Exploring Ethics by Steven Cahn - Assignment Example

Here are two ments You shouldn’t steal. (2) You should be helpful. What do these ments mean, according   (a) The Divine Command/Preference Theory   The theory explores the different dimensions of Divine command and its effect on a persons personal moral code. Based on this theory, one will not steal and one would be more inclined to help others because it doesnt confer with the high moral standards of a divine being or in other words, Gods will. This is because many people assume god to be a benevolent being with very high moral standards. To many in mainstream religions such as Christianity and Islam, the will of god is revealed through the holy scriptures. Prime examples would be the 10 commandments or the Sharia law. The theory states that individuals simply dont adhere to Gods commands because the commands themselves are morally right. However, on the contrary, God commands them because they are right. What is right is independent of what God commands, meaning that the divine laws or commands must adhere to an independent standard in order to be right morally.    (b) Cultural Relativism   Cultural Relativism revolves around 2 main principles which are Different cultures have different moral codes. Due to different moral codes there is no objective truth in morality. Right and wrong are simply the matters of opinions which change in accordance to culture.   In a society where there it is not morally wrong to steal, everyone would feel insecure. Since it would be alright to steal, there will be no mechanisms for catching and prosecuting thieves either. Thus, a society would not function very well or would fail to meet one of its key obligations which would be unacceptable.   The same applies to helping others. Many societies have large networks of medical, legal and welfare sources specifically to help others. A society where no one is required to help others or actively discouraged from helping others would face certain instability. The poor, the old, the weak and the abandoned will not have anyone to count on for existence, since anyone is capable of falling ill (accidents, flu) or becoming poor for at least a certain period of time (unemployment, bankruptcy) , good hardworking individuals who would otherwise benefit society would most likely perish. Support networks, exists even in remote societies such as the Eskimos, for example, Supporting an injured hunter (who is sure to recover) is more beneficial to the entire village that training a new one.    (c) Ethical Egoism   Ethical Egoism refers to the manner in which we should act. In other words, no matter how men behave they have no obligation to do anything but whats in their own interest. Thus one could justify doing whatever is in his own interest, regardless of the consequences on others. Egoism cannot be given be applied universally. If one man is an egoist he would need everyone else or a vast majority of people to be altruistic, otherwise everyone would do what ever they pleased without any regard for someone else. Therefore if a person chooses not to steal , an egoist is trying to develop a society where the rights and interests of people are respected since such a society would allow a person to live in securely and happily. While, helping others and being kindly and considerate will create a society which is to his advantage. He would choose to be kind and considerate to others since that would be to his advantage.       (d) Stevenson   To Stevenson there are two types of disagreements. A disagreement on beliefs and a disagreement on attitude. In the case of opposition of beliefs, both cannot be true and in case of opposition of attitudes, both cannot be satisfied. In terms of normative ethics, when people argue about what is right and wrong it is a disagreement about beliefs and also a disagreement about attitudes. Thus stealing could be a disagreement between attitudes. All parties agree that stealing is bad thus there is belief in the argument that stealing is bad but the attitude towards it could differ. For example, what constitutes stealing? Or stealing worthy or mention and punishment.   Helping others could be more or less a disagreement based on attitudes as well. Everyone may believe that we should other people however to what degree should this help be extended (huge financial liabilities or babysitting?) and to whom should this be extended to (poor people only?). These questions reflect a disagreement in attitudes and not beliefs.    (e) Mill   Mills system of morality only focuses on the consequences. He defends utilitarianism on the grounds that it is the supreme principle of morality to act in a manner that produces the most happiness possible. Here, it is said that he is referring to the pleasure and the absence of pain. Therefore he states that the foundation of morals "utility" or "the greatest happiness principle" holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness and wrong if they promote the opposite of happiness. In other words right actions bring pleasure and wrong actions bring pain.   He also states that the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth which states that "do as you would be done by" and "help your neighbor as yourself" capture the fully spirit of the ethics of utility.   Accordingly if someone steals from us it would bring us pain, if someone were to help us in a time of need it would bring us pleasure. Therefore Mill suggests we ought to do the same. Thus it would bring us pleasure to help someone while it would bring us pain to steal from someone.    (f) Kant   Kant argues, in contrast to Mill, that it is not the consequences that should be judged but rather it is the nature of the maxim or the principle which motivated the action. According to Kant the only correct maxims or principles are those that can serve as universal laws and applicable to every person at anytime. Thus one should only act on this sort of maxim.   In this case stealing would be akin to using someone for the means but not the end, this would mean if one were to steal , the victim is not being treated as a rational being worthy of respect which is morally wrong. Therefore one should not steal. This is also universally applicable, meaning that the law would not contradict itself.   The same would apply for helping others. Helping others could act as a universal law and be applicable to every person at the same time thus helping others would be the correct thing to do as would not stealing.    (g) Hobbes   Hobbes asserts that the world is an arena where the strongest survives. Accordingly if you are strong enough to get what you want from others, such as their property, cattle, wealth and family, then you can do so. He also states that if everyone is governed by his own reason, it becomes a recipe for a war of everyone against everyone. According to his law of nature there is no injustice and the very justice is having access to anything you want.   Thus stealing would not be an injustice according to the law of nature since you have a right to everything anyway and if you are strong enough to take it from someone else, then there is nothing to stop you.   Helping others isnt an explicit option. Note that Hobbes states that if everyone was guided by their own reason, then they there would be war of everyone against everyone not mutual help involving everyone for everyones benefit.      2. What is the point of the violinist scenario? The violinist scenario depicts a person who wakes up after being kidnapped and finds out she is plugged to severely ill violinist (and unconscious) who needs to use her kidneys in order to clear out toxins in his blood and survive and requiring her to remain in bed with him until he has recovered. The scenario assumes the person must be plugged in for 9 months. This scenario highlights the fact that the person did not give her explicit permission to the violinist to use her body thus she is under no obligation to him. Therefore, even though the violinist does have the right to live, he does not have the right to use the persons body. Therefore If the person decides to unplug herself from the body of the violinist and thus let him die, she will not be violating his right to live but simply exercising her rights since she is under no obligation to him and she deprived him of something he had no right to in the first place.   This scenario is then linked to a fetus and mother. A fetus like the unconscious violinist has no explicit permission to use the womans body. Thus even if a mother were to abort the fetus and even if the fetus is assumed to be living person from the moment of conception, the mother is not violating the fetuss right to life but simply depriving the fetus of a body that it has no right to.   Even if the pregnancy were to last an hour, it wont be right or indecent to unplug oneself since there is no obligation to the fetus. Thus just like a violinist has no right to demand that one stays plugged into him, a fetus also has no such right.  3. What is the point of the “people seeds” scenario?   The people seeds scenario illustrates a scene where people seeds (referring to sperm) is compared to pollen, which is floating freely in the air. These seeds are in also may take root in the carpets or upholstery in the house (referring to the womb). Thus, the woman who does not want children or people plants, puts up fine mesh screens to cover the windows (referring to contraception) but since one of these mesh screens are defective, some of the pollen get through and one of them takes root (referring to pregnancy after the failure of contraception).   As shown above, the scenario where pollen gets through a defective mesh and takes hold inside the house is linked to a woman getting pregnant after a defective contraception method. However, even though the woman got pregnant or in this case, the pollen got through and took root, it does not mean that the people plants (or fetus) have any right to the house (womb). This is the point being made by the people seeds scenario.   It is also stated that since one could live without carpets and bare floors (no sexual relationships) they are responsible for the rooting of the people plant (pregnancy). However, this is claimed to be an extreme since if this were the case, rape can be avoided too if the womb was entirely removed thus removing the chances of pregnancy.   The people seeds scenario also states that there are some cases where an unborn person (fetus) has a right to a mothers body and thus abortion is not justified, however it is not elaborated on.    4. What makes something a member of Warren’s ‘moral community’?     Warren sets out to define the moral community as follows. Firstly Warren draws up a list of some of the characteristics of personhood as follows.   