“I wonder how abortion got to be the greatest of all sins. What about poverty‚ ignorance‚ hunger and weaponry?” Around two weeks ago‚ a friend of mine from UP Diliman sent me a link and told me to read it if I had spare time. It was an argumentative essay entitled “Abortion‚ Right and Wrong” by Rachel Richardson Smith. In the said article‚ the writer stated what she thought about the two sides – pro-abortion and pro-choice. She also provided arguments for the stand of both parties and in conclusion
Premium Morality The Stand Ethics
In his article‚ "The Case against Free Will" James Rachels investigates the idea of choice and what makes through and through freedom a vital idea. Rachels additionally contends that just individual and God have unrestrained choice‚ yet God’s ability with the expectation of complimentary will is still under inquiries. There are several main point Rachel mention in this article. Rachels says Darrow’s resistance that individuals that never in charge of their activities‚ in light of the fact that their
Premium Free will Determinism Causality
An Exposition on James Rachels: “Does Morality Depend on Religion?” James Rachels argues that morality and religion are separate entities. He states that “morality is a matter of reason and conscience‚ not religious faith” and that “right and wrong are not defined in terms of God’s will.”i He uses the Divine Command Theory‚ the Theory of Natural Law‚ and the use of religious scripture and tradition to establish how and where the two subjects are separated. Rachels believes that there is a
Free Religion Morality Ethics
James Rachels argues that in the case of a terminally ill patient who suffers from unimaginable pain‚ it is sometimes morally acceptable kill him via active euthanasia. Rachels defends his argument through the story of Jack. This story serves to describe the excruciating and incessant pain that many of the terminally ill face. It seems as though the only way Jack and many other hopeless patients could escape this agony is through death. Rachels claims that since Jack was going to die relatively soon
Premium Death Euthanasia Suicide
dignity has sparked moral controversy among world-renowned philosophers for decades. James Rachels‚ Winston Nesbitt‚ and Roy W. Perrett are just three philosophers who wrote and spoke openly about the topic of euthanasia and biomedical ethics. Rachels and Perrett were adamant in their belief that the moral distinction between killing (active euthanasia) and allowing to die (passive euthanasia) was nonexistent. Rachels felt strongly that one was no worse than the other and that statements by the American
Premium Death Physician Medicine
In this text James Rachels makes the argument that both degrees of euthanasia are morally allowable and that the AMA policy that supports the doctrine is not sound. He establishes that the conventional doctrine is the belief that‚ in most cases‚ passive euthanasia is morally permitted but in all cases‚ active euthanasia is not allowed. There are four main arguments that help him come to this conclusion. The first two main arguments being that active euthanasia is a more humane alternative than passive
Premium Death Euthanasia Core issues in ethics
Darwin Species and morality James Rachels seeks to amplify the ideology between morality and Darwin’s moral treatment of organisms of different species. He says that Darwin advocated for treatment of both humans and non-humans equally without discrimination. This despite his continued use of non-humans for investigative research according to his son was the resultant effect of distaste for cruelty against animals as well as slavery. Rachels explains that Darwin’s theory of morality seems to interject
Premium Charles Darwin Evolution Natural selection
In chapter nine of the book “Problems from Philosophy”‚ by James Rachels‚ the author guides us through the topic over “The Debate over Free Will”. Throughout the chapter‚ we are informed what free will is‚ what it means to have free will‚ and if we actually have free will‚ the author provides us with arguments that help break down the argument on free will. These arguments consisted of the Determinist Argument‚ the Libertarian Response‚ the Compatibilist Response‚ and Ethics on free will. This chapter
Premium Philosophy Psychology Epistemology
Rachel Ek Ms. Padden Eng. 11 21 May 2014 Trending Transcendentalism I do not exhibit every trait of a transcendentalist‚ but I do enjoy nature and believe that individuality is important. I also tend to be more rational than emotional. One of my teachers was horrified to find I had left a person dying of the bubonic plague on the side of the road. Although this was only a mock situation for a World History assignment‚ I left the man alone because I decided it was best for my assigned family. I rationalized
Free Black Death Bubonic plague Roe v. Wade
For Rachels and Rachels‚ "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism‚" in Abel pp. 397-409. All of your responses should be written in complete sentences. What is the “Cultural Differences” argument? Different cultures have different moral codes. Therefore‚ there is no objective "truth" in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion and opinions vary from culture to culture. Why do Rachels and Rachels think it is a bad argument? The conclusion does not follow from the premise that is‚ even if
Premium Morality Cultural relativism Culture