ATS1371
Life, Death, and Morality
Semester 1, 2015
Dr Ron Gallagher
ron.gallagher@monash.edu
Tutorial 10 – Virtue Ethics and Ethical
Relativism (1 more to go)
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%), @1250 words due Wed 20th May
Weekly Reading Quizzes (x 10 @ 0.5% bonus each) Mondays
10am, weeks 2-11.
Examination (40%)
Essay Guidelines (from Moodle)
For the essay topics, it is not necessary that you do any additional
research outside of the prescribed readings. If you wish to do
additional research, that is fine, but please note that most
philosophy essays suffer from not enough attention being paid
to thinking, writing and drafting. You cannot make up for this by just
doing more reading!
Also note that plagiarism will be treated very severely if it is
detected. Also note that it is possible to plagiarise unintentionally.
So make sure you know how to avoid plagiarism by properly citing
your sources and properly indicating where you are directly
quoting. See the ‘Reference and Citation’ link under ‘Resources’
on Blackboard homepage.
In your essay, you should try to fulfill the following requirements,
especially the first:
The essay must address the question asked. It should have a
structure that is clear and organised to form a coherent argument.
You should explain, in your own words, views and arguments in
the prescribed readings that are relevant to the topic. Be careful
to present these views fairly and accurately, with adequate
citation detail.
You should try to evaluate the arguments you have discussed,
and in the process work out your own position. When you criticise
a philosopher, try to think how (s)he might reply to your
objections.
You should give the full wording of the question before you
begin your essay.
You must carefully identify all connections between your essay
and the writings of others. See 'Rules for Written Work' in the
Information Sheets (which are available here in MUSO).
Feedback
If you would like some feedback on your essay in the planning and
drafting stage your tutor can give limited feedback on an essay outline
only. (Don’t send me a draft/outline 2 days before the essay is
due)
Marking criteria
There are three main things we judge an essay on:
First, we will be looking to see some evidence that you understand the
issues you are writing about. This is really the most fundamental
criterion and necessary if you are to pass.
Second, the quality of the writing and organisation of the essay are
quite important (this includes, grammar, spelling and proofreading).
Third, the quality of your argument is also important. At first year level,
this criterion is probably the least important, but only by a small
margin! As you get to later year levels, it becomes increasingly
important.
ESSAY FAQs
• The word limit is +/- 10% of 1250 words.
• Direct quotations do not count towards the word count.
• You are required to use at least one of the readings (not just the
commentary or lecture slides) from the LDM Reader as your
primary text.
• You can reference the LDM Reader by page number, eg (Hobbes,
1651, LDM Reader p.156), you do not need to use the original
page numbers of the individual papers in the Reader. The
essential thing about a reference is that it enables your reader to
find the source. To avoid plagiarism – always provide a reference.
• Begin the essay with a statement of YOUR thesis (eg You that
believe Otsuka’s restrictive account of self-defence is too
restrictive that Thomson’s account is more intuitive/logical/useful.)
and how you are going to support your claim with arguments from
the LDM Reader.
Questions for AT2: Essay (30%), @1250 words due Wed 20th May
1. Is it justified to kill an innocent threat in defence of oneself or
others? Why/why not? Discuss, with reference to the views of at
least two authors from the unit.
2. The principle of equality that Singer defends has radical
consequences. Critically discuss the principle, explaining some of its
consequences, and assess whether Singer is right that we ought to
adopt it.
3. “Abortion is impermissible, because it deprives a being of a future
like ours. Accordingly, it is morally similar to killing a healthy
adult.” Critically discuss this argument, drawing upon at least one of
the authors we have looked at in the readings. (You may assess
the argument Marquis provides in support of this or the
arguments from Thomson which oppose this.)
1. Is it justified to kill an innocent threat in defence of oneself or
others? Why/why not? Discuss, with reference to the views of at
least two authors from the unit.
Weeks 5 & 6 Lectures
Define your terms:Innocent, Doctrine of Double effect, right-to-life, rights
violations, infringements, etc
THOMSON’S ‘KILLING’ THEORY CONDITION*
If you don’t harm X, X will kill you.
OTSUKA’S ‘KILLING’ THEORY CONDITION*
If you don’t harm X, X will be morally responsible
for killing you.
CLASSIC UTILITARIANISM
Best consequences - maximise happiness- minimise pain
PREFERENCE UTILITARIANISM
Best consequences - Satisfy preferences – “my interests cannot
count more than the interests of others”
HOBBES
State of nature, self-preservation, social contract
*Whenever the condition is true of someone, you may harm them in self-defence.
2. The principle of equality that Singer defends has radical
consequences. Critically discuss the principle, explaining some of
its consequences, and assess whether Singer is right that we
ought to adopt it.
What is the POE?
Does Singer’s POE have radical consequences?
If yes, what are they?
Who says they are radical consequences?
What makes the consequences radical?
What reason do we have to adopt the POE or not?
Define your terms:Equality
Egalitarian
Radical Consequences (examples)
Persons
Preferences/Interests
Singer describes the POE as a ‘minimally egalitarian principle’
It doesn’t recommend equal outcomes, but equal interests being
considered equally.
