New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here


by: Saahas Jain

Notes Philosophy 160

Saahas Jain
Philosophy 160
Christopher Meacham

Almost Ready


These notes were just uploaded, and will be ready to view shortly.

Purchase these notes here, or revisit this page.

Either way, we'll remind you when they're ready :)

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

Documentation of all the lecture note from the class are uploaded here.
Philosophy 160
Christopher Meacham
75 ?




Popular in Philosophy 160

Popular in Department

This 22 page Bundle was uploaded by Saahas Jain on Monday February 16, 2015. The Bundle belongs to Philosophy 160 at University of Massachusetts taught by Christopher Meacham in Winter2015. Since its upload, it has received 34 views.


Reviews for Notes


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 02/16/15
A Valid Argument is one which has a rational link between the premises and the conclusion A sound argument is a valid argument wherein the premises and thus the conclusion are true Cultural Relativism You should X if and only if you39re in a society that approves of X P1 Eskimos think infanticide is okay P2 We don39t think infanticide is okay C Whether infanticide is okay or not depends on what society you39re in The argument is invalid because the premises are what people think Therefore the above argument is not a good argument for cultural relativism Objections to Cultural Relativism Objection 1 Uncomfortable consequences 1 Societies are Morally lnfallible i According to cultural relativism the Nazi39s were correct ii Martin Luther King was wrong according to cultural relativism 1 Moral minorities are always wrong Objection 2 Cultural Relativism isn39t well de ned And any way of precisifying the view is implausible 1 When are you quotinquot a society 1 What counts as a society 1 What counts as approval Non Factivism Moral Claims are neither true nor false Emotivism Commands andor cheeringbooing Ex quotYou should Xquot gtgt Do X l Yay X quotYou shouldn t X gtgt Don39t X39lBoo X39 There is lack of emotion if something is not relevant for you Emotion may be towards something else but logically think towards something else 7 9 10 11 12 Positive Moral Claim quotYou shouldshouldn39t do Xquot Moral Objectivism There are positive moral claims that are i Factive ii Non relative iii True Moral Nihilism Rejects all positive moral claims are true Moral Objectivism Something is right if the individual believes it is right Thus it involves two major factors in the individuals personal subjectivity and the society the individual lives in The Observation Argument P1 The observation principle You should only believe in things which appear in our best overall explanation of our observations P2 Moral facts don39t appear in the best overall explanation of our observations C We shouldn39t believe in moral facts Response 1 quotMaybe moral facts do appear in the best explanationquot Reject Premise 2 Moral Naturalists Response 2 The Observation Principle condemns most of mathematics Reject Premise 1 Response 3 The observation principle is selfundermining Rejects Premise 1 Divine Command Theory An act is morally right if and only if it is commanded by God and morally wrong if and only if it is forbidden by God Plato39s Euthyphro Dilemma Secular Version Horn 1 X is good just because humans approve of it Rationale Without valuers there would be no value in the world Problem Human beings seem too weakimperfectignorant to be the creator of absolute moral laws Horn 2 Humans approve of X just because X is good Rationale It seems morality must be grounded in something absoluteobjective beyond ourselves Problem This makes morality metaphysically queer existing totally dependent of each other Plato39s Euthyphro Dilemma Religious Version Horn 1 X is morally right because God commands it Rationale Unlike human beings God seems exactly like the type of being who could establish absolute morality gt God is all powerful all good all knowing Problem Too morally arbitrary Problem 2 DCT denies intrinsic moral character of actions Horn 2 God commandsapproves of X because X is good Rationale We want morality to be truly objective not just upto anybody s whim not even God Problem for defenders of DCT Accepting Horn 2 seems to undermine God s allpowerfulness 14 Hedonic Utilitarianism Utility happiness Pleaseabsence of pain Utility should be maximized 15 Objections to Hedonic Utilitarianism Objection 1 quotThe philosophy of the swine Behave irresponsibly or degradingly Animal Pleasure39s Eating