Use The Textbook Attached To Answer The Following Questions

Use The Textbook Attached To Answer the Following Questionschp 1514s

Use The Textbook Attached To Answer the Following Questionschp 1514s

Use the textbook attached to answer the following questions. Chp 15/14 Someone who saves a person from drowning in the hopes of being paid for it is acting Chp 17/16 2. Aristotle claims that “virtue is a kind of mean.†What does he mean by this, and how does he argue for it? Is this an illuminating way of thinking about the virtues? Chp 20/19 What is Hobbes’s conception of human nature?

Given this account of human nature, what does he think life would be like in the absence of government? Do you agree with him about this? Why or why not? chp 24 - Thompson On what premise does most opposition to abortion rest, according to Thomson? What does Thomson think of this premise? What role does it play in her argument?

Paper For Above instruction

The questions presented from various chapters of the textbook explore foundational concepts in ethics, political philosophy, and bioethics. This paper aims to analyze each question comprehensively, synthesizing relevant philosophical theories and arguments from the specified chapters.

The first question concerns the morality of acting for financial gain in rescue situations. Specifically, it examines whether a person who saves another from drowning with the hope of being paid is acting ethically. The ethical evaluation here depends on the context and underlying moral principles. Traditionally, saving a life is considered a moral duty or an act of altruism. However, if the motive is primarily monetary, questions arise about the moral integrity of such an act. Some ethicists argue that the morality of an action depends on the motive behind it (Kant, 1785). From this perspective, acting solely for financial gain may diminish the moral worth of the action, even if the outcome is beneficial. Conversely, utilitarian perspectives might focus on the overall consequences, thus considering the saving as morally acceptable if it results in a net positive outcome, regardless of motive (Mill, 1863).

Aristotle’s claim that “virtue is a kind of mean” introduces a nuanced understanding of moral virtues. Aristotle advocates for the doctrine of the mean, suggesting that moral virtues are moderate states lying between two vices: one of excess and one of deficiency (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book II). For example, courage is the virtue lying between recklessness and cowardice. Aristotle argues that virtue is a mean because human beings, by rational choice, should aim to find the moderate path that avoids extremes. This approach emphasizes balance, moderation, and practical wisdom (phronesis). The idea is illuminating because it recognizes individual variability and contextual factors in moral decision-making, moving away from rigid rules toward a relational and situational understanding of virtue. It encourages individuals to cultivate moral judgment to discern the appropriate mean in diverse circumstances.

Hobbes’s conception of human nature is characterized by a view of humans as driven by self-interest and the desire for self-preservation (Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651). He posits that in their natural state, without societal constraints, humans exist in a condition of perpetual conflict, driven by competition, diffidence, and glory. This natural condition, often described as a state of war of “every man against every man,” results in life being “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Hobbes advocates for a powerful sovereign to impose order and prevent this chaos. In his view, without government, human life would be anarchic, violent, and insecure, as individuals would prioritize their self-interest at the expense of others (Hobbes, Leviathan). Personally, perceptions of this idea vary; some agree that humans have self-interested tendencies that require regulation, while others believe that social cooperation and altruism can prevail without a necessarily oppressive sovereign, emphasizing the potential for inherent goodness and communal morality (Taylor, 1989).

The final question addresses Judith Jarvis Thomson’s argument regarding abortion, particularly her critique of the premise on which most opposition to abortion rests. Thomson claims that much of the opposition is based on the premise that the fetus has a right to life that overrides a woman's rights over her body. She challenges this premise by illustrating scenarios, such as the famous violinist analogy, which questions whether the fetus’s right to life automatically outweighs a woman’s bodily autonomy. Thomson’s argument suggests that even if the fetus has a right to life, this right does not necessarily entitle it to use the woman’s body against her will (Thomson, 1971). The premise plays a crucial role in her broader argument, as she seeks to demonstrate that abortion can be morally permissible even if one grants the fetus some rights. The implication is that moral permissibility depends not solely on the fetus’s rights but also on balancing these against the woman’s rights, emphasizing bodily autonomy as a critical factor in abortion ethics.

In conclusion, these philosophical inquiries illustrate the complex dimensions of moral reasoning and social contract theories. Whether analyzing the moral motives behind rescue, understanding virtue as moderation, exploring human nature from Hobbes’s perspective, or debating abortion rights through Thomson’s analogy, each discussion underscores the importance of context, interpretation, and moral balance in ethical decision-making.

References

• Aristotle. (circa 350 BCE). Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by W. D. Ross.
• Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. Edited by Richard Tuck.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism.
• Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity.
• Thomson, J. J. (1971). A Defense of Abortion. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1(1), 47-66.