Sentience : The capacity to conscious experiences, usually including the capacity to experience pleasure and pain. Emotionality : The capacity to pain, anger, sadness, loneliness, etc. Reason : The ability to solve relatively new and complex puzzles. Capacity to communicate : Messages of an indefinite variety of types ,not just with an indefinite number of possible contents but on indefinitely many possible topics. Self awareness : Having a concept of oneself as in individual and/or as a member of a social group; and family. Moral Agency : The capacity to regulate ones own actions through moral principles or ideals.   Thus anyone who shows traces of the following characteristics are thought to be part of a moral community since they will not only be able to make moral judgments but also to make moral laws and enforce them. However, Warren states that an entity need not have all these attributes to be a person and perhaps none of them is absolutely necessary. If everyone was measured with the above criteria many would not fit the definition of personhood. However the point is thus, none may be logically necessary but the more criteria that are satisfied, the more confident we are that the concept is applicable and vice versa. Furthermore, Warren states that if the criteria just mentioned above were to the primary criteria for human beings , then genetic humanity is neither necessary nor sufficient for personhood. Warren draws on three examples, a person whose consciousness has been permanently obliterated, humans who have never had any sensory or cognitive capacities and an early fetus.   Thus in conclusion, Warrens moral community is made up of human beings who are not only meet the genetic requirements of being human but also certain mental and behavioral characteristics that make them persons and these characteristics are the ones she lists in her criteria for personhood.  5. Why is abortion as wrong as murder, according to Marquis?  Marquis her argument as to why murder is wrong by exploring the future like ours theory. Accordingly, Marquis states that murder is wrong because it denies the victim of any future experiences, projects, etc. Thus murdering someone is wrong because it denies that person his or her future.   Three main arguments are put forth to compare and test this theory and thus prove abortion is wrong as murder. Firstly, the theory opposes the claim that only life that is logically human has great moral worth, since there may be other beings with a future like ours (possibly in other places in the universe). Secondly, it does not oppose active euthanasia, the killing of terminally ill patients. Thirdly, it is prima facie wrong to kill children and infants for it is presumed that they have futures of value. A fact that personhood theories cannot account for directly.   It is the first and third arguments that Marquis uses to stress the ethics against abortion. The argument is that a standard fetus has the same set of future experiences, projects, activities ,etc, that is identical to the futures of adults and children alike. Thus since it is wrong to kill a person after birth, it is reasonable that it also applies to fetus on account of the fact that they stand to experience a future as well.   In conclusion, Marquis states that killing someone is wrong since it denies them of a future. Then Marquis draws a parallel to adults , infants and young children, and fetuses. Thus, since all three; adults, infants/young children and fetuses stand to experience a future, it is morally wrong to kill any one of them. Therefore, since killing adults and children equates to murder, then abortion too, must equate to murder. 6. What is the point of the Smith/Jones example?   The smith/ Jones example tries to illustrate that there is no difference between passive euthanasia (letting someone die) and active euthanasia (killing someone). To illustrate this, two cases are examined.   Smith stands to gain a large inheritance if something were to happen to his 6 year old cousin. One evening while the child is taking a bath, Smith sneaks into the bathroom and drowns the child (Referring to active euthanasia). Jones also stands to gain a large inheritance but when he sneaks into the bathroom, he arrives just in time to see the child slip, hits its head and fall facedown in the water. The child drowns by himself while Jones watches and does nothing (Referring to passive euthanasia).   As shown above, Smith actively kills the child while Jones allows the child to die. However the point is that neither man behaved better. If there was truly a difference between active and passive euthanasia, then Joness behavior is less reprehensible than Smiths. However it is not true, since both men had the same motive and both men had the same desirable end in sight. While Jones can argue that technically he had no hand in killing the child, morally speaking it is not a defense at all.     7. Why do Rachels and Sullivan disagree about whether or not the AMA supports letting Down’s syndrome babies die? Rachels points out that some infants who are born with Downs syndrome suffer from congenital defects such as intestinal obstructions and require operations if there are to live. Sometimes it is decided not to operate, the emotional experience of watching the baby die over hours and days due to infection and dehydration can be a stressful ordeal. Rachels, asks instead of letting these babies die, why not destroy them painlessly and quickly? Note that he is making an explicit reference to his Smith/Jones example where he established that there is no difference between passive and active euthanasia, or in other words, there is no difference between letting someone die and killing them.   