient suffering from an incurable disease requests that a medical treatment be stopped, is it better to simply allow that person to die or take steps to make them die more quickly and painlessly, according to Rachels? Why? |
|
Definition
| Rachels says we should take the steps because she is stopping treatment to die and she obviously wants to go in peace. allowing it to progress on only goes against her wishes and puts her in more agony. |
|
|
Term
| If a patient suffering from an incurable disease requests that a medical treatment be stopped, is it better to simply allow that person to die or take steps to make them die more quickly and painlessly, according to Rachels? Why? |
|
Definition
| Rachels says we should take the steps because she is stopping treatment to die and she obviously wants to go in peace. allowing it to progress on only goes against her wishes and puts her in more agony. |
|
|
Term
| Why according to Rachels, is it wrong to allow a baby with Downs Syndrome to die rather than to repair an easily treatable intestinal blockage? |
|
Definition
| The decision is based on ease. They are giving a "valid" excuse to not perform the surgery by saying the preexisting issue of intestinal blockage can not be surgically fixed and letting the baby die instead of using its Downs syndrome as the ultimate reason to kill. The idea that when there is an intestinal blockage, one can let the baby die but when there is no such defect there is nothing that can be done for one must not kill the infant. |
|
|
Term
| Why, according to Rachels, does the belief that there is a morally significant distinction between active and passive euthanasia lead to decisions about life or death being made on irrelevant grounds? |
|
Definition
| our morals make us give a more negative connotation to actively killing people which because of our morals we end up making decisions on irrelevant grounds and not unbiased ideals |
|
|
Term
| Why, according to Rachels, do so many people think that there is an important moral difference between active and passive euthanasia? |
|
Definition
| because many believe that killing is morally worse that letting people die |
|
|
Term
| What is the difference between the examples of Smith and Jones? |
|
Definition
| Smith actively killed the child and Jones watched the child die - both had the intent to kill yet their situations about how it end up differed |
|
|
Term
| Why, according to Rachels, is Jones no better, from a moral point of view, than Smith? |
|
Definition
| both men acted for personal gain and had the same viewpoint and conclusion despite the situation on how it ended |
|
|
Term
| How, according to Rachels, does the doctors situations differ from the examples of Jones and Smith? Does this difference make a difference to the question of whether there is a moral difference between killing and letting die? Why or why not? |
|
Definition
| doctors do not involve personal gain or the destruction of a perfectly healthy child. There is no difference between their situations because they all end in death. saying that there is a moral difference is trying to find an excuse and make our consciousness feel better about letting someone die |
|
|
Term
| What, according to Rachels, is the most common argument in support of the claim that active euthanasia is worse that passive euthanasia? |
|
Definition
| killing someone is morally worse than letting someone die |
|
|
Term
| Why according to Rachels, is it wrong to say that, in any case of passive euthanasia, the doctor does nothing? |
|
Definition
| the doctor allows the patient to lie in front of him suffering till death. he is consciously making a choice not to act |
|
|
Term
| What, according to Rachels, is it generally considered morally wrong to be the cause of someone's death? How does this reason bear on the moral differences between active and passive euthanasia? |
|
Definition
| if we are the cause of someone's death there are consequences and repercussions associated with their death. Actively killing there is motive that can be seen. Passively there is an excuse and we are technically not actively doing anything therefore we can give a moral excuse for us to feel okay about people's deaths. |
|
|
Term
| Under what conditions, according to the initial statement of Singer's principle (ie the strong version) do we have a moral obligation to prevent something bad from happening? |
|
Definition
| suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad. this is all wring and is a consensus we should help |
|
|
Term
| Under what conditions, according to the qualified statement of Singer's principle (ie the moderate version) do we have a moral obligation to prevent something bad from happening? How does this qualified version differ from the original version? |
|
Definition
| only prevent what is bad which is required when we can only do it without sacrificing anything that is from the moral point of view, comparably important. |
|
|
Term
| If you are walking by a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, what according to Singer, do you have a moral obligation to do? |
|
Definition
| ought to wade in and pull the child out. we would get our clothes muddy but this is insignificant while the death of the child would presumably be a very bad thing |
|
|
Term
| According to Singer, does the fact that someone who needs help is close to or far away from you affect your moral obligations to that person? Why or why not? |
|
Definition
| there is no possible justification for discrimination on geographical grounds. there are expert observers and supervisors that can direct our aid else where almost as effectively as we could get it to someone near us. |
|
|
Term
| What moral difference does it make to my obligation to help others, according to Singer, if there are other people also in the same position to help those others as I am? Why? |
|
Definition
| there is no moral difference yet there is a psychological difference that surfaces through guilt. it becomes an ideal excuse for inactivity. |
|
|
Term
| What, according to Singer, are the implications of his argument for the differences between duty and charity? |
|
Definition
| if people gave as their duty and how they "ought" to could not be any worse than those who give what they think. charity is optional and gets praises but no condemnation. when we do not preform a duty we are reprimanded. we ought to give the money away and it is wrong not too. many of the things we think are charitable actually are morally required of us. |
|
|
Term
