contemporary moral issues

John Robertson

2005-12-06T10:06:00.000-08:00

John A. Robertson – The Question of Human Cloning

Robertson’s main point: “The most unappealing applications of the technique are highly speculative and could be restricted without also stopping more valid uses.”(158)

These are the main questions regarding the cloning debate:

Is it ok to use for Research?

Is it permissible as a way to give infertile couples the ability to form families?

Can the government forbid cloning and the technology associated with it?

Before we make a decision about whether cloning is acceptable in any of these situations, we must first address the morality behind these actions.

The fear:
“They described hypothetical scenarios in which embryos would be cloned for sale or to produce organs and tissue for existing children who need transplants. One ethicist termed cloning as ‘contrary to human values’; others saw it as ‘an opportunity for mischief’…The Vatican newspaper termed it a step into a ‘tunnel of madness,’ while the United Methodist Church called for an executive order banning cloning in all federally financed institution. A poll a week after the first story reported that 60 percent of Americans opposed cloning.”(154)

The reasons for the fear:
There is something unnatural about the creation of life in a laboratory
The manipulation and destruction of human embryos during the cloning process troubles some
There are unforeseen problems and consequences for intentionally creating identical twins, in particular the twins offspring
Cloning will violate the “uniqueness and dignity” of people
Cloning will create an unattainable expectation on the cloned twin
The technology could be abused - People could sell desirable embryos to the highest bidder. Or clones could be created to harvest organs for existing children

What are the current reasons for demand of cloning techniques:
IVF – the cloning technology would require fewer embryos because it can split the ones that already exist.
Life Insurance – could provide a safety net in case something happens to a child. We can split the initial embryo and freeze it in case the first child dies or needs an organ (unlikely – not impossible, but not likely to happen all that often)
To produce more desirable offspring – He argues that the buying and selling of mass produced desirable children will not occur because people want their own children. Reproduction and our innate drive to reproduce are tied to the survival of our personal dna, it would be highly unlikely someone would intentionally choose to carry on someone else’s if they have another choice.

Robertson’s attack on the destruction of Embryos argument. Pg. 157a

He then argues against the claim that cloning recreates the same person which denies the uniquness and dignity of the person. His main sticking point is that twins which are naturally born are not subject to this discrimination and therefore neither will clones.

“If anything, being a twin appears to create close emotional bonds that confer special advantages. If this is true, then having twins as a result of embryo splitting should be no more harmful to offspring than having twins naturally.”(157)

There are actually two different fears coinciding on this one, but if you imagine the clone not as a recreation of yourself which you ‘expect’ to act and do as you did it takes on a different image. Robertson asks us to view clones as twin brothers or sisters born at a different time, unique individuals in their own right, just your twin. If someone were to tell you that you had a twin brother or sister and you were separated at birth wouldn’t that sound a lot less creepy than recreating yourself…

The reason it is less creepy is because we have experience of twins becoming different people and we accept this. It would be remarkable and unsettling (not to mention impossible) to find two 40 year old twins who did not have individual personalities. It is not the physical similarities that determine the person but their experiences.

“The claim rests on the notion that the later born child lacks the uniqueness or individuality that we deem essential to human worth and dignity, and that human individuality is largely determined by nature or genome rather than by nurture and environmental factors. Because phenotype and genotype do diverge, and because the environment in which the child will be raised will be different from that of his older twin, the child will still have a unique individuality” (157)

He then argues against the fears around cloning as life and health insurance:

“Wanting a child to replace one who has died is not itself unethical. Nor does it become so merely because the new child will be a twin of the first.”(158)

Discussion question: Do you believe that there is nothing unethical with replacing a child?

“Although the parents may hope that the new child will develop and show the same traits as her deceased twin, they should very rapidly learn that the second child is different in some respects and similar in others, and would ordinarily come to treat and accept her as the individual that she is.”(158)

Leon Kass

2005-12-06T10:03:00.000-08:00

Leon Kass – The Wisdom of Repugnance: Why we should ban the cloning of humans

“Shallow are the souls that have forgotten how to shudder…”(163)

pg. 163b opening concerns

He starts out by arguing that exposure and the media has softened us to the idea of cloning. Not only cloning but sexuality and perversion in general have become blurred terms in contemporary society. Words like, “procreation, nascent life, family, and the meaning of motherhood, fatherhood and the links between generations..” have all lost or changed meaning. This is all a thinly veiled attack on current culture, pg. 161A

We no longer see ourselves as products of our ancestors and of our culture, but we now view ourselves as self made. We custom design our lives, beliefs, ambitions, and priorities as we see fit. Self cloning therefore is just an extension of our ‘narcissistic self-re-creation.’ In our culture as long as something is done ‘freely’ it is moral.

“Enchanted and enslaved by the glamour of technology, we have lost our awe and wonder before the deep mysteries of nature and of life. We cheerfully take our own beginnings in our hands and, like the last man, we blink…”(161)

This is serious business:
“This is not business as usual, to be fretted about for a while but finally to be given our seal of approval. We must rise to the occasion and make our judgments as if the future of our humanity hangs in the balance. For so it does.”(161)

The ‘yuck’ factor:
Kass notes that most people, including those who cloned ‘Dolly the sheep’ say that there is something offensive, grotesque, repugnant and just plain disgusting about the concept of cloning a human. Kass thinks that this feeling should not be ignored when we determine the morality of cloning. Repugnance he claims is the “emotional expression of deep wisdom.”(162) read examples from P. 162

Kass then draws comparisons to other things which we feel the yuck factor with: incest, murder, rape. In all of these situations it is not required to give a rational argument why they are wrong for them to be morally suspect. It does not fully elaborate on the emotional disgust of inbreeding to say that we are afraid of the genetic results. Similarly, an argument against cloning (which has many examples of negative consequences) should not need to provide a rational justification if so many people are revolted by it.

Kass turns away from the repugnance argument for a moment and talks about the importance of sex and reproduction. He notes that through out the mammalian line the natural act of reproduction involves a male and a female of opposite sex. (hello Aquinas)
“Asexual reproduction, which produces ‘single-parent’ offspring, is a radical departure from the natural human way, confounding all normal understandings of father, mother, sibling, grandparent, etc., and all moral relations tied thereto.”(163)

His concerns:

Cloning is perverse –
The idea of selecting which genes to put into a person turns humanity into a manufactured good. “But we…would be taking a major step into making man himself simply another one of the man-made things. Human nature becomes merely the last part of nature to succumb to the technological project, which turns all of nature into raw material at human disposal, to be homogenized by our rationalized technique according to the subjective prejudices of the day.”(165)

“Cloning is inherently despotic, for it seeks to make one’s children (or someone else’s children after one’s own image (or an image of one’s choosing) and their future according to one’s will.”(166)

He makes a damning critique of Robertson on page 166

Conclusion p. 167

Matt Ridley

2005-12-01T10:39:00.000-08:00

Matt Ridley – The New Eugenics

Initial Questions: What is a disease and where is the line. Ex, Huntington’s and dyslexia

Main Point: genetic engineering will not damage our moral principle of giving respect to all persons

He is arguing that eugenics is not such as bad thing, and even if it is that will not stop people from trying to improve themselves. “After all, in pursuit of the perfect human being, we have willingly tried every weapon that falls into our hands, from prayer to psychoanalysis to breast implants. Will we-and should we – do the same with genes?”(147)

He then discusses the ‘sad legacy’ of eugenics and explains why we have a negative feeling about the word. He cites examples of Churchill wanting to sterilize the mentally handicapped and the Buck vs. Bell U.S. Supreme Court case which legalized sterilization of low IQ and mentally handicapped. (Buck was only 6 months old, justified over 100,000 forced sterilizations) Famous quote from case: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough!” – Oliver Wendell Holmes.

