An article states that the Trump administration is proposing a cut in funds for
ID: 88329 • Letter: A
Question
An article states that the Trump administration is proposing a cut in funds for AIDS treatment programs. The U.S currently spends more than $6 billion per year on programs that buy antiretroviral drugs for about 11.5 million people who are infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. The Trump administration has proposed cutting those programs by at least $1.1 billion, which would cost more than one million lives and make more than 300,000 children orphans. However, even if the funding cuts were approved, those who are currently receiving treatments under these programs would still be allowed to continue their treatment. The administration also proposed that $524 million would be eliminated in funding for contraceptives and other family planning efforts. The article shows bias by quoting several healthcare officials that talk about the possible negative effects this plan may lead to.***Questions that need to be answered: 1. In your opinion, how do you think this proposal relates to the Law of Double Effect?
2. If funds were cut for AIDS treatment and family planning efforts do you think the money would go somewhere else beneficial? If so, where?
3. With Bentham’s utilitarianism approach, what do you think he would say about this plan? Would he support or be against it? An article states that the Trump administration is proposing a cut in funds for AIDS treatment programs. The U.S currently spends more than $6 billion per year on programs that buy antiretroviral drugs for about 11.5 million people who are infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. The Trump administration has proposed cutting those programs by at least $1.1 billion, which would cost more than one million lives and make more than 300,000 children orphans. However, even if the funding cuts were approved, those who are currently receiving treatments under these programs would still be allowed to continue their treatment. The administration also proposed that $524 million would be eliminated in funding for contraceptives and other family planning efforts. The article shows bias by quoting several healthcare officials that talk about the possible negative effects this plan may lead to.
***Questions that need to be answered: 1. In your opinion, how do you think this proposal relates to the Law of Double Effect?
2. If funds were cut for AIDS treatment and family planning efforts do you think the money would go somewhere else beneficial? If so, where?
3. With Bentham’s utilitarianism approach, what do you think he would say about this plan? Would he support or be against it?
***Questions that need to be answered: 1. In your opinion, how do you think this proposal relates to the Law of Double Effect?
2. If funds were cut for AIDS treatment and family planning efforts do you think the money would go somewhere else beneficial? If so, where?
3. With Bentham’s utilitarianism approach, what do you think he would say about this plan? Would he support or be against it? 1. In your opinion, how do you think this proposal relates to the Law of Double Effect?
2. If funds were cut for AIDS treatment and family planning efforts do you think the money would go somewhere else beneficial? If so, where?
3. With Bentham’s utilitarianism approach, what do you think he would say about this plan? Would he support or be against it?
Explanation / Answer
ANSWER:
1) Proponents of the principle of double effect have always acknowledged that a proportionality condition must be satisfied when double effect is applied, but this condition typically requires only that the good effect outweigh the foreseen bad effect or that there be sufficient reason for causing the bad effect. Some critics of the principle of double effect have maintained that when double effect has been invoked, substantive independent justifications for causing the kind of harm in question are implicitly relied upon, and are in fact, doing all of the justificatory work. These independent considerations are not derived from the distinction between intended and merely foreseen consequences and do not depend on it (Davis (1984), McIntyre (2001)). If this criticism is correct, then perhaps the cases that have been cited as applications of the principle of double effect are united only by the fact that each is an exception to the general prohibition on causing the death of a human being.
2)
Much of the United States government’s funding for AIDS treatment and research is funneled through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or Pepfar, which was established in 2004 by President George W. Bush in an effort to save Africa from an epidemic that threatened to kill much of the population of entire countries, like Botswana and Namibia.
President Barack Obama expanded Pepfar, and combined with the Global Fund and other international efforts, the spending is widely credited with arresting the AIDS epidemic. About 37 million people worldwide are infected with H.I.V., including nearly two million children. About one million people died of AIDS in 2015, and two million were newly infected that year.
3) remy Bentham was an English philosopher and political radical. He is primarily known today for his moral philosophy, especially his principle of utilitarianism, which evaluates actions based upon their consequences. The relevant consequences, in particular, are the overall happiness created for everyone affected by the action. Influenced by many enlightenment thinkers, especially empiricists such as John Locke and David Hume, Bentham developed an ethical theory grounded in a largely empiricist account of human nature. He famously held a hedonistic account of both motivation and value according to which what is fundamentally valuable and what ultimately motivates us is pleasure and pain. Happiness, according to Bentham, is thus a matter of experiencing pleasure and lack of pain.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.