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.

Abortion background info

2005-09-22T09:34:00.000-07:00

Key Questions:
When does life begin? Is there a difference between life and a human person
Whose rights are involved and whose rights matter the most?
Safety
Under what conditions can we allow people to have abortions

Terminology:
Infanticide - killing of infants
Quickening - when the fetus is first noticed to be moving by the mother
insolent - when the soul enters the fetus
Viability - Ability of fetus to survive outside of the womb
Life - Any form of living animal or vegetable.
Human life - Any living entity which has human DNA. A spermatozoa, ovum, pre-embryo, embryo, fetus, newborn, and infant are different forms of human life. However, they are not all considered to have equal value.
Human person - This is a form of human life which is considered to be a person whose life and health should be protected. No consensus exists about when this state begins. Pro-lifers generally say it happens at or very shortly after conception, when a human life with a unique DNA begins. Pro-choicers generally say that it happens later in gestation; some believe that personhood only begins after birth when the newborn is breathing on its own.

The numbers

US:
43% of American women will have one
Have been on a steady rise since Roe V. Wade, until 90's when it started going back down
1313000 in 2000
25% of US pregnancies end in abortion
85 to 90% are terminated in the first 12 wks
About 80% of women having abortions were over the age of 18
78% of the women having abortions were unmarried.
CDC figures for 1995 show that 20% of women having abortions are in their teens; 33% are ages 20 to 24, and 47% are ages 25 or older.

Worldwide:
On the increase
45000000 in 1998
Frequent in south american Catholic countries
Vietnam is country with highest rate
former societ union(60%) and Romania(78%) - Contraceptives are in short supply

Story in the U.S.:
1821 1st antiabortion laws in Conneticut - up until then they were prohibited after quickening
1859 AMA condemned abortion as "unwarranted destruction of human life"
1855-1880 - most states passed anti-abortion legislation- most including 'therapeutic exception'
1960's - dissatisfaction with abortion laws, stemming from: "increase into he number of women in the workforce, a desire for smaller families increased publicity about the dangers of illegal abortion, impermanent in the safety of surgical abortion," and a increase in the public awareness of the desperation and horrible situations that were placed on women unable to receive one.
1965 Griswold vs. Conneticut - Right to privacy and 14th amendment interpreted
1969 - Planned Parenthood comes out in support of abortion, AMA switches its position to support it as well

Most important legal event for the current status of abortion laws - Roe v. Wade
1973
Right to privacy implied in the 14th amendment
Fetus is not a person
"[N]o case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment...All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the majority portion of the nineteenth century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."
State can set rules after viability - under States right to look after health of its inhabitants
Established exceptions to the viability rule if the health of the mother is at stake
which placed the life of the mother above that of the fetus
Abortion permitted up through the first trimester, after that the state can enter

1992: Planned Parenthood v. Casey - Replaced trimester system with floating viability

Current state:
38% think abortion is morally acceptable
66% against partial birth abortions

"The fact that abortion is currently legal does not mean that it is moral; nor does believing that abortion is immoral necessarily imply that it ought to be outlawed...This involves balancing concerns about abortion with other concerns such as equal economic rights for women."

William James and Pragmatism

2005-09-22T09:06:00.000-07:00

Areas where one is justified in going beyond compelling evidence & logic
(1) morals
(2) personal relations
(3) religious faith

In all of these areas, faith in the fact may help create the fact. Truth is created by the person believing something to be true. We choose what is true based on what has the most "cash value"
They are true until we find evidence that the truth is otherwise. This is a sort of selective relativism that can be used only for certain issues, in particular ones that don't have an obvious answer because they are outside our realm of understanding.

The argument states that belief can be seen in terms of what are called "live and dead hypotheses". For example, the hypothesis that life exists on other planets might be totally uninteresting to a businessman whose time is used running his organisation; a NASA scientist, on the other hand, would most likely be very interested.

So, in choosing between two hypotheses or options - such as "God exists" and "God does not exist" - it is argued that we must consider three things:

1. Is the option forced? When a choice can be avoided it is not necessary to make a decision. If, for instance, I have to choose whether to live or die, the option is forced - there is no third alternative. If the choice is between doing my homework and watching tv, there are probably many other options - such as playing cards or staring at the wall.

2. Is the option living? If one or both of my choices are uninteresting or impossible, then the option can be said to be dead. Should I become Prince of Canad, talk to Einstein, or fly to the moon? These options are less likely to be living if achieving them is very unlikely, impossible or absurd. Furthermore, if I am not particularly interested in any of the options, then my heart is not in the choice.

