PHIL 160 FINAL EXAM UMASS QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS
What is the Main Argument for the Moral Impermissibility of Abortion? What are the
justifications of its premises? Does Thomson think that the justifications of the premises
are good ones? - Answers - The Main Argument for the Moral Impermissibility of
Abortion
-If a fetus has a right to life, then it is morally impermissible to kill a fetus.
-A fetus has a right to life.
-Therefore, it is morally impermissible to kill a fetus. 1,2 MP
The justification for the first premise, according to the proponent of this argument, is that
having a right just means its being morally impermissible for someone else to kill you,
and so, again, according to the proponent of this argument, then it is morally
impermissible to kill it. The justification for the second premise, according to the
proponent of this argument, is that fetuses are persons and all persons have a right to
life.
Thomson thinks that the justifications of these premises are bad ones. Though she
agrees that all persons have a right to life, she thinks that the reasons that people offer
for thinking that fetuses are persons are bad ones. Thomson also thinks that the
justification for the first premise is bad. She employs the Famous Violinist Case to
undermine it.
What is the Famous Violinist Case? What is it meant to establish? - Answers - In the
Famous Violinist Case, you are kidnapped by the Society of Music Lovers who hook
your kidneys up to the circulatory system of an ailing famous violinist. The famous
violinist needs to use your kidneys to filter his blood for nine months otherwise he will
die. Thomson thinks that it would not be morally impermissible of you to unplug yourself
from the famous violinist in this case even though doing so would kill him.
Thomson takes this case to establish two things. First, she takes it to establish that
(self-administered) abortion in the case of pregnancy due to rape is (at least sometimes)
morally permissible. This is because unplugging oneself from the violinist in the Famous
Violinist Case seems relevantly analogous to performing an abortion in the case of
pregnancy due to rape. Second, she takes the case to establish that the first premise of
the Main Argument for the Moral Impermissibility of Abortion is false. This is because
the famous violinist certainly has a right to life (he is a person and Thomson accepts
that all persons have a right to life), but, given that it is morally permissible for one to
unplug oneself from him in the Famous Violinist Case, it does not follow from the fact
that he has a right to life that it is always and everywhere morally impermissible to kill
him
, Explain why it would seem to be absurd to hold that whether a person has a right to life
depends on how that person was conceived - Answers - It seems absurd to maintain
that whether a person has a right to life depends on how they were conceived because
we don't think that the different circumstances of one's conception either enhance or
detract from one's right to life. We certainly don't think that a person who was conceived
via rape has any less of a right to life than does a person not so conceived. As a way of
seeing this, consider whether it would seem any less wrong to murder a 25 year-old
who was conceived via rape than it would to murder a 25 year-old who wasn't so
conceived.
What is the Extreme View? What is Thomson's argument against the Extreme View?
What is the Slightly Less Extreme View? What is Thomson's argument against the
Slightly Less Extreme View? - Answers - The Extreme View:
Abortion is impermissible in all (non-rape) cases, even if abortion is necessary to save
the life of the mother.
Story: The Growing Baby
Suppose you find yourself trapped in a tiny house with a growing child. I mean a very
tiny house, and a rapidly growing child--you are already up against the wall of the house
and in a few minutes you'll be crushed to death. The child on the other hand won't be
crushed to death; if nothing is done to stop him from growing he'll be hurt, but in the end
he'll simply burst open the house and walk out a free man.
The Growing Baby Argument Against the Extreme View
-If it is permissible for the mother to kill the rapidly growing baby, then the Extreme View
is false.
-It is permissible for the mother to kill the rapidly growing baby.
-Therefore, the Extreme View is false. 1,2 MP
Justifications: THOMSON'S THINKS, rather, that there are drastic limits to the right of
self-defense. If someone threatens you with death unless you torture someone else to
death, I think you have not the right, even to save your life, to do so.
Story: The Coat
Suppose Jones has found and fastened onto a coat which he needs to wear in order to
stay alive. But suppose also that the coat belongs to Smith who also needs to wear it in
order to stay alive.
The Coat Argument Against The Slightly Less Extreme View
-If it is morally permissible for a third party to take the coat away from Jones and give it
to Smith, then the Slightly Less Extreme View is false.
-It is morally permissible for a third party to take the coat away from Jones and give it to
Smith.
