How does Rachels use a thought experiment to support her claim?
To support the first subclaim, Rachels uses a thought experiment involving a terminally ill patient with throat cancer suffering immense amounts of pain. Both actions would result in the patient’s death.
What is a breach of the principle of equal treatment?
25 A breach of the principle of equal treatment as a result of different treatment presumes that the situations concerned are comparable, having regard to all the elements which characterise them.
What is equal treatment under the law?
2. The term ‘equal treatment’ has a distinct use / meaning when used in the context of bilateral social security agreements between EU Member States as per Regulation (EU) No 465/2012 on the coordination of social security systems. 3. For more information see EMN: Migrant Access to Social Security and Healthcare – policy and practice, 2014
Is there a counter argument to Rachels's claim?
As far as the argument for Rachels’ main claim, I believe it is both a good and valid argument that may have a few places that a counter argument can be made. One of these places is the argument in support of his second claim which implies that the grounds upon which life and death decisions are made are irrelevant grounds.
What are two things that Rachels identifies as constituting the minimum conceptions of morality?
What is the first of the two things that Rachels identifies as constituting the minimum conception of morality? Moral judgments must be backed by good reasons. What does Rachels mean in saying that moral judgments must be backed by good reasons? Moral judgments are not like matters of taste.
What is James Rachels theory?
Rachels argued that the primary reason why cruelty to animals is wrong is because tortured animals suffer, just as tortured humans suffer. He held the view that inflicting pain on animals can sometimes be justified but we must have a sufficiently good reason for doing so.
What are Rachels objections to the principle of utility?
Explain Rachels's objections to the utilitarian argument for active euthanasia. Objection to Principle of Utility—any action or social policy is morally right if it serves to increase the amount of happiness in the world or to decrease the amount of misery.
What according to Rachels is impartiality?
-Rachels says that impartiality does not require treating everyone alike all the time. According to the cultural differences argument, the fact that different cultures have different moral codes implies that: there is no objective "truth" in morality.
What are Rachels two main critiques of psychological egoism?
(Kay) According to James Rachels, there are two ego's that need to be discussed and refuted: Psychological Egoism and Ethical Egoism. Within his essay, Rachel argues that both of these Egoism have no bases on which they can make sense and be justifies.
What is James Rachels view on euthanasia?
Rachels challenges the conventional view that passive euthanasia is permissible but active euthanasia is not. This view is endorsed by the American Medical Association in a 1973 statement. But Rachels holds that in some cases active euthanasia is morally preferable to passive euthanasia on utilitarian grounds.
What are the two formulations of utilitarian theory?
There are two formulations of utilitarianism: act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism .
What would a satisfactory moral theory be like Rachels?
One who treats others well deserves to be treated well in return, while one who treats others badly deserves to be treated badly in return.
Is Rachels a utilitarian?
Rachels also attacks the Utilitarianist argument that everybody is equal, and your own happiness is no more important than anybody else's. He claims that this is completely impractical, as one can usually increase the happiness of somebody else whenever they buy something.
What is cultural relativism according to Rachels?
Culture Relativism states that we cannot absolute say what is right and what is wrong because it all depends in the society we live in. James Rachels however, does not believe that we cannot absolute know that there is no right and wrong for the mere reason that cultures are different.
What is Rachels minimum conception of morality?
James Rachels suggests two criteria fulfilling a minimum conception of morality -- reason and impartiality. By the use of reason Rachels means that a moral decision must be based on reasons acceptable to other rational persons.
What does Rachels think is true if cultural relativism is true?
T/F: Rachels claims that if cultural relativism were true, all social practices would be immune from criticism. T/F: According to Rachels, if two societies differ in customs, they must differ in values.
How does James Rachels define cultural relativism?
Culture Relativism states that we cannot absolute say what is right and what is wrong because it all depends in the society we live in. James Rachels however, does not believe that we cannot absolute know that there is no right and wrong for the mere reason that cultures are different.
What is James Rachels argument against ethical egoism?
– Response: this actually argues against ethical egoism. It says that we shouldn't act in certain ways (ways we think will help people) because acting this way actually harms them—i.e., it presupposes we have a duty to help (or at least not to harm) others, which is just what ethical egoism denies.
What would a satisfactory moral theory be like Rachels?
One who treats others well deserves to be treated well in return, while one who treats others badly deserves to be treated badly in return.
What is moral skepticism According to Rachels?
Rachels claims that moral skeptics attack the claim that. a. we have an obligation to consider the welfare of other people when we act. b. we must respect others' rights and interests as well as our own.
What does T/F Rachels believe?
T/F Rachels believes that criminal charges should be pressed against doctors who kill their patients for whatever reason.
What is T/F in euthanasia?
T/F Withholding treatment with the intention of ending the patient's life, to prevent the patient's further suffering, is an example of active euthanasia.
What is the principle of equal treatment?
Principle of equal treatment: we should treat people in the same way unless there is a relevant difference between them.
Why would an ethical egoist claim that everyone would be better off if everyone were to act to this theory?
An ethical egoist would claim that everyone would be better off if everyone were to act to this theory because they believe we ought to pursue our own interests exclusively. However that does not mean we should avoid helping others. We all ought to act to pursue our own interests, therefore we would be better off because we would always be doing what we want.
Is there enough time to consider the effects of any line of conduct?
There is not enough time, previous to action for calculating and weighing the effects of any line of conduct on the general happiness. If you were to think about how every single action you did effected others, there would not be enough time to truly consider all aspects and make a decision
Can a claim that contradicts itself be true?
no claim that contradicts itself can be true
Definition (s)
The principle that there shall be no direct or indirect discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin, sex, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.
Note (s)
1. This is an important right conferred by EU citizenship. The Treaty of Amsterdam added a new Art. 13 to the Treaty, reinforcing the principle of non-discrimination.
What is James Rachels's argument?
Summary: In this scholarly article, philosopher James Rachels argues that there is no significant moral difference between active and passive euthanasia or between killing and letting die. The article provides no data or statistics, only thought experiments designed to create an alternate way of thinking. The purpose of the article is to show ...
What does Rachels argue about Down syndrome?
Rachels argues that says the infant’s Down’s syndrome should be the only thing taken into consideration, not its symptoms causing it pain. A third case is used to support Rachel’s last and main claim, that there is no moral difference between killing and letting die.
Is Rachels' argument a good argument?
What I mean by a “good” argument is that his argument has sound logic and reason and if we accept the premises, we must accept the conclusion. However, a good argument does not automatically imply a valid argument. A valid argument is one in which the premises are true and the conclusion that the premises imply is true. As far as the argument for Rachels’ main claim, I believe it is both a good and valid argument that may have a few places that a counter argument can be made.