ATS1371
Life, Death, and Morality
Semester 1, 2015
Dr Ron Gallagher
ron.gallagher@monash.edu
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: http://bit.ly/Uxysij
Lectures and Tutorials at Clayton (Ron G indicated)
RonG
Ron
Ron
S111
Ron
Lectures and Tutorials at Clayton
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
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.)
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 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%)
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 10 @ 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 18 @ 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.) [100-150 words]
2.Singer endorses a version of consequentialism. State, very
briefly, what his view is and identify some potentially problematic
implications of his view. [100-150 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.
[100-200 words]
AT1.1 (Due March 18 @ 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 18 @ 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)
JS Mill - The Harm Principle:
“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]
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]