After discussing these moral atrocities he notes that what makes them atrocities is that they were performed with out the person’s consent. A violation of their autonomy, which we consider immoral. This is important for the current eugenics debate because people who would get the procedures would presumably be volunteering. [M]odern eugenics is about individuals applying private criteria to improve their own offspring by screening their genes.”(147)

Examples of benefits, pg. 148

The fear of the abuse: These types of unnecarry improvements send the message that there is something wrong with the person that has them. Shortness could become a disease. “In a genetically engineered society, the parents of a genetically disable child would feel social opprobrium for not having “done something about it.”(148)

He counters this fear by saying that as a society we still have respect for people who have preventable diseases like Down Syndrome or other prenatal inflictions. Our moral good of the respect for human life is not altered by these individuals and it will continue to be present even if there are less people who possess these ‘undesirable’ conditions.

He then addresses the argument that genetic enhancements will eliminate diversity, he thinks that it will do the opposite. “Far from threatening diversity, genetic engineering may actually increase it. Supposing cosmetic genetic engineering became accepted, musical people might seek out musical genes for their children; athletes might seek athletic genes; etc. It is very unlikely that everybody would choose the same priority.”(148-149)

He argues that if this becomes commonplace and is legalized that it will not become widespread because the only people that will use it are those who are forced to. His reasoning for this is because: “People do not want particular types of children; they just want their own children, and they want them to be a bit like themselves…”(149)

He then concludes with a quote from Jefferson which attempts to place faith in the abilities of humans to make the moral choice and our trust that they will do so. Pg. 149

Final Paper Assignment

2005-11-29T17:00:00.000-08:00

Final Paper Assignment

Due December 16th - Early papers are happily accepted.
I will be in class the scheduled day of finals if you would like to hand them in then. The times for that are.
Section 2: Friday 12:30 -2:30
Section 4: Tuesday 5:00 - 7:00
If you want to hand it in at another time my mailbox is in Scott Hall and the philosophy department secretary is there from 8-5.
I will accept them via email (as an attachment) up until 9pm on Friday the 16th, but I will not accept them any later. I understand that you have a lot of work for your other classes and so I am giving you as much time as I possible can to finish this assignment, please do not take advantage of my generosity by handing them in late.

They should be 4-5 pages in length

You can choose either to address a theme such as 'the respect and dignity of human life' or 'utilitarianism' or some other such general theme and discuss some of the various moral problems that we have looked at since midterm. Or you can discuss one of the moral problems we looked at, either War and terrorism, Sexuality and Marriage, or Genetic engineering and cloning.

You should choose a theme and have a thesis that you defend.
What your exact position is, and how you are going to prove it should be included early in the paper, preferably the first paragraph

The first section of your paper should be a brief history of the issues. The second section of the paper should explain the arguments of the competing sides. The third and primary section of the paper should be a reasoned argument to a conclusion, aka your thesis.

I want to know what your thoughts on the issue are. Hopefully the essays we read and the information we have looked at will allow you to form a cohesive view of your own. Your job in this paper is to argue for that view and tell me why your argument has worth.

Below I have included a modified version of a previous post where I gave some pointers on how to write a philosophy paper. Your midterm papers were for the most part quite good, but make sure that you properly cite material that you take from the book or from a secondary source. This has been a recurring problem.

What a Philosophy Paper Should Look Like

Value Added - Quality is measured by how much value that person adds
How to add value:
1. Independent research (not required)
Books and academic articles are the best. Internet resources are always met with a little skepticism. Just because some dude put up that Descartes sucks on his blog doesn’t mean that it counts as a premise in your argument. Using the authors from the book looks good and shows that you have engaged in the assigned readings. I smile upon such research.

2. Your Own ideas (Extremely Valuable)
A. An Argument – Beginning and maintaining a Thesis (required)
B Opinions are cheap, unless backed by an argument
C. Clarifying and explaining issues ONLY is ok but only worth a B- even if it is the best summary ever. I can read the original text, tell me something that isn’t in there. Show me that you understand what the thinker is actually saying, but do it while extrapolating on Your Own Ideas. Actually take a stand on an issue and argue for it using reasons, proofs, examples, and counterarguments.

Structure of the paper:
Introduction – 1st Part
Topic and Thesis statement - This is done by first stating the problem and then stating your solution to the problem. The paper will explain how you get to that solution but this initial introduction to your intended goal is important.
Get readers attention. Spark the reader’s interest - This is fairly easy to do, all you have to do is say why the problem is important, why should anyone care about it in the first place.

Exegesis – 2nd Part
Stating an opponents view or stating the problem as given by another person
Getting the other person straight – Give them the benefit of the doubt
Best way to do this is to use quotes – as evidence of their position
Quotes need citations. Just page # unless you use external – then MLA
Be Concise – don’t give historical backgrounds and dates of birth. This is not a book report.

Analysis – 3rd Part
Your response – The body of the argument
How you solve the problem
Your thesis and your argument for it
Show why and how the problem is solved
Think of essay as an itch that needs to be scratched. Tell why the itch has gone away.
Restate your thesis in your conclusion, end on a strong note

And for the love of all that is right and good with the world:
12pt, times new roman
Title page is the best but otherwise just Name: Class: and title. Don’t take up half a page with your information.
Courier New and other huge fonts make you look silly and raise my eyebrow before I even start reading. Don't mess with the margins either. I would rather it were short then blatently alter in order to meet the page requirement.
Proofread. Do not just spell check, actually read through it. If you write it early enough you might be able to sucker someone into reading it through and finding the mistakes that you missed.
Don’t swear. Write professionally, imagine writing to someone whom you are trying to impress and convince
Umm…don’t write it the night before and have fun….that’s it.

The Final Case Study Assignment

2005-11-29T16:56:00.000-08:00

Due the last day of class, in class.

The assignment is the same as usual, please do at least three/fourths a page but keep it less than a page and a half.

p. 174 case study number 1: Eve the first cloned human
Answer discussion question number three

p. 176 case study number 3: Using Clones as Organ Donors
Answer discussion question number four

Genetic Engineering and Cloning Intro

2005-11-29T10:07:00.000-08:00

Genetic Engineering and Cloning Intro

Underlying philosophical Questions:

What is it to be human?

Nature vs. Nurture – instinct vs. environment

Is it moral to tamper with our genetic makeup?

Facts, dates and how it works:
1962 James Watson and Francis Crick win Nobel prize for discovery of the molecular structure of DNA

1978 – First test tube baby, Louise Brown. As of 2003 there are over a million test tube (ivf) babies

1980’s – genetically altered food comes onto the market.

