Reference no: EM13479490

Critical Response Questions:

Be sure to carefully read each question and answer each part of the question. Remember that you are required to cite the primary text in each response. See the instruction for full instructions.

Kant
Due September 28th

Pharmaceutical companies sometimes decide to conduct clinical trials overseas, because running trials there is cheaper. It is also the case that laws governing the design of the tests and treatment of test participants are more lax.

In the last 15 years, there have been cases (in India, Uganda, Nigeria, and other countries) in which patients received experimental drugs without being aware that they were participants in a clinical trial (case 1). In other cases in which participants were aware that they were taking part in a trial, the trial was not halted when serious side effects in, or the death of, some participants occurred (case 2), and those who became ill as a result of their participation in a trial were not given proper medical care (case 3). Patients in developing countries who receive drugs may feel compelled to participate or stay in trials as this is a means to getting other healthcare for themselves or their families. What might the maxims of the drug companies be in these cases? From a Kantian perspective, is (all or some) such treatment wrong, and if so, why? How would the first two versions of the categorical imperative apply to these kinds of treatment? Do these acts fall under some sorts of acts that Kantian deontology counts as wrong? Explain enough of Kant's theory to explain whether he would find these practices wrong, and if so why.

Hume
Due October 12th

Hana is on a board that makes decisions about organ donation recipients and what priority they ought to have in the waiting list to receive organs. At the hospital at which she works, such decisions are typically made on the basis of the seriousness of a person's health condition and so the urgency of a transplant, the likelihood that the recipient's body will accept the organs, the expected lifespan of the recipient, and his or her likely quality of life. Hana happens to be good friends with someone just being placed on the waiting list: they come from the same small
town. She knows that this man is raising a family, is a fantastic artist, and has a vibrant, warm personality. For all of these reasons, she feels a great deal of compassion for him (compared to the other potential recipients, whom she does not know personally) and wants to place him higher in the priority queue then the considerations above would justify. From a Humean point of view, does the fact that she feels more compassion for him than for other potential recipients mean that placing him higher in the queue would be the right thing to do? Why or why not? Explain enough to Hume's theory to explain whether this would be justified from a Humean point of view.

Mill
In Tutorial on October 23d or 28th
TBA

Walker
Due November 26 (this response will not be accepted late)

Walker's article on non-human animal flourishing offers only a few suggestions about what our responsibilities to different animals are, given how they can flourish (which also differs from animal to animal). Succinctly explain why and how, in contrast to Aristotle, Walker thinks that animals can flourish and why she thinks we should care about the flourishing of animals. Given this, and given the few remarks that she does make about how we should treat different animals, consider the practical implications of her view. How would a eudaimonistic virtue theorist like Walker recommend that we treat animals? For example, should we not  eat animals for food? Or should we treat farm animals more humanely (and in what ways)? Can we use animals for medical experiments, or cosmetics testing? Can we use them to make clothes for ourselves? Can we put them in zoos or have them do tricks in shows? Think about some of these practical implications of her view (or some other ones). Remember you are thinking about the practical implication of her view, and not giving your general thoughts on the matter. Justify your answer.