Egalitarianism (derived from the French word égal, meaning
equal) or Equalism is a political doctrine that holds that all
people should be treated as equals and have the same
political, economic, social, and civil rights.[1]
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)
“My own needs wants and desires cannot, simply because
they are my preferences, count more than the wants needs
and desires of anyone else. Thus, my very natural concern that
my own wants, needs and desires – henceforth I shall refer to
them as “preferences” – be looked after must, when I think
ethically, be extended to the preferences of others.” Singer,
Practical Ethics, p11-12.
“The preference utilitarian has a rich repertoire of reasons
available for not killing a PERSON. Not only is it the case that
most people have a preference for continued life that ranks
very high in their concerns, but also, because very many of the
preferences people have are oriented toward the future – think
of all the plans, intentions, desires and hopes that a normal
person has for fulfilment in the future – killing someone must
count, for a preference utilitarian, as possibly the worst harm
one can do someone.” LDM Reader p.20
3. “Abortion is impermissible, because it deprives a being of a
future like ours. Accordingly, it is morally similar to killing a healthy
adult.” Critically discuss this argument, drawing upon at least one
of the authors we have looked at in the readings. (You may
assess the argument Marquis provides in support of this or
the arguments from Thomson which oppose this.)
See Week 9a Lecture for Marquis/Thomson comparison.
See Singer Practical Ethics 141-143 for Marquis/Singer
debate.
You should address the logical argument against potentiality
(e.g. the Prince Charles argument). How does Marquis get
around the ‘Prince Charles argument?)
Define your terms:Person, Human Being, Embryo, Foetus, Abortion, Totipotency,
Potential, Innocent
Singer - Only persons have a ‘right to life’ and foetus’s and
young infants aren’t persons.
Other things being equal, it is not seriously wrong to kill a being
who does not have a significant interest in living.
Thomson - The right to life does not constrain us to provide
whatever is necessary for someone to live.
Aborting the foetus may not infringe its right to life, but
we may be obliged not to abort it.
Marquis Killing a foetus deprives it of a future life like ours.
Warren – The change from being in the womb to outside the
womb is not simply a change of house. Birth marks the coming
into existence of morally relevant relational properties. Pragmatic
considerations mark birth as the right moment to attribute the
rights of personhood. Not a person whilst ‘sharing skin of
mother.
Thomson’s account avoids having to resolve the question of
whether the foetus has a right to life.
•The case for abortion in the case of rape, or where pregnancy
threatens the mother’s life, is much stronger in light of Thomson.
Singer, in Practical Ethics, argues that if one made a small
alteration to the Violinist scenario, Thomson’s argument covers
accidental and ‘careless’ pregnancies as well.
•Thomson deals with the question of whether it would be wrong to
abort after 18 weeks (consciousness issue). The Violinist is a
person with actual potential.
Thomson does give us some distinction between abortion and
infanticide because, post-birth, the foetus in no longer in the
mother’s body.
Abortion and Infanticide: Peter Singer debates Don Marquis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Qfiq18DMYk
4 mins sanctity of life
28 mins onwards
What is the difference between abortion and infanticide?
Why is birth a morally significant demarcating line?
VIRTUE ETHICS
Where rights-based and CONSEQUENTIALIST theories call
upon us to focus on the kinds of actions we ought to perform,
virtue based theories ask us to concentrate on the kinds of
people we ought to be. We ought to develop the virtues –
excellences of character – within ourselves. In the Western
tradition, virtue ethics is generally traced back to the work of
Aristotle (384–322 BCE); in the Eastern tradition, Confucius
developed and important virtue ethics.
LDM Reader, P.212
VIRTUE ETHICS
Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in
normative ethics. It may, initially, be identified as the one that
emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the
approach which emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or
that which emphasizes the consequences of actions
(consequentialism). Suppose it is obvious that someone in
need should be helped. A utilitarian will point to the fact that
the consequences of doing so will maximize well-being, a
deontologist to the fact that, in doing so the agent will be
acting in accordance with a moral rule such as “Do unto
others as you would be done by” and a virtue ethicist to the
fact that helping the person would be charitable or
benevolent.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
Ethical Relativism and Cultural Relativism
RELATIVISM in ethics, the doctrine that the rightness
and wrongness of actions varies from place to place,
time to time, and perhaps even between individual
persons. Most ethical relativists are cultural relativists;
that is, they hold that the rightness of actions is relative
to cultures. Ethical relativism is distinct from the idea
that we ought not to criticise other cultures for their
moral beliefs, but these ideas are often found together.
LDM Reader, P.211
Question from Sample Exam (on Moodle)
Rights, utilitarianism, and trolleys
1. What is the idea of stringency for a right? Illustrate the idea
with two different rights that might be of different stringency.
2. What should a utilitarian think about rights? Do rights really
exist? Would it ever be justified, for a utilitarian, to respect
rights, even if that led to a worse outcome overall?
3. What is Thomson’s preferred account of why it is
permissible to pull the lever in TROLLEY? Does the account
succeed?