1997 – Birth of Dolly the sheep - the first mammal cloned from an adult cell, rather than embryonic

2003 – Complete human genome sequence released to the public

“Each human cell, with the exception of germ or reproductive cells, contains forty-sex chromosomes; each chromosome contains thousands of pairs of four different nucleotides or bases. Altogether, each human cell contains about 3 billion base-pairs of nucleotides, which can be roughly divided into about a hundred thousand sequences known as genes. There are also intervening sequences which, as yet, have an unknown purpose.”(133)

The difference between embryo and nuclei transfer cloning:

Embryo- “the blastocyst, or preembryo, consists of two to eight cells. At this stage in development, cells are not yet specialized into different organ systems. Each cell is still capable of reproducing an entire organism…” (137)

Nuclei – uses adult cells rather than stem cells and “involves taking the nucleus from the cell of an adult and transferring it into a mature egg from which the nucleus has been removed…Because the new nucleus has the full complement of forty-six chromosomes, the renucleated egg and the individual who contracted the new nucleus will be virtually genetically identical…” (137)

There is a glut of new information which needs to be studied and understood. In our lifetime the knowledge of the functions of these genes and of the overall makeup of DNA will be a constant area for discovery.

Positives:

Designer babies:
“Parents may soon be able to have their fetuses tested for genes that incline the child to obesity, shortness, nearsightedness, depression, alcoholism, Alzheimer’s disease, sexual preference, and even ‘risk taking behavior.’” (133) This is similar to the scene we saw in Gattica where the parents were talking with their local ‘geneticist’ about what desirable traits they wanted their child to have. Ability to manipulate the genetic makeup of a baby would allow people to select the characteristics that their child would have. So far we have only a few of the genes identified, over time and with more discovery we will have even greater control over the ‘nature’ of a person.
“Dr. Gregory Stock writes that ‘In the not too distant future, it will be looked at as kind of foolhardy to have a child by normal conception.’”(134)

Complete list of positives on pg. 135

Negatives:

“Ninety percent of Americans are morally opposed to cloning that results in the birth of a human being, and 61 percent are opposed to cloning human embryos for use in medical research. Sixty-six percent of Americans are also opposed to the cloning of animals. About half of Americans support medical research using stem cells obtained from human embryos.”(138)

Eugenics – the study of human improvement using genetic means.
Became a negative term after sterilization projects aimed at preventing the reproduction of people who were deemed unfit. State run Nazi programs certainly didn’t help either and are the origins of many doubts about humanity’s ability to handle such a power without abusing it.

Genetic testing could be used to discriminate against healthy individuals and allow people to discriminate against them. For instance, potential employees may not hire someone who has a genetic predisposition to nervousness or health risks.

Cloning reduces people to their genetic code and makes human into robots with working or non working parts that can be fixed and replaced rather than a human being with dignity and respect.

“Genetic enhancement…has also been condemned as tampering with a child’s elf-identity and right to choose their own future.”(139) If someone is told that they have a genetic disposition to be bad at a specific thing there is little chance that they will even try to pursue that thing. We are defined by our environment and our nurtured developments just as much as we are by our nature. Ex. MJ

“There is also concern that clones, because they are human inventions, may be denied the rights of full personhood. Clones could be mass produced to act as drones for the “real” humans. On the other hand, clones because of their more desirable genomes, might become a new master race, while “natural” humans are relegated to an inferior role.”(139)

It is almost impossible to define ‘perfection’ and humanity is certainly no good at it. Are traits such as shortness and homosexuality really a disease that needs to be taken out of the human identity. “If it becomes widespread, cloning of genetically engineered humans would allow one generation to make its descendants as it pleases. All subsequent generations, now cleanses of unacceptable gene3s, would remain subject to that power.”(141)

case study assignment

2005-11-18T06:39:00.000-08:00

pg. 424-425

Case Study #7 please answer discussion questions 3 and 4.

Three-fourths to a page and a half is the length requirement and the due date has been changed from tuesday the 22nd to the tuesday after break.

The Vatican - Declaration on Sexual Ethics

2005-11-15T10:04:00.000-08:00

The declaration starts by emphasizing the importance of sex
"According to contemporary scientific research, the human person is so profoundly affected by sexuality that it must be considered as one of the factors which give to each individual's life the principal traits that distinguish it."(364)

But there is a problem with contemporary views of sex.
"In the present period, the corruption of morals has increased, and one of the most serious indications of this corruption is the unbridled exaltation of sex..."(364)

And now it is time for the Church to step up and outline what is wrong about certain sexual practices and why.

Quick review of Aquinas and the idea of natural law and also of teleology (finality).
Starry night and Einstein example.

"'Man has been made by God to participate in this law, with the result that, under the gentle disposition of divine Providence, he can come to perceive ever increasingly the unchanging truth.' The divine law is accessible to our minds."(365)

All one has to do, is correctly reason.
"They thereby necessarily manifest the existence of immutable laws inscribed in the constitutive elements of human nature and which are revealed to be identical in all beings endowed with reason."(365)

the laws God made for man are obvious if one only pays attention to the creation itself. In particular, sex has an obviously created intention which is God's design. Therefore, any deviation from this intended use is immoral, because it is not what God made designed it to do.

First they must dismiss a couple other moral theories:

1st cultural relativism - "These principles and norms in no way owe their origin to a certain type of culture, but rather to knowledge of the divine law and of human nature. They therefore cannot be considered as having become out of date or doubtful under the pretext that a new cultural situation has arisen."(365)

2nd Kant's emphasis on Good will and intention - "...the moral goodness of the acts proper to conjugal life, acts which are ordered according to true human dignity, 'does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives. It must be determined by objective standards.'"(365)

Ok, now on to the reasons that premarital sex, homosexuality and masturbation are immoral

Premarital sex and conjugation -
Does not matter if you intend to get married, or whatever your reason is, it is only ok inside of marriage
"However firm the intention of those who practice such premature sexual relations may be, the fact remains that these relations cannot ensure, in sincerity and fidelity, the interpersonal relationship between a man and a woman, nor especially can they protect this relationship from whims and caprices."

aka no social contract or promise binding them to remain faithful
"These requirements call for a conjugal contract sanctioned and guaranteed by society - a contract which establishes a state of life of capital importance both for the exclusive union of the man and the woman and for the good of their family and of the human community."

Society will crumble and there will be no family to raise the children.
"Most often, in fact, premarital relations exclude the possibility of children. What is represented to be conjugal love is not able, as it absolutely should be, to develop into paternal and maternal love."(366)

Discussion question: Would society crumble an immorality become rampant if the institution of marriage and the social pressure to follow its rules was done away with?

Homosexuality - Simple unnatural argument given.

The nature of our sexual design is to produce offspring, without this ability to take place we are misusing the faculties, and this is immoral
"But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack and essential and indispensable finality."(367)

Masturbation - Pretty much the same argument
"The main reason is that, whatever the motive for acting in this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes 'the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.' All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship."(367)

Sexual Intimacy and Marriage

2005-11-08T10:45:00.000-08:00

Sexual Intimacy and Marriage

Intro questions – the morality of pedophilia, rape, and homosexuality

Basic question that we will refer to – What is sex for? What is morally wrong with some sexual encounters and not others? If it is ok to have sex within a marriage why is it immoral to have sex outside of one? Why is marriage moral?

“Consensual sex is noncoercive. Imposing our sexual desires on others without their consent is an affront to the other’s dignity. It is for this reason that adults having sex with children is considered immoral.” (360-361)

This goes for rape as well. Is consent all that is required for a sex act to be morally permissible?

