Tutorial # 10. Applied Ethics. Euthanasia - Discussion Questions

In light of the readings you have done (especially ‘Active and Passive Euthanasia’ by James Rachel), think about these questions.

• Is there a right to die? Think about the Hippocratic Oath
• What is the difference between passive and active euthanasia?
• Is there a distinction between killing and letting die?
• Does a doctor do really nothing when he lets his patient die?
• In the case of euthanasia, does a causal difference make moral difference? For example, is there a moral difference if the doctor intervenes directly to kill his patient rather than let the patient die himself?
• Is euthanasia a form of suicide?
• Can we ignore the (un)expressed preference of the patient? Think about Million Dollar baby.
• Would that be a homicide?
• What if the patient cannot express his preference?
• What criteria can be set for identifying an incurable ill?
• Why would not be morally preferable to use palliative care instead of euthanasia?
• What are the grounds to decide about life and death?
• What if the dying is not competent about medical care, or his request of euthanasia is not genuinely voluntary? How could we assess this?
• In what sense life is sacred?
• Why prolonging life should be good (or bad)? Under what conditions?
• Is there any preferable alternative to euthanasia?

Tutorial # 10. Applied Ethics. Euthanasia - Million Dollar baby

A Powerful Death Request

From Wikipedia - Million Dollar Baby (2004)

"Eventually, she confides to Dunn that she has "seen it all" and asks to be relieved of her suffering. Dunn refuses to help her die, but does speak with his priest, who objects to the idea of euthanasia. Maggie then attempts suicide by biting her tongue multiple times in an attempt to bleed to death. Though hospital staff prevent further suicide attempts, Dunn decides that Maggie's suffering should not continue, and he injects her with an overdose of adrenaline.
Just before administering the injection, Dunn finally tells Maggie the meaning of the nickname by which he has called her; the phrase, Mo Cuishle, is Gaelic for "My darling, my blood."

Tutorial # 10. Applied Ethics. Euthanasia. the Hippocratic Oath

From The Hippocratic Oath

"...I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel"

http://www.euthanasia.com/oathtext.html

On how to Improve your essay and... your mark

The most common comments I made on your essays - and that I also sometimes receive on my own essays, are the following:

- "The structure and the goal of yor paper are not stated" "They are not obvious to the reader";
- "Explain this claim";
- "Inaccurate in reconstructing Mr X's view" "Be charitable!";
- "What do you mean here?" "I don't get it";
- "This is unclear, or confused, too hard to follow";
- "This is a technical term, be precise!";
- "Why? Give reasons!";
- "What's the relation between this claim and that claim?";
- "What is the conclusion?"; "Does your conclusion follow from the premisses?"
- "This is irrelevant" "Stick to the topic"
- "Give an example!"

Here is the hint:
If you anticipate these comments, you can prevent me to make them!
Thus, your essay will improve.

If your first essay has not received the mark you expected, don't be discouraged. Writing philosophy is not an easy task. But working seriously and constantly, your writing will improve for sure.

Some Tips for your Next Essays. And referencing

Here is some tips for your next essays.


- First, Jim Pryor has an excellent website, where you can find some Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper. They are very useful!

- Second, make clear the structure of your paper right at the beginning.
State the goal of your paper: What is your aim? What are you going to do?
Give a brief outline of how you are going to proceed to make your point: What are you going to do first?; What are you gonna do then? How are all the steps in your argument related?

- Third, try to "delimit your own territory".
Focus! Make small points; be "modest" in your claims. Don't be afraid of using such expressions as "it seems", "it may be the case", "it might be".
Always give reasons! Motivate your claims -

- Forth, polish, polish, polish!
Use short sentences, with very few adjectives, and connect the sentences logically with the right conjunctions.

- Fifth, use relevant references and the right referencing.

Here is some examples for referencing:

For a book:
Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation, New York: Free Press.

For a joural article:
Thaler, R. H. (1988) "Anomalies: The Ultimatum Game", Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2, pp. 195–206.

