Chapter 8 Abortion P 163
Abortion-Deliberate termination of pregnancy by surgical of medical means
Therapeutic abortion- preformed to protect the health of a mother
Spontaneous abortion or miscarriage- unintentional termination
Roe v Wade P166
Person-an entity with full moral rights-fetus is or is not
Conception-Merging of sperm cell and ovum into a single cell; also fertilization
Quickening- point in fetal development when mother can feel movement
Viability-point where fetus can survive outside the body
Theories P167, Arguments P169
Chapter 9 Altering Genes and Cloning Humans P229
Genome- an organisms complete set of DNA
Gene- a discrete section of genetic code
Gene therapy- experimental technique for directly changing a person’s genes to prevent or treat disease.
Genetic enhancement- Genetic intervention to maximize human traits and capabilities
Genetic engineering- Direct genetic intervention in an organism’s genome to enhance traits and capabilities
Cloning- production of genetically identical copy of an existing biological entity through asexual process
Reproductive cloning- genetic duplication of a fully developed adult animal or human
Theories P234
Arguments P235
Chapter 10 P291 Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide
Euthanasia: directly or indirectly bringing about death of another person for that person’s sake
Moral permissibility depends on consent of patient
Voluntary euthanasia: patient requests or agrees-in person or previous instructions such as advanced directive or living
will
Advance Directive: legal document allowing physicians to withhold or withdraw treatments
Nonvoluntary euthanasia: others besides patient choose euthanasia because patient is not competent and has left no
advance directive- ie children and infants- illegal and widely regarded as immoral
Active euthanasia: taking direct action to kill, mercy killing
Passive euthanasia: allowing someone to die by not doing something-withholding or withdrawing measures to sustain
life-examples-respirator, feeding tube, medication
4 kinds of euthanasia:
1 Active voluntary- mercy killing at patient’s request
2 Active nonvoluntary- mercy killing without patient’s consent or request
3 Passive voluntary- letting patient die at their request
4 Passive nonvoluntary- letting patient die without consent or request
Involuntary-against
Nonvoluntary-without
Active euthanasia-law generally forbids and medical profession officially opposed (indv views vary)
Passive voluntary euthanasia is legal-competent patients have the right to refuse any medical treatment
Passive nonvoluntary may be legal provided someone is designated to make decisions for patient
Physician-assisted suicide-related but distinct from active passive euthanasia- the killing of a person by the person’s
own hand with the help of a physician. Requested by patient with intended outcome of death to relieve pain and
sufferingIn physician-assisted the patient is the ultimate causal agent (patient causes death, usually with medication prescribed
by physician) whereas in active voluntary euthanasia the physician is the ultimate causal agent (physician causes death).
Legal only in Oregon-Supreme court allows states to decide
AMA officially states “unethical and fundamentally inconsistent with the pledge physicians make to devote themselves
to healing and life)
P294-US Supreme Court rulings
Whole brain death- brain function permanently stops. Primary standard in medicine and law
Higher brain- when higher brain function, consciousness, permanently stops. Some argue no higher brain function
means no longer a person and considered dead
Terminal sedation- large dose of pain medication to end life
Arguments for Active euthanasia-P297 Moral theories P295-296, Moral arguments P297-301
Chapter 11 Capital Punishment P353
Abolitionist-wish to abolish capital punishment
Retentionists- wish to retain the death penalty
Punishment-the deliberate and authorized causing of pain or harm to someone thought to have broken a law, legal
sanction imposed by society on offenders for violating society’s official norms.
Justification- the reason why-2 forms: deserves or good consequences such as prevention of crime and maintaining
order
Capital punishment- execution of someone officially judged to have committed a serious, or capital, crime
Now reserved for murder-2009 36 states, lethal injection authorized in all 36, 17 states also authorize lethal gas,
hanging, and firing squad
14 states and Dc have no death penalty statute P354
1930-1970 gradually declined, high 200 to 0 in 1976, 1977-1999 rose 1 in 1977 to 98 in 1999, then down again to 59 in
2004
64-80% of Americans in favor (1994-2004), decreases with life in prison w/o parole as an option
Abolished in most other countries or not used, 139 nations. 58 still us death penalty
2009-4 nations accounted for most Iran, Iraq, US and Saudi Arabia
US Supreme Court 1972 Furman vs Georgia: Court ruled the death penalty as applied in certain states was
unconstitutional, stopped executions in US, Usual administration that allowed juries to impose without legal guidance
was “cruel and unusual punishment” violating the 8th amendment. Many states rewrote laws.
