# Philosophy final quotes

To have a law in the US that prohibits a woman from having an abortion is to have a "Good Samaritan" law, a law that requires you to come to the aid of others, in just the case of abortion and in no other cases. We don't have any other Good Samaritan laws in the US.
Click the card to flip 👆
1 / 26
Terms in this set (26)
"Smith stands to gain a large inheritance if anything should happen to his six-year-old cousin. One evening while the child is taking his bath, Smith sneaks into the bathroom and drowns the child, and then arranges things so that it will look like an accident." (865)

"Jones also stands to gain if anything should happen to his six-year-old cousin. Like Smith, Jones sneaks in planning to drown the child in his bath. However, just as he enters the bathroom Jones sees the child slip and hit his head, and fall face down in the water. Jones is delighted; he stands by, ready to push the child's head back under if it is necessary, but it is not necessary. With only a little thrashing about, the child drowns all by himself, "accidentally," as Jones watches and does nothing." (865).
"Suppose a runaway trolley is heading toward a track on which five people are standing, and that there is someone who can possibly switch the points, thereby diverting the trolley onto a track on which there is only one person. It seems that he should do this...But [he] then puts the one man newly in danger, instead of allowing the five to be killed. Why does not the one man's right to noninterference stand in his way, as one person's right to noninterference impeded the manufacture of poisonous fumes when this was necessary to save five?" (871)
In this case, "the harm is not in question, which suggests that the 'direct,' i.e., deliberate, intention of evil is what makes it morally objectionable to allow [this person] to die. When this element [i.e. the intention of evil] is present it is impossible to justify an action by indicating that no origination of evil is involved [i.e. no initiating of a harmful sequence.]...It was never suggested that there will always and everywhere be a difference of permissibility between the two." (871)
"the harm is not in question, which suggests that the 'direct,' i.e., deliberate, intention of evil is what makes it morally objectionable to allow [this person] to die. When this element [i.e. the intention of evil] is present it is impossible to justify an action by indicating that no origination of evil is involved [i.e. no initiating of a harmful sequence.]...It was never suggested that there will always and everywhere be a difference of permissibility between the two." (871)
Evil intentions defeat the appeal to the passivity of an action.
"What has value for the utilitarian is the satisfaction of an individual's interests, not the individual whose interests they are. A universe in which you satisfy your desire for water, food, and warmth is, other things being equal, better than a universe in which these desires are frustrated...But neither you nor the animal have any value in your own right. Only your feelings do." (897)