3. Is the option momentous? Certain choices may present themselves once in a lifetime or only under very special circumstances. Other options may involve making a drastic change in one's life - such as marriage, having children, running away from home, etc. If a choice is easily undone, or has little effect, then it cannot be said to be momentous.

The two things that dictate how we form our beliefs are:
1. Our desire to know the truth.
2. Our fear of falling into error.

Whilst the first principle leads us to formulate hypotheses, the second keeps us from asserting to beliefs which do not appear absolutely certain.These two drives are seen as so ingrained in human nature as to be almost innate. The battle between them results in the content of the things we believe that we know.

Remaining skeptical about propositions where evidence is incomplete makes sense in many circumstances, because the advantages of believing (even if that belief were true) do not outweigh the disadvantages of skepticism.

The answers to scientific questions fall into this category. That is because the answer to a scientific question (e.g., when one has two alternative scientific hypotheses) is usually neither live, forced, nor momentous.

In contrast, James argues that the answers to certain questions are at least in part determined by our beliefs. For example, whether or not two people are friends depends upon whether both believe that they are friends. To remain skeptical about whether they are friends would preclude their being friends. In cases where the truth of a proposition depends upon personal action, faith (say, that X is a friend) based on a desire (that X be a friend) is permissible.

Hugo Bedau: Capital Punishment

2005-09-20T08:17:00.001-07:00

“Central among these ethical considerations are the value, worth, and dignity of persons-the victims of crime, the offenders, and the rest of society.”(261)

It is morally wrong for Bedau to take human life no matter what. If we take a human life as a means to some other task we are damaging the dignity of human life. Part of our duty in the social contract is to maintain the integrity of our value of life, killing humans for any ‘means’ damages this. We as a society can not treat people as a means to an end.
“I mean any view that makes it permissible to kill persons in order to protect some other value (e.g., property) or in order to advance some social or political goal (e.g., national liberation)…” (261)

“The right to life seems to pose a problem for a policy of capital punishment. Even if a person has committed murder (so the argument runs) and has therewith intentionally violated another’s right to life, the criminal still has his or her own right to life. Would it not be a violation for the murderer’s right for him or her to be put to death as punishment? (262)

“The chief attraction of the idea of natural rights is that it provides each of us with moral armor (our rights) to protect us against burdens and deprivations that might be imposed on the ground that they are in the interests of the many or good for society in the long run…”(263)
p. 269 – note on societal downside of a government that kills its citizens
“A system like this does not enhance human life; it cheapens and degrades it. However heinous murder and other crimes are, the system of capital punishment does not compensate for or erase those crimes. It tends only to add new injuries of its own to the catalogue of human brutality.”(271)

He raises the inevitable question, why do we punish? “We re not likely to assess the morality of capital punishment correctly unless we understand the morality of punishment in general…” (265)

His answer… “[m]ost of us believe that it is not morally wrong and may even be our moral duty to use violence to prevent aggression directed against either ourselves or innocent third parties.”(267)

We have a duty to not use more force than is necessary. 266-267
“Unless there is a good reason for choosing a more rather tan a less severe punishment for a crime, the less severe penalty is to be preferred. This principle obviously commends itself to anyone who values human life and who concedes that, all other things being equal, less pain and suffering is always better than more..”(268)

“As for punishment it prevents crimes by incapacitation and by deterrence. The tows are theoretically independent because they achieve prevention very differently. Executing a murderer prevents crimes by means of incapacitation to the extent that the murderer would have committed further crimes if not executed.”(267)

Just as we have the duty to not overuse our power to get the job done, when the job is to remove a criminal from society, lifetime incarceration is just as effective as the death penalty. So, we shouldn’t use excessive force and execute murderers.

Conclusion: long term imprisonment gets the job done and state sponsored killing of humans is a violation of the natural rights that are supposed to protect us from being killed as a means to an end. Therefore death penalty is excessive and a moral wrong. P. 271

Christopher Morris - Punishment and the Loss of Moral Standing

2005-09-20T08:17:00.000-07:00

Morris is justifying the use of the death penalty on the grounds of a social contract argument. Social Contract theory states that we give up some certain rights in order to gain others. For example, in the state of nature there is no police or governing body to punish one from doing harmful acts to one’s neighbor. But, consequently there is nothing protecting one from harm from one’s neighbor. So the theory goes that people entered into a contract of non-harm, and eventually contracts of property rights,etc.

The basis of the social contract is that we give up our ability to harm others with whom we are in the social contract with, which is the rest of humanity. Morris says that if we violate the fundamental tenet by killing an innocent person we then forfeit our own right to life. The social contract if broken can mean that rights can be taken away, even the fundamental one,the right to life. This is only possible if the violation of the social contract is broken on the same level.

