ATS1371
Life, Death, and Morality
Semester 1, 2015
Dr Ron Gallagher
ron.gallagher@monash.edu
Tutorial 9 - Abortion (2 more tutorials to go)
https://youtu.be/2Qfiq18DMYk
Marquis and Singer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-d6H6jRlqg#t=578
Dawkins and Singer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lu9sc4FWLw
ABC Interview(s)
http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/weekly-with-charlie-pickering/LE1409V001S00#playing
Casual Racism
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
THREATS, SHIELDS, BYSTANDERS
What is the difference, according to Thomson, between an innocent threat
and an innocent bystander, which explains why you can kill one, but not
the other, in self-defence? How does her theory apply to innocent
shields?
› A threat is a thing such that, if you don’t stop it, it will kill you. A
bystander is a thing which is around when you are under threat, and
perhaps by killing or harming the bystander you can save yourself, but it
is not true that the bystander is threatening to kill you.
› A shield is a person being used by a threat, such that, if you kill the
threat, you will kill or harm the shield.
› Thomson’s theory is that, you may kill someone in self defence, only if it
is true of that person that: if you don’t kill her, she’ll kill you.
› Her criterion is, strictly speaking: if you don’t kill her, she’ll infringe your
right to life.
›What happens to someone fulfilling this condition is that they forfeit the
right to life.
› Therefore, there is a big difference between threats and bystanders.
Because the condition is not true of bystanders, but it is true of threats.
› Moreover, shields cannot be legitimately harmed in self-defence, either.
The condition is not true of shields.
Otsuka Definitions
Unless otherwise noted, all references to Aggressors,
Bystanders, and Threats are to those who are
Innocent. (Footnote #6)
Lethal agent - something or someone that acts to
bring about death
Qua = ‘in the capacity of’ (example: “someone who
is not in control of her body qua endangering object”
means “someone who is not in control of her body in
its capacity as endangering object”
Michael Otsuka from Reading D LDM Study Guide
“In this section and the next, I shall defend the following argument for the
impermissibility of killing a Threat.”
[Argument 1 (Innocent Threats)]pp.126-7
P1: It is impermissible to kill a Bystander to prevent oneself from being
killed. (I shall refer to this premise as the Inviolability of a Bystander
thesis.)
P2: The killing of a Threat and the killing of a Bystander are, other things
equal,on a par as far as permissibility is concerned.
(I shall refer to this premise as the Moral Equivalence thesis.)
C. It is impermissible to kill a Threat to prevent oneself from
being killed.
Sub-argument for P1 Argument 1
(Inviolability of Bystander)
P1 Killing an innocent is not permitted even
when it is necessary to save your own life.
P2 Bystanders are innocent
C. It is impermissible to kill a Bystander to
prevent oneself from being killed.
Sub-argument for P2 Argument 1
(Moral Equivalence)
P1 Innocent Threats do not have responsibility for
their lethal agency
P2 It is impermissible to kill an innocent Bystander to
save your life because they are not responsible lethal
agents
C. The killing of a Threat and the killing of a
Bystander are, other things equal, on a par as far as
permissibility is concerned.
Argument 2 (Main Argument
concerning innocent aggressors)
P1 It is impermissible to kill an innocent Threat in self-defense [from
Argument 1]
P2 The only morally relevant fact that distinguishes innocent Aggressors
from innocent Threats is harmful agency[define]
P3 Harmful agency is only relevant when persons act as morally
responsible agents
P4 Innocent threats and innocent Bystanders do not function as morally
responsible agents.
P5 Harmful agency is not morally relevant in cases of self-defense
against innocent Threats and innocent Aggressors.
C. It is impermissible to kill an innocent Aggressor in self-defense.
Innocent Bystanders
Innocent Threats - eg falling fat man
Innocent Shields
Innocent Agressors - eg drug crazed maniacs
Innocents
• Traditional account does not clearly settle the
status of innocents.
• On Hobbesian account, innocence looks likely to
be irrelevant.
> What is crucial is my interest in living.
> My interest in living can threatened just as
much by innocent or non-innocent threats.
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.
A Permissive Account
(1)
A permissive account allows the harming of innocents in selfdefence by making the criterion for being a legitimate target
a causal criteria.