Drinkingetc Higher Pleasure39s music theatre art etc Quality over Quantity Objection 2 quotIt39s uselessquot Response 1 you don t need to know what will maximize utility in order for Utilitarianism to be useful Response 2 Any Moral theory can be subjected to the same kind of complaint not a worry particular to utilitarianism 16 Attractive features of Hedonic Utilitarianism Impartial Simple Elegant Explains why virtues are virtues Captures most ordinary intuitions about Morality Gets moral intuitions its hard for another kind of moral theory to get 17 UTILITARIANISM FORMS OF OBJECTIONS AND REPLIES O Describe a case where doing X maximizes utility and doing X is wrong R Defense 1 Does X really maximize utility Defense 2 If X really does maximize utility is doing X really wrong gt ls X really wrong Defense 3 Are we using the right notion of Utility LAST RESORTl OBJECTION 1 The experience machine objection Defense 1 i Doesn39t really increase overall maximum utility just happiness for the individual ii Drain on resources iii Not contributing to society Defense 3 Preference Utilitarianism Utility by adding satis ed desires and removing unsatis ed desires PreferenceDesire satisfaction Desire that X is satis ed if and only if X not if you believe X OBJECTION 2 Rights justice gt Eg Peeping Tom Defense 1 general anxiety chance of getting caught Defense 3 Preference Utilitarianism Negative overall utility RightsAdjusted Utilitarianism OBJECTION 3 Personal Relationships gt Eg Drowning Kids Defense 1 extra guilt Communal horror Defense 2 Is it really wrong Defense 3 Moorean Utilitarianism Utility Pleasure aesthetic experience and friendship OBJECTION 4 Too Demanding gt Movie Defense 1 Globalization Economics Incentive to make money 18 The categorical imperative Universal Law You should act only according to a maxim if you can at the same time consistently will it to be a universal law Kant All acts are done in accordance with a Maxim Maxim I will do act in circumstances situation in order to goal 4 steps 1 Formulate the Maxim 2 Generalize the Maxim 3 Consider what the world would be like if that generalized maxim was a law of nature 4 Apply two tests i At a world like this would doing X in situations Y still further my goal ii At a world like this would goal be furthered in general A maxim can be consistentently willed if and only if both answers are yes Objections 1 Consistent Evil Ex Nazi39s attack on Jew 2 Inconsistent Trivialities Ex Rush Hour Traf c If everyone takes an alternative route then you don t actually avoid traf c 3 The Sly Universalizer Ex Cheating Specify the situation to yourself thus making it a Maxim 19 Prisoner39s Dilemma shows why two purely quotrationalquot individuals might not cooperate even if it appears that it is in their best interestscitationneeded to do so They Confess They Confess You 5 years each 1 year10 years Confess You don t 10 years 1 year 2 years each The rational thing is for both people to confess in self interest However you both will be worse than if you both didn t confess Cold War They Arm They don39t Arm You Arm Costly Arms We Take Over Race You don39t Arm They Take Over Peaceful Coexistence The rational selfinterested thing to do is to arm However if both sides arm both will be worse of than if we didn39t arm Littering They litter They don39t You litter Lazy Ugly Lazy Pretty You don39t Work Ugly Work Pretty The rational thing to do is to litter However if everyone does the rational thing we end up in the worst of the possible situations 20 Rawls on Kant Worries for Kant 1 Consistent evils 2 Inconsistent Trivialities 21 22 Diagnosis Doesn39t take other peoples wishes into account in the right way Replace quotwilling of universal lawsquot with quotconsensual agreement to universal rulesquot Worries for Kant 3 The Sly Universalizer Also the worry for Fix 1 Diagnosis Allows you to take advantage of what you know about your situation to allow to get away with whatever you want Fix Require agreement behind quotThe Veil of Ignorancequot Kind of things you don39t know Class Race Gender Mental Physical Abilities Religion Culture Moral Values Kind of things you do know You39re Rational Its in ones interest to have as many basic goods as possible Resources Liberties Protections Rawlsian Contractualism You should act in accordance with the rules that would be agreed upon by i Rational ii Self interested agents iii behind the veil of ignorance This gets around the biggest worries with Kants theories The veil of ignorance is a method of determining the morality of a certain issue eg