For an article reprinted in a volume:
Cartwright, N. (1983) "Do the Laws of Physics State the Facts?", in Curd, M. & Cover, J. A. eds. (1998) Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. London: W. W. Norton and Company, pp. 865-877.

For an online article:
Beyer, C. (2007). “Edmund Husserl”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2007 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2007/entries/husserl/.

For an "old" classic - there are a few ways:
Anselm, St., Proslogion, in St. Anselm's Proslogion, M. Charlesworth (ed.), Oxford: OUP, 1965

or

Kant, I., 1781, Kritik der reinen Vernunft, 1781, vols. 3 and 4 of Gesammelte Schriften, de Gruyter & Co., 1969; page references are to the English translation, Critique of Pure Reason,
New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.

or

Kant, I., 1780 (1965), The Metaphysical Elements of Justice: Part I of the Metaphysics of Morals, J. Ladd, Trans., Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co.

- Finally, here is an example for brief quotations in the body of your essay:
"… thus we come to see that ‘”meanings” just ain’t in the head!" (Putnam 1977, p. 704).

Tutorial # 9. Political Philosophy. Equality and Desert. Discussion Questions

In light of the readings you have done (especially George Sher, ‘Effort, Ability, and Personal Desert’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 8:4 (1979), pp. 361–376), think about these questions.

• What sorts of economic arrangements are best? Compare capitalism, which advocates private ownership and free markets, and socialism, which advocates collective ownership and central planning. Which one promotes better well-being, rewarding the deserving, protecting liberty?
• A familiar argument in recent social theorizing is that because no one deserves either his native talents or his ability to exert effort, no one can be said to deserve any advantages made possible by his talents or abilities: ‘People do not deserve their natural abilities; therefore, they do not deserve advantages which they achieve with those abilities.’ Is this a plausible view?
• What is equality?
• People differ from each other in many respects. Why should equality be a political goal then?
• In what, if anything, people should be equal?
• Do different people deserve different rewards? Why would a CEO deserve more monetary reward than a philosophy tutor?
• Do we have a natural right on anything? Do we have a natural right on private property?
• Most universities advertise their vacancies stating that they are committed to equality and diversity? Often, on a job ad, one may find the disclaimer “women and minorities are particularly encouraged to apply”. What does that mean?
• Would that imply a sort of “inverse discrimination”? That is, if women are underrepresented in a philosophy department, should the hiring committee particularly welcome applications from female candidates? Should women deserve and advantage in such situations?
• Compare the passage by St Matthew and that by Marx. What are the differences? Which one do you find more convincing? Why?
• Would one deserve anything according to his capacities or according to his needs?
• Why does Rawls (see Sher) believe that people do not deserve their character and abilities?
• Are our natural assets really undeserved because they are brought into existence by events independent of anything we ourselves have done?

Tutorial # 9. Political Philosophy. Equality Desert And Marx

Karl Marx 1875

From Critique of the Gotha Programme

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

Tutorial # 9. Political Philosophy. Equality Desert And St Matthew

From the Gospel according to St Matthew 25, 14 - 30

14 "It will be as when a man who was going on a journey called in his servants and entrusted his possessions to them. 15 To one he gave five talents; to another, two; to a third, one - to each according to his ability. Then he went away. Immediately 16 the one who received five talents went and traded with them, and made another five. 17 Likewise, the one who received two made another two. 18 But the man who received one went off and dug a hole in the ground and buried his master's money. 19 After a long time the master of those servants came back and settled accounts with them. 20 The one who had received five talents came forward bringing the additional five. He said, 'Master, you gave me five talents. See, I have made five more.' 21 His master said to him, 'Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master's joy.' 22 (Then) the one who had received two talents also came forward and said, 'Master, you gave me two talents. See, I have made two more.' 23 His master said to him, 'Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master's joy.' 24 Then the one who had received the one talent came forward and said, 'Master, I knew you were a demanding person, harvesting where you did not plant and gathering where you did not scatter; 25 so out of fear I went off and buried your talent in the ground. Here it is back.' 26 His master said to him in reply, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I did not plant and gather where I did not scatter? 27 Should you not then have put my money in the bank so that I could have got it back with interest on my return? 28 Now then! Take the talent from him and give it to the one with ten. 29 For to everyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And throw this useless servant into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.'