-Therefore, the Slightly Less Extreme View is false. 1,2 MP
ANSWERS
What is the Main Argument for the Moral Impermissibility of Abortion? What are the
justifications of its premises? Does Thomson think that the justifications of the premises
are good ones? - Answers - The Main Argument for the Moral Impermissibility of
Abortion
-If a fetus has a right to life, then it is morally impermissible to kill a fetus.
-A fetus has a right to life.
-Therefore, it is morally impermissible to kill a fetus. 1,2 MP
The justification for the first premise, according to the proponent of this argument, is that
having a right just means its being morally impermissible for someone else to kill you,
and so, again, according to the proponent of this argument, then it is morally
impermissible to kill it. The justification for the second premise, according to the
proponent of this argument, is that fetuses are persons and all persons have a right to
life.
Thomson thinks that the justifications of these premises are bad ones. Though she
agrees that all persons have a right to life, she thinks that the reasons that people offer
for thinking that fetuses are persons are bad ones. Thomson also thinks that the
justification for the first premise is bad. She employs the Famous Violinist Case to
undermine it.
What is the Famous Violinist Case? What is it meant to establish? - Answers - In the
Famous Violinist Case, you are kidnapped by the Society of Music Lovers who hook
your kidneys up to the circulatory system of an ailing famous violinist. The famous
violinist needs to use your kidneys to filter his blood for nine months otherwise he will
die. Thomson thinks that it would not be morally impermissible of you to unplug yourself
from the famous violinist in this case even though doing so would kill him.
Thomson takes this case to establish two things. First, she takes it to establish that
(self-administered) abortion in the case of pregnancy due to rape is (at least sometimes)
morally permissible. This is because unplugging oneself from the violinist in the Famous
Violinist Case seems relevantly analogous to performing an abortion in the case of
pregnancy due to rape. Second, she takes the case to establish that the first premise of
the Main Argument for the Moral Impermissibility of Abortion is false. This is because
the famous violinist certainly has a right to life (he is a person and Thomson accepts
that all persons have a right to life), but, given that it is morally permissible for one to
unplug oneself from him in the Famous Violinist Case, it does not follow from the fact
that he has a right to life that it is always and everywhere morally impermissible to kill
him
, Explain why it would seem to be absurd to hold that whether a person has a right to life
depends on how that person was conceived - Answers - It seems absurd to maintain
that whether a person has a right to life depends on how they were conceived because
we don't think that the different circumstances of one's conception either enhance or
detract from one's right to life. We certainly don't think that a person who was conceived
via rape has any less of a right to life than does a person not so conceived. As a way of
seeing this, consider whether it would seem any less wrong to murder a 25 year-old
who was conceived via rape than it would to murder a 25 year-old who wasn't so
conceived.
What is the Extreme View? What is Thomson's argument against the Extreme View?
What is the Slightly Less Extreme View? What is Thomson's argument against the
Slightly Less Extreme View? - Answers - The Extreme View:
Abortion is impermissible in all (non-rape) cases, even if abortion is necessary to save
the life of the mother.
Story: The Growing Baby
Suppose you find yourself trapped in a tiny house with a growing child. I mean a very
tiny house, and a rapidly growing child--you are already up against the wall of the house
and in a few minutes you'll be crushed to death. The child on the other hand won't be
crushed to death; if nothing is done to stop him from growing he'll be hurt, but in the end
he'll simply burst open the house and walk out a free man.
The Growing Baby Argument Against the Extreme View
-If it is permissible for the mother to kill the rapidly growing baby, then the Extreme View
is false.
-It is permissible for the mother to kill the rapidly growing baby.
-Therefore, the Extreme View is false. 1,2 MP
Justifications: THOMSON'S THINKS, rather, that there are drastic limits to the right of
self-defense. If someone threatens you with death unless you torture someone else to
death, I think you have not the right, even to save your life, to do so.
Story: The Coat
Suppose Jones has found and fastened onto a coat which he needs to wear in order to
stay alive. But suppose also that the coat belongs to Smith who also needs to wear it in
order to stay alive.
The Coat Argument Against The Slightly Less Extreme View
-If it is morally permissible for a third party to take the coat away from Jones and give it
to Smith, then the Slightly Less Extreme View is false.
-It is morally permissible for a third party to take the coat away from Jones and give it to
Smith.
-Therefore, the Slightly Less Extreme View is false. 1,2 MP