slavery based upon the following thought experiment parties to the original position know nothing about their particular abilities tastes and position within the social order of society Worries for Rawlsian Contractions 1 Leaves out nonrational beings 2 What is 39rationality39 i How will rational beings weigh risk Ex Lotteries ii How will rational beings weight protections vs liberties Ex Warrantless Wiretapping Hate speeches What is inherently bad to kill something If bad how bad 1 Innocent 2 Nonthreatening 1 No relatives 2 Hidden 3 Etc Standard Prochoice Before Birth OK After Birth Bad Standard ProLife Before conception OK After conception Bad 1 Sumner Moral status should come gradually in degrees gt Makes both these views awed Ex Inheritance You are next in line to get rich uncles money Learnt that Uncle just got married and the wife is pregnant and in labor killing the baby right before the baby was wrong then according to prochoice its okay so you did nothing wrong Ex Drunken Negligence 1 Drunk driving swerve in the wrong lane hit a minivan kill a family of three 2 Drunk CDC technician releases ebola killing 30000 people 3 Drunk Fertility clinic technician spills sperm 300000 got fertilized Therefore someone prolife will say the third one is the worst 2 Three Criteria 1 Life a Too broad b Not degreed 1 Sentience Ability to feel Setting the bar at the right level 2 Rationality Ability to reason a Too narrow Leaves out things generally considered immoral to kill as babies and retarded adults will not come under the criteria 3 Sumner The extent to which it39s inherently bad to kill something is proportional to the degree to which its sentient 4 Marquis The extent to which its bad to kill something is proportional to the degree to which its deprived of a valuable future like ours 5 Advantages of Marquis39 argument 1 Explains why killing is so bad 2 Explains why euthanasia isn39t as bad as normal killing 3 It explains why killing nonhumans can be wrong 4 It explains why killing babies is atleast as bad as killing NHA39s 6 Worry Contraception andor chastity Murder Marquis Reply 0 Take 1 You don39t know which sperm andor egg combo are dep ved 0 Problem 1 We could know which sperm egg combo are deprived 0 Problem 2 Even if we don39t know does it really matter 0 Example Poisoning Milk at a supermart You don39t know whos gonna get killed so you havent done anything wrong 0 Take 2 Its indeterminate which spermegg combo is dep ved 0 Problem 1 It doesn t seem like it is indeterminate 0 Problem 2 Doesn t matter if indeterminate which one is deprived 0 Ex Schrodinger39s Captives Since it is indeterminate which person is going to die you havent done anything wrong 0 Take 3 The spermegg arent one thing So no one is deprived 0 Problem 1 Why is it that a fertilized egg is one thing 0 Problem 2 It can be wrong to deprive two things of a shared valuable future 0 Ex Siamese Surgery 0 Problem 3 It neednt be wrong to deprive one thing of a valuable future 0 Ex Animating Frankenstein There is still not a satisfying reply for Marquis on the topic of contraception andor chastity 7 Tooley on Rights What does having a right to X entail lst proposal Right to X entails that others shouldn t deprive you of X Ex 1 Ugly Lamps If you take someone else39s lamp even if they are giving it to you it is wrong to take it because that person has the right to X Ex 2 Masochism You have a right to be in a pain free state and even if you don t mind you cant be deprived of your right to a pain free state 2nd proposal If you want X others shouldn39t deprive you of X Ex 1 Depression Ex 2 Coma If he is in a coma he doesn t want anything Ex 3 Hypnosis 3rd proposal Right to X entails that if you want X under normal circumstances others shouldn39t deprive you of X lt TOOLEY39S ANSWER TO THE QUESTION Tooley 1 You can only have a non trivial right to X if you can normally desire X Tooley 2 You can only desire X if you have the concept of X Tooley 3 You can only desire to live if you have the concept of yourself as a continuing being 8 The CatSerum Argument against the potentiality argument 9 Arguments against Factory farmed meat 1 10 11 Comparing suffering across species is impossible Ex If you cut a catdog and prick you obviously the catdog will fell more pain What I do wont make a perceptible difference If there are a hundred bandits and a 100 villagers if each bandit takes only 1 bean from each villager since there was no perceptible difference it isn39t wrong Therefore the stealing isnt wrong We need meat in order to be healthy a lmplausible a Not suf cient