Reference no: EM133357684

Assignment:

Prompt A

In "A Defense of Abortion", Judith Jarvis Thomson describes a hypothetical scenario in which the Society of Music Lovers has kidnapped you and attached your circulatory system to an unconscious violinist who is a total stranger to you. They have done this in order to save the violinist's life, who must remain attached to your body for at least 9 months or else they will die (you are the only one, in this example, who has the right blood type to save them). Thomson claims that, even though the violinist is a person with a right to life and depends for their life on being attached to you for 9 months, you would still not be morally obligated to stay connected to them - you are morally permitted to disconnect yourself, even though it would lead to their death.

Answer both of the following questions:

QUESTION 1: In your opinion, would you be morally obligated to stay attached to the violinist for 9 months in this scenario? (Answer yes or no. Then explain the reasoning behind your answer.)

QUESTION 2: Suppose that the violinist is a blood relative of yours but is still a total stranger to you. In your opinion, would you be morally obligated to stay attached to them for 9 months in this version of the scenario? (Answer yes or no. Then explain the reasoning behind your answer.)

Prompt B

In "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," Peter Singer asks you to imagine that there is a child drowning in a shallow pond. You come across the child and can easily save them at no risk to your life or health. However, you are wearing your expensive designer shoes, and if you are going to get to the child in time to save them then you cannot take off your shoes - saving the kid will thus necessarily ruin your designer shoes.

Answer both of the following questions:

QUESTION 1: Do you think that you would be morally obligated to save the drowning child at the expense of your shoes? (Answer 'yes' or 'no'; then explain your reasons for your answer.)

QUESTION 2: Assume for this question that you could be certain that you could prevent at least one kid in a foreign country from starving by selling your designer shoes or your TV and donating the money to a charity. Do you think that you would then be morally obligated in this case to sell your shoes or TV and donate that money to charity? (Answer 'yes' or 'no'; then explain your reasons for your answer.)