Some key quotes:

“[A] type of forfeiture theory, one according to which part (but only part) of the justification for punishment rests in the fact that wrongdoers lack certianrights, the presence of which would normally suffice to block the appropriate punishment…”(256)

“Given the imperfections of human rationality, it would be unwise to desire a system without sanctions fro violations of its norms.”(256)

“Their status is analogous to exile; they are banished, not from a physical space but from a moral space. They have lost, at least in part, their membership in the moral community.”(257)

“By their unwillingness to impose the constraints of justice on their conduct toward others, they lose the protection of justice.”(257)

Good essay answers

2005-09-15T08:52:00.000-07:00

Good answers from the Quiz.

Utilitarianism:
“My reaction would be to do nothing because killing the man who killed Bob would bring more overall unhappiness than happiness. Although killing the murderer would make me happy it would not make the murderer’s family and friends happy. In fact, it would cause the grief therefore it would be immoral.”

“A moral reaction to Bob’s murder under Utilitarian theory would be to do nothing. Killing the other guy would not increase total happiness because then there would be two people dead versus only bob if you were to do nothing. However, should the inhabitants become upset, it would be moral to react how they collectively saw fit, as their total happiness is greater than that of Bob’s killer.

Natural Law:
“This would be moral because natural law states that a person has the right to punish another person who has wronged them”

“not killing others is something instinctually inside of us”

“Under natural law theory, it would be safe to assume that Bob’s killer would be punished in some way, whether he is banished, killed, etc. Because natural law theory claims that every man is entitled to life, liberty and property and that no other man is entitled to keep those from another, it can be concluded that Bob’s murderer has broken natural law, and should therefore be punished.”

Care Ethics:
“I don’t react to him killing Bob, because care ethics is that a caring relationship is more important than other moral issues, such as justice, but there is no more justice, so you could kill him but you don’t. The moral act is that you care enough for humans not to take another’s life.”

Deontology:
“We have a duty to our peers, one being not to kill”

The Perfect Answer: demonstrated knowledge of terms and provides a clear argument for the conclusion
“The murder of my best buddy, Bob, would cause me great dismay, especially since I would no longer have anyone to play checkers with. However, my main reaction would be to do absolutely nothing about it since the murder was actually morally justified by two theories.
Bob was not a very well liked man. In fact, he had a deadly disease that he was spreading throughout our group. The man who murdered my buddy did so out of a sense of duty to protect our people. This is the morality theory of deontology.
Aside from deontology, Bob’s illness caused a lot of pain and suffering for our group. By killing him the murderer made everyone feel relieved that the burden of Bob was over. This increased the overall happiness and saved our people from possible death. Therefore, he was moral according to Utilitarianism.
When all is said and done, although Bobs murder is a great sadness for me, the act was moral through deontology, it was the murderer’s sense of duty, and Utilitarianism, it produced the greatest happiness within our group. Therefore I would do nothing and mourn silently.”

Death Penalty Case Study - Due Sept. 20th

2005-09-13T08:47:00.000-07:00

Case Study 1 p. 289
Discussion Questions 2 and 3

Case Study 2. p. 290
Discussion Question 3 and 4

1-2 pages. 3 page max.
They are due at class time on september 20th

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.

Turn it in late and expect me to not dock you. It should only take a couple of hours max, there are 144 hours until it is due. Do not wait until you only have 6 hours left to start it, something might come up that might make you unable to get it in on time.

Punishment and the Death Penalty Day One

2005-09-13T08:45:00.000-07:00

What is the Purpose of Punishment?
An assumption - Punishment is the appropriate moral response to wrongdoing
Retributive Justice
Deterrence
Rehabilitation/Reform
Protection of the community

Random Facts about death penalty:
1972 Furman v. Georgia death penalty ruled unconstitutional because too arbitrary
1976 Gregg v. Georgia reinstated
U.S., China, Iran account for 81% of all known executions
72% of Americans supported it in 2000 even though half of those polled thought it was
applied unfairly
20,000 murders a year, 300 convicted and sentenced to death
Much more costly to execute a criminal than detain him for life
Average time spent on death row is 10 years
Between 1973 and 1995 over two thirds of the death sentences had been overturned in the appeal process because of “procedural flaws or unsound evidence.
7000 executed between 1900 and 1985. 25 of those were innocent of capital crimes

Some Moral Issues surrounding the death penalty
Should the state murder?
What if the person is innocent?
“Lethal injection involves intravenous injection of a lethal dose of a barbiturate mixture that causes paralysis, suppression of breathing, and death by asphyxiation. Death generally occurs within minutes.”
Several death row inmates have been exonerated by DNA evidence.
Crime labs are currently backed up and often give faulty results