Read silly intro from page 349 Under what conditions does this become an immoral act?

The Religious Answer

“Sexuality has traditionally been regarded as a necessary but dangerous force that needs to be kept under control by laws and prohibitions. Jewish, Christian, and Islamic attitudes toward sexuality have been shaped by teachings in the Bible and Koran which regard marriage as the only proper setting for sexual intimacy and which condemn adultery and fornication as well as homosexual elations. Sex outside of heterosexual marriage is considered wrong because it is in conflict with God’s natural law.”(349)

Sex is for procreation – any other use of sex is a sin.

Sex is associated with sin – therefore a chaste, unmarried life is held up as an ideal in the Catholic Church. As is seen in the enforced celibacy for its priests.

The Feminist Answer

The establishment of marriage is a sham meant to regulate women to an inferior role

Because of statements like this: “woman has her substantial destiny in the family.” (Hegel, 356) This means that the wife cedes her power and rule to the husband because she is naturally inferior. This is a problematic claim for a feminist.

Wollstonecraft – Marriage should not include any subordination but should be a “friendship of equals” (356)

Is Love Neccesary for sex – mutual consent and dignity

Ruddick argues that sex is ‘morally preferable’ if it includes not only benefits for oneself but also for the other person. This is more likely to occur in a situation where there is love and care for the other individual, therefore sex is more moral in environments of a long term commitment - marriage

Is pleasure gained a legitimate reason to have sex? “We engage in other bodily activities with others (e.g., contact sports, massage, and surgery) because these activities bring us pleasure or profit without feeling we have to be in an intimate relationship with the other or affirm their moral worth.”(351)

Homosexuality – what is the argument for its immorality?

“In Iran more than three hundred people were executed between 1990-1996 for violation of laws prohibiting homosexuality.”(350)

“In a 2002 Gallup Poll over half of Americans agreed with the statement that “homosexual behavior is morally wrong” while only 38 percent considered it to be morally acceptable. However more recent 2004 polls show that Americans may be becoming more sympathetic toward the homosexual community.”(353-354)

“The belief that homosexuality is a deviation from the norm was reinforced by Sigmund Feud who wrote that homosexuality resulted from a boy’s inability to resolve his Oedipal conflict and sexual attraction to his mother. For many decades the mental health community accepted Freud’s definition of homosexuality as a perversion and mental disorder. The high prevalence of HIV/AIDS, which was first diagnosed in 1977 among homosexuals, fueled the public’s belief that homosexuality was inherently unhealthy and immoral. It wasn’t until 1994 that the AMA revoked the disease model and its position that medical professionals should aim at changing the sexual orientation of homosexuals.”(354)

Aquinas – Because sex is for the purpose of recreating, and homosexual relations do not produce children, therefore homosexual relations are a violation of God’s natural law.

Kant – Because there is no result, aka no children, homosexuality is wrong because you are using the other person for purely personal satisfaction.

Marriage – a two person social contract?

Ex. Friends

What makes us obligated to stay faithful in a marriage? Why is it moral to do so?

What is wrong with this kind of a union between people of the same sex?
“Same-sex marriage is legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada. In addition, homosexual couples have full legal rights in several European countries.”(354)

“The concept of moral goodness is linked to the well-being and dignity of our fellow human beings. Some philosophers argue that sex outside of heterosexual marriage violates respect for human dignity since it entails using the other merely as an object or tool for one’s pleasure. Sex within a marriage, on the other hand, affirms the other’s worth and dignity. Goldman acknowledges that sexual acts involve the manipulation fo the other’s body for one’s own pleasure. However, he also believes that sex is morally permissible if you make sure you provide sexual pleasure to your partner…Sex within a marriage does not always meet this qualification, while sex outside of marriage may.”(360)

Cohabitation

“They maintain that premarital chastity is the best way to guarantee marital commitment and faithfulness. Indeed, couples who cohabitate before marriage have a significantly higher divorce rate and rate their marriages less positively than couples who did not cohabitate before marriage.”(355)

“Two of the primary reason for cohabitation are readily available sex and convenience.”(355)

Do people who cohabitate make a similar social contract commitment as that of married people?

Discussion Questions:

What is guilt? Where do we get it and why do we have it?

Love is supposed to be a pre-requisite for marriage and hence a pre-requisite for moral sex. Why is it more moral to have sex with someone you love?

Ex. Kids driving forklifts – unequal treatment must be based on morally relevant differences between two groups. What is the basis for the unequal treatment given to homosexual couples?

Homosexuality is found cross-culturally, across the history of humanity, and in animals. “In this sense homosexuality is no more a sickness than is having dark skin or being female”(362) What is fundamentally wrong with calling homosexuality unnatural?

Snow day

2005-11-03T08:38:00.000-08:00

No class thursday Nov. 3rd I am ill.

Case studies due date is changed to Nov. 8th

Sohail Hashmi

2005-11-02T08:41:00.000-08:00

Sohail Hashmi – Interpreting the Islamic Ethics of war and peace

Hashmi lays out some of the tenets of Jihad and Islamic concepts of war and notes that there are some ambiguities in the term. It is a still evolving concept which is struggling to incorporate modern application. Hashmi's conclusion is that the war theory of Islam is similar in many respects to that of Just War Theory.

In Islam war is an accepted and necessary part of human existence.
Ibn Kaldun – “War is endemic to human existence, something natural among human beings. No nation, no race is free from it.”(659)

After noting that war is inevitable Hashmi turns to the question of ‘why is humanity prone to war’ and provides six answers

1. Even though we are born completely innocent and with full knowledge of God and his moral commands, over time society corrupts us and erodes our sense of right.

2. God’s intention for humanity is to live in peace, eventually. We must first eliminate all the causes for strife in the world, this process will sometimes involve warfare. This is also a process that will eventually end and we will live in peace

3. “[G]iven mans capacity for wrongdoing, there will always be some who choose to violate their nature and transgress against God’s commandments.”(659) Because we have free will and the chance to choose between following God’s commandments or not, there will always be those who choose wrongly, and hence there will always be the strife and conflict that is at the root of war.

4. Opposition is encountered because of those who reject God

Kufr – rejection of God

Kufr results in the inclination towards violence and sin. This can happen to an individual but creates war when it happens to a whole society.

“When an entire society rejects God, oppression and violence become the norm throughout the society and in relation with other societies as well as the moral anarchy that prevails when human beings abandon the higher moral code derived from faith in a supreme and just Creator, the Qur’an suggests, is fraught with potential and actual violence…”(660)

5. “[P]eace, is attanable only when being surrender to God’s will and live according to God’s laws.

6. Because not everyone has yet accepted Islam there will be conflict between Islam and non-Muslims and Muslim’s are commanded to defend Islam. “The use of force by the Muslim community is, therefore, sanctioned by God as a necessary response to the existence of evil in the world.”(660) Fighting is a burden that is placed upon Muslims that is required in order to defend the faith.

This is why war exists, and is inevitable. All other violence is prohibited. The only acceptable time to go to war is if there is a threat to the Islamic community from an outside invader or influencer. This parallels Just War theory’s command that war is only legitimate if it is in self defense.

