• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Explain what you think is the strongest objection to this argument. Next, explain what you think is Rachel's best response to this objection. Finally, give your overall assessment of the effectiveness of the argument.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Jessica Hammer Biomedical Ethics (Phil 23b) Professor Hirsch Midterm 1. Explain what you think is the strongest objection to this argument. Next, explain what you think is Rachel's best response to this objection. Finally, give your overall assessment of the effectiveness of the argument In the essay about Active and Passive Euthanasia, James Rachel's intention is to show that there is not an important moral difference between killing and letting die. His main argument consists on the pair cases of Smith and Jones: In the first, Smith stands to gain a large inheritance if something happened to his six year old cousin. One evening while the child is taking his bath, Smith sneaks into the bathroom and drowns the child, and then arranges things so that it will look like an accident. In the second, Jones also stands to gain if anything happen to his six year old cousin. Like Smith, Jones plans to drawn the child in his bath. However, just as he enters the bathroom Jones sees the child slip and hit his head, and fall face down in the water. He stands by waiting to see what happened to his cousin, and if it's necessary, pull the child head. ...read more.

Middle

works perfectly to make Rachel's point, but it is not an example from which it can be possible to generalize to the kind of cases that people usually have to deal with. The example involves two pieces of malicious behavior. Both Smith and Jones wanted to originally kill the child. Perhaps there is no moral difference between maliciously killing and maliciously letting die. But we can't necessarily generalize from this, to cases of euthanasia that doctors find themselves every day, situations that some times involve benevolent motivations. 2. Explain, what is the problem in Noonan's use of probabilities to support contraception. Compare Noonan's position on contraception to Marqui's Do you think Marqui's position makes good sense? Apart from the views of Noonan and Marquis, state another way that contraception might be plausibly defended by someone who condemns abortion on potentiality grounds. The problem in Noonan's use of probability to support contraception is that he is looking at the wrong probability. He says that contraception is different to abortion because the chances are 200.000.000 to one that if you hadn't use contraception that specific ovule, with that specific egg would develop in to a human being, while there is a 4 to 5 chance, that a fertilize egg will become a person. ...read more.

Conclusion

And based on this point of view there is nothing wrong with contraception, because you are not preventing a human future of value. I don't agree with Marqui's position, I believe he is looking the fetus and a human being if they were the same thing, and they are not. It's true that a fetus has the potentiality to eventually become a human being, but is not yet one. So it's not the same thing to kill a person that has lived something or even a newborn that we are certain that will have a future, and in his terms will have a "valuable future", than to kill a fetus, that it has a good chance of becoming a person, but is not yet one. Anything could happen on the way. Contraception might be plausibly defended in terms of potentiality grounds because the sperm, or the ovules by itself would be potentially capable of forming a human being. And as we know this is not true. By using contraception the only thing we are "killing" in case we want to use this term for an easily understanding, is the sperm or the ovules, which don't have, by themselves, the information or the potentiality to develop as humans. We have learned that to a certain point the ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Practical Questions section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Practical Questions essays

  1. RE euthanasia for and against

    Do people who ask for euthanasia (who are in great pain) really know what they are asking for? Many people with painful periods in their life can look back and be glad that the law did not allow the option to tempt them and that they can live the rest of their lives in full.

  2. Consider the arguments for and against paid organ donation.

    An underlying problem with a paid organ donation system would be how to actually put a value on an organ. It would seem impossible to put a value on a body part, because every person would have a different

  1. Explain Aquinass cosmological argument

    There must be a first cause which started the chain of events and the first cause, in Aquinas' opinion, is God. Also, everything that begins to exist has a cause and therefore everything in the world is contingent, reliant on something else.

  2. Evaluate Korsgaard's discussion of the Universalizability Argument. In what ways does she conform with ...

    in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end), the Formula of Autonomy (so act that your will can regard itself at the same time as making universal law through its maxims), and the Formula of the Kingdom of

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work