Tutorial # 8.Meta - Ethics. God and Morality. Discussion Questions

In light of the readings you have done (especially Philip L. Quinn, ‘God and Morality’, in Reasons and Responsibility), think about these questions.

• Are there any objective moral facts?
• Or are moral statements true or false only relative to particular cultural standards or personal attitudes of approval and disapproval?
• Can divine commands provide an objective basis for morality?
• Does Christian Ethics amount to the divine command theory?
• What is theological voluntarism?
• What are the main reasons why – according to Quinn – if one is a theist, he should consider the divine command theory as a sound theory?
• In which sense ethics depends on God?
• What is the sense of Dostoevskij’s proclaim that “everything is permitted if there is no God”? Read the passage below from The Brothers Karamazov
• Do you think that there is any “natural moral law”’ Why? Or why not? Try not to focus on cultural differences, but rather on analogies across societies and cultures?
• Accoring to Sartre, in which sense there is no human nature? And how is this related to the death of God? Think about the reading below by Sartre.
• What is the best reason to adopt divine command morality if one is monotheist?
• According to Kierkegaard - quoted in Quinn, what is the difference between erotic love and love of the neighbor?
• What relation, if any, do you find between Kantian categorical imperatives and the Christian “commandment of love”?
• How do we know the will of God?
• If from the Bible, should we take the Bible literally, or give it an interpretation?
• Do you agree that if God commanded homicide, adultery, and theft, then homicide, adultery, and theft would be morally right? Why? Or why not?
• An action is good because God wants it, or God wants a certain action because it is good? This is the Euthyphro Objection. How would you tackle this problem? Think about te episode in the Genesis of the Binding of Isaac
• God as perfectly good is “constrained” to want the good? In which sense? Does this imply that God is not almighty?

Tutorial # 8.Meta - Ethics. Sartre on God and Morality

The atheist and existentialist writer and philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre (1905 – 1980) accepts that God’s death makes our existence completely absurd (inexplicable) and in his various writings he tries to work out how it might be possible for human beings to live in a superfluous world in which there is no good and bad, no right and wrong, no ultimate meaning and so no reason for anything.

In Existentialism and Human Emotions (1957, pp. 9-16), he writes:

"Atheistic existentialism, which I represent, is more coherent. It states that if God does not exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and that this being is man, or, as Heidegger says, human reality. What is meant here by saying that existence precedes essence? It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. Not only is man what he conceives himself to be, but he is also only what he wills himself to be after this thrust toward existence.
Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. Such is the first principle of existentialism."

Tutorial # 8.Meta - Ethics. Dostoevskij on God and Morality

Dostoevskij (1821 – 1881) in book XI of The Brothers Karamazov describes Ivan Karamazov's destructive influence on those around him and his descent into madness.
"It is in this book that Ivan meets three times with Smerdyakov, the final meeting culminating in Smerdyakov's dramatic confession that he had faked the fit, murdered Fyodor Karamazov, and stolen the money, which he presents to Ivan. Smerdyakov expresses disbelief at Ivan's professed ignorance and surprise. Smerdyakov claims that Ivan was complicit in the murder by telling Smerdyakov when he would be leaving Fyodor's house, and more importantly by instilling in Smerdyakov the belief that in a world without God "everything is permitted." The book ends with Ivan having a hallucination in which he is visited by the devil, who torments Ivan by mocking his beliefs. Alyosha finds Ivan raving and informs him that Smerdyakov killed himself shortly after their final meeting." From Wikipedia

He writes thus:

"I did have an idea of beginning a new life with that money in Moscow or, better still, abroad. I did dream of it, chiefly because 'all things are lawful.' That was quite right what you taught me, for you talked a lot to me about that. For if there's no everlasting God, there's no such thing as virtue, and there's no need of it. You were right there. So that's how I looked at it."
"Did you come to that of yourself?" asked Ivan, with a wry smile.
"With your guidance."
"And now, I suppose, you believe in God, since you are giving back the money?"
"No, I don't believe," whispered Smerdyakov.
"Then why are you giving it back?"
"Leave off... that's enough!" Smerdyakov waved his hand again. "You used to say yourself that everything was lawful, so now why are you so upset, too? You even want to go and give evidence against yourself.... Only there'll be nothing of the sort! You won't go to give evidence," Smerdyakov decided with conviction.

