The passage below makes a moral IBE argument. Do the following:
-First, represent the argument in standard form using the General Form of IBE.
-Second, evaluate premise 2 of the Principle Justification Sub-argument by suggesting an opposing alternative principle that explains the paradigm cases.
The passage:
Many more people need liver transplants than can get them-the supply of transplantable livers is far, far smaller than the demand for them. This makes the ordering of transplant
wait-lists literally a matter of life and death; people at the top of the list are more likely to get a liver, and people at the bottom are more likely to die waiting for one.
Some have argued that the order of the list should take into account the kind of liver failure a patient is experiencing. The most common cause of liver failure is chronic alcohol abuse, but that is not the only cause. Some people who believe that alcoholics are responsible for bringing their liver failure on themselves believe that alcoholics should be de-prioritized on the transplant wait lists, and people whose livers are failing for reasons unrelated to alcohol should be moved ahead of them in line. I believe de-prioritizing recovering alcoholics for liver transplant is obviously morally wrong.
The wrongness becomes clear as soon as we start imagining other cases of doctors de- prioritizing patients for treatment based on the judgment that they are responsible for their own condition. Imagine a religious doctor who declines to treat an atheist patient, because he believes the sickness is a punishment for sin. Imagine a socially conservative doctor who refuses to treat a patient for an STD, based on the judgment that she brought it on herself with a promiscuous lifestyle. Imagine a team of doctors who wait to treat a person injured in a car crash until they can establish that they were not driving drunk.
As soon as we turn our attention to cases like these, it becomes obvious that it is always morally wrong for medical professionals to withhold care from patients based on their moral evaluation of those patients. Doctors should provide the best possible care to patients even if they believe those patients are sinners, or jerks, or dirtbags, or deadbeats. No doctor should ever ask, "is this person someone who morally deserves medical care?
"
Too many doctors forget this general principle when faced with recovering alcoholic patients suffering from alcohol-related liver failure. The question should not be "does this patient morally deserve care?
" because that is never the appropriate question. The question, as always, should be "what is the best possible course of treatment for this patient under the circumstances?
" In some cases-as when a patient has been unable to stop drinking-a liver transplant is not the best course of action, because it has little chance of success. In other cases, when an alcoholic patient is in recovery and has demonstrated a commitment to sobriety, a liver transplant might be the best course of treatment. The fact that some doctors believe the patient brought their liver failure on themselves is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether or not alcoholics are to blame for "bringing it on themselves." To de-prioritize recovering alcoholics for transplant is morally wrong.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of The passage below makes a moral IBE argument. Do the following:
-First, represent the argument in standard form using the General Form of IBE.
-Second, evaluate premise 2 of the Principle Justification Sub-argument by suggesting an opposing alternative principle that explains the paradigm cases.
The passage:
Many more people need liver transplants than can get them-the supply of transplantable livers is far, far smaller than the demand for them. This makes the ordering of transplant
wait-lists literally a matter of life and death; people at the top of the list are more likely to get a liver, and people at the bottom are more likely to die waiting for one.
Some have argued that the order of the list should take into account the kind of liver failure a patient is experiencing. The most common cause of liver failure is chronic alcohol abuse, but that is not the only cause. Some people who believe that alcoholics are responsible for bringing their liver failure on themselves believe that alcoholics should be de-prioritized on the transplant wait lists, and people whose livers are failing for reasons unrelated to alcohol should be moved ahead of them in line. I believe de-prioritizing recovering alcoholics for liver transplant is obviously morally wrong.
The wrongness becomes clear as soon as we start imagining other cases of doctors de- prioritizing patients for treatment based on the judgment that they are responsible for their own condition. Imagine a religious doctor who declines to treat an atheist patient, because he believes the sickness is a punishment for sin. Imagine a socially conservative doctor who refuses to treat a patient for an STD, based on the judgment that she brought it on herself with a promiscuous lifestyle. Imagine a team of doctors who wait to treat a person injured in a car crash until they can establish that they were not driving drunk.
As soon as we turn our attention to cases like these, it becomes obvious that it is always morally wrong for medical professionals to withhold care from patients based on their moral evaluation of those patients. Doctors should provide the best possible care to patients even if they believe those patients are sinners, or jerks, or dirtbags, or deadbeats. No doctor should ever ask, "is this person someone who morally deserves medical care?
"
Too many doctors forget this general principle when faced with recovering alcoholic patients suffering from alcohol-related liver failure. The question should not be "does this patient morally deserve care?
" because that is never the appropriate question. The question, as always, should be "what is the best possible course of treatment for this patient under the circumstances?
" In some cases-as when a patient has been unable to stop drinking-a liver transplant is not the best course of action, because it has little chance of success. In other cases, when an alcoholic patient is in recovery and has demonstrated a commitment to sobriety, a liver transplant might be the best course of treatment. The fact that some doctors believe the patient brought their liver failure on themselves is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether or not alcoholics are to blame for "bringing it on themselves." To de-prioritize recovering alcoholics for transplant is morally wrong.

The Passage Below Makes a Moral IBE Argument