Assignment for Monday, October 2

I don't want to beat a dead horse, just let me briefly review what I was trying to get at today:

Some moral theories focus on consequences.  On those theories, what's right is what increases happiness and reduces suffering.  The actual acts involved have no inherent value.  So, again, lying could be morally right if it leads to more happiness.  Most justifications of voluntary euthanasia (active OR passive) rely on this idea:  It is right to end a life, by request, if ending it will head off great suffering.  These are "consequentialist theories."

Some moral theories hold that consequences are not the main thing about right and wrong.  They might hold that an act is right or wrong regardless of its consequences.  For example, they might suggest that lying is wrong because it is disrespectful or harms autonomy, even if it produces more happiness.  Likewise, they might suggest that ending a life intentionally is always wrong, even when it heads off great suffering.  These are "non-consequentialist theories."


It's not that simple, though.  A good reason to think that lying is wrong is that it will eventually lead to unhappiness. 

And some people think that allowing people to choose to end their own lives (or get help doing it) will lead to greater suffering, in general, because there may be a loss of trust in doctors, there may be mistakes in who wants to die, there may be a lowered respect for life, and so on.

So you can usually have a good consequentialist reason to tell the truth and to refrain from killing. 

And again, I only bring this up because it seems like a lot of the arguments we have in favor of treating killing and letting die as morally equal are consequentialist.  It's not that non-consequentialists don't care about suffering--of course they do.  They just don't think that morality's main goal is to reduce it.

Now then, for Monday, read and summarize 261-269.  I'll have an updated reading schedule soon.