In this course we will examine and assess arguments addressing different positions on such controversial topics as abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, censorship, terrorism, economic inequality, and animal rights.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on voluntary euthanasia
The groups:
Triple Certified 30
Loganistan 29
Fantastic Four 25
Righteous Killers 25
Supastas 25
Backrow Crew 25
Slightly less than sober… 24
No Names 22
Embrosia 21
Strangers with Candy 20
Huenemann’s Scholars 18
Tabula Rosa 18
Armed Prophets 16
Righteous Killers- group report #1
(Prepared by Ethan) Our first group discussion covered question one and two from the reading on page twenty-seven. Ethan started out the discussion with the first question on the value of human life. The book poses the question as to which is more valuable a fifty-year-old man’s life or a twenty-year-old man’s life? Craig answered with an explanation that due to the potential value of either life, which should be disposed of could not be determined. Each had indispensable value of life. Craig also stated that life is so indispensable because it is so much more difficult to create in opposition to creating death. In death there are no possibilities to progress, death disables and destroys, life gives one the ability to progress. This property of life is why life is so precious and deserves preservation. In response to the second part of question one the group decided that our answer went along quite well with Marquis’s theory and therefore it is a viable theory.
The next part of the discussion was centralized around the reading on Marquis’s second question. Ethan posed the question: If Marquis’s theory about the wrongness of killing being immoral is considered correct, then can that be extended to the idea that contraception is morally wrong? Ethan argued that if the cells of the body were to be considered alive, then the sperm and egg cells are alive and the use of contraceptives is killing them. Expanding on that thought since we value life the way we do should not women be getting pregnant and having children as often as possible? The group decided that this argument was too strong and therefore tossed it. We came back to the idea of whether or not cells were alive. The group consulted and decided that they were and despite that they were alive it was not murder to use contraception. It is a natural process for cells to “time out” of sorts.
Next we moved to discussing our thoughts of how this affected abortion. Ethan asked the question when does the fetus become more than a collection of cells? Juan, Craig, and Lino formed a consensus that the fetus cell was a special case cell that was more of a being at conception. Lino made the final closing thought that since criminal intent killing is defined as intentional murder. With our previous determination of life Lino commented that maybe abortion was murder as well.
1-13-09
Weekly Group Summary
Triple Certified:
Our group discussed question 1 on page 27. “If the wrongness of killing derives from the fact that the victim is deprived of the value of his or her future, does it follow that it is less wrong to kill someone fifty years old than it is to kill someone twenty years old? If so, does this implication suggest that there is some deficiency in Marquis’s theory about the wrongness of killing?”
Our discussion began with reference to the major assumption that his article is predicated on, and the lack of attention to the problem of providing compelling argument to support his claim that a fetus holds the same moral standing as an adult human being. We discussed how this problem is at the basis of many considerations in the ethical issues regarding abortion. However, if we are to take Marquis’s argument (assumptions and all) for it’s own sake then we agreed that there are some interesting ideas presented.
Bentley commented that his theory on the wrongness of killing is very intuitive and self-evident. It seems to be a realistic account of why we consider killing to be so morally wrong. Carson raised the objection that his theory is perhaps too broad in the fact that it also accounts for the wrongness of killing other entities other than human beings. All sorts of living things have values in their future’s and to deprive them of their future would be as wrong as depriving a human being of it’s future. If his stance on abortion is to be based on this expansive theory on the wrongness of killing then we all agreed that the theory could be narrowed a bit to account for this relevant objection. We then discussed how his theory attributes equal moral status to both fetus’s and adult human beings. Kaleen mentioned that it’s impossible to know exactly what kind of future a developing fetus has. Alexei agreed and continued the objection that some unborn children suffer third trimester miscarriages and have no future to value at all. Kaleen continued the thought and stated that some children are born with severe birth defects, and some may die a miserable death at a very young age.
To address the question that started our lively discussion we concluded that the value that one has on his or her future seems to increase with age to a peak, after which the value would begin to decrease until death. With increased life experiences our valuable future increases and becomes more robust. We concluded that it seems to us (all rational and reasonable adult human beings) that the value a 40 year old has for his or her future is in some way more valuable than the future of an average 2, or 85 year old. This concern for the need to distinguish between the differences in values doesn’t necessarily diminish Marquis’s theory on the wrongness of killing, but it may affect the relevant moral status a fetus has as compared to the moral status of an adult human being.