reason Our ancestors ate meat so it39s natural to eat meat Animals eat animals The argument from Humane institutions P1 If Cocoamone is wrong then factory farming is wrong P2 Cocoamone farming is wrong C Factory farming is wrong Option 1 Reject P1 There is a morally relevant difference between cocoamone farming and factory farming Utility comparison is different Pleasure vs Nutrition Option 2 Reject P2 Animal suffering doesn t matter much Option 3 Accept C Factory farming is wrong Eg SRHASeverely Retarded Human Adult Farming The argument from marginal cases P1 If SRHA farming is wrong then factory farming is wrong P2 SRHA farming is wrong C Factory farming is wrong Option 1 Reject P1 There is a morally relevant difference between SRHA farming and factory farming Option 2 Reject P2 Nonrational suffering doesn t matter much 12 Carruthers Reject Premise 1 of both arguments adopt Contracualism Rawlsian Agent An agent that acts in a rational selfinterested manner behind the veil of ignorance 13 Carruthers on the Argument from Humane Institutions Hurting animals can be bad when it makes you more likely to hurt say NHAs Cocoamone farming is bad in this way factory farming is not gt Premise 1 last lecture is false Carruthers on the Argument from marginal cases SRHAs have rights P1 false 14 The Social Stability Argument P1 If our immediate relatives were marginal and had not rights the states could take them whenever it was in societies interests to do so P2 If the state could do this society would be unstable P3 Rawlsian agents wouldn39t agree to rules that made society unstable C Rawlsian agents would grant marginal humans rights 15 Worries for the social stability argument W1 Could you also use the argument to establish that animals have rights W2 ls P2 good Would this make society unstable W3 P1 is false If we had rigid property right the state couldn39t take them Rawlsian Agents would choose rigid property right than giving marginal rights W4 Argument is invalid only follows that immediate relatives of rational agents get right 16 Cohen It39s inherently bad to kill something if and only if it belongs to a kind whose typical member is rational cohen is just talking about what kinds of things have rights Ex SRHA Kind Human Therefore not ok Fluffy Kind Dog Therefore okay Therefore in general it is alright to kill animals 17 Worry 1 What are the right 39kinds39 And what justi es this choice Ex NHA KindMammal Typical mammal isnt rational so it is okay to kill a NHA Ex Baby Kind Human Baby Typical human baby isnt rational so it is okay to kill the baby Worry 2 It doesn t seem that whats typical of a kind is morally relevant Ex Fido the genius dog As smart as a typical NHA therefore it may not be okay to kill Fido unlike what Cohen suggests Ex Pluto people pasture The NHA is a SRHA and we are descendants of aliens Therefore since the typical human isnt rational there is nothing with killing a human being 18 Soul It39s bad to kill something if and only if it has a soul Cartesian soul The soul is a nonphysical substance a The object of consciousness Virtue 1 Explains why we are conscious Virtue 2 Attractive Afterlife Vice 1 Consciousness and the brain Ex DrunkHit on the head Brain damage How can something physical have an impact on the nonphysical soul Vice 2 Doesn39t separate animals and SRHA Ex Animals can feel if the soul feels then animals have souls a Spiritual Dog Tags Virtue 1 Avoids consciousness worries Vice 1 Unattractive afterlife Vice 2 lneffable Skeptical Worries Morally arbitrary Hylomorphic Soul The soul is the form of the body Of cial position of the catholic church Ex Statue and Lump of clay Statue Lump of clay Soul Body Three kinds of hylomorphic souls 1 Nutritive life 1 Sensitive sentient 1 Rational think Virtue 1 Attractive Afterlife Virtue 2 No consciousness worries Virtue 3 Not ineffable soul is tangible Vice 1 No difference between animals and SRHAs Af rmative action or positive discrimination known as employment equity in Canada reservation in India and Nepal and positive action in the UK is the policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group who are perceived to suffer from discrimination within a culture Af rmative Action Policy 1 Applies to decisions regarding education or employment 1 Has the intention of increasing the representation of or bene ting some group Ex 1 Princeton fellowship Ex 2 Veteran preference Ex 3 Harvard Admissions Early 190039s Ex 4 Legacies Details Matter a Who b How c Where Kinds of af rmative action 1 Indirect Af rmative Action increase the number of people