This will be the last installment of notes for Larson's class this semester. You are all just jumping up and down with glee, aren't you? My notes are rather strange, so you will have to make the best of a not-so-good situation. Our fearless teacher said that there would be no questions having to do with the following:
- animal rights
- capital punishment
- marriage
Doc Larson simply went over material that he already gave us in class. However, since he chose particular things to talk about, he may be giving us a blueprint of our 'bluebook' test. By the way, you all did a great job presenting the materials last Monday. That's three big claps for all of you.
Larson talked about the following: he will give a scenario and we will choose an ethical criteria that describes how we would complete a problem. In other words, we would state why we chose it.
He chose to talk about Act Utilitarian. He reminded us that they choose what is in the best interest of most people. The end result is what is important. The Universal Moral Law (UML) is going to continue changing to meet the times and the conditions, but the main thing is to bring the best for the most equally, with some people getting screwed. Rule Utilitarians are slightly different than the garden variety Act Utilitarian in that they attempt to protect the individual from being stampeded.
DEONTOLOGY
Strict Deontology
The "D"s are part of Kant's gang. They say that the UML doesn't change; that the UML is already in our heads; that it projects causation and causation is mental and it is all unchanging.
Soft Deontology alters choices as to avoid tragedy. Both Deontologies are prescriptive: they tell you what to do, how high to jump, etc.
He told us that issues of life and death, use of force, abortion, and euthanasia will most likely be on the test.
He talked again about Roe vs. Wade and how the fetus is left out because it is not a person.
Maryann Warnar was again mentioned and she argued that a fetus had no "personhood" based on five missing elements. Look back in your notes for info on Mary Ann Warden and her five points.
What is a person? (Maryanne Warnar)
1. has conscience, has self-awareness, has ability to use language
2. ability to reason, language dependent
3. self-motivated, activity
4. capacity to communicate
5. self-awareness
John Noonan speaks as a strict Deontologist and says that potentiality is the same as actuality.
Two ways to look at personhood:
1. religious, has a soul, but when does it happen? Set religious aside because it is not certifiable
2. psychological??????
Potential is the same as human being.
Fetus is a human being. Three good reasons:
1. potential is determined at conception
2. right to own identity
3. all things being equal, balance should go to the fetus
Personhood is the key issue.
Unchanging Principles
Do the right thing
Discrimination
Wasserstrom was against giving special privleges to certain have-nots because he believed that assimilation was the best way to counter prejudice. In other words, homogenize everything.
Rawl, on the other hand, believed in equal opportunity by creating special classes in order to level the playing field, creating a protected class. He pushed for social justice. The government was to protect special groups. Protection of certain classes, bringing legal and moral to work together.
Noczik, on the other hand, did not believe the government had the right to connect the dots of what is legal and moral.
Peter Singer created a new type of Utilitarianism. He believed we have to act in order to prevent tragedy before it happens. That you have an ethical duty to take care of those in trouble. He also said that proximity did not make some people more desirable to help.
Gerhard???????? stated the reverse in that each nation has to take care of itself and that proximity does matter.
And I'm all out of words.....
Go in peace. Amen. Good luck on the test. Amen
No comments:
Post a Comment