| Is it morally permissible, according to Singer, for someone to buy a luxury car for themselves rather than using that money to prevent someone from suffering or dying? |
|
Definition
| morally the prevention of starvation should be considered as pressing as upholding societies norm. if we do not have a basic moral code not too far from man's basic capacities there will end up being a break in the moral code compliance. our moral viewpoint must change first. if is it within our means to give up and does not affect us then by all means we should. |
|
|
Term
| How does Singer respond to the objection that his conclusion requires too drastic a revision of our moral scheme? |
|
Definition
| morally the prevention of starvation should be considered as pressing as upholding societies norm. morality is shaped by societies need so we should understand and not change but expect more. |
|
|
Term
| How does Singer respond to the objection that his conclusion requires too drastic a revision of our moral scheme? |
|
Definition
| morally the prevention of starvation should be considered as pressing as upholding societies norm. morality is shaped by societies need so we should understand and not change but expect more. |
|
|
Term
| How does Singer respond to the objection that revealing famine merely postpones starvation rather than preventing it? |
|
Definition
| population control should be an answer. different methods to prevent famine |
|
|
Term
| How much ought we to give away in order to relieving the suffering of others, according to the strong (ie original) argument of Singer? |
|
Definition
| give away until we all reach marginal unity that is I understand and become to a level of poverty as those people I am helping. |
|
|
Term
| How much ought we to give away in order to relieve the suffering of others, according to the moderate (ie qualified) argument of Singer? |
|
Definition
| give away enough to determine their resistance but again nothing that will compromise us morally and harm us |
|
|
Term
| Where do Y and Z suggest that doctors obtain the organs that U and Z need to survive, if there are no recently deceased compatible organ donors? |
|
Definition
| bring in a third party A to give up both his lungs and heart |
|
|
Term
| How does the difference between killing and letting die apply to the case of Y and Z, according to Harris? |
|
Definition
| to kill A so that Y and Z might live is ruled out because of our strict obligation not to kill but a duty of some lesser kind to save life. Y and Z die of natural causes and not by doctor neglect. |
|
|
Term
| How do Y and Z respond to the claim that their plan would require killing innocent people? |
|
Definition
| they agree that kiling innoscent people is wrong and are prepared for absolute prohibition against doing so. they do not agree though that A is more innocent then them |
|
|
Term
| How do Y and Z respond to the claim that doctors are not required by law to take organs from healthy people to treat those who need new organs? |
|
Definition
| their refusal to get new organs is just like shooting the patient dead. they are murdering two lives when they actually could be saving two |
|
|
Term
| What plan do Y and Z propose for ensuring that there are organs available for donation when needed? |
|
Definition
| kill the innocent for both there organs = lottery system and whenever there are two or more dying patients that can both be saved they ask a computer and at random a person would be killed to save two peoples lives |
|
|
Term
| What kinds of expectations do Y and Z allow for participation in the lottery system? |
|
Definition
| people who had brought misfortune on themselves would not be allowed to participate |
|
|
Term
| why, according to Y and Z should their proposed plan be preferred to the present system of allocating organs for donation? |
|
Definition
| saving large numbers of lives and the age expectancy would increase |
|
|
Term
| What objection does the desire for security present to the lottery scheme? How would Y and Z respond to that objection? |
|
Definition
| people would never know when the knock on the door to be taken away would happen or bad news expressed. there is a slimmer chance to be chosen in the lottery than to be hit by a car in an accident |
|
|
Term
| What objection does the desire for security present to the lottery scheme? How would Y and Z respond to that objection? |
|
Definition
| people would never know when the knock on the door to be taken away would happen or bad news expressed. there is a slimmer chance to be chosen in the lottery than to be hit by a car in an accident |
|
|
Term
| What objection does the value of human individuality present to the lottery scheme? How would Z and Y respond to the objection? |
|
Definition
| we would reject the lottery because individuals are being seen as interchangeable units holding its value in as many healthy units it has as possible. Y and Z would say why is then As individuality worth more than theirs? |
|
|
Term
| What objection does the worry about "playing God" present the lottery scheme? How would Y and Z respond to the objection? |
|
Definition
| the feeling that it is wrong to make any attempt to relocate life opportunities that fate has determined by killing and if not then we are making a distinction between killing and letting die and saving lives |
|
|
Term
| What objection does the right to self dense present to the lottery scheme? How would Y and Z respond to the objection? |
|
Definition
| kill the person only if they agree and not if they refuse despite your chances of getting called are less than a car accident and you would have a chance to live longer |
|
|
Term
| What is wrong, according to Y and Z with the proposal that Y's organs can be used to save Z or Z's organs used to save Y rather than using a healthy persons organs? |
|
Definition
| it would violate their right to equal concern and respect within the rest of society and place them into another class whose lives are less valuable |
|
|
Term
| What is wrong, according to Harris, with using the organs of those people who are already going to die of other causes? |
|
Definition
| those people value their lives more because they are near the end of their lives and know it |
|
|
Term
| How do Y and Z respond to the objection that, while no one intends them to die, their proposal requires that someone else be killed intentionally? |
|
Definition
| they just need his organs and if he can not survive he can not but thy did not intentionally mean to kill him |
|
|
