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.

No Comment

LINK

Vegetative States, Then and Now

Annie offers us this link about new ways of approaching vegetative states.  As these sorts of things become more common, questions about equating loss of consciousness with death start to get fuzzy.

Give it a look.  Comments?  LINK.

Assignment for Friday, Sept. 29

You will notice that this is the SAME as what I wrote for the second part of Wednesday's assignment.
But we don't have class on Wednesday, so the assignment is for FRIDAY.



(You know, here's another way to test intentions.  I don't claim that it holds for every case.  Suppose that You were near the end of a terminal illness, and a doctor had agreed to help you end your life on his next visit.  Then suppose that she shows up at the next visit to find that you had recovered.  I reckon that if you said, oh well, I guess we still have to end my life, since we agreed to it, the doctor might well say:  I agreed to help on the condition that you were already close to death--I had no wish to help you die outside of those circumstances!)

Anyway, that's just me trying to think through whether or not Rachels is right about euthanasia being about the best way to end a life, given that ending it is judged to be the right thing to do.

For FRIDAY, read and summarize:  257-260

Short and complicated.

Assignment for Wednesday, Sept. 27 (Part 2)

Remembering that class is cancelled on Wednesday...so this assignment is FOR FRIDAY.

(You know, here's another way to test intentions.  I don't claim that it holds for every case.  Suppose that You were near the end of a terminal illness, and a doctor had agreed to help you end your life on his next visit.  Then suppose that she shows up at the next visit to find that you had recovered.  I reckon that if you said, oh well, I guess we still have to end my life, since we agreed to it, the doctor might well say:  I agreed to help on the condition that you were already close to death--I had no wish to help you die outside of those circumstances!)

Anyway, that's just me trying to think through whether or not Rachels is right about euthanasia being about the best way to end a life, given that ending it is judged to be the right thing to do.

For FRIDAY, read and summarize:  257-260

Short and complicated.

Assignment for Wednesday, Sept. 27 (Part 1)

Friends, Due to circumstances beyond my control, I need to cancel class on Wednesday.  Check back here soon, and I'll give you the assignment for Friday. 

Assignment for Monday, September 25

I was going to link you to some pictures of crocodiles eating other large animals.  But the humor of it just died as I became more and more horrified.  So I won't share that with you. 

But for Monday, read and summarize:  248-256.

I was thinking about the idea that we're grow more inclined to call you a cause of an event as the effort required to stop it shrinks.  What if I could save the drowning child merely by saying "unto the whole person"?   Still...I don't think you're right to think that I murdered the child if I don't say it. 

Now.  What if I could save the child by merely continuing to breathe normally--but instead, I knowingly hold my breath for a few seconds.  In that case, I go out of my way, slightly, to change my behavior.  I had nothing to do with the child's plight--maybe that was an accident--but I'm still showing, if not a plan to end his life, at least a willingness to help end it. 

I have no idea if "go out of my way slightly" can really bear that much moral importance.  But that's how it seems to me at the moment.  We'll talk.