in the group who apply 2 Preferential Af rmative Action policies which bump up members of the group relative to blind for reasons other than assessing competence 3 Evaluative Af rmative Action Policies which bump up members of the group relative to blind in order to best assess competence Ex SATs and Justin Bieber Women do better than men by a 100 points although knowledge on 3 trivia is not needed Therefore admission councellers will add a 100 points for admissions purposes to male scores Arguments for Preferential Af rmative Action 1 Fair compensation 2 Provides Equal Opportunity 1 Increases Utility Role Models Stereotypes lntergroup relations Productivity Arguments against Preferential Af rmative Action 1 Unfair Deprivation 2 Removes Equal Opportunity 3 Decreases Utility The Diversity Argument P1 Racial PAA increases diversity in a way leads to better outcomes P2 We are morally obligated to pursue policies which increase diversity in ways which lead to a better outcome C We39re obligated to pursue racial PAA policies Exceptions to P1 Ex Jews in the NBA Reject P2 Ex Boston vs Amsterdam You are not obligated to pick the student from Amsterdam in order to decrease diversity Utilitarian would say that we are obligated therefore disagree with it Equal Ownership Principle Every owner of an institution has a right to an equal share inchance to any bene t deriving from that institutionuness some overriding factor applies Postive and negative bene ts Override 1 Unless following equal ownership leads to disaster Ex Same chair everyone sits on restrict position to quali ed applicants Override 2 Unless af rmative action is required as a payment of a debt of gratitudedebt of injury Ex Black people af rmative action bc of wrongs in the past veteran preference Privateany Publicljoverriding factors Compensation argument P1 Group X is owed a debt by the community P2 f group X is owed a debt by the community then the community39s institutions should employ PAA with respect to that group in order to pay it C The community s institutions should employ PAA with respect to group X Worries Worry 1 For what X s in p1 true who does Group X refer to Descendants Dead slaves Worry 2 Does PAA distribute cost fairly uneven cost worry for P2 Worry 3 Does PAA distribute bene ts fairly uneven bene t worry Worry 4 Financial compensation instead of PAA reparations Merit principle v2 At public institutions the most quali ed applicant should get a position Merit argument v2 0 P1 Merit Principle v2 0 P2 If merit principle true preferential af rmative action is impermissible at public institutions 0 C Preferential af rmative action is impermissible at public institutions Potential objection if you buy into second version of merit principle then we are going to rule out preferential af rmative action of all kinds at public institutions including PAA for veterans at public institutions Also what is a quali cation Maybe being black is a quali cation Nondiscrimination principle v3 At public institutions you should not discriminate on the basis of features that are orthogonal to competence PAA objection NP v3 rules out PAA for veterans at public institutions Nondiscrimination argument 0 P1 Nondiscrimination principle 0 P If the NP v3 is true then PAA is impermissibile at public institutions 0 C PAA is impermissible at public institutions The fair start argument for PAA P1 PAA is permissible with respect to group X for position Y if members of the group X on average are at an unfair competitive disadvantage with respect to y at a public institution P2 On average members of group X are at an unfair competitive disadvantage with respect to Y C PAA is permissible with respect to group X for position Y Worry for fair start argument 0 What is an unfair competitive disadvantage The word unfair is crucial 0 At an unfair competitive advantage if wrt of ce job Work harder Expensive education Smarter Taller More attractive Male White Employ blackmail Drug other applicants 0 8 and 9 are quotnarrowly unfairquot active interference by someone o 2 to 9 are quotbroadly unfair something you haven39t earned Newton s objection DMNGWDWNH o if by unfair you mean quotnarrowly unfairquot you can t recover standard PAA since there are barely any situations that apply to it o if mean quotbroadly unfairquot you get absurd reasons for PAA such as smarter etc Locke39s reparations principle If A wrongfully harms B then A owes B reparations Ex DVD Roommate borrows and damages DVD Therefore he should buy you a new dvd Ex Tobacco Companies Make Cigarettes more addictive and then