Is it ever ok to kill children
22 juvenile offenders killed as of 2003
Banned by United Nations
U.S. leads world in juvenile executions – last one outside of U.S. was in Iran in 2001

Deterrence
Death is the ultimate punishment and if people are afraid of being killed for their actions they are less likely to do them
No scientific support that it works

Retributive Justice
Lex talionis (rule of retaliation)
Retributive justice alone justifies death penalty, no need for deterrence
“A person who commits a crime creates a debt that must be paid to society. This debt is due regardless of whether the victim desires it.”(243)

Human dignity and the sanctity of life – Is it universal natural law?
No support in religious based morality
Banned in virtually all of Western Europe, Canada, South America, and Africa.
Bann supported by United Nations
“Because humans have intrinsic moral value, it is wrong to deprive them of their lives.”(244)

Distribution and Race
99% of those convicted are poor and using public defenders
White people are twice as likely to support the death penalty
Blacks are six times more likely than whites to end up on death row.
“[R]esearchers found that white support for the death penalty has strong ties to prejudice against blacks and that in some areas of the United States racial prejudice is the strongest predictor of support for the death penalty.”(245)

Philosophers on the Death Penalty
Arguments why the death penalty should be abolished:
Bentham: “All punishment is evil.” The deliberate infliction of suffering on a person who has committed an evil, such as murder, he argued, merely adds more evil and suffering to the world. Punishment, therefore, can be justified only if it is the only way to remove an even greater evil.

Camus: The state executing a person is far more grievous a sin than the original murder because it is pre-meditated. “Many laws consider a premeditated crime more serious than a crime of pure violence…For there to e equivalence, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from the moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life.”(246)

Arguments why we the death penalty is acceptable:
Kant: “The penal law is a categorical imperative…for if justice and righteousness perish, human life would no longer have any value in the world.” Murderer must die in order to satisfy requirement of retributive justice.

Kant: Punishment affirms the criminals’ dignity by acknowledgeing that, unlike children and “animals,” they are responsible for their actions. Denying people the right to punishment is to deny that they are rational beings capable of responsibility for their own actions.

Social Contract: You give up certain rights to gain others. By killing you take away all the rights of another individual and therefore give up all your rights to life. The right to life is the primary human right. This right, however, can be forfeited if we violate another person’s right to life.

Death penalty is the only way to make sure that an individual never kills again. “Just as people have the right to use lethal force to protect themselves, so too does the government have the right to use the death penalty to protect society from dangerous criminals.”(243)

Van Den Haag: The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense of Capital Punishment
The primary purpose of capital punishment is retribution. Equal treatment and deterrence not as important as justice. “The severity and finality of the death penalty is appropriate to the seriousness and finality of murder.”(251)

“The often-cited objection that capital punishment is applied in a discriminatory manner, therefore does not make capital punishment itself immoral, but rather the manner in which it is currently meted out.”(249)

Nearly all activities have some kind of risk. Getting a soda-pop out of the vending machine can kill you, but you still do it. Just because an activity has the chance to accidentally kill an innocent person doesn’t mean that it is practical to give it up.

Protecting the potential loss of innocent life is worth killing criminals whose life-value is not important or negligible.

Not willing to give up on deterrence.

“Execution of those who have committed heinous murders may deter only one murder per year. If it does, it seems quite warranted. It is also the only fitting retribution for murder I can think of.”(252)

Format of quiz

2005-09-06T07:38:00.000-07:00

The format of the Quiz on Thursday Sept. 8th

Matching:
Match the philosopher that we looked at with their answer to the question ‘what is moral?’

Multiple Choice:
Over terminology that we covered in class and from the notes.

Short Answer:
Just give me in your own words the definition of Ethical Relativism, Categorical Imperative and Utilitarianism

Essay:
You will be given a fairly simple moral dilemma and asked to explain what the moral action would be and why, using two of the moral theories we looked at. There will be four choices, choose two

Possible choices: Rights ethics, virtue ethics, relativism, deontology, Utilitarianism, Care Ethics, Natural Law

Moral Theory Day 4

2005-09-06T07:16:00.000-07:00

Moral Theory Day 4

Ayn Rand – Liberty Rights and ethical egoism

“There is only one fundamental right (all others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action – which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)”(62)

Lasses-faire capitalism is the only philosophy compatible with respect for the integrity and the reality of the individual human.