Hashmi then turns to analyzing the life of Muhammad and concludes that he taught violence only as a last resort and only if there is a reasonable chance of success. Both of which parallel Just War theory.

He concludes:

“No war was jihad unless it was undertaken with right intent and as a last resort, and declared by right authority. Most Muslims today disavow the duty to propagate Islam by force and limit jihad to self-defense. And finally, jihad, like just war, places strict limitations on legitimate targets during war and demands that belligerents use the least amount of force necessary to achieve the swift cessation of hostilities.”(665)

Robinson A. Grover

2005-11-01T14:25:00.000-08:00

Robinson Grover – The New State of Nature and the New Terrorism

Grover argues that because of technology we are no back in the state of nature.

Review of state of nature –
Humans live in [C]ontinual fear and the danger of violent death; and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty mean, brutish and short.”

We are afraid of those around us so we make contracts and promises with each other in order to ensure our safety.

A sovereign is created to enforce the following of the promises and social contracts.

With an ineffective sovereign is unable to enforce the societal rules then the basis for the society crumbles and we are returned to a state of nature. This will cause perpetual war until a new sovereign is established.

“Hobbes asserts over and over that the state of nature will always and everywhere be a state of war, which will in turn cause a state of primitive anarchy. Hobbes goes on to argue that this outcome is utterly unacceptable and that autocracy is preferable to anarchy.”(668)

How technology has returned us to a state of nature:

1. It has shrunk the world and increased the realm of the state of nature. In a primitive society we need only fear our immediate neighbors, in today’s world and because of technology we can transport goods, money, attacks, and people extremely quickly and from great distances.

2. Because of the increased size of the state of nature there is no central controlling authority. We would need a worldwide sovereign in order to govern such a huge state of nature and since one doesn’t exist we are at constant war.

It should be noted that we would not want a worldwide sovereign because of the potential abuse of power.

“The history of the twentieth century has taught us that a truly evil sovereign is every bit as bas as any anarchy. We have no stomach for any unitary global order that is centralized and coercive, especially if the sovereign is, as it is for Hobbes, above the law.”(673)

He concludes with a pessimistic note about the inescapability of our present predicament. He can see no viable path to get out of the state of nature, all because of technology!

David Luban

2005-11-01T10:35:00.000-08:00

David Luban – War on Terorism and the End of Human Rights

Read intro on 682

Third Geneva Convention - “Prisoners of war who refuse to answer (questions) may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.”(683)

What is allowed in waging war:

Read pg. 685b

Much freer than law
It is permissible to use lethal force on enemy troops regardless of their amount of personal involvement in the war. Example: it is ok to kill a war cook.

Collateral damage is forseen but unintended – so it is allowable. Example: cop blowing up building and killing innocents is not allowed

Don’t need proof beyond a reasonable doubt

Don’t need much evidence, a hunch will do.

Combatants don’t have to have already harmed you, it is ok to attack targets that MIGHT attack you

If the person who is being attacked it is legitimate for them to fight back, this is not so if you are being arrested for breaking the law

Once the person whom you are waging war against is no longer a threat you stop attacking.

What is allowed in enforcing law:

Law-breakers don’t get to shoot back

Law breakers acts of violence subject them to legitimate punishment.

The Hybrid used by Washington and it’s problems:

“[G]iven Washington’s mandate to eliminate the danger of future 9/11’s, so far as humanly possible, the model of war offers important advantages over the model of law.”(682)

“Washington regards international terrorism not only as a military adversary, but also as a criminal activity and criminal conspiracy”(683)

Fighting back against U.S. is considered a legitimate punishable crime.

Either you’re with us or your against us. If you aren’t with us you can harbor enemies and their money, making you an enemy. This clashes with idea of what is allowed in war.

“By selectively combining elements of the war model and elements of the law model, Washington is able to maximize its own ability to mobilize lethal force against terrorists while eliminating most traditional rights of a military adversary, as well as the rights of innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire.”(683)

“It seems too easy for the President to divest anyone in the world of rights and liberty simply by announcing that the U.S. is at war with them and then declaring them unlawful combatants if they resist. But in the hybrid-war law model, they protest in vain.”(684)

War suspends human rights

War on terror has no defeatable enemy and thus will never end.

Because the war has no end human rights will potentially be violated indefinitely

He Concludes: Because the law model and war model come as conceptual packages, it is unprincipled to wrench them apart and recombine them simply because it is in America’s interest to do so. To declare that Americans can fight enemies with the latitude of warriors, but if the enemies fight back they are not warriors but criminals, amounts to a kind of heads-I-win-tails-you-lose international morality in which whatever it takes to reduce American risk, no matter what the cost to others, turns out to be justified.”(686)

It is already eroding the moral fabric of the world. Pg. 687

Jonathan Granoff

2005-11-01T10:34:00.000-08:00

Jonathan Granoff – Nuclear Weapons, Ethics, Morals and Law

Starts off by reminding us that there are universal moral norms that have stood the test of time. List on pg. 697

“States should treat others as they wish to be treated in return.”(677)

“Law is the articulation of values. Values must be based on moral foundations to have credibility. The recognition of the intrinsic sacredness of life and the duty of states and individuals to protect life is a fundamental characteristic of all human civilized values.”(677)

Just war theory and the courts of international law all state that the killing of innocents is illegal. As is the unnecessary suffering of combatants. Nuclear bombs and the nuclear winter that they create violate both of these conditions of warfare.

“Under no circumstance may states make civilians the object of attack nor can they use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets. Regardless of whether the survival of a state acting in self defense is at stake, these limitations continue to hold.”(678)

Granoff’s facts about nuclear weapons

“Nuclear weapons have the potential to destroy the entire system of the planet. Those already in the world’s arsenals have the potential of destroying life on the planet several times over “(677)

“A five megaton weapon represents greater explosive power than all the bombs used in WWI and a twenty megaton bomb more than all the explosives used in all the wars in history. Several states are currently poised ready to deliver weapons that render those used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki small. One megaton bomb represents the explosive force of approximately seventy Hiroshimas while a fifteen megaton bomb a thousand Hiroshimas.”(677)

The argument against deterrence

What is the argument for deterrence:
“Deterrence proponents claim that nuclear weapons are not so much instruments for the waging of war but political instruments ‘intended to prevent war by depriving it of any possible rationale.’”(678)

Problems:
“The possession of nuclear weapon s by any state is a constant stimulus to other states to acquire them.”(677)
“For deterrence to work one must have the resolve to cause the resulting damage and devastation…”(679)

It is illegal
“What the world faces is nuclear deterrence with its reliance on the horrific destruction of vast numbers of innocent people, destruction of the environment rendering it hostile to generations yet to be blessed with life.”(678)

“It is clear that deterrence is designed to threaten massive destruction which would most certainly violate numerous principles of humanitarian law. Additionally it strikes att generations yet unborn.”(678-679)

Retaliatory deterrence doesn’t make sense and will not work
“Torture is not a permissible response to torture. Nor is mass rape acceptable retaliation to mass rape. Just as unacceptable is retaliatory deterrence – ‘You burnt my city, I will burn yours.’”(679)

It does not make sense to protect the sovereignty of a state at the cost of the lives in that state. The end of Rome, the Ottoman Empire, Russia, my secret group of magical pencil friends, does not mean the end of humanity. Humanity should always be protected over the stability of a sovereignty.