lie about it therefore they wrongfully harmed the customers Ex US Government to Japan Note 2 Compensation should be approximately equal to harm Direct Reparations Argument P1 Locke39s Reparations Principle P2 The US Gov wrongfully harmed slaves C The US Gov owes Reparations to slaves The Inheritance Principle If A owes an amount to B and B dies then A owes the same amount to B39s heirs Ex Borrowed Car The Inheritance Argument P1 The US Government owes slaves reparations C of Direct Reparations Argument P2 The inheritance principle P3 The US Government has paid neither the slaves nor the heirs a compensation C The US Gov owes slaves reparations or if they are dead owes reparations to the heirs Horowitz39s 1 There is no single group clearly responsible for slavery 2 No one group that bene tted from slavery 3 Minority of America owned slaves 4 Most Americans today have no relations to slavery Debtor is US Government not some particular group 1 Historical Precendents used to justify the reparations claim do not apply and claim its is based on race and not injury Recipients are descendants of slaves not some particular race 1 The reparations argument is based on the unfounded claim that all the AfricanAmericans suffer from discrimination and slavery Argument based on claims about injuries to slaves not their descendants 1 Reparations claim is one more attempt to turn african american in to victims It sends a damaging message to the AfroAm community 1 Reparations claim is a seperatist idea that sets AfroAm39s against the nation that gave them freedom 7 10 Could Work But requires establishing that paying reparations would lead to great harm 1 Reparations to AfroAm have already been paid Welfare isnt compensation PAAascompensation faces the quotuneven bene tsquot worry 1 AfAms don39t owe a literal debt to the US Governmentbeyond taxes Evaluative Af rmative Action Bump up members of a group in order to better assess competence Ex UK Philosophy applications Studies of Unconscious Bias 1 CV Gender Substitution 2 Implicit Association TestsGoogle Harvard Implicit Association Test Features of the MullerLyer Illusion Unconscious We are not aware of it General Apply to almost everyone Robust Knowing about it doesn t make it go away Result of Shortcuts Consequences of optimizations we need in order to function DWNH Stereotype ThreatsBoosts If you describe a test as a math test women would do signi cantly worse than they would if you tell them it39s a laboratory exercise Take a group of AsianAmerican women Focus on their gender and give them a pink pencil and make them take a math test and they will do worse Take the same group give them something Asian before and describe the test as the math test and they will do much better Took a group of white male high school seniors and gave them a test and gave a similar group the test but before that they said that everyone else did poorly and the second group did better The BiasCompensation Argument for EAA P1 The merit principle At public institution the most quali ed applicant should get the position P2 If the Merit Principle is true we should employ EAA at public institution C We are obligated to employ EAA at public institutions Worry 1 MP forbids PAA for Veterans Thomson Re Modify the MP to allow for overrides Worry 2 MP forbids rolling admissions Boonin Worry 3 MP forbids hiring rst quali ed applicant Boonin Levin grant that racial pro ling is an effective way to reduce crime The Racial Pro ling Argument P1 The state should adopt a policy of i it doesn t violate anyone39s rights and ii it yields more bene ts than other nonrightsviolating alternative P2 Racial pro ling doesn t violate anyone39s rights P3 Racial pro ling yields more bene ts than any other nonrights violating alternative C The state should adopt racial pro ling Reply 1 Racial pro ling violates the Right Against Unreasonable Searches Reject p2 a A search is unreasonable if you haven39t done anything wrongillegal Ex Airport Security Ex Border Customs a And if you havent consented Ex Sobriety checkpoints Ex Criminal Roadblock Reply 2 Racial pro ling violates the Right Against Unfairuneven Burden Reject P2 Equal Ownership Principle Every owner of an instiution has a right ot an equal share inchance t any bene t deriving from that institutionunless some overriding factor applies Postive and negative bene ts Worry in overrides Ex Criminal Roadblock Reply 3 Proponents of racial pro ling often underestimate the costsReject P3 Reply 4 Proponents of racial pro ling often forget about the alternatives Reject P3 Option 1 