The Santa Monica Ethics Meetup Group

Vote now for the topic! Sunday May 24 – on Zoom – the Ethics Meetup

Sun, May 24 · 5:00 PM PDT

·

Online

Online

Hey People,

We're meeting on zoom this month, on Sunday, May 24 at 5 PM PT.

We're also voting now for the topic for this meeting – message me, email me (angelonapinhead@gmail.com), or post a comment with the topic(s) you most want to talk about! I’ll post an update with the winning topic in a few days.

Here are the topics to vote on, for this month's Meetup:

1) IS IT WRONG TO DO MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS? Or, is it permissible, or even obligatory? What justifies animal experimentation and what justifies restricting it? What are the issues involved?

2) VAGUENESS, AMBIGUITY AND GENERALITY. What is "vagueness" and what are the different kinds of vagueness? What's the difference between a vague idea and an ambiguous idea? What's the difference between a vague idea and a general or broad idea? Is all vagueness linguistic/conceptual or do some kinds of vagueness exist in the world? Can objects or events be vague? Can experiences be vague?

3) DO PHYSICAL OR COGNITIVE DISABILITIES NECESSARILY REDUCE YOUR HEALTH OR WELL-BEING? Though many find it counterintuitive, philosophers are calling into question three common and closely related assumptions about disabilities. One assumption being challenged is "the widely-held view that it is desirable to prevent, correct, or mitigate disabilities, and generally undesirable to acquire one" (as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy puts it). A second assumption being challenged is the idea that being disabled means being unhealthy. A third assumption being challenged is the belief that having a disability entails a decrease in wellbeing. What do you think of these three challenges? Is disability necessarily undesirable? Are disabled people necessarily unhealthy? Does disability necessarily decrease the quality of life?

4) ANARCHY: is anarchy (AKA anarchism) a viable way to set up a society? What are the advantages and disadvantages of anarchy? Wikipedia defines anarchy as, “a form of society without rulers. As a type of stateless society, it is commonly contrasted with states, which are centralized polities that claim a monopoly on violence over a permanent territory. Beyond a lack of government, it can more precisely refer to societies that lack any form of authority or hierarchy.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Anarchism puts it this way, “Anarchism is a political theory that is skeptical of the justification of authority and power. Anarchism is usually grounded in moral claims about the importance of individual liberty, often conceived as freedom from domination. Anarchists also offer a positive theory of human flourishing, based upon an ideal of equality, community, and non-coercive consensus building.”

5) PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE (VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA). Is it ethically acceptable for the terminally ill to take their own life (or to elicit help in doing so)? What are the arguments, pro and con? If it is acceptable, under what circumstances? And, would it be permissible to encourage assisted suicide?

Second, does it make a difference if the patient has a brain illness, such as dementia, instead of a disease we usually associate with assisted dying, such as cancer? For example, should Alzheimer’s sufferers be eligible for assisted suicide, if they make that choice prior to becoming mentally incapable of doing so? What about treatment-resistant, severe clinical depression?

These are not mere academic questions. Currently, 13 states in the U.S. and at least 10 countries including Canada have some form of medical aid in dying laws – and more countries are considering it. In the U.S., laws authorize assisted dying (self-administered), which is distinct from active euthanasia (where a physician directly administers the medication), which is illegal throughout the U.S. Some countries allow active euthanasia. In five countries, there is no terminal illness requirement, but the patient's suffering must be unbearable, non-alleviable, and medically documented. Do these distinctions make an ethical difference?

----------------

Send in a vote for your favorite topic(s) now!