Woodson vs NC 1976- ruled mandatory death sentences unconstitutional. Some states instituted sentencing guidelines
to provide standards for judges and juries
Gregg vs GA- ruled death penalty laws prescribing proper guidelines constitutional, in cases of murder. Reinstating
capital punishment that stopped in 1972. Few states have allowed death penalty for anything but homicide since 1976.
Atkins vs VA 2002 – executing MR people is cruel and unusual
Roper vs Simmons 2005- executing those under 18 when crime committed also C&U. Prior 7 states had no minimum age
and 15 had ages 14-17 as minimum
Distinctions in types of punishable killingFirst-degree-premeditation, while committing another felony, involving egregious circumstances such as child or police
officer. Usually only type eligible for death penalty
Second-degree-without premeditation but with some intent
Manslaughter-w/o premeditation or intent
Theories P355, Arguments P360
Chapter 12 Sexual Morality
Conventional view- sex is morally acceptable only between one man and one woman who are married by legal authority
Liberal view- as long as basic standards are respected (no one harmed or coerces, any sexual activity engaged by
consenting adults is permissible
Moderate view- sex is permissible, married or not, if the consenting partners have a serious emotional connection.
Homosexuality- sexual relations between people of the same sex
Theories P411, Arguments P412
Chapter 13 Same Sex Marriage P451
Same sex marriage- legal marriage of gay and lesbian couples
Defense of Marriage Act-1996 forbid the federal government to recognize same sex marriage
Denied benefits, allowed states to discount marriages from other states p451
Arguments against1 Contrary to custom, tradition, or nature
2 a distortion of the true meaning or essence of marriage
3 wrong because homosexuality is wrong
4 consequences of allowing it are dangerous or harmful
Theories P452, Arugements P545
Chapter 14 Environmental Ethics P487
Moral status or moral considerability -property of being a suitable candidate for direct moral concern or respect
Anthropocentrism- notion that only humans have moral status
Zoocentrism- notion that both human and nonhuman animals have moral status
Biocentrism- notion that all living creatures have moral status, whether sentient or not
Species egalitarian- one who believes that all living things have moral status
Species non-egalitarian-believes that some living things have greater moral status than others
Ecological individualist- believes that the fundamental unit of moral consideration in environmental ethics is the
individual
Ecological holist- believes that the fundamental consideration in environmental ethics is the biosphere and its
ecosystem
Theories P492, Arguments P494
Chapter 15 Animal Rights P543
Direct moral consideration- for a beings own sake rather than its relationship to others
Indirect moral consideration- on account of a beings relationship to others
Animal rights- Possession by animals 1 moral status 2 strong moral consideration that cannot be easily overridden
Speciesism- discrimination against nonhuman animals just because of their species
Theories P547, Arguments P550
Chapter 16 Political Violence P595
Main moral questions: 1 How can war be justified, 2 Assuming it can be justified, how should it be conducted
3 major categories of response:
Realism- as applied to warfare is the view that moral standards are no applicable to war, which must be judged only on
prudence, on how well war serves state interests. War cannot be immoral, only more or less advantageous for the state.
Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbs, Reinhold Niebuhr, Henry Kissinger
Argue morality has no part to ply in warfare, moral statements do not apply to states, just persons
Nonrealist states are not exempt from moral judgements, commonsense suggests some moral norms do apply to
warfare, at least some moral limits such as nuclear weapons, killing of children, rape
Pacifism-view that war is never morally permissible. Opposed to all wars regardless of reasons. May or may not be
against personal violence between individuals such as self-defense or law enforcement.
Argue in consequentialist vein that war is never justified because it always produces more harm than good. As
Nonconsequentialist- war is wrong because the deliberate killing of humans violates a fundamental right to life. Right to
life is absolute and has no exceptions.
Objection to consequentialist – war is horrific and often produces more bad than good but sometimes the result may be
more good overall. Could save more lives than those who die in the conflict, small war may prevent a larger one.
Objection to Nonconsequentialist- self-defense. Killing in war is regrettable but necessary, therefore morally permissible.
Just War Theory- war may be morally permissible under stipulated conditions. Attempt to understand how war can be
reconciled withotr moral presumption against killing. Specifies when resorting to war may be morally justified and how
armed conflict should be conducted to meet minimal demands of morality. Thomas Aquinas. Most widely used lens
through which war is viewed now.