Tutorial # 7. Consequentialism. Discussion Questions

In light of the readings you have done (especially Mill on Utilitarianism) think about these qustions.

• What sort of consequences count as good consequences?
• Who is the primary beneficiary of moral action? Think about future generations, and Sebastian's thought experiment.
• How are the consequences judged and who judges them?
• Are there any absolute, non-relative, rights for a consequentialist?
• What is, for Mill, the "Greatest-happiness Principle"?
• Mill claims that Kant’s theory is a version of utilitarianism. Why? Do you agree?
• Why, according to Mill, some kinds of pleasure are more desirable than others?
• Is it really ‘better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied’ (Mill, p. 644)? Why?
• If happiness amounts to the satisfaction of our desires, and some kind of happiness is more desirable than others, how can we try to educate our desires to reach that kind of happiness?
• Do we have “innate” desires?
• How would you calculate the expected utility of an action?
• In your utilitarian calculus, should you take into account also the consequences that would affect animals? For instance, how would you weigh up your pleasure for a burger at McDonalds’ and the pain suffered by that animal?
• How is utility inter-personal comparison possible? Put it in English, how can you compare, for example, the pleasure of a sadist with the suffering of a victim? How can you compare the mental pleasure of watching a football match with the physical pleasure of having sex, or having a nice pizza?
• Is physical pleasure inferior to intellectual pleasure? Recall Mill's view on different knds of happiness.
• I slap a kid because he cursed. To evaluate my action, should you take into account also the consequences that my slap may have on the way he will educate his children?
• If it turned out that hanging an innocent publicly once a month will dramatically reduce crimes, should we hang innocent people?
• Should we impose pleasure to others? For example, If it turned out that putting LSD in water will make people more happy, would you be justified to pour LSD in the aqueducts of Edinburgh?
• What if instead of pursuing actions that promotes happiness, we pursued actions that promotes less pain and suffering? What would be the difference?
• How would a consequentialist argue to explain why it is wrong (or right) to bake a stranger who agrees to be baked? Would it make sense such kind of consequentialist explanation?

Tutorial # 7. Consequentialism. What We Owe To Future Generations?

Once, my friend Sebastian Koehler came up with this scenario:

"Assume that your house is terrorized by a lot of rats. The only way you could get rid of them, would be to flood your whole house with a deadly gas which kills mammals in seconds (I assume for this case that killing the rats would be permissible).
Assume further that your house is built on a spot were the normal natural laws are crazy in a certain respect: You know that if you will use the poisonous gas this would result in 10 normal human beings spontaniously and instantly being created in your house, who will then immediatelly die from the poisionous gas.
What do you think? Is it permissible to use the poisionous gas?"

Sebastian thinks rather not.
The problem with future generations seems to be analogous: How can it be that non-existent beings can make moral demands on us?

What do you think about it?
In light of consequentialism, do you think we should take into account long-term consequences of our actions, consequences that will affect other people not-yet existent?

Tutorial # 7. Consequentialism. The Trolley Problem

Consequentialism is the view that an action is morally right just in case it promotes the good at least as well as any of the other available alternatives.

Now, think about the following pair of scenarios offered by Judith Jarvis Thomson:

A runaway trolley rushes towards five people who will be killed if it proceeds on its present course. The only way to save them is to hit a switch that will divert the trolley onto another set of tracks where it will kill only one person instead of five.
What should you do?

Same scenario as before. A
trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. This time, you are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five.
Should you proceed?

…

The Trolley Problem. Video

What should an utilitarian do?

What is the difference that motivates these different moral judgements?