In conclusion:
“If the dispatch of a nuclear weapon causes a million deaths, retaliation with another nuclear weapon which will also cause a million deaths will perhaps protect the soveignty of the state suffering the first strike, and will perhaps satisfy the victim’s desire for revenge, but it will not satisfy humanitarian law, which will have been breached not once but twice; and two wrongs do not make a right.”(679)

War Case Study Assignment

2005-10-25T14:20:00.000-07:00

Due November 3rd

Case Study #4 starting on page 703 please answer questions 5 and 6.

The case study assignments for the rest of the semester are only going to be half as long as before. Instead of doing two cases with two question a piece we will only be doing one case with two questions. This means that the length of your total pages should also be cut in half. I expect it will take you anywhere between 3/4 to 1 and 1/2 pages to answer the questions fully.

Anscombe: War and Murder

2005-10-20T10:17:00.000-07:00

Elizabeth Anscombe: War and Murder

Main Points:
It is wrong for the government to kill innocents as a means to killing non-innocents. But it is the job of the government/sovereign to exercise power when the stability of the community depends on it

“It is so clear that the world is less of a jungle because of rulers and laws, and that the exercies of coercive power is essential to these institutions as they are now...”(643)

“[S[ociety without coercive power is generally impossible”(644) Just so long as it is only used on non-innocents.

How is a non-innocent described: “What is required, for the people attacked to be non-innocnet in the relevant sense, is that they should themselves be engaged in an objectively unjust proceeding which the attacker has the right to make his concern; or-the commonest case- should be unjustly attacking him. Then he can attack them…”(644-645)

Some violence can only be stopped by killing. Her basis for this argument is that it is true because history shows that often evil will not be stopped by anything other than killing

Anscombe’s Assumptions:
(1) that the world is not just a jungle but a place where the reasoning man can be assured that such noble concepts as justice, evil, and good have a place.
(2) that "evil" is something which should be stopped or prevented.
(3) that "neutral" is something that is not evil yet not the opposite of evil.
(4) that "non-innocents" are those who commit evil.
(5) that the Bible is the truth and the guiding light in determining ‘what is moral’.

Her attack on Double effect and the idea that intention is all that matters:
Review of double effect: also known as the rational for Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Review of Kant’s categorical imperitive and the example of your friend hiding in the back room and someone who wants to kill him asking you where he is. Do you uphold the maxim “ I ought not ever lie” or do I lie and act maliciously in order to prevent a more malicaious act from occurring?

Review of Kant’s good will and the primacy of intention

Anscombe’s attack on intention as moral tool:
“Now if intention is all that is important…a marvelous way offered itself of making any action lawful. You only had to “direct yoru intention” in a suitable way. In practice, this means making a little speech to yourself: “What I mean to be doing is this…”…This same doctrine is used to prevent any doubts about the obliteration bombing of a city.”(647)

It comes about by attempting to maintain the new testament and pacifistic ideal of never doing committing any wrong towards someone. If you are intending a good outcome you can slip any action under the moral rug.

She concludes: the Principle of Double Effect should not allow evil to be committed as a means to achieving good

But Double Effect is not a completely fallacious argument, as long as it is not abused. Killing in self-defense is not an evil it is neutral. Her basis is that as killing in self-defense is not the means to the good but rather concomitant with the good, thus it passes the test of the Principle of Double Effect.

Case Study 1

pacifism and conscription

2005-10-13T09:59:00.000-07:00

Pacifism:

All violence is wrong even if it is only for self defense.

Reject idea of eye for an eye as basis for moral justice.

“An eye for an eye leaves the world blind” – Ghandi

Emphasize a respect for persons, including the enemy, and the recognition of a common humanity of all people.

“For example, despite our claim that civilians in enemy countries are innocent, their deaths as “collateral damages” are not given the moral weight of deaths of American combatants.”(639)

If we respect innocent humanity globally as much as we respected the humanity of members of our own communities then we would be less cavalier in sacrificing innocent lives in wars with other countries.

Problems:
Assumes the right not to be attacked but not the right of self defense which means there is no way to protect that right

Has some problems actually working

Discussion question: We initiated violence with Iraq in 2002, we started the war. Is the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent war able to be defended by an argument of a pre-emptive strike in the interest of our own self defense?

Conscription:
“The primary moral argument against conscription or the draft is based on autonomy. The draft, which puts the draftee at risk for death or permanent disability, is a violation of a person’s liberty rights.”(639)

Can we force members of our community to sacrifice their lives in order to protect the safety of that community?

“Living in a county of one’s own volition and benefiting from its protection and advantages creates a prima facie duty of fidelity or loyalty to that country. There is considerable debate, however, about what this duty entail. Do we have a duty to fight for our country or at least not to undermine our country’s war efforts?...What about instances where one’s own government is unjust?”(641-642)

Just War Theory and initial questions

2005-10-11T10:19:00.000-07:00

What is war?

Is war ever morally justified?

Facts:
21st century 191 million people killed directly or indirectly by war.
WWI – 15 million, WWII – 27 milion
400 wars since the end of WWII.

Why go to war:
Self defense against aggressor
Desire to expand one’s territory
Religious reasons aka Holy War

“Most wars have mixed motives. For example, the current war on terrorism is a war in response to the threat of aggression that also has ideological/religious undertones in it that re portrayed by both sides as a war of good against evil with each side claiming to be doing God’s will.”(630)

Terrorism:
What is it – “involves the use of politically motivated violence to target noncombatants and create intimidation.”(630)
Used by groups who have a minority voice that want to be heard on large scale

Note on jihad: In Islam it does not mean holy war, this is something that has been assigned to it in the past couple of years in America.
Greater jihad: Struggle with self against own internal evil

Just War Theory:
Put together into a system for the first time by Aquinas. Changes the ‘eye for an eye’ justice theory to accommodate the possibility of restitution, while also implementing rules to make sure that the war is not fought with evil intentions.

Jus ad bellum:
1. War must be declared and waged by a legitimate authority
Hobbes and the state of nature:
“In civil society the authority to use violence is transferred to the sovereign whose power is absolute.”(631)
How do we determine if someone has authority?

2. There must be a just cause for going to war
3. War must be the last resort
4. There must be a reasonable prospect of success
5. Ther violence used must be proportional to the wrong being resisted

Jus in Bello
1. Noncombatants should not be intentionally targeted
Koran’s comments: wrongful aggressor, noncombatants, and last resort
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Principle of Double effect:
“According to this principle if a course of action, such as bombing a town, is likely to have two quite different effects, one legitimate and the other not, the action may still be permissible if the legitimate effect was intended and the illicit effect (e.g. the killing of civilians) unintended.”

2. The tactics used must be a proportional response to the injury being redressed

What about Jus ante bellum?

Mary Anne Warren - The Moral Significance of Birth

2005-10-04T21:07:00.000-07:00

She argues for the fundamental right for a women to make her own decision about her body.