Our discussion was a successful one and caused each of us to further consider the relevant ethical issues from a conservative perspective to a greater depth. Each group member’s participation was essential to the progress and conclusions of the discussion.
Our group also discussed question 1 on page 27. We didn’t really come around to a conclusion as to which was worse either would be considered murder and thus would be considered wrong but the idea of killing someone with the potential of the majority of their lives ahead of them does seem worse than killing someone who is settling down to watch their golden years go by on the other hand someone who is 20 is probably spending their time out with friends or studying while a 50 year old is on average married with children and many would be looking to better society through community involvement so either person has the potential to contribute at equal levels and both would in all likelihood be mourned and missed. We then discussed question 2 on page 53 (at least that’s where it is in my book but my page numbers are wrong) “In your view does a 24 hour waiting period place a “substantial obstacle” in the path of a woman seeking an abortion?” The conclusion we made was that these sort of policy decisions should be made by people who have to possibility of having to make this decision for themselves namely women but that it may be well advised for the state looking to lay down ground rules on the matter of abortion to provide a wait time for thinking through decisions that may lead to feelings of guilt and remorse later on in one’s life and perhaps to provide unbiased council to a woman as she goes through this wait time so she could express concerns and work through things before going through with the abortion procedure.
If the wrongness of killing derives from the fact that the victim is derived of the value of his or her future, does it follow that it is less wrong to kill someone fifty years old than it is to kill someone twenty years old? If so, does this implication suggest that there is some deficiency in Marquis’s theory about the wrongness of killing?
Jake’s argument was that we are quantifying the years of a person in order to quantify the people themselves. He talked about discussing the deaths to the fifty year old and the twenty year old. “Should we kill you in 10 years or 15 years?” was a phrase that Jake used to help the ‘victims’ understand that they will die no matter what. Jake then argued that the fact that someone has a future at all means that they don’t want to be deprived of any of it, it’s just something that you can’t qualify; and that simply having a future, any quantity of it, is worth living all of it.
Jordan responded by saying that there is a weakness in the paradigm that you can qualify value to life. Just because everyone’s going to die eventually, why not die earlier? She also believed that quality of life is strong at the beginning of life and that the younger have more to do, more to live for, and usually accomplish more.
Jake brought up the common phrase that the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. It leads to killing people over 60 to save kids in Africa. Value of life is in a different sphere, and cannot be attached a quantitative value. It doesn’t work with our values of what is right and wrong.
Dan argued that if Marquis cut out his support for Euthanasia, his argument would be more reinforced. Also, that Marquis’ view of people and that why not to kill them because of their future leads to thinking that the value attached to a human being is due to its quantity and quality of future, thus turning the human race into a view of Economics.
We ended the discussion with Mike saying that we can’t put a value on the next year of his life and that we make our own lives and create our own futures.
Does Marquis provide a satisfactory response to the possible objection that his theory about the wrongness of killing implies that contraception is morally wrong?
Dan believes that contraception is a definite threat to Marquis’s paradigm, and that although he addressed this problem, he did not do a sufficient job. Jake and Mike then had a discussion about if the article was strictly reserved to human beings. Mike brought up Catholic viewpoint of contraception.
Thanks for the posts. I’d like to explain how I would grade these summaries.
To my mind, The Righteous Killers and Triple Certified have excellent summaries. It is easy to see the connections between what the group members say and what’s in the text; they are engaging the arguments in the text and producing thoughtful responses to them. Very much on-task. Each summary gets a “3″.
The responses by Armed Prophets and Slightly Less Than Sober are good, but too general. I’d like to see more of the give-and-take among the members of Armed Prophets — was it an easy consensus, with no one raising objections? There should be some objections somewhere, even if only for the sake of argument. Similar details are lacking in the Slightly Less group. Did everyone just accept Jake’s point and move on, or did anyone object? What does it mean to say “if Marquis cut out his support for Euthanasia, his argument would be more reinforced”? The summaries are good — I give them each a “2″ — but they aren’t as tightly focused as the first two.
Prepared by (Molli Merrill) –
Our group discussed Thomson’s article “A Defense of Abortion.”