THOMSON’S ‘KILLING’ THEORY
CONDITION If you don’t harm X, X will kill you.
THEORY Whenever the condition is true of someone,
you mill kill them in self-defence.
• Innocent aggressors, threats, are in.
• Innocent shields, bystanders, are out.
A Restrictive Account
(2)
CONSEQUENCE we may not defend ourselves against the
innocent aggressor.
• The restrictive account can minimize how disturbing this is, by
suggesting that some killing of innocents, though not strictly
permissible, are excusable wrongs.
HOWEVER this might suggest that there is a big difference
between defence of self and defence of others.
Utilitarian Approach
(1)
If people submitted to attacks, everyone would be less secure.
– But if we retaliated with excessive force, killing innocent
bystanders, overall security would also be diminished.
– So perhaps a rule that permits limited self-defence has good
consequences.
But this more a utilitarian justification for a law or a custom
permitting self-defence.
It does not actually justify individual acts of self-defence.
Each act must be justified on the consequences of that act.
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 make 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)
Racism, speciesism and the POE
• Racists give undue weight to their racial
group
POE Test: “What course of action is open to me
which will maximise satisfaction of all
creatures, counting all preferences that are
sufficiently alike in an impartial manner?
Treat like interests in a like manner.
Dirk B
From ATS1371 Reader
Consider whether the principle of equality can be used to
attack the institution of slavery. Suppose there were an
institution of slavery based on a lottery in which everyone had
an equal chance of becoming a slave or a slave-owner, would
the equality principle still provide a strong case against
slavery?
PART III
SINGER’S PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY
EQUALITY
There has been a huge change in Western attitudes to
blatant forms of racial discrimination.
‘The principle that all humans are equal is now part of the
prevailing political and ethical orthodoxy’ (Singer
(1993:16).
But what does this principle mean?
It is simply not true that all are equal with respect to
intelligence or height or weight, etc.
A non-factual approach to equality
Singer avoids the problem of trying to find a factual
equality.
SINGER: Principle of equality (POE) is not a
factual principle. Rather, it is a basic
ethical principle that is an exhortation
(command, imperative).
NB: Imperatives are not truth-apt.
POE
According to Singer, the POE is a basic ethical
principle of equal consideration of interests.
POE: Treat all interests equally.
‘…give equal weight in our moral deliberations to the
like interests of all those affected by our actions’
(Singer, 1993:21).
Why Accept the Principle of Equality as a
basic ethical principle?
Singer:
1. Ethical behaviour requires a universal point of view.
2. A universal point of view requires that I take into account
the interests of all those affected.
3. So ethical behaviour requires something like the POE.
Note that the POE is part of utilitarianism, but can
be adopted in isolation from it.
DOES THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY ENTAIL EQUAL
TREATMENT?
NO
‘The principle of equal consideration of interests act
like a pair of scales, weighing interests impartially.
True scales favour the side where the interest is
stronger or where several interests combine to outweigh
a smaller number of similar interests; but they take no
account of whose interests they are weighing’ (Singer
1993:22).
Application (1): Leads to minimally egalitarian
consequences.
> I have two doses of morphine
> X is in agony with a crushed thigh.
> Y is in slight pain with a gashed thigh.
> If I give one shot of morphine to each, X will remain in
far greater pain that Y.
> As the interest that X and Y have in pain relief is not equal, I
should give the two doses to X.
• But – the unequal treatment has resulted in a more egalitarian
result.
• There is less difference in the amount of suffering.
APPLICATION (2)
> X, has lost a leg and is in danger of losing a toe from her
remaining leg without medical treatment.
> Y has an injury to her leg, and is in danger of losing it
without medical treatment.
If we were to aim for a more egalitarian result that narrowed
the difference in welfare between the two, we would save X’s
toe.
But –doing so is not a case of considering interests impartially.
POE – MINIMALLY EGALITARIAN
Singer: there are cases where applying the POE can result
in a greater difference between individuals.
> Ys interest in not losing a leg is much greater than Xs
interest in not losing a toe.
> We should, when interests are considered and impartially,
give the medical treatment to Y.
> To bring about best result, we must actually increase the
inequality between two people. Hence POE is not thoroughly
egalitarian.