“Unlike “genetic humanity’ – a property possessed by fertilized human ova- sentience and self-awareness are properties that have some general relevance to what we may owe another being int eh way of respect and protection. However, neither the sentience criterion nor the self-awareness criterion can explain the moral significance of birth.”(108)

A fetus may have some sensory experience but a mouse has sensory experience and we would not grant a mouse equal moral standing as a person, so just because it can feel pain and pleasure does not necessarily make it human. “They have sensory experiences, but, as Tooley points out, they probably do not yet think, or have a sense of who they are, or a desire to continue to exist. It is not unreasonable to suppose that these facts make some difference to their moral standing.”(109)

She makes an argument regarding awareness and sentience that gives hierarchical priority to the mother because she already possesses these things where it is in doubt that the fetus does. “Other things being equal, it is surely worse to kill a self-aware being that wants to go n living than one that has never been self-aware and that has no such preference. If this is true, then it is hard to avoid the conclusion that neither abortion nor infanticide is quite as bad as the killing of older human beings.”(109)

She concludes:

“[T]o extend equal legal rights to fetuses s necessarily to deprive pregnant women of the rights to personal autonomy, physical integrity, and sometimes life itself. There is room for only one person with full and equal rights inside a single human skin. That is why it is birth rather than sentience, viability, or some other prenatal milestone that must mark the beginning of legal parenthood.”(112)

John T. Noonan Jr. - An Almost Absolute Value in History

2005-10-04T19:13:00.000-07:00

“The most fundamental question involved in the long history of thought on abortion is: how do you determine the humanity of a being?”(103)

The question of when does life begin requires first answering the question what is it to be human. His answer “[I]f you are conceived by human parents, you are a human.”(103)

He is arguing that life begins at conception. He does this by arguing against the two other most common points given for the beginning of life. They are viability (when the fetus is able to survive outside the womb) and when the brain waves start and the fetus is able to begin to have experiences.

He attacks viability by saying that it is too inconsistent of a point in time to be the beginning of life. Also there is a chance that technology will remove the need to be at the womb at all which would make the concept of dependence on the mother a non-issue. He argues that at the core of the viability debate is that pre-viability the fetus is reliant on the mother, whereas post viability it could survive outside of the womb. He counters this by saying:
“The most important objection to this approach is that dependence is not ended by viability. The fetus is still absolutely dependent on someone’s care in order to continue existence; indeed a child of one or three or even five years of age is absolutely dependent on another’s care for existence; uncared for, the older fetus or the younger child will die as surely as the early fetus detached from the mother.”(103)

He attacks the ‘ability to experience as the beginning of life’ argument by saying that the ability to have experiences is not what makes us human. Where as there are certain experiential requirements to define oneself as a baseball player, there are not such requirements to call oneself a person.

“It could be argued that certain central experiences such as loving or learning are necessary to make a man human. But then human beings who have failed to love or to learn might be excluded from the class called man.”(103)

After denying these two other points for the beginning of life he argues that life begins at conception. His argument rests on the probability after conception for a fetus to develop into a “reasoning being, possessed of the genetic code, a heart and other organs, and capable of pain.”(105) The probality prior to conception for the spermatozoon or the oocytes to actually become human beings is extremely minute, but after conception there is a 80% chance that it will develop into a fetus. This drastic increase in the probability of developing marks a good point for him to say that life has begun, because left to its own devices it has a high chance of doing so.

Judith Jarvis Thomson - A Defense of Abortion

2005-10-04T18:33:00.000-07:00

Instead of arguing whether or not the fetus is a person or when life starts she grants the fetus temporary personhood for the sake of the argument.

She makes the distinction between an acorn and an oak tree. An acorn has the ‘potential’ to be an oak tree but is not considered one. Similarily a fetus has the potential to be a person, but is not one yet.

She argues that there are two prima facie moral truths at stake:
1) Every person has the right to life (the fetus has been granted personhood for the argument)
2) The mother has a right to decide what happens to her body

One might presume that the life of a person(1) is most important, but Thomson intends to show that special circumstances of a pregnancy where the life of the mother is in danger make the life of the fetus less important than #2

The Violinist Analogy:

Imagine that someone was plugged into unwillingly to use your kidneys or whatever in order to survive. You were an unwilling participant. You have the ability to unplug the person at any time, but if you do it will end the life of that person because they are unable to live unplugged. Surely #1 is a moral consideration here, the life of the violinist plugged into you is of moral value and would be considered immoral to unplug him. Your right to your own body, #2, is being violated but it does not outweigh the moral value of #1. (There is much to argue with this, but we will grant it truth just because it is a maybe)

If you change the scenario and make it that if you don’t unplug the violinist that you will die. Now not only is your right to your body being violated (#2) but also someone is forcibly taking your right to your own life, violating the moral principle laid down in #1. Thomson says that you can’t justify violating two moral principles in order to keep one.

unplugging the violinist = is a moral bad in that it violates #1, everyone has a right to life

Taking the life of the unwilling person plugged into the violinist = is a moral bad on both #1 and #2. It takes the life of the person plugged in while at the same time violating #2 by not allowing someone to decide what happens to their body.

“If anything in the world is true, it is that you do not commit murder, you do not do what is impermissible, if you reach around to your back and unplug yourself from that violinist to save your life.”(94)

If you compare this analogy to abortion for the sake of the mother, then surely the mother has the right to defend her own life against someone forcibly trying to take it. Or in other words, if the life of the mother is in jeopardy if she carries the fetus to term then she should have the right to opt for an abortion to save her own life.

She then talks about what right to life the fetus has and modifies #1. One may have the right to life, but this does not entail that everyone has the right to everything that they need and that we ought to provide it for them. For example, if someone I don’t know somewhere I don’t know ‘needs’ a kidney to survive, I have no moral obligation to give him that kidney. It might be very kind of me to do so, but nobody has the right to hold me down and take my kidney.

The burglar analogy:
“If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in it would be absurd to say, “Ah now he can stay, she’s given him a right to the use of her house- for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that here are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle.” It would be still more absurd to say this if I d had bars installed outside my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in , and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars…after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors. But this won’t do – for by the same token anyone can avoid a pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!) army.”(97)

She wraps up her position by stating that she thinks that there are circumstances where an abortion is morally permissible but that there are also situations where it is not especially if the reason for an abortion is not because there is any great burden being placed upon the mother. “It would be indecent in the woman to request an abortion, and indecent in a doctor to perform it, if she is in her seventh month, and wants the abortion to avoid the nuisance of postponing a trip abroad.”(100)

Help on paper writing

2005-09-29T10:35:00.000-07:00

What a Philosophy Paper Should Look Like

Value Added - Quality is measured by how much value that person adds
How to add value:
1. Independent research (not required)
Books and academic articles are the best. Internet resources are always met with a little skepticism. Just because some dude put up that Descartes sucks on his blog doesn’t mean that it counts as a premise in your argument.
2. Your Own ideas (Extremely Valuable)
A. An Argument – Beginning and maintaining a Thesis (required)
B Opinions are cheap, unless backed by an argument
C. Clarifying and explaining issues ONLY is ok but only B- even if it is the best summary ever. I can read the original text, tell me something that isn’t in there. Show me that you understand what the thinker is actually saying, but do it while extrapolating on Your Own Ideas. Actually take a stand on an issue and argue for it using reasons, proofs, examples, and counterarguments.