Shantel gives a summary of Thoomson’s article. “Thomson had many anaologies that provided a defensible account of the right to life. Her main arguement and her point of view is that of an unjust killing. She argues that abortion is not impermissible, but does not argue that it is always permissible. In cases where the women participates in intercourse and knows she can get pregnant and than does, its than that its an unjust killing when it comes to abortion. But when you have a woman who was raped, the women didn’t want to get pregnant and didnt really have control over it, and so in that situation it is not an unjust killing, or in the case of the mothers health is at risk of givng birth. She is very against if the women comes to have an abortion at seven months just because it doesn’t work out with her plans of a trip or something, that that is an unjust killing. She really just argues on every situation on depending on the cirucumstances if an abortion is appropriate or not. And if you believe the fetus to be a living being. ”
All around, our group came to the consensus that we disagreed with Thomson’s defense of abortion, although, we do agree that in some cases, such as rape and times when the mother’s health is in danger. I (Molli) came to the conclusion that the many analogies that Thomson made were quite absurd and ridiculous. When she compares pregnancy to being hooked up to a violin player it just doesn’t make any sense. First of all, a fetus is something that grows inside of you, not a full grown man attached to you. Second, it is not like one day you wake up and are pregnant without ever possibly knowing what happened. You make a choice when you have sex, and you know that you have possiblity of becoming pregnant. Third, Thomson’s analogy claims you are in bed for 9 months. That is rarely the case when it comes to pregnancy.
Lishelle and Sarah were somewhat more lenient towards this analogy. They see the analogy as a beter comparison to pregnancy. They claim that the fact that the violinist is a stranger, but a very valuable stranger, is also like a fetus. A fetus is a stranger, but however you may argue, is or may become something very valuable.
Shantel, came to the conclusion that she disagreed with Thomson, because she never seemed to make it clear what argument she was for. She even once says “First, while I do argue that abortion is not permissible, I do not argue that it is always permmissible.” We all felt like Thomson contradicted herself so much, that it was almost too hard to follow the text.
This is not a group response but it is something I think people might be interested in looking at. It is just some of the facts on who, when, why, and how people are having abortions. It’s from a very reliable source and is interesting to look at. I hope you enjoy.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
Here is another site, slightly older than the first posted site, but the section that I found particularly interesting was the section titled “Why women have abortions.”
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
Those are very interesting statistics, Mr, Weiler; thanks for linking to them.
(prepared by Heidi). On Sunday January 18, 2009 team No Name sat to discuss the social problem of abortion. “A Defense of Abortion” by Judith Jarvis Thomson and “Majority Opinion in Roe v. Wade” by Justice Harry A. Blackmun. The main question that drove the first part of our musing was whether or not Thomson provided a defensible account of the right of life. We liked how she pointed out that even though it might not be ethical; it’s not an obligation. But, we didn’t like the stories she used to support her concept. Richard explained how he thought that part of her problem was her examples being so abstract. I agreed, her arguments weren’t convincing because the concept of floating cells felt lame, she could have used something stronger. Perhaps a real life scenario: using protection (netting your house) and having it fail, happens all the time, it is not your fault sperm (seeds) got in. Why then should you be obligated to let take over your body (let it grow on you)? It really would not be that hard to give the real issue at hand and not some weird picture to describe it. She should have simply stated her point instead of complicating it with weak examples and abstract concepts.
Now Blackmun acted very logical to all important issues and ideas. We agreed that this article supported our personal views. The right to privacy is a must. We talked about potential life, and where life begins. We believe that that is the true question which needs to be settled, if we settled time of life then everything else would be complete. Abortion would be legal up to a certain stage, like Blackmun says the first trimester is touchable. Then there is a period of time until liability where on the national level does not take a stand. The national law turns it over to the state. -I didn’t understand this, why wouldn’t they make such an important law the same for everyone. My group members explained to me the obvious answer; that between each state are various levels of conservative and liberal views. Texas would make tighter laws then say California and such. The government tries super hard to please everyone; I think they just put the burden of deciding on someone else despite the accommodation to residents. We talked about how gross it is to have an abortion after the first trimester. Richard thinks that women must make up their minds by then or it’s just sick and wrong. We discussed the danger of bootlegging abortions, and how abortion up to a certain point is a must in order to keep these from happening. Making abortion illegal just makes it dangerous. Women who want abortions bad enough are willing to do anything anyways. This topic led us into the discussion of the drinking age, and controlled substances. The joy of talking about social problems!
All around we concluded that the question of ‘when life begins’ is most important to making a decision about abortion. We were all very similar in our views, no one really over powering the another. In my eyes, we listen well to each other and can easily see where the other views are coming from.
