Philosophy

Define the concepts of free will, universal (absolute) determinism, and genetic
determinism as you perceive these concepts. Decide if you are a compatibilist or
incompatibilist and defend that position. From a recent film you have seen, explain a
moral situation represented and how you interpret that behavior in light of your
understanding of free will and determinism.
I. Everyone must choose E from the two scenarios below (30 points.) Your answer must be 2
less. double spaced, typewritten pages.

Given the scenario chosen, which nor’mative ethical models do you think each of the
parties were applying in the scenario‘? Why? Secondly, evaluate the scenario from the
ethical models proposed by LAW Rand ( Ethical Egoism) @ Peter Singer
(Preference Utilitarianism).
Scenario One
Diane Blood and her husband Steven were keen to have children. Unfortunately, before
this happened, Steven contracted meningitis and died. Before his death, Diane Blood
persuaded the doctors looking after her husband to obtain a sperm sample. The object in
obtaining this sample was for Mrs. Blood to use it to become pregnant at a later stage.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (UK) allows for the donation of
sperm by a man, but there has to be clear consent on the part of the donor for its use. The
speed of the onset of Steven’s illness meant that consent could not be obtained and there
was no advance directive. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority told Mrs.
Blood that as the extraction of the sperm sample was illegally obtained, it could not be
used. Diane Blood went to the High Court to obtain permission to use her dead husband’s
sperm for AID [artificial insemination by donor]. The High Court supported the
Authority as the 1990 Act was very closely drafted and did not allow for exceptions. Mrs.
Blood appealed and although the Court of Appeal agreed that the Act prevented her from
using her husband’s sperm in the UK, EU law would allow her to go to a clinic in Europe.
Mrs. Blood was able to go to a clinic in Belgium and has subsequently had two children.
Scenario Two

1. Tyrell Dueck: A 13 yr-old with leukemia that doctors urged necessity of amputation
of one leg to prevent spread ofdisease. Parents and child did not wish this surgery to be
performed and doctors sought a court order to override parental refusal. While the court
decision was pending Tyrell’s parents were barred from visiting him for fear he might be
abducted. Tyrell was assessed by a psychiatrist and deemed to be of normal intelligence
but immature in that he said that he could not conceive of disobeying his father. The
court ruled in favor of the doctors but meanwhile the disease had progressed to such a
point that the doctors decided the surgery would not arrest the spread. The parents were
then allowed to take their son to Mexico as they had wanted to all along- for altemative