Ethics. April 12 Drug use as a right- Michael humor - Individuals have a right to their own bodies and minds - given that drug use affects merely ones body and mind, it is hard to see how drug use could not be protected under this fundamental right Possible responses: such use actually harms others, - drug users are not acting freely in taking drugs, face dilemma Positive effects of drugs - faster artistic musical and literary creativity, opium and Coleridge - helps achieve an objective that everyone recognizes as important: euphoria and pleasure --- true, drug use haas risks, but so does scuba diving, climbing, skiing, etc. All more dangerous than any widdely used drug - should not demand that one wrens the value of the enjoyment we experience when we engage in an activity we like ---- ex. Fantasy football, American idol, snowboarding, video games The risks of smoking - smoking leads to cancer and cardiovascular disease - major cause of chromic obstructive lung disease - responsible for more than 300,000 deaths Antipaternalistic principle - state may not prevent a knowledgable adult from voluntarily engaging in an acitivty simply on the grounds that is poses a risk of harm to himself. - doesn't apply to children because eye don't know fully what they are doing. Easy to trick a child into committing crime. Thus, if jokers know the risks and voluntarily choose to joke, then the state has no legitimate grounds for restricting their behavior. 1. Issue of consent - people can only consent to something if they know to what they are supposedly consenting - do people really know to what they are consenting in the case of smoking? Sufficient warning Generally warnings for products are very different from those on cigarettes. - warnings stated more strongly ... U will be poisoned - warnings mentioned death explicitly and employ skull and crossbones - suggest antidotes 2. Voluntary acceptance - in the case of those who did not know or did not believe, it seems the State might have a good reason to interfere - especially if the cognitive defects are easily recognized Weak paternalism - state interference in cases where people want to live from acting in a way that they falsely Smokers in the know Do they really know? How can the state restrict tobacco use for that - few smokers know exactly the risks they rub for what diseases - smokers often overestimate the risks of dying in more dramatic ways while underestimating the risk of death from smoking April. 14 Goodin Addiction and freedom - addiction involves the loss of freedom and free will Addiction: a desire to quit coupled with an inaudibility to quit - thus actions by the State to discourage and control addictive activities do not violate the anti paternalistic principle - restrictions on tobacco achieve what people themselves want to retain their freedom Possible restrictions - make activity more difficult - make it more expensive - make activity punishable The debate over electronic cigarettes - only inhale nicotine, better your health - political rpessure weighed against it, outlawed it. " somethings being addictive is a strain Eason, often an overriding one, sgsinst it's availability and use p 524 What justifies this assumption Nature of Addiction - addiction involves a resilient desire with an associated dissatisfaction property - these satires entail bother: withdrawal Resilience - a desire that often is hard to resist even is in the addicts own best interest. - the strength of the addictive desire is well out of proportion to the importance of it's fulfillment Argument from bad case - denying ones addiction will be difficult and unpleasant and Three factors: 1.Fulfillment 2.Conflict 3.Disvalue Is addiction itself morally relevant - addiction possess an intrinsic disvalue that in many cases outweighs any benefits - goodin: addictions are necessarily bad. 1. Addict will want to stop but will be unable to - assumes the edict will always face bad cases. - soma case, shows this is false, some will never want to stop 2. Addict will lose freedom - being an addict you loses freedom April 19 Addiction and the value of freedom, in the book Graham Oddie ** Ernie and his drugs EXAMPLE - two thesis of freedom - strong: better to have more options than less been if there are no value differences STRONG: taking drug A is intrinsically bad but this view comes at the cost of saying more choices result in greater freedom - weak: it is not merely choices that matter for freedom, it the content of those choices WEAK: taking drug A would be intrinsically bad but only if we assume there is a value- difference between being addicted and not being addicted Additional choices only matter if there is a value difference Conclusion: the risk of addiction itself does not constitute a reason for preferring one action to another - we must consider the nature of addiction- the likelihood and severity of bad cases it might generate FAMINE! AFFLUENCE, AND Ex. Envelope vs. Car Five ways our response to the envelope case is worse 1. Smaller cost 2. More victims 3. More suffering and loss 4. Victim not responsible for situation 5. Victim engaged in no objectionable behavior Shallow pond - kid is drowning and you jump in to save him ruining your new expensive boots Your the only person- therefore obligated to help them April 21 April 26 Singers argument 1. Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad 2. If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything else morally significant, we ought, morally to do it 3. Saving a child in a drowning pond/ or donating to Oxfam, do not involve a morally significant cost 4. Therefore we ought to do it The 1% goal ? but 0.04% is not very memorable, and still would leave tens of thousands of children dying everyday from an easily preventable poverty relate causes. ? tuis is the minimal donation, not the optimal one. To fail to give shows indifference to the indefinite continuation of dire poverty and avoidable , vert related deaths, Arthur's response to singer ? singers conclusion, however, ignores the place that entitlements have in our moral landscape ? that is, our mroal theories recognize not only a responsibility ? Rights Negative- - right to be free from interference - we have a negative right to life, property, and privacy - we have a right to deny another person use of our bodies Positive - right of recipient - we have a right to assistance or aid - but the strength of this right depends on our relationship and status with those able to provide aid Example, negative - give an eye to somebody who needs it Example, positive - able to favor yourself first, friends family, society, human kind In a car accident provide aid to your child before anothers child Right and our moral code ?" our moral code expects us to Hepplewhite people in need as well as respect negative and positive rights" p144 ? -singers argument is much to quick. Desert Grasshopper example- someone in need because of their own laziness Example- adult in pond trespasses and falls in, feel they are more responsible for their situatiion and they don't deserve aid Conclusion ? singers commitment to the greater moral evil principle is an important part of our moral code- a part that looks impartially at the future consequences of our actions ? but the backward-looking importance of entitlements annotate be ignored in any adequate moral theory - people can favor those with whom they are closer or have made special commitments - people can choose to keep what they armed and not give to those who do not deserve aid So what follows? ? our moral code encourages helping others in need, particularly in friends or someone geographically close, and when the cost is not significant ? but we also can give weight to rights and desert which often precludes any obligation to give to strangers ? people are thus required to help only when there is no substantial cost to themselves or significant reduction in their own or their families level of happiness Singers response ? Yes giving up a kidney is surely a case of heroism, but is forgoing new clothes heroic??? ? even if its true that we have greater obligation to assist those whom we have made promises or possess a special relationship, does this change our obligation to assist those strangers in great need? Our Duties Toward the Poor Positive duty to help ? easy to substantiate ? but comes at the cost of being a weak and discretionary duty Negative duty not to uphold injustice ? requires establishing that one is perpetuating or contributing to a continuing injsutice ? very strong duty to cease causing injustice Establishing a negative duty: upholding injustice 1. The effects of shared institutions - most of the worlds population can be attributed to these shared economic institutions, the poverty of these large groups can be traced to trade agreements, resource laws, none of thesse are democratic/ run by powerful and the wealthy - world economic policies, run by the wealthiest/ most powerful - purchase resources from impoverished countries, only a legitimate government should be able to sell its resources 2. Uncompensated exclusion from the use of natural resources - the people of Nigeria are suffering while their resources are being taken away and sold to United States. All the money we pay is being given to the corrupt political system. We don't care, as long as we are happy 3. Effects of a common and violent history - Africa example. Why they are so under developed, war, genocide,and slavery a large set back. No structure for developing the economy. Very poor and unable to take care of themselves. Weren't free until a couple decades ago.
Want to see the other 8 page(s) in Humor_Singer_Goodin_Oddie.docx?JOIN TODAY FOR FREE!