APPLICATION (3)
Singer also thinks that POE will rule out blatant
forms of racism, for those require total disregard
for the preferences/interests of others.
What if we discover inequalities?
If racism is wrong because it ignores the POE, then what
does the POE tell us about inequalities between races?
Suppose there is a racial difference in IQ, or whatever.
Two weak replies:
> Racial averages do not correlate very strongly
with the qualities of individuals.
> Racial averages may reflect environment much
more than genetic influences.
What if we discover inequalities? (2)
IMPORTANT REPLY
The observed difference gives no reason to revise the
POE.
1. Person A is smarter than person B, therefore
2. Treat A’s interests as more important than B’s.
- This is a complete non-sequitur.
A statement of fact cannot contradict an imperative
Which of the following is a correct statement
about Singer’s POE?
1. From the POE it follows that someone who says that blacks
are more intelligent than whites is making a factual error.
II. From the POE it follows that someone who says that
blacks are more intelligent than whites is making a moral
error.
A. I only
B. II only
C. I and II.
D. Neither
PART IV
PROBLEMS FOR SINGER
Intrinsically bad attitudes
In saying what is wrong with racism, Singer has shifted
focus off beliefs and sentiments towards actions.
• But what about hatred of another race. Surely that is a
wrongful part of racism?
Singer can say that it is wrong because of the typical
consequences of racial hatred. But you might argue that
hatred of a racial group is intrinsically bad.
EVEN RACIST INTERESTS COUNT
• In treating all interests equally, Singer is committed to
taking into consideration the interest a racist has in
persecuting another race!
(e.g. ‘Nasty Society Transplant’ case).
MOVING ON
Perhaps we can block the second of these worries if we
help ourselves to rights.
In addition to the POE, we might believe in the existence
of certain basic rights that would be violated by any policy
of persecution.
Good thing about the POE is that it shows how racism can
be wrongful even if what we think of as racist beliefs are
true.
Which of the following statements about the
POE are true?
1. The POE rules out most racially discriminatory policies
because
those policies fail to treat the interests of all equally.
II. The POE rules out racial hatred because such hatred is
not based
on treating the interests of everyone equally.
III. All preference utilitarians must accept the POE.
A.
B.
C.
D.
1 only
1 and 11 only
1 and 111 only
1, 11 and 111
SUMMARY
• Singer’s principle of equality gives a neat explanation
of why racism and sexism are wrong, that is not
threatened by any inequalities between groups.
• But, the same principle does not seem to explain what
is wrong with racial hatred.
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.
Define your terms:Person
Human Being
Embryo
Foetus
Being
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.
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?
THE VALUE OF POTENTIAL
Rather than focussing on the actual properties of a
foetus, what about its potential properties?
Two objections:
1. A potential X does not automatically get the rights
of an X. (Prince Charles example)
2. How much potential is enough? (contraception
worry)
DRAWIING THE LINE
Don Marquis:
Abortion deprives an individual of a future like ours.
This shows that abortion is prima facie wrong in the
same fashion as murder, because in both cases, a
determinate individual is deprived of the same sort of
valuable thing. (Paraphrase from Reading G)
Marquis claims that this avoids the contraception
objection.
DRAWING THE LINE (2)
He asks: Who is harmed by contraception?
1. The sperm-ovum pair that would have formed a zygote?
2. Two individuals: the sperm and the ovum are each harmed
individually?
3. All the possible sperm-ovum pairs which might have
formed a zygote are harmed by having their chance of doing so
reduced?
4. All of the individual sperm and ova whose chances of
forming a zygote were reduced are harmed?
DRAWING THE LINE (3)
(1) through to (4) are all candidates for being the
subject(s) of harm in the case of successful
contraception or abstinence from sex. Which should
be chosen? Should we hold a lottery? There seems to
be no nonarbitrary determinate subject of harm in the
case of successful contraception. But if there is no
such subject of harm, then no determinate thing was
harmed, then … no wrong has been done. Thus the
FLO account of the wrongness of abortion does not
entail that contraception is wrong. (Marquis
2005:212)
SUMMARY
> An important assumption underlying much of the
debate is the intrinsic properties assumption.
> Appealing to potential raises tricky metaphysical
issues about who gets harmed before conception.