Why the U.S. is special – “All previous systems had held that man’s life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by permission of society, whichmay be revoked at any time. The United States held that man’s life is his by right (which means; by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of government is the protection of individual rights.”(62)

Welfare rights – entail the right to receive certain social goods such as eduction, medical care and police protection. Welfare rights are important because without a minimal standard of livingor education, we cannot pursue our legitimate interests. Socialist and Marxist countries place emphasis on such rights.

Welfare rights for Rand are bad, very bad. They involve forcibly taking goods from people who earned them and giving them to people who have not earned them and therefore do not deserve them. Welfare rights by definition inhibit individual freedom and are hence immoral.

“The right to life is the source of all rights- and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man, who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”(62)

The sole purpose of the government is to protect our rights of equality. Not that we all are equal or deserve the same stuff, but that we all equally are able to pursue that which we consider the good.

“It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.”(63)

List of supposed ‘rights’ on page 63

“If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are derived of rights and condemned to slave labor.”(63)

Discussion Questions:
Should the government guarantee happiness and minimal possessions or should it merely guarantee the pursuit of happiness and possessions?

Rights Ethics:

What are our natural rights?

applying rights ethics – pg. 35

Prima Facie – on first appearance

Problems -
“The theological basis of natural rights ethics, which privileges humans as a special creation, is difficult, if not impossible, to justify on either rational philosophical or empirical grounds.”(34)

We have no universal criteria for determining what these rights are so what we decide on lacks grounding.

Virtue Ethics: Aristotle revisited

“A virtue is an admirable character trait or disposition to habitually act ina manner that benefits ourselves and others.”(36)

examples of doctrine of the mean – pg. 37

As all moral theories do it attempts to provide an equation to use to determine if something is moral or not. The principle tool being reason. The skills required are intellectual and moral virtues.

“Humans need community in order to be virtuous. The purpose of the state is to promote the virtuous or good life. Justice is the primary virtue of the state; unless a state is just and encourages the development of virtue in its citizens, it has no power to make its citizens good.”(37)

Nietzsche and the Ubermenschen

His attack on Christianity – humility and weakness are not virtuous traits

Care Ethics

Justice, impartiality, and reason take a back seat to compassion.

Sympathy is the guide in determining the moral act rather than reason

Discussion Question:
Which motivates you more to take action, a sense of justice or a feeling of sympathy for other persons?

Conclusion on page 41

Moral Theory Day 3

2005-09-01T10:27:00.000-07:00

Moral Theory Day 3

Utilitarianism and John Mill -

Morality is determined solely by its consequences
The utility of the result is the sole factor in judging the morality of the action

Not the individual’s happiness that matters but the happiness of the entire community of “sentient beings” which are defined as anything that can feel pleasure and pain.

Greatest Happiness Principle
“Actions are right in the proportion that the tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.”(47a) – Mill
ex. Pg. 23

Mill’s distinction between the quality and the quantity of pleasure
“Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast’s pleasures; no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool, no instructed person would be an ignoramus, no person of feeling and conscience would be selfish and base, even though they should be persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better satisfied with his lot than they are with theirs…It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates sdissatisfied thana fool satisfied.”( 48a)

Strengths:
Practical and can be applied cross culturally
“it challenges us to rethink our traditional notions about moral community. If we are going to exclude or marginalize people or other animals, we have to offer a ratinal justification for our decision.”(22)

Discussion questions
Are there other desirable goals in life besides pleasure?

Do you agree with Mill that intellectual pleasures have greater moral value than physical base animalistic ones?

W.D Ross’s Seven Prima Facie Duties
p. 27

Discussion Question:
If we are able to agree universally on these does that mean that we will agree on everything?

Kant and the Categorical Imperitive

We talked last time abut universal laws and the question that remained from that discussion was ‘how do we agree upon these natural universal laws when there are literally thousands of different interpretations as to what they are?’ Kant provides a litmus test for the ‘natural law’ and surprise surprise the tool that is needed to motor the equation is reason.

Universal morals and the Golden Rule
Categorical Imperitive – Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

The Good Will – what matters is intentions not outcomes

Deontology – Duty, or doing what is right for its own sake, is the foundation of morality.

Beneficience – the duty to do good acts and to promote happiness
“To be beneficent when we can is a duty; and besides this, there are many minds so sympathetically constituted that, without any other motive of vanity or self-interest, they find a pleasure in spreading joy around them, and can take delight in the satisfaction of others so far as it is their own work.”(51b)

Reason is what the tool for determining whether something is moral
“The preeminent good which we call moral can therefore consist in nothing else than the conception of law in itself, which certainly is only possible in a rational being…”(52a)

Examples –
Do not lie, and kissing

Discussion Question?

What is wrong with this? If nothing, why don’t we use it?