2 main issues1 jus ad bellum: the justice of war. War can be morally permissible only if certain requirements are met.
Aquinas first 3
1 the cause must be just. Morally legitimate reason. Self-defence against attack, individuals are entitled to use violence
in self-defense so states have the right to defend against unjust attacks. States have no right to instigate war.
Just cause defined broadly by many theorists- a just cause is resistance to substantial aggression, the type of aggression
that violates peoples fundamental rights. Includes self-defense against external threat. May include defending innocent
from deadly attack such as genocide. , those whose basic human rights are being violated or defending states from
unjust external attack. Early theorist thought wars to convert or punish those of a different religion were just, a view
now rejected by philosophers and theologians but strongly supported in some parts of the world.
Some war in self-defense is only justified in response and some attack only need be feared. Some use criteria of
immediate and imminent ie clearly about to happen. Preemptive
2 the war must be sanctioned by proper authorities.
3 The war should be fought with the right intentions. For sake of just cause,
4 Armed conflict should be the last resort- all peaceful means, diplomacy, economic pressure, world opinion tried
first.
5 The good resulting from war must be proportionate to the bad. Good expected weighed against evils
6 There must be a reasonable chance of success.
Possible for a resort to war to be morally permissible while the conduct of war is morally abhorrent.
2 jus in bello: justice in war- the right action during the meeting out the violence. Reject that once war starts there are
no moral constraints. Michael Walzer – popular view is profoundly wrong.
Rules of War1 discrimination distinguish between combatants and noncombatants. Noncombatant immunity- those people who
should not be attacked.
2 Proportionality use of force should be proportional to the rightfulness aims of the war. No overkill. No more than
necessary to achieve the just ends.
3 No evil means- certain tactics and weapons are evil in themselves and should not be used. Genocide, biological and
chemical weapons, nuclear attack and mass rape.
4 Benevolent quarantine- surrendered soldiers have rights. Humane captivity in safe confines removed from battlefield.
Not subjected to execution, torture, starvation, or other serious abuse.
Terrorism- Blood brother to war. Must differentiate between terrorism and violent crimes. US definition “premeditated,
politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents,
usually indented to influence an audience.”
Books definition- violence against noncombatants for political, religious, or ideological ends.
Non-state actors- individuals or groups that are not sovereign states.
Torture- intentional inflicting of severe pain or suffering on people to punish or intimidate them or extract information
from them. Prohibited by international law but continues.
3 main issues in debate over torture
1 Does torture work? Is it effective in getting information?
Disagreements from rarely useful to sometimes.
2 Is torture ever morally permissible?
Nonconsequentialist answer is no. torture is the use of a person as a means, a clearly lacking respect for a human being
therefore always wrong. Some not absolutists and believe in rare cases it is permissible.
3 What should the state’s policy be regarding its use?
3 main positions
1 torture should be illegal and never sanctioned under any circumstances
Would have devastating consequences, corrupt democratic institutions, diminish moral authority in the world,
become routine, arousing world resentment and anger.
2 torture should be illegal and officially condemned but unofficially used when necessary
May sometimes be necessary but acknowledging it would cause same problems as issue 1. Critics accuse them
of hypocrisy but no good alterative.
3 torture should be a legal instrument of the state, administered under strict guidelines and oversight
Preferred by those who believe torture is inevitable. If legal can be better controlled and abuses limited.
Consequentialist side, utilitarianism used to both support and undermine pacifism.
Theories P606, Arguments P608
Chapter 17 Global economic Justice P681
Justice- morality of persons getting what is fair or what is their due
Right- A claim or entitlement to something; a moral demands that obligates others to honor it
Negative right- A person’s right that obligates others not to interfere with that person’s obtaining something
Positive right- A person’s right that obligates other to help obtain that something
Duty of beneficence- A moral obligation to benefit others
Supererogatory actions- Conduct that is above and beyond duty, not required but praiseworthy
Retributive justice- concerning fair punishment for wrongdoing
Distributive justice- concerning the fair distribution of society’s goods
Libertarian theory of justice- a doctrine emphasizing individual liberties and negative rights and rejecting positive rights
as a violation of personal freedom
Egalitarian theory of justice- doctrine holding that justice requires equal distribution of goods and social benefits among
all persons
Theories P683, Arguments P685