Adopt Racial Pro ling Option 2 Be Unsafe Option 3 Spend some money Standard Implicit Argument P1 A fetus has a right to life that s violated if aborted P2 A mother has a right to bodily autonomy if she is denied abortion P3 The right to life trumps right to bodily autonomy C Mothers should be denied abortions Reply Reject Premise 3 using example below Case of the plugged violinist In case you want to unplug yourself from the violinist cause you can39t take it anymore then you are don t believe in premise 3 The Consent Argument P1 If a women has consensual sex she consents to carry the fetus to term if she gets pregnant P2lf a women consents to carry the fetus to term she is obligated to do so C If a women has consensual sex she is obligated to carry the fetus to term if she gets pregnant Explicit Consent Agree and state agreement Implicit Consent Agree and don39t state agreement If asked they would have explicitly consented Implied quotConsentquot According to some well known social norms suggests consent Ex Leaving a tip Explicitly consenting lmplictly if he doesn t say anything Forgets money on the table implied consent as tipping is a well known social norm Conse P1 P2 nt Explici False Boonin t quotfalsequot lmplici False Boonin t quotfalsequot lmplie Varies with False d culture Ex Abortion as birth control There in all forms of consent atleast one of the premises would be false Ex Violinist and explicit consent is it permissible to unplug yourself after consenting to plug yourself The Negligence Argument P1 If a women has consensual sex and she gets pregnant then she is atleast partially responsible for the fetus being dependent on her P2 If you39re partially responsible for someone being dependent on you you39re partially responsible for helping them out C If a women has consensual sex and gets pregnant she is atleast partially responsible for helping the fetus out Ex Drowning Cases V1 Just arrived you see a person drowning no other help Are you obligated to save him V2 Misinformed Them Obligated to save them V3 Push him in Yes Feinbe Pregnant Responsib rg cause lity Rape No Manufacturer No 5 Defect 1 Failure Some No Pretty protection lntend to get Very pregnant Boonin quotP2 is falsequot Ex Violinist and Doctors discovery As a doctor are you obligated to plug yourself in P2 If you39re responsible for someone being worse off then you39re responsible for helping them out Boonin P2 is true not P2 and the negligence argument only comes through if the fetus is worse for having been conceived Gender Equality Objection The status quo violates gender equality Child Support only considered where the parents never wanted the child unlike most cases of child support Reply No asymmetry in rights only in opportunities to exercise those rights Difference due to a Biological Asymmtries Ex ManChild Man has child woman pays child support WomanChild Don39t Have Child Ex Low Tech No Abortions Man Child Man has child woman pays child support WomanChild Woman has child man pays child support Ex High Tech Test Tube ManChild Man has Child woman pays child support WomanChild Woman has child man pays child support The Child Support Argument P1 A parent is required to make reasonable sacri ces for their rights having offspring sacri ces greater than for a stranger P2 A child is a rightshaving offspring of a father P3Paying 18 years old of child support is a reasonable sacri ce C Fathers are required to pay child support The Fetus Support Argument P1 A parent is required to make reasonable sacri ces for their rights having offspring sacri ces greater than for a stranger P2 A fetus is a rightshaving offspring of a mother P3 Carrying a fetus to term is a reasonable sacri ce C Mothers are required to pay fetus support Option 1Pavlischek Accept all premises Option 2Thomson Reject P1 from both arguments Thomson39s Parental Consent Principle Parents only have special obligations towards their children if they adopt those obligations voluntarily Ex Biological vs Adopted Offspring Option 3 Accept all but P2fetus support Option 4 Accept all but P3fetus support Ex Income Tax vs Blood Tax The Child Support ObjectionsTrilemma 1 Accept that mothers should pay fetus support 1 Accept that father shouldn t pay child support 1 Give up on Thomson39s argument


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

75 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"

Anthony Lee UC Santa Barbara

"I bought an awesome study guide, which helped me get an A in my Math 34B class this quarter!"

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.