Syllabus

2005-09-01T09:03:00.000-07:00

Contemporary Moral Problems Syllabus
Philosophy 2400 sections 2 and 4
Fall 2005

Instructor: Charles Carlson
Office: Scott Hall 0107D
Phone number: 419-530-4522
E-mail: Charles_Carlson@hotmail.com
Office Hours: Tuesday and Thursday from 3:15 – 5:45

If you would like to meet with me at another time other than my office hours, please arrange with me in advance. I am almost always in my office hours but to make sure that we are able to meet up when you need to talk to me try to let me know if you are coming. My office is in a very confusing part of Scott Hall and getting directions from me beforehand will be helpful to you. The best way to contact me for any question or concern whatsoever is email, which I check far too often.

Text: Analyzing Moral Issues 3rd Edition, Judith A. Boss. ISBN 0072877030

Course Requirements
Two Essays (4-7 pages) over the topics we discussed. You should first pick one of the moral issues which we talked and read about. 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 both 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. 25% each 50% total

Five Case Studies (1-2 Pages)
At the end of each section in the book there are case studies. I will select which case studies and which questions to do and distribute them at the beginning of each topic. I will select two or three per assignment. On the days these are due we will look at the case studies as a class and discuss them. 5% each 25% total

One Quiz. September 8th there will be a quiz over the first couple weeks of class material. We will initially be discussing moral theory before we actually engage in some of the contemporary issues. It will be over material from the book and class and if you have attended regularly you will have a very good idea what it is going to be over. 10%

Late Work: You will lose five points per day for a late assignment, and anything over two weeks late will not be accepted (apart from reasons like death, imprisonment, or the end of the world).

Class participation and attendance: Please read all materials before coming to class. It helps to mark up your books and jot down ideas and sources of confusion while you read. Please bring your books and share any of these ideas or confusions during class time. Think about ways to apply these ideas to what you already know to test them, and think about comparisons and contrasts with other thinkers we look at. As a general rule, you should come to every class every day with something to say, even if it is never said. This is a class where class participation is crucial. Class participation is not continually talking and wasting class time through ambiguous argumentation. Nobody likes it when three people dominate all the talking in a class, this can only be prevented if everyone is willing to participate. This is a seminar-like class where the discussion among the class is important to the value of the class itself. Please have respect for what other people say and believe. Do not insult or condemn anyone for having a view that is different than your own. You are encouraged to provide reasoned and detailed arguments for why a particular view is flawed but just simply saying that it is wrong does not prove that the opposing view actually is wrong.

Avoid missing class. Much of the material for the exams will be covered in class and it will be crucial to your grade to attend regularly. You have three absences before it starts affecting your attendance and participation grade. 15%

Learning Disabilities: If you have a learning disability, please let me know, and I will help you contact the disability center on campus in order to make provisions for you.
Office of Accessibility (530-4981)

Academic Honesty: I expect the highest standards of academic honesty. Cheating, unauthorized collaboration on projects, and plagiarism (defined as the use of another’s ideas, thoughts, or phrases and representing those as your own) will result in failure of the assignment with no opportunity for make-up. See also the UT General Catalog 2004-2006 p. 26
Schedule of Semester’s Readings and Due Dates
Readings for assigned dates should be completed before coming to class

Moral Theory – What does the term morality mean?
Aug. 23rd – pg. 1-4 Intro to moral theory
Aug. 25th – pg. 5-16 and 42-47 Relativism and Aristotle
Aug 30th – pg. 17-19, 68-72, 58-61 Universality/Religion/Confucius and Locke
Sept. 1st – 20-31, 47-54 Kant and Mill
Sept. 6th – 32-42, 61-64 Rights/Virtue and Ayn Rand

Punishment and the Death Penalty
Sept. 8th – 233-239 Intro to the death penalty’s moral issues Moral Theory Quiz at beginning of class
Sept. 13th 240-252 Moral Issues and Van Den Haag
Sept. 15 – 253-272 Morris and Bedau
Sept. 20th – 272 to 279 Reiman and Case Studies Due

Abortion
Sept. 22nd – 77-83 Intro to abortion moral issues
Sept. 27th – 83-90 Medical and Moral issues
Sept. 29 – 91-105 Thomson and Noonan
Oct. 4th – 106-116 Warren and Marquis
Oct. 6th – 117-125 Hales and Case Studies Due

War and Terrorism
Oct. 11th – 629-636 Intro to War
Oct. 13th – Midterm Paper Due
Oct. 20th – 637 to 646 Moral Issues and Anscombe
Oct. 25nd - 649-665 Coady and Hashmi
Oct. 27th – 666-680 Grover and Granoff
Nov. 1st –681-695 Luban and Ruddick
Nov. 3rd – 696-699 and Case Studies Due