4. Utilitarians seem to be committed to some surprising
conclusions about the morality of killing. Illustrate one or two of
these conclusions, and try to explain why the utilitarian has
such a surprising view.
Question from Sample Exam (on Moodle)
Self-defence
5. Describe Michael Otsuka’s position with respect to using violence
in self-defence against innocent persons. Explain his reasons for his
view.
6. “Killing an innocent threat in self-defence is wrong, but
excusable”. Explain this claim, and discuss its plausibility.
7. What is the Hobbesian rationale for a liberty-right to engage in
self-defence? What will the Hobbesian likely think about harming
innocent threats in self-defence?
Speciesism, animals, and equality
8. What is Singer’s “principle of equality”? How would our behaviour
towards animals have to change if we were to adopt this principle?
Why?
9. Does the principle of equality give a good explanation of what is
wrong with racism? Why/why not?
10. For Singer, the morality of taking an animal’s life depends in part
on whether the animal is a person. Explain why this makes a
difference.
Question from Sample Exam (on Moodle)
Abortion
11. “Conventional liberal views on abortion are untenable.
Either we must accept that infanticide is no worse than
abortion, or we must adopt a very conservative anti-abortion
view.” Discuss why a philosopher might think this is true.
12. “Judith Thomson’s violinist case shows only that women
have a right to remove a fetus from their bodies. Therefore her
argument is not a successful defence of abortion.” — Discuss
both of the following: (i) Why might someone say this? (ii) Is
this view correct?
13. Discuss the idea that abortion is wrong because of the
potential properties possessed by the fetus (such as the
potential for personhood, or autonomy, or some other morally
significant property). Does this idea provide a good reason to
think that abortion is morally wrong?
Question from Sample Exam (on Moodle)
Cultural relativism and moral methodology
14. How would you characterise the difference between virtue
ethics and the approaches we have been looking at in most of
the unit?
15. Is there a conflict between the virtue of being a good
parent and the principle of equality? Explain your answer.
16. What is cultural relativism? If cultural relativism is true,
does it have any implications for how we should treat people
from other cultures? In particular, should we be tolerant of
people from other cultures?
17. “If moral relativism is true, then people who appear to
disagree with one another about morals are actually talking
past one another”. Explain this claim. Is this a good objection
to moral relativism?
The difference between individual and cultural relativism: both
views hold there is not objective right and wrong .
Cultural relativism holds that ethical values vary from society to
society and that the basis for moral judgements lies in these social
cultural views.
Individual relativism holds that ethical values are the expression of
the moral outlook of the individual.
Problems for cultural Relativism
With which group should my views coincide? My extended family,
state, culture etc? Different groups to which I belong can morally
disagree.
If society changes its views, why should this change morality? If
52 percent support a war but later only 48 percent do, why should
this change the war’s claim to justice?
Problem for both cultural and individual relativism
Both seem to imply that relativism is more tolerant than
objectivism, but in neither case is this true. A cultural relativist can
hold that tolerance is good only insofar as tolerance is already a
virtue in a given society. There is no reason for intolerant societies
to change. Similarly, an individual relativist has no reason to listen
to the different views and arguments of others, for there is no
reason to think such views are objectively superior.
Problem for individual relativism
Individual relativism suggests morality is relative to my perspective
as an individual. But what if I am inwardly conflicted on a moral
question? Either I’m doing something wrong—which is hard to
reconcile with individual relativism—or individual relativism cannot
tell me what I ought to believe
Mansfield Ruling on Slavery in England 1772
On behalf of Somersett, it was argued that while colonial laws might
permit slavery, neither the common law of England, nor any law made
by Parliament recognised the existence of slavery, and slavery was
therefore illegal.[64] Moreover, English contract law did not allow for
any person to enslave himself, nor could any contract be binding
without the person's consent. The arguments thus focused on legal
details rather than humanitarian principles.[64] A law passed in 1765
said that all lands, forts and slaves owned by the Africa Company
were a property of the Crown, which could be interpreted to mean that
the Crown accepted slavery.[64] When the two lawyers for Charles
Stewart put their case, they argued that a contract for the sale of a
slave was recognised in England, and therefore the existence of
slaves must be legally valid.[64]
After the attorneys for both sides had given their arguments,
Mansfield called a recess, saying that "[the case] required ... [a]
consultation ... among the twelve Judges".[66] Finally, on 22 June
1772 Mansfield gave his judgment, which ruled that a master could
not carry his slave out of England by force, and concluded:
The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being
introduced on any reasons, moral or political; but only positive law,
which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasion, and time
itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory: it's so
odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law.
Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I
cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England;
and therefore the black must be discharged.[67]
This was not an end to slavery, as this only confirmed it was illegal in
England and Wales, not in the rest of the British Empire.[67] As a
result of Mansfield's decision, between 14,000 and 15,000 slaves
were immediately freed in England, some of whom remained with
their masters as paid employees.[67] The decision was apparently not
immediately followed; Africans were still hunted and kidnapped in
London, Liverpool and Bristol to be sold elsewhere.