Next Rachels, beings to question the grounds on with the conventional doctrine of the AMA is based on. He points out that the life of the baby is being decided on the issue of intestinal tracts and not Downs syndrome itself. The reason people make their decision on this basis is because if there is an intestinal block they can let it die (passive euthanasia) but if there is none, then they cant.   In response to Rachels argument. Sullivan states that a simple operation to remove the intestinal obstruction is exactly what is needed but to offer an excuse that in failure to operate , nothing was done and this is simply moral evasiveness. Also it does not matter from a moral point of view, if someone is killing another human being from a malevolent omission or an action.   Therefore Sullivan disagrees with Rachel since operating is always an option and letting someone die violates the traditional AMA statement which only allows the withdrawal of extraordinary means and not ordinary means of treatment. However, Rachel disagrees with Sullivan because he highlights the fact that sometimes an informed decision is made not to operate and in this circumstance is equal to passive euthanasia which is no different from active euthanasia.   8. Why shouldn’t we exploit animals, according to Regan? Regan sets the stage for arguing against exploiting animals by exploring the rights view.   The rights view states , everyone as individuals, have an inherent value that is spread equally regardless of things such as race, color, caste. Etc. Also since everyone is equal they must be treated equally and not as a resource or property. Thus the usefulness of A to B is not dependent on the value of the individual A and vice versa. Therefore, for A to show a lack of respect for Bs independent value or vice versa, would mean A (or B) would be acting immorally and violating the value of the individual B (or A). This is core argument put forward by Regan and it is on this that he moves on to demonstrate why it is wrong to exploit animals.   After establishing the rights view, Regan states that this scope must be expanded to cover animals and count them as individuals as well for two reasons.   Like animals, not all humans can do everything. For example, animals s cannot read or build objects but it is true that not all humans can read or build things either. However, this does not mean that humans who cant read or build objects have less inherent value. The basic similarity between us is that each of us is the experiencing subject of a life, a conscious creature having an individual welfare and has an importance to us regardless of our usefulness to others. As conscious individuals we experience the different dimensions of life as well, from pleasure and pain to death itself. The same view must be used for animals, that they too must be viewed as the experiencing subjects of life. Also to state that only humans are considered to have inherent individual rights because we belong to the same species is blatant speciesism and is wrong. Any attempt to disprove the fact that animals have equal inherent value to humans and perhaps say that they have less inherent value would not be valid on rational grounds since if we say animals have less inherent values than human due to less intellect or autonomy, then we would have to apply the same principle to humans as well thus regarding mentally retarded or physically handicapped as individuals with less inherent value but we dont.   Since we do know this, Regan states that reason should compel us to recognize the equal inherent value of these animals their equal rights. Thus they ought to be treated with respect and to ill-treat them and use them as a resource would be a violation of their inherent individual rights.   In conclusion, Regan states all of us have an inherent value as individuals and that animals are included in this scoped since they are experiencing a subject of a life just like humans. Thus violating animals is both immoral and wrong.     9. Why don’t animals have the right not to be exploited, according to Cohen?    Cohen starts off his argument by establishing the background of rights. In general : rights are in every case, claims or potential claims within a community of moral agents. Thus rights arise and can only be intelligibly defended, only among beings who actually do, or can make moral claims against one another. Whatever else rights maybe , they are necessarily human.   Morality Cohen argues, is strictly a human feature. Thus, he points out to Kants emphasis on the universal human procession of a uniquely moral will and autonomy its use entails. He states clearly that it is only humans who confront choices that are purely moral and its is humans and not others (animals) who lay down moral laws for all. Thus humans, are both self legislative and morally autonomous.   Cohen states that his core argument is that animals lack the capacity for moral judgment. They can neither exercise or respond to moral claim thus they have no rights and can have none. He points out that animals in order to have rights must comprehend rules of duty, governing all including themselves. Thus to have rights must also mean one is capable of recognizing any possible conflicts of interest between oneself and what is just (morally justifiable). Therefore, only a that is self legislative and morally autonomous can have the rights. Thus since animals lack the requirements to qualify for rights, we cannot violate animals of their rights since they dont exist.   