Sexual Intimacy and Marriage
Nov. 8th - 349-355 Intro to the Issues
Nov. 10th – 356-363 Marriage and Same Sex Issues
Nov. 15th - 364-367, 378-384 The Vatican and Ruse
Nov. 17th 392-397, 403-411 Nava,Dawidoff and Wasserstrom

Genetic Engineering and Cloning
Nov. 22nd 132-145 History of the Issue and Sex Case Studies Due
Nov. 29th 146-152 Ridley and Anderson
Dec 1st – 160-167
Dec. 6th – 168-174
Dec. 8th - Case Study Due

Final Paper Due Friday Dec. 16th (no late papers)

Moral Theory Day 2

2005-09-01T07:04:00.000-07:00

Moral Theory Day 2

Universal Morality

God Given -
If Truth is not created by the person who wields it, then it must exist in some concrete location which we can refer to. One of the most frequent answers to the question ‘where does this truth lie’ is to say that it is in the sacred texts of a religion.

Divine Command Theory – Moral because God approves of it

Ad hominem on page 19

Morality already present in world by nature -
“A list of virtues or duties drawn up by a Bhuddist would not differ very greatly from one drawn up by a Christian, a Confucianist, a Mohammadan or a Jew. Formally all of the ethico-religious systems are universalist in scope.” – Morris Ginsberg

Religion provides a moral theory as one of its main purposes, and there are components of this moral theory which carry through to all religions. In particular something like the golden rule

Natural Law Theory – God commands something because it is moral, not the other way around

Morality is grounded in rational human behaviour, not God’s personal desires or feelings. Morality exists already embedded in the world but it takes informed reasoning to uncover it.

Thomas Aquinas-

Problems
If Morality is determined by a religion, which religion is it? There are literally thousands

Pg. 17 divinely inspired folk – “If someone claims that God spoke to her and commanded her to oppose cloning, we have no independent criteria for judging whether she, in fact, heard God or not.”(18)

How do we know when we have correctly reasoned to the natural moral right?

Aristotle

What is moral for Aristotle?
“Virtue, then, is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean, i.e. the mean relative to us, this being determined by a rational principle, and by that principle by which the man of practical wisdom would determine it.”(46)

All Actions aim at happiness –
“Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for his reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim.”(43)

The Mean –
Applying intellectual and moral virtue one can determine the appropriate amount one should engage in any activity.

Habit –
“For one swallow does not make a summer, nor does one day; and so too one day, or a short time, does not make a man blessed and happy…”(44)

“[w]e become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts.”(44b)

Confucius

What is moral for Confucius –
Duty to our fellow humans. A just and well ordered society(obey parents, good rulers)

Sayings -
“A gentlemen that studies in unlikely to be inflexible.”(69)

“There is no point in seeking the views of a Gentleman who, though he sets his heart on the Way, is ashamed of poor food and poor clothes.”(70a)

“Do not oppose on others what you yourself do not desire.”(70b)

To Rulers: “Just desire the good yourself and the common people will be good. The virtue of the gentleman is like wind; the virtue of the small man is like grass. Let the wind blow over the grass and ti is sure to bend.”(71a)

John Locke

What is moral for Locke?
Natural rights ethics

The state of nature and the existence of reason –
“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions”(59)

Natural Law –
“God,who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life and convenience.”(59b)

Discussion Questions:
Can you be religious and subscribe to a particular moral theory and engage in a reasoned moral debate about the morality of something. Shouldn’t you just repeat what the moral theory says?

What role does the ‘authority’ have in enforcing a moral theory? Pg. 44b What about if the leaders are un-virtuous themselves. What would Locke say?

Is the mean a personal thing? If so is Aristotle a relativist?

Moral Theory Day 1

2005-09-01T07:00:00.000-07:00

Moral Theory 1st Lecture

“What good fortune for those in power that people do not think.” – Adolph Hitler

Vietnam War documentary Hearts and Mind – an unflinching look at how the United States conducted the war and the effects and aftereffects of the war on those who, in one way or another, were involved in it. One interview involved a former bomber who upon seeing the devastation he had brought to a small village and the people who lived in it realized he was responsible for the very same damage and transformed his understanding of his ‘job.’ Piloting his plane to a particular set of coordinates and pushing a switch to release his load of bombs was now inexorably linked with the knowledge that he bombs he dropped killed and maimed not only the enemy soldiers they were meant to kill and main, but innocent civilians as well. The aim of this class and my hope for it is that we will examine the various buttons that we push on command and analyze their moral worth ourselves.

