Reference no: EM132322947 , Length: 2500 Words

Bioethics Questions -

Question 1 - Determine whether the following arguments are valid or invalid and justify how you reached this determination. If invalid, write down the implicit premise that makes the argument valid.

Argument 1 -

1. Homosexuality is not normal.

2. So, homosexuality is wrong.

Argument 2 -

1. A fetus is a human being

2. Abortion ends a fetus's life.

3. Therefore, abortion is wrong.

Question 2 - Give a good counterexample to each of the following claims.

• Make sure to review the "counterexample" reading in Unit 1.
• Make sure your counterexample is concrete and you justify the claims that you make.

For Claim 1, make sure to give a concrete X (i.e. a concrete action) and justify why you think doing X is natural or unnatural and also why you think is it, or is not, morally wrong to do X.

For Claim 2, make sure to give a concrete X (i.e. a concrete belief), and be explicit about why X is justified or unjustified, etc.

Claim 1 - If doing X is unnatural, then it is wrong to do X.

Claim 2 - If you are justified in believing X, then X is true.

Question 3 - This question has two parts, a. and b.

The Moral Progress Claim: If Cultural Relativism is true, then cultures can't make moral progress.

a. Is the Moral Progress Claim true or false?

• Justify your answer.
• Give a concrete example to help illustrate your answer.
• Use the following definition of "moral progress". To make moral progress means to make progress in one's moral beliefs (as opposed to actions or something else). Making progress in one's moral beliefs means moving from false moral beliefs to true moral beliefs.

The Questioning Your Own Culture Claim: If you believe that Cultural Relativism is true, then it is irrational for you to question the moral beliefs of your own culture.

b. Is the Questioning Your Own Culture Claim true or false?

• Justify your answer.
• Give a concrete example to help illustrate your answer.
• Hint: make sure you define or clarify what you mean by "irrational"

Question 4 - In medical research, it is common to pay people to participate. For example, a pharmaceutical company might offer $100 to people to participate in a study that tests the safety of their new headache medication. However, institutions that regulate medical research caution against offering too much money in exchange for participation. For example, suppose a medical research company offers $10,000 to test a super risky medical procedure. Some people think this is morally problematic. Here is their reasoning:

• Offering too much money will distort people's judgment about participation. People will become fixated on the money and discount or ignore the risks of the study. If someone's judgment is distorted by a large offer in this way, then it is wrong to let them participate.
• Do you think that this last statement (the bolded one) is true? In other words, supposing that a large offer distorts a person's judgment in the way described above, does it follow that it is wrong to let them participate? Give a clear and thoughtful justification for your answer. A couple of sentences is insufficient. Focus on defending/justifying your best argument/reason, don't just list every thought you have. Use concrete examples to help justify and/or explain your answer.

Question 5 - Consider the following argument. You are under no moral obligation to donate your blood, even if someone will die if you refuse to donate your blood. This is because you have a right to your bodily autonomy. It follows from this that abortion is permissible. You are under no moral obligation to continue with pregnancy (i.e. abortion is permissible), even if someone (the fetus) will die if you refuse to continue with the pregnancy. Again, this is because you have a right to your bodily autonomy.

One objection that has been raised against this argument is that refusing to donate your blood is inaction (a letting die) and abortion is an action (a killing). Because of this difference, it doesn't follow that abortion is permissible just because refusing to donate your blood is permissible.

Two questions.

1. Based on the "Active and Passive Euthanasia" article, would Rachels think the objection is good or bad? Why?

2. Based on the "Active and Passive Euthanasia" article, is Rachels committed to agreeing that the donating blood case and the abortion case are morally equivalent? Why or why not?