Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'poems', 'Nietzsche's Immoralism' and 'Rule Utilitarianism and Euthanasia'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these texts

---

7 ideas

22. Metaethics / A. Ethics Foundations / 1. Nature of Ethics / g. Moral responsibility

22474	Unlike aesthetic evaluation, moral evaluation needs a concept of responsibility [Foot]
	Full Idea: Moral, as opposed to aesthetic, evaluation does require some distinction between actions for which we are responsible and those for which we are not responsible.
	From: Philippa Foot (Nietzsche's Immoralism [1991], p.154)
	A reaction: It is hard to disagree with this, but difficult to give a precise account of responsibility, probably because it is not an all-or-nothing matter. If we accept responsibility for our controlled actions, why not for our considered aesthetic judgements?

22. Metaethics / A. Ethics Foundations / 2. Source of Ethics / j. Ethics by convention

6017	Nomos is king [Pindar]
	Full Idea: Nomos is king.
	From: Pindar (poems [c.478 BCE], S 169), quoted by Thomas Nagel - The Philosophical Culture
	A reaction: This seems to be the earliest recorded shot in the nomos-physis wars (the debate among sophists about moral relativism). It sounds as if it carries the full relativist burden - that all that matters is what has been locally decreed.

23. Ethics / C. Virtue Theory / 3. Virtues / c. Justice

22472	The practice of justice may well need a recognition of human equality [Foot]
	Full Idea: I wonder whether the practice of justice may not absolutely require a certain recognition of equality between human beings, not a pretence of the equality of talents, but something deeper.
	From: Philippa Foot (Nietzsche's Immoralism [1991], p.152)
	A reaction: {My 'something deeper' is expressed by Foot in a quotation from Gertrude Stein]. This may well be the most fundamental division which runs across a society - between those who accept and those reject human equality.

23. Ethics / E. Utilitarianism / 2. Ideal of Pleasure

20883	Modern utilitarians value knowledge, friendship, autonomy, and achievement, as well as pleasure [Hooker,B]
	Full Idea: Most utilitarians now think that pleasure, even if construed widely, is not the only thing desirable in itself. ...Goods also include important knowledge, friendship, autonomy, achievement and so on.
	From: Brad W. Hooker (Rule Utilitarianism and Euthanasia [1997], 2)
	A reaction: That pleasure is desired is empirically verifiable, which certainly motivated Bentham. A string of other desirables each needs to be justified - but how? What would be the value of a 'friendship' if neither party got pleasure from it?

23. Ethics / E. Utilitarianism / 5. Rule Utilitarianism

20884	Rule-utilitarians prevent things like torture, even on rare occasions when it seems best [Hooker,B]
	Full Idea: For rule-utilitarians acts of murder, torture and so on, can be impermissible even in rare cases where they really would produce better consequences than any alternative act.
	From: Brad W. Hooker (Rule Utilitarianism and Euthanasia [1997], 4)
	A reaction: It is basic to rule-utilitarianism that it trumps act-ulitilarianism, even when a particular act wins the utilitarian calculation. But that is hard to understand. Only long-term benefit could justify the rule - but that should win the calculation.

25. Social Practice / F. Life Issues / 2. Euthanasia

20885	Euthanasia is active or passive, and voluntary, non-voluntary or involuntary [Hooker,B]
	Full Idea: Six types of euthanasia: 1) Active voluntary (knowing my wishes), 2) Active non-voluntary (not knowing my wishes), 3) Active involuntary (against my wishes), 4) Passive voluntary, 5) Passive non-voluntary, 6) Passive involuntary.
	From: Brad W. Hooker (Rule Utilitarianism and Euthanasia [1997], 5)
	A reaction: 'Active' is intervening, and 'passive' is not intervening. A helpful framework.

20882	Euthanasia may not involve killing, so it is 'killing or not saving, out of concern for that person' [Hooker,B]
	Full Idea: Passive euthanasia is arguably not killing, and the death involved is often painful, so let us take the term 'euthanasia' to mean 'either killing or passing up opportunities to save someone, out of concern for that person'.
	From: Brad W. Hooker (Rule Utilitarianism and Euthanasia [1997], 1)
	A reaction: This sounds good, and easily settled, until you think concern for that person could have two different outcomes, depending on whether the criteria are those of the decider or of the patient. Think of religious decider and atheist patient, or vice versa.