The “eat it, it tastes good” example

Yale Psychologist Stanley Milgram and his experiment on Americans

“Those who were able to resist the authority figure…were able to provide justifications, in the form of moral principles and moral theory, for their refusal; they were able to say why continuing to deliver the shocks was wrong.”(pg. 1)

The goal of this class is to try and define the term Moral. And then to apply your definition of moral to contemporary issues were the ambiguity of morality is still an issue.

If you merely defer to the authority or refuse to take a stand when an obvious moral injustice is being committed you face the possibility of ending up as a pawn for an unmoral authority.

“Moral philosophy is the study of the values and guidelines by which we live, as well as the justification of these values and guidelines.”(pg. 2)

Is morality just a matter of opinion? Do some opinions have more weight than others? Do you want to have weight to your opinions?

A few logical fallacies to look out for:
Accident: committed whenever one argues that because a certain generalization is usually true, it holds in a particular case, even though that particular case has certain “accidental” characteristics which make the generalization inapplicable and thus not true for that particular case.
Example: The constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Therefore, my religious practice of human sacrifice is constitutionally guaranteed

Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to force): The fallacious appeal to force is committed whenever a threat of force or coercion is utilized to cause acceptance of a conclusion
Example: Instructor to class – I know you will be interested in attending every class this semester, because I will give failing grades to anyone who misses a class session.

Argumentum ad Hominem (to the man) The ad Hominem fallacy is committed whenever one tries to cause the rejection of a particular proposition by criticizing or abusing the person who asserts that proposition, rather than attacking the truth or falsity of the proposition itself.
Example: Of course we can’t accept Einstein’s theory of relativity! After all, Einstein was nearly blind, had wild and unruly hair, and could not even do elementary algebra problems!

Argumentum ad Ignorantium (appeal to ignorance): Committed whenever one concludes that a particular proposition s true because it has not been proven false. Or that a proposition is false because it has been unable to be proven true
Example: I have no evidence to prove that God is not playing hacky sack on the other side of this wall, so therefore God is playing hack on the other side of that door. Or Aliens have not been proven not to exist, so therefore they must exist.

Argumentum ad Populum (appeal to the masses) Committed whenever one attempts to cause acceptance of a particular conclusion by using tequniques to arouse the enthusiasm of the multitudes. (A frequent tool of advertising)

Two kinds:
Snob appeal: buy this sports car and you will be the envy of the neighborhood
Band Wagon: 30 million Americans can’t be wrong
“If all your friends jumped a bridge would you?”

Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority) Committed whenever one attempts to win the acceptance of a conclusion by appealing to a reputed authority on the subject when that authority is not in fact an authority on the subject in question.
Example: Kobe Bryant for Sprite

False Cause: I started my car and it started to rain, therefore starting the car was the cause of the rain.

Ignoratio Elenchi (irrelevant conclusion) committed whenever one attempts to prove a particular conclusion by using premises directed toward proving different conclusions.
Example: Tests have shown that the new drug Carlsonix has relieved headaches. Therefore Carlsonix cure’s cancer.

Bottom line when: Just because an argument is persuasive does not necessarily entail that is logically valid and correct.

What is a Moral Theory? What does it mean when somebody says they have a philosophy about life? Where do these theories come from?

Moral theories as roadmaps. Except that there is no Random Mcnally in the ethical world.

“We all approach the world with certain assumptions that, loosely, form our theories about what to expect in the world In any culture there are certain theories that are so embedded in the cultural worldview that they are uncritically assumed to be true. For example, in Western culture the theory that humans are superior to and separate from other animals is rarely questioned.”
We must constantly examine our foundational beliefs and provide justification for them if we are to make moral judgments based on them. So….why do we think that humans are superior to animals what makes us special?

Ethical Relativism – state that morality is different for different people. An ethical relativist claims that morality is invented or created by people; therefore morality, like fashion, can vary from time to time and form person to person. Cultural relativism is the theory that morality is relative to social norms and values of the society. “The fact of moral disagreements among individuals and between cultures raises the question of whether there are really any objective or universal moral principles.”(5)

Two Kinds:

Ethical Subjectivism –
“What I feel is right is right. What I feel is wrong is wrong.” – Rousseau
The basic idea is that morality is a private choice

Cultural Relativism –
“We recognize that morality differs in every society, and is a convenient term for socially approved habits.” – Ruth Benedict

If it is right within a particular culture to do some act, then that act inside that culture is moral.
Ex. Female Circumcision

Major Problems with Ethical Relativism
-doublethink
-Logical flaws
-Universal rights and wrongs in religion and culture