(a) Glover in "Against the Sanctity of Life Doctrine" [not his
title] distinguishes "direct"
objections to killing from "side effects" objections. Explain this
distinction. Consider some side effects objections to (at least some
kinds of) killing. What would be a good "direct" objection to (at least
some kinds of) killing? Why?
(b) What, if anything, is it
about life that makes it in general a morally bad thing to take it
away (in those circumstances where it is morally bad to take it away)?
(See Glover, passim.) Explain.
Assignment 2: Due Monday, 9/8/97
Fischer and Ravizza suggest that rule utilitarianism seems to have the
resources to give a more acceptable (to our intuitions) answer of what is
to be done in the case they call "Transplant" (see p.2 and summarized on
p.26) than act utilitarianism. p.35. Explain this "Transplant" case, what
an act utilitarian would say about it, and how what a rule utilitarian
would say about it would differ. Critically discuss.
Assignment 3: Due Monday, 9/15/97
David Hume argues that "suicide is no transgression of our duty to
God." Carefully explain his argument(s) in support of this claim. Offer
some critique of his argumentation to this point. How might Hume reply
to your critique? Would that reply be adequate? Why or why not?
Assignment 4: Due Monday, 9/22/97
Richard Brandt ("On the Morality and Rationality of Suicide") explores
the question of whether it is ever (and if so, under what conditions) it
is rational to commit suicide. His answer is that it clearly is.
Explore what he means by rationality. Explore the issues that he thinks
are involved in considering the rationality of such an act. Critically
discuss.
Assignment 5: Due Monday, 9/29/97
Jonathan Bennett in "Whatever the Consequences" draws a distinction
between killing and letting die. Explain his way of drawing the
distinction. Bennett thinks that this distinction has no moral
significance. Explain Bennett's reason for this. Critically discuss.
Assignment 6: Due Monday, 10/6/97
American Medical Association policy distinguishes between "ordinary"
and "extraordinary" means of prolonging a life, and sometimes allows
cessation of "extraordinary" means of preserving a life but not of
"ordinary" means. Explain this distinction between "extraordinary" and
"ordinary" means. Is this distinction morally relevant to decisions? Why
or why not? (See the Sullivan article, among others.)
Assignment 7: Due Monday, 10/13/97
Explain three different moral views. (These should be taken from :
views or
moral principles espoused by authors we have read in this course, views or
principles taken seriously (but not endorsed) by authors we have read in
this course, or your own view. For example, the Doctrine of Double
effect could count as a view, so could Quinn's revision of DDE, so could
J.J. Thomson's
position in "Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley
Problem,") Describe three cases or pairs of cases discussed by the authors
we've read. (For example, "Transplant," any of the "Trolley"
cases, Rachels' Smith-Jones cases.) Explain what each view would say
about each case (i.e. would it be morally wrong, or morally permissible,
and why). Which view seems closest to being correct? Why? [Note that
this is intended as an overview, digestion, and organization of stuff
we've already covered (i.e. read or discussed), not breaking new ground
with a new article.]
Assignment 8: Due Monday 10/20/97
John Noonan argues that
conception is the dividing point between when it is right or not
right to kill a human being (or rather "the decisive moment of
humanization"). Explicate his argument for this. Critique
that argument. Critically discuss.
Assignment 9: Due Monday, 10/27/97
In "A Defense of Abortion" Judith Jarvis Thomson
uses several
examples. These include: the violinist, the tiny house, Smith's coat,
Henry Fonda's touch, some example involving chocolates, the burglar, and
people seeds. Choose one of these examples other than the violinist.
Explain the example. Explain the general point Thomson is trying to make
by using the example. (Not just: she's making an analogy with abortion.)
Explain how the argument is supposed to work. Critique and evaluate the
argument. (Don't just explain that "Abortion is different."; indeed for
most of these you'll probably do a better job if you put abortion out of
your mind when you write the paper.)
Assignment 10: Due Monday, 11/3/97
Do either (a) or (b):
(a) Henry Gensler in "The Golden Rule Argument Against
Abortion"
brings up an example involving a "blindness drug." What is he trying to
show using this example? (Presumably to explain this you'll have to
explore his "golden rule" argument.) Critically explore his argument
concerning this blindness drug.
(b) Henry Gensler in "The Golden Rule Argument Against Abortion"
considers (and replies to) six objections to his argument. Explain the
fourth of these objections. How is it an objection to his
position? (To do this, you'll have to explain his initial argument, of
course.) Explain his reply. (Don't simply quote it. I can read.
I want you to explain it to me.) Is his reply adequate? Why or why
not?
Assignment 11: Due Monday, 11/10/97
Under what circumstances, if any, is abortion morally permissible?
Defend your answer, taking into account points made in class discussion
(as well as those in the readings).
Assignment 12: Due Monday, 11/17/95
Jan Narveson argues that "the pacifist position is
self-contradictory." Carefully explain his argument. Critically
discuss.
Assignment 13: Due Monday, 11/24/97
Do either (a) or (b) [and be sure to indicate which]:
(a) How (morally)
should combatants be treated in war? Why? Compare
(and contrast) your view with that of Robert Phillips.
(b) How (morally)
should non-combatants be treated in war? Why? Compare
(and contrast) your view with that of Robert Phillips.
Assignment 14: Due Monday, 12/1/97
In "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" Peter Singer argues that people
in affluent countries ought to give up relative luxuries (color
televisions, fancy cars, video games, perhaps) and give the money saved to
aid starving people in other countries. Explain his argument. Critically
discuss.
Assignment 15: Due Monday, 12/8/97
Do either (a) or (b) [and be sure to indicate which]:
(a) Is death a bad thing? Why? Should it be feared? Why or
why not? Do Jeffrie Murphy's criteria for when it is rational to fear
something show that it is rational to fear death? Why or why not?
Explore critically.
(b) Is it morally wrong to kill? If so, when (i.e., under
what circumstances)? Explain and defend your answer