In conclusion, Cohen clearly states the only beings that are morally autonomous and self legislative are entitled to rights, not every single living creature. Thus, since only humans are entitled to these rights as shown above, animals in contrast can never have these rights and they do not have any rights currently thus non-existent rights cannot be violated. Therefore, animals have no right not to be violated.   10.How would van den Haag respond to Bedau? Below are the list of arguments made by Bedau and the responses of Van Den Haag.   1 Discussions on the death penalty are rare since its assumed to be perfect while the only indisputable fact is that an executed person cannot commit further crimes. However this does not prove the deterrence factor on wider society.   The prevention factor is also disputable since in the best case scenario (executing all murderers) would only prevent a few more crime but would not prevent a lot of murders since less than one in 100 murderers kill again.   Further doubt is cast upon the deterrence factor since no one can confidently say how much crime has been deterred by the death penalty and not a lesser punishment and vice versa.   In response to Bedaus concerns over the deterrence of the death penalty, Van Dan Haag states that the legal system proportions threatened penalties to the gravity of crimes, both to do justice and achieve deterrence. Thus based on this principle the death penalty which is the most severe punishment will have the greatest deterrence effect.   However, Van Dan Haag, asserts that not all can be deterred all the time, thus while the death penalty is the best form of deterrence, it is not a perfect one.   Also he states that the principle deterrence of the penalty lies in its irreversibility. It is the universal fear of the death and the complete severing of human solidarity which creates a feeling of total rejection and exacerbates the natural separation and anxiety fear of annihilation.     1 There has been no significant scientific study done on the cost benefit analysis of the death penalty. Bedau points out that amongst the costs, is the relatively large financial costs of capital trials, relatively longer time periods (due to multiple appeals) and the chances of inciting further violence.   In response, Van Dan Haag cites the studies of Professor Issac Ehrlich over the period of 1933-1969, which found that an additional execution per year may have resulted (on average) in 7 to 8 fewer deaths. He states that other investigations have proven Ehrlichs tentative results and goes on to draw the following conclusions from this. Firstly, Ehrlich has shown that pervious investigations that did not find deterrence effects suffered serious flaws. Secondly, The likelihood of statistically demonstrating marginal deterrence effects is much better now.   Accordingly, he presents us with 2 scenarios. The first being to trade the certain shortening of the life of a convicted murderer against the survival of between seven to eight innocent victims whose future murder by others becomes more probably unless the convicted murderer is executed. The second being to trade the certain survival of the convicted murderer against the lives of between seven to eight innocent victims, who are more likely to be murdered by others if the convicted murderer is allowed to survive.     1 Bedau questions lex talionis, the law of retributive justice. Stating that it might not be a principle of justice or maybe there are other principles that cancel or outweigh its dictates. However, lex tailonis can be ignored without ingnoring the principle of retributive justice.   Also Bedau asks if the death penalty sufficiently retributive, since death is seemed to be a good alternative to life in prison. The death penalty is also applied for a wide variety of other crimes such as aggravated rape and espionage thus the pricnicple of retributive justice is thrown into doubt.         1 Bedau states that the morals of society is called into question since society descends to the actions of criminals who are not governed by the same principles as societies.   Van Dan Haag responds that the fact is a crime sets a victim and murderer apart, if the victim dies then the murderer does not deserve to live. To refuse to execute a wrongdoer regardless of his wrongs would be to proclaim that no act is irredeemably vicious as to deserve death, that there is no wickedness that could justify death and no one could believe that.   To refuse to punish someone with death is to say that the negative weight of a crime can never exceed the positive value of the life of the person who committed it. That proposition is implausible to Van Dan Haag.       1 One of the biggest faults with the death penalty is that it’s a poor mans justice and it never applied equally and fairly in all cases. This reflects the fact that society its-self is never fair thus punishments such as the death penalty cannot be handed down fairly.   In response, Van Den Haag draws a line between equality and justice. He states that regardless of the equality of justice, justice is justice. Also just because the system is unfair, that does not make those who are genuinely guilty and less so and thus while equality should be extended and enforced it should not be done at the expense of justice itself.                                           Read More