David Underhill – 18 to 22 Oct 04 (Week 9)

David Underhill – 18 to 22 Oct 04 (Week 9) – P.209-231 (EMP), 7-12, 57-58 (CSME)

Monday 18 OCT 04 Readings:

Natural Law (209)

Natural Law – there are straightforward moral truths which can be discerned without an affiliation with a faith
Thread of Reason (the “Logos”) – holds Law together
True law is right reason in agreement with nature – eternal and unchangeable for all
Inspired part of the US’ founding documents

Summa Theologica (Aquinas) (213)

1) Since men can have eternal happiness, he must have direction from God to get there
2) Human judgment is uncertain and inconsistent
3) Man cannot make laws which judge internal feelings
4) Human law cannot punish all evil deeds

The Ethics of Natural Law (Harris) (217)

Natural law is not a “hard-and-fast” guideline
Basic outline is clear, but the closer to moral judgments you come the more prone to error you are
There is an objective truth, but we’re still working towards it
Human Nature

Easy to define a certain social role, but extremely hard to generalize it to all humans

Principle of Forfeiture – person who threatens innocent people forfeits their own life
Principle of Double Effect – one may perform an action that has a good and bad effect if:

Wednesday 20 OCT 04 Readings:

Natural Law and the Principle of Double Effect: Six Hypothetical Cases (Lucas) (225)

Moral analysis typically takes place in “thought experiments”
Drawbacks: thought experiments can propose examples that are exaggerated, strange, and bizarre
Readers should not be discouraged by this drawback

See it as an attempt to isolate a range of relevant parameters to a specific question can be focused on

Gyges finds a ring to make him invisible
Glaucon describes the myth
Argues justice is an implicit agreement to limit the sphere of actions we can take

We do whatever we could get away with
We don’t do things because we are afraid what would happen if everyone else did the same thing
Believes justice is an outward social convention and that if there were two invisible rings, one belonging to a moral character an another to an immoral character, then no distinction between their behaviors could be made (both would “abuse” the power)

Reason can, independently of religion, evaluate the nature of right and wrong
Each case below is designed to utilitarianism alone is not enough to make a decision

Case I – a trolley is coming down the tracks; if it continues, it will kill five construction workers. If you throw a switch, it will go down a different track but will kill a single pedestrian…
Case II – trolley is going down the tracks and will kill five people unless it is stopped; you can push an overweight man off the bridge (killing him) and stop the trolley …
Case III – One man is recovering from a stomach ailment. Five others are going to die unless they get organ transplants. The one man, if killed and his organs harvested, can provide the organs the five need in order to live.
Case IV – there is a enough medicine to heal five patients with minor (but fatal) disease or one patient with a serious illness; there are six patients (five minor infections, one major infection). Does the doctor save the five or the one?

Real-life case: In WWII, penicillin was in short demand. Five soldiers came back from liberty with socially-communicable diseases. The disease is potentially fatal if untreated, but a little penicillin will save them and return them to the front. Another soldier has been severely wounded by shrapnel at the front and needs all the penicillin to live. If he lives, he will be sent home. Who does the doctor give the medicine to – the five or the one?

Case V – There is one swimmer swimming in one part of the water and five swimming together in another part. A shark is in the area and is coming to eat all six. You are in a rowboat and can get to and save either the single swimmer or the group of five swimmers. Which group do you save?
Case VI – There are five swimmers in the water and a shark is going right to them. You have a large, tasty person in your rowboat and you will not be able to save any of the five swimmers unless you throw the person in the boat overboard (he will be killed and eaten, distracting the shark and giving you time to get the five swimmers out of the water). What do you do?

Friday 22 OCT 04 Readings:

Incident at Shkin (Schoultz) (7)

I: Predator observed suspicious activity at Shkin (Al-Qaeda, Taliban)
II: US Spec Forces observe a vehicle exit the compound, flash its lights, and return with twelve vehicles

Spec Forces CDR thinks this is rash and calls CENTCOM who cancels it
CENTCOM instructs Spec Forces to search the town
SpecF CDR delays entry into the town for 24 hours to get another team on site and give them some time to prepare

IV: Spec Forces assault the town, secure it, and destroy huge numbers of enemy weapons

V: The original Spec Forces team remains behind a maintains an observation point close to the town

Farmers see them, approach, and offer food and housing in return for a promise for the men not to bomb their town

VI: US forces are extracted; mission very successful (no key leaders killed, but key intelligence was obtained)

Terror and Retaliation – Who is Right? (Rubel) (57)

Taught that the Jews are evil and killing them while sacrificing himself while ensure a place in heaven for him
He blows himself up in a café, killing fourteen men, six women, and four children

The terrorist is killed, but so are fourteen men, six women, and four children (collateral damage: they were having a picnic and the pilot did not see them)