1. What is the “moral symmetry” principle? Does Tooley accept it?Answer: The moral symmetry principle is a tool used to compare the thoughts of action and refraining from action in specific cases as morally equivalent. Tooley does accept the moral symmetry principle in the general field, but he can accept the rejection of the principle if types of factors are present in case investigation. 2. Consider the two actions- Action M and Action N- which are supposed to show the falseness of the moral symmetry principle. How does Tooley (try to) defend the moral symmetry principle in light of those two examples?Answer: For the two examples, Tooley tries to defend the moral symmetry principle by quoting the obviousness of its purpose. “It is as wrong intentionally to refrain from interfering the process leading to some morally significant result as it is to initiate the process. (Page 2-Paragraph 3)” He referenced this statement of the moral symmetry principle to remind the objectors in the examples, that purposely refraining and refraining from preventing initiation are a distinction to each other. 3. Does Tooley think that we are obligated to prevent other people from causing harm (as much as we are obligated not to cause harm by our own actions)? Explain.Answer: Yes, Tooley does think that we are obligated to prevent other people from causing harm in equivalence of not creating harm. As long as human beings are able to define what is moral and if human reason applies empathy to others, we should fulfill that obligation and do our best to prevent the negative results we foreshadow.4. Tooley claims that the belief that there is a morally significant difference between killing and letting die (or between acting and refraining from acting, or between acts of commission and acts of omission) rests on certain confusions. What are those confusions? Explain each one carefully.Answer: The certain confusions for the claims of killing and letting die that have a moral significance that discussed in the lecture from Tooley at page 4 paragraph 1 are: Death from a vegetable like state or as he would say “laziness”, meaning that the victim dies from lack of energy and drive to be productive. The agent carrying risk while doing the task, or consuming needed resources for the process, which can mean that agent carries the risk of creating negative results like dying, and having to sacrifice something of his possession. His last confusion is the agent formulating a plan that involves death as the result, or assuming that the agent in focus has a chance of living by a slim margin. That confusion can mean murder in rebellious protection against villians that focus on the agent, and the agent refraining from someone who is let say contagious, but the person’s chances of living are taken into certified and professional matters.5. Does Tooley think that active euthanasia is more (or less) justified that passive euthanasia? Why or why not? What is his view about the morality of active euthanasia? Explain.Answer: Tooley would think that active euthanasia is more justified than passive euthanasia. I think his reasoning for this view is his the thought of how reason alone and critical thinking can evolve what active euthanasia really brings to society. Thus he also thinks that the morality of active euthanasia should be taken in by matters of the individual and that collective groups who value specific moral reasoning should leave it alone. 6. What do you think Tooley would say about the TRANSPLANT (or Organ Donor) case (the Case of Ground Chuck)? Would he say that it is permissible to harvest Chuck’s organs because letting five die is just as bad (if not worse) than killing one person?Answer: Tooley would rather say that it is impermissible to harvest organs because his logic of the moral symmetry principle would apply that there is no moral significance in killing off one patient and letting the five die.7. Let’s look at Q. 49 on the Morality Quiz. What do you think Tooley would say about that example? (I’ll copy it below.) What would Tooley probably say about it?MQ #49: You are exploring a distant jungle when you stumble upon a village in which 20 people are lined upagainst a wall and a man in a uniform is about to shoot all of them. You ask what is going on; the uniformed mansays that there has been a lot of crime in the village that the police have been unable to stop. So he is going toexecute these 20 people to try to scare everyone into behaving properly. But he says that if you will shoot just oneof the people- and you can choose which one- then he will let the other 19 go free. It is morally permissible for youto shoot one of those people so as to save the other 19. Call this the VILLAGE CASE.Answer: I think that tooley would say that it is not morally permissible to shoot one person in order to save the 19 because this goes towards a consequentialist approach of producing a result. But Tooley would most likely say that he is not going to murder 1 innocent life and that he would not ignore the execution of 20 lives, Tooley would say to take the matter into your hands and prevent the event from occuring, or bring justice at the least.