Structure of the paper
Introduction – 1st Part
Topic and Thesis statement
Get readers attention. Spark the reader’s interest.
1. Statement of Problem
2. Statement of Solution
3. Why is this important/Why should anyone care

Exegesis – 2nd Part
Stating an opponents view or stating the problem as given by other person
Getting the other person straight – Give them the benefit of the doubt
Best way to do this is to use quotes – as evidence of their position
Quotes need citations. Just page # unless you use external – then MLA
Be Concise – don’t give historical backgrounds and dates of birth.

Analysis – 3rd Part
Your response – The body of the argument
How you solve the problem
Your thesis and your argument for it
Show why and how the problem is solved
Think of essay as an itch that needs to be scratched. Tell why the itch has gone away.

And for the love of all that is right and good with the world: 12pt, times new roman or Garamond (it is trendy and acceptable in the font world) Title page is the best but otherwise just Name: Class: and title. Don’t take up half a page with your information. Courier New and other huge fonts make you look silly and raise my eyebrow before I even start reading. Proofread. Don’t swear. Umm…don’t write it the night before and have fun….that’s it.

Midterm Assignment

2005-09-29T10:24:00.000-07:00

Due October 13th

4-7 pages

You can choose either to address a theme such as 'the respect and dignity of human life' or 'utilitarianism' and discuss some of the various moral problems that we have looked at.

or

Discuss one of the moral problems we looked at, either abortion or the death penalty, and give each side of the issue before you yourself provide your opinion and argument

The first section of your paper should be a brief history of the issues. The second section of the paper should explain the arguments of the competing sides. The third and primary section of the paper should be a reasoned argument to a conclusion. I want to know what your thoughts on the issue are. Hopefully the essays we read and the information we look at will allow you to form a cohesive view of your own. Your job in this paper is to argue for that view and tell me why your argument has worth.

Second Case Study Assignment

2005-09-29T10:17:00.000-07:00

Abortion Case Study Assignment- Due October 6th

Please read the case study and answer discussion questions for:

Case Study #2 on pg. 127. Please answer discussion questions #2 and #3
Case Study #5 on pg. 130. Please answer discussion questions #3 and #5

They are due at class time on October 6th.

What I am looking for:
A thoughtful opinion on the issue
Supported reasons why you think your argument has worth
Demonstrated knowledge about the issues involved
All I want is your name and section on the top. double spaced. Times New Roman. 12 point.
Put quotes taken from the book in quotation marks with a page number.
If you use outside sources you must cite them.

You are able to choose your midterm and final paper topics. So be on the look out for issues and questions that you find particularly interesting or ones that you want to learn more about. Don't limit yourself to just answering the question in a couple of sentences, if you have more to say, say it.

What not to do:
Waste a lot of paper space so that it looks like you did more than you did.
For Example: margins, triple space, big font, large title and name, etc.
Spend time and space restating the issue and the question. I know what is going on, just jump right into your argument.
Don't just repeat the question back to me, that doesn't count.

Medical, Religious, Moral, and Rights issues in the Abortion debate

2005-09-27T09:11:00.000-07:00

Why is the abortion debate important? p. 90

Methods of abortion:

Medical: Only possible early in the pregnancy.
morning after pill
RU-486 – can be used in first 7 weeks

Surgical: most commonly used, 98-99% success rate
D&C - “spoon shaped curette inserted to scrape the surface of the uterine wall”
D&E - primary method, also known as vacuum aspiration, 90% of US abortions
IDX - partial birth, estimated 5000 yearly, “After partially delivering an intact fetus feet-first, the doctor punctures the fetus’s skull, suctions out the brains, and then crushes the skull so the fetus can fit easily through the woman’s birth canal.” (banned in 2003)

The question of religion:

“The moral controversy over abortion cannot be resolved simply by uncritically accepting religious dogma. At the same time, the arguments used by the different religions should not be dismissed offhand, because they are generally based on philosophical rather than purely theological arguments. Good ethical analysis, while eschewing arguments based solely on faith, entails beign open to, listening to, and subjecting to critical analysis, the moral arguments put forth by the various religions.”(83)

Both religious and non-religious sides need to take each other into account. The arguments presented from either side are serious arguments and must be dealt with and answered if one is going to hold a certain position. All opinions and arguments must be allowed to the table, you can’t just shrug one off because you disagree with the source of the argument. That is an ad hominem. You must address the argument itself, not the group giving it.

A couple important points in fetal development:
6-8 weeks – brain waves detected
8 weeks - all organs and structural features in place- fetus resembles a small child
40 weeks -birth

The Moral Status of the Fetus:

Is the fetus a person with all the rights that come with being a person?
Potential life – Because it has the potential to develop into a person, should it get the
same respect as a person. If less, how much less?
Harming the fetus during a federal crime is a separate prosecutable crime.
Discussion Question - should someone be charged for killing two people if killing someone who is only 4 weeks pregnant? 8? 39?
If the fetus can feel pain but is not considered a full human person, do we have to take into account how painful the abortion procedure is?

The Rights of the Mother, Child and Father:
If the debate turns from whether or not the fetus is a person to who’s rights are most important the crucial questions change

The mother:
“Women should have the right to make decisions about their own bodies. To deny women this basic right…is to treat them as a means only.”(87)

We have no right to force unjust burdens onto people, by forcing a women to carry a baby to term we are subjecting her to things that may be against her will. Do we have a right as a society to do this? Doesn’t she have the right to not be used and her life risked?

“These include complications and deaths from self-induced and illegal abortions, overpopulation, the burden on women of mandatory motherhood, at least during the nine months of pregnancy…”(89)

The Child:
Is the mother’s autonomy and freedom more important than the fetus’s right to its potential life?

“Fetal alcohol syndrome, according to the Center for Disease Control, is the leading cause of mental retardation in the United States. More infants are born with fetal alcohol syndrome than the combined total of Down’s syndrome, spina bifida, muscular dystrophy, and HIV. Women who smoke during pregnancy also are at higher risk for having babies with low birth weight, respiratory problems, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).”(87)

Discussion Question: Say that a mother has chosen not to have an abortion, does the mother have a moral obligation to ensure the health and safety of the potential life by abstaining from drugs, alcohol and cigarettes? Does this tell us anything about our assumptions about how we view the rights of the ‘people’ involved?

The Father:
Not much. No requirement of informing, no requirement of any kind of involvement until the child is born. The argument is that because there is no chance of harming or killing the father physically in someone else’s pregnancy then they have little rights in the actual decision making process.

Selective Abortion and the potential for a slippery slope:

“Unlike elective abortion, in which the pregnancy itself is unwanted, in selective abortion it is the particular fetus rather than the pregnancy, that is unwanted. About 7 percent of infants are born with a physical and/or mental disorder. Prenatal diagnosis provides parents with information about most of these disorders as well as the gender of the fetus. The overwhelming majority of pregnancies in which the fetus is diagnoses as having a genetic disorder are terminated by selective abortion.”(88)

Where do we stop? What about sex or hair color, what if they are not genetically predisposed to run a 4 minute mile? Ex. Gattica. “With increasing knowledge of the human genome, geneticists may soon be able to prenatally diagnose tendencies toward obesity, cancer, and homosexuality – to name a few traits that most Americans consider undesirable in their children.”(89)

Abortion as a benefit to children:
This argument runs that if we only allow to be born the children that are wanted we will have no unwanted children and hence people will take better care to raise them better. So abortion is actually a good thing because it increases the quality of life for those who are born.