1

Week 1.2
WHAT IS WRONG WITH
KILLING?
Moral dilemmas 2

Is it always wrong to kill another

person? Why?
Is it because human life is sacred?
What then about other animals
why is human life special?
What about killing in self-defense,
e.g. in a war?
What about mercy killing? Is it wrong
to kill someone who has a terminal
illness, whose life has become
unbearable, and who wants to die?
Moral dilemmas 3

What about abortion? Suppose it is known that if

the foetus comes to term it will be born with
serious mental and physical deficiencies, would it
be permissible to kill it? In such a case, do the
interests of the parents have any bearing on the
decision?
If abortion is sometimes permissible, what about
infanticide? Suppose a child has been born so
defective that it will never be capable of a
worthwhile life, would it be permissible to kill it?

And having answered these questions, if you can

next ask
whether your views on these issues are really
consistent: do
they fit together in a coherent set?
Part I: The SOL 4

Principle
In evaluating this principle, there are three
things we can do:
1. Check the implications of the principle, in
hypothetical cases.
2. Check the principle for its universality, and
related features.
3. Examine any presuppositions that the
principle involves.
1. Implications 5

Does SOL have any troubling implications for

other cases?
What does SOL say about killing in a case like
TROLLEY, except that the number of people to
be saved is much greater say 500?

a. SOL says that it is wrong to

pull the lever
b. SOL does not say it is wrong
to pull the lever
2. Theoretical appeal 6

Sanctity of Life: It is always wrong knowingly

to kill an innocent person.

Best Consequences: One ought always to act

so as to bring about the best achievable
outcome.

Questions: Is there any difference between

SOL & BC in terms of their scope and
generality?
Is one of these principles more self-evident
than the
other?
Quiz 7

Which principle gives guidance in a wider range

of circumstances?
a. Best Consequences
b. Sanctity of Life
c. They give guidance in an equally wide range
of cases
3. Presuppositions 8

When we apply SOL to a case like

TRANSPLANT, it implies we should let five die,
rather than kill one.

We should think more about whether this is a

morally relevant distinction.
Part II: Killing versus 9

letting die
Bathtub 1: Smith plans to murder his
grandmother, who is senile and terminally ill.
Smith hears her taking a bath, so he goes
upstairs and holds her underwater until she
drowns.
Part II: Killing versus 10

letting die
Bathtub 2: Jones also has a grandmother that
is senile and terminally ill and also plans to
murder her. Jones hears her taking a bath, so
he goes upstairs intending to hold her
underwater until she drowns.

But, coincidentally, she has just fallen

unconscious and slipped underwater. Jones
leaves her to drown.
Part II: Killing versus 11

letting die
Is Smiths behaviour morally worse than that of
Jones?

Suppose that Smith wanted to murder his

grandmother because he felt that she was
suffering too much whilst Jones wanted to get
rid of her because she was too much of a
burden on him. Would this change your
answer?
Part II: Killing versus 12

letting die
Driver: Davis is driving a car at high speed and
fatally
injures a child.

Passenger: Davis is sitting next to a friend who

is
driving a car at high speed. He does not ask his
friend
to slow down. They hit and fatally injure a child.

Is there some moral difference between Davis

behavior in Driver versus Passenger?
Part III: Rationale 13

Why believe this principle?

Is it possible to give a good reason to accept a
principle like SOL or BC?
IS killing bad because of bad consequences?
What about when killing some can prevent very
bad consequences? E.g. TROLLEY?