More Ethics Notes!

I lied. I have more things for the Ethics class!

• 
  

Dr. Larson gave us three issues- no, make that four issues- that would most likely be on the test:
1. Life and Death
2. Use of force
3. Abortion
4. Euthanasia

He seemed to indicate that the emphasis would be on numbers 3 & 4. He also said that animals, capital punishment, and marriage stuff would not be on the test. What I am including on the blog today are things that might be handy to slip in for the test.

• 
  

We'll take abortion first.

Before Roe vs. Wade, the conservative position prevailed. It went something like this:

• First Premise: It is wrong to kill an innocent human being.
• Second Premise: A human fetus is an innocent human being.
• Conclusion: Therefore it is wrong to kill a human fetus.

The conservative points out that the continuum between the fertilized egg and the child is a gradual process and that it is difficult to draw a line marking a morally significant stage where abortion can take place. They conclude that we must either upgrade the status of the earliest embryo to that of a child or downgrade the status of the child to that of an embryo.

Birth is the most viable possible dividing line and the liberal would like that point best. We are less disturbed by the destruction of a fetus we have not seen than the death of a being that we can see and hear and hold.

The conservative will say that the fetus/baby is the same entity, whether inside or outside, with the same human features, with the same degree of awareness and capacity for feeling pain. They then say that a prematurely born infant may be less developed than a baby being born on time, but may be saved medically. It would then seem difficult to kill a more-developed fetus. Therefore, inside or outside of the womb should not make a difference when it comes to the wrongness of killing.


The Fetus as Potential Life
A new argument, a new premise.

• First Premise: It is wrong to kill a potential human being
• Second Premise: A human fetus is a potential human being
• Conclusion: Therefore it is wrong to kill a human fetus

argument. John The second premise of this argument is stronger than the second premise of the precedingNoonan made the argument about potentiality and actuality. Paul Ramsey from Princeton said that modern genetics, by teaching us that the first fusion of sperm and ovum, creates a "never to be repeated" informational speck. This seems to lead us to the conclusion that all destruction of fetal life should be classified as murder. But this argument seems to be attacked successfully by liberals.


Some Liberal Arguments for Abortion

1. The consequences of restricted laws: Prohibiting abortion does not stop abortion but merely drives it underground. An abortion performed by a qualified medical practitioner is basically safe, but abortions by unqualified people often result in complications and sometimes death. (This argument is more about abortion law than about the ethics of abortion.)
2. Not the law's business: It is based on the idea that there is private morality and immorality that is not the law's business. You cannot make views about morality into law. Pro-choice supporters says it enters the realm of a victim-less crime. Opponents say the victim is the fetus. If the fetus is a person then it is a victim. If it is not a person, then it is not.
3. A feminist argument: A woman has a right to choose what happens to her own body. This seems to work only if you can prove the fetus is not a person; is not human. If the life of a fetus is given the same weight as the life of a normal person, the Utilitarian would say that it would be wrong to refuse to carry the fetus until it can survive outside the womb.
   

Making Use of the Fetus

Another controversy related to abortion is the use of a fetus is curing many serious illnesses by transplanting tissue or cells from the fetus to the patient. Parkinsons, Alzheimers, Huntingtons, and diabetes are diseases where fetal transplants could be used to save the life of another human. Also, one fetus could be saved by tissue from an aborted fetus to cure some disorder.


Singer

Peter Singer, being a New Utilitarian, would say that a fetus has no right to, nor even an interest in, life because they are not a person. They do not have viability or autonomy. If they have any rights, they would parallel animal rights, according to Singer. If a fetus is capable of feeling pain (like an animal) it has an interest in not suffering pain, and that should give it consideration. The argument then becomes: when does a fetus become conscious and therefore feel pain? We now believe that at 18 weeks the cerebral cortex is developed enough to give the signals necessary to feel pain. So, between 18-25 weeks the fetus has reached a stage of consciousness. However, the fetus appears to be always asleep. The "wake-up" period seems to be around 30 weeks.


Infanticide

Strictly speaking, grounds for not killing persons do not apply to newborn infants. The Preference Utilitarian reason for respecting life cannot apply to a newborn baby. This is based on the following reasons:

1. They cannot see themselves as beings who will have a future
   
2. They cannot desire to continue living because they do not understand that
3. A newborn is not autonomous; capable of making choices
4. A newborn is not viable and cannot live without help from the outside

It is difficult, however, to say at what age children begin to see themselves as distinct entities (the slippery slope thing). Civilized people like the Greeks, Romans, and even some medieval Christian writers thought infanticide was an acceptable solution to a sickness or deformity. Therefore, according to many Utilitarians, rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness are what make a normal human being with the right to life.


Euthanasia

Singer and the New Utilitarians (Preference Utilitarians) argue that there is a more serious matter in killing a self-conscious being than an infant. The argument follows:

1. The classic Utilitarian claims that self-conscious beings are capable of fearing their own death, killing them has a worse effect on others
2. The Preference Utilitarian calculation counts the victim's desire to go on living as an important reason against killing
3. To have a right to life, one must be able to desire one's own continued existence
4. Respect the autonomous decisions of rational agents

Guidelines developed by the courts in the Netherlands have attempted to give the necessities for acceptable euthanasia:

1. Is carried out by a physician
2. The patient has requested euthanasia and there is no doubt of the patient's desire to die
3. The patient's decision is well-informed, free, and durable
4. The patient has an irreversible condition which causes physical or mental suffering that the patient finds unbearable
5. There is no reasonable alternative to take away the patient's suffering
6. The doctor has consulted with others who agree with the judgment

Involuntary Euthanasia

This resembles voluntary euthanasia except there is no consent. Involuntary euthanasia becomes justifiable under the following conditions:

1. Lack the ability to consent to death because they lack the ability to understand the choice between their own continued existence or non-existence
2. Have the capacity to choose between life or death and to make an informed, voluntary decision to die