Justice Blackmun makes the claim that the state has a legitimate claim in protecting the mother’s health after the first trimester and also that the state has a claim of protecting a potential life after the point of viability. These are very interesting claims, and as we discussed in class and then further discussed in our group, they seem at first glance that there is a slight compromise and everyone wins. But as we talked it is very evident that this is very much a pro-choice and not at all a compromise that pro-life supporters would feel is acceptable. It seems as though there is not compromise possible between these two groups. Those in support of pro-choice may feel they can come to a compromise but it does not seem that the pro-life supporters have any ground whatsoever to give. It seems that the pro-life support is an all or nothing claim, with the exception of the mother’s life at risk or even rape or incest. Those also present a very interesting argument against those in support of pro-life. They are against abortion because it takes the life of a potential person but with incest or rape they, not all I might add, feel abortion is acceptable. It just seems a little odd that the child’s life takes on different meaning or value when it is conceived through rape or incest. It seems that one who is such a pro-life supporter would value that life regardless.
(Prepared by Juan) 2nd Group Discussion
Thomson’s overall analysis culminates in a moderate view on abortion, but does her moderate view incline more in a conservative direction or more in a liberal direction.
Thomson leaves us on the matter of abortion in that the answer is not clear. Although she finishes up her essay with arguments that move away a little from her thread of thinking, she clearly stands more on the liberal stand of the discussion. In Craig’s opinion, the examples she uses to defend her position seem too extremist. Craig argues that Thomson does little, if none, concern for the fetus. The thread of thinking is more concerned with the health of the mother. I have to agree that Thomson’s examples, including the violinist and the burglar example, to be far-fetched with reality. The trouble Craig and I find with her arguments is that at best they are hard to evaluate and at worst useless. During our discussion of Thomson’s essay, we encountered the distinction between obligations versus moral decency. In this respect, Ethan pointed out the example of Kitty Genovese. From Thomson’s point of view, nobody had an obligation to help Kitty escape or call the police, but it was clearly indecent of everyone. In Ethan’s words, the bar was set low for morality standards. Lino followed up by pointing out that by disregarding the fetus on the matter of whether abortion is permissible has the same connotations as the Kitty example: we are setting the bar low in terms of moral decency. If a child is born as a result of a pregnancy caused by rape, is this child less worthy of life compared to normal pregnancies? We might be causing such a perception by only regarding abortion in terms of rights rather than in terms of moral decency.
Justice Blackmun contends that the state’s legitimate interest in protecting the health of the mother becomes “compelling” at the end of the first trimester. Does the Court’s choice of this particular point as “compelling” have any substantial justification, or is the choice fundamentally arbitrary?
The Courts finds that after the first trimester during the pregnancy, the State has an interest concerning the health of the mother. The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restriction on abortion as the pregnancy period goes on. Craig contends that the health of the mother has always to be considered. He argues that it is ridiculous to set a “compelling” point where the health of the mother becomes of interest. However, Ethan, Lino and I argue that the choice is not fundamentally arbitrary. It follows from a medical fact that the life of the mother falls potentially into jeopardy after the first trimester. The court’s decision is in fact justifiable and fair. It takes into account both the health of the mother and the legal rights of the fetus to life at the point of viability. We all agreed that since philosophers, doctors, and those trained in theology cannot reach a conclusion on the point at where life begins, the courts, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, are not in any position to set a point. In an effort to enforce the law in such a way that nobody is left out of the picture, that is pro-choice and pro-life advocates, the courts enacted a pretty fair decision. In the end the court’s decision was not arbitrary since it was put in place to both protect the mother’s life and respect her right to choice.
Week 2 Discussion on Abortion, Loganistan, prepared by Tom Weiler
Roe v Wade Question 3: Justice Blackmun explicitly disavows entering into philosophical speculation on the problem of the beginning of human life. To what extent could it be said that he implicitly takes a philosophical position on this problem?
The discussion started out with a reference to Blackmun conclusion that it was not the courts decision that it was not the court’s place to say when human life begins. It started off with everyone kind of passively agreeing with this conclusion by the justices. Mr. Dominguez seemed to take a strong agreement with this. That a woman has the right to abort if she wants up threw the first trimester. That after that it’s a little hazier and that once it hits viability that it is wrong. Krissy took a very similar stance in that the court made the right decision and that this was a sound decision.
Sarah strongly agrees with the court’s decision that it is not their place to say when human life begins. It is too much of a religious and moral debate that the legal system should not have a say. It is an individual’s choice and depending on the person’s moral code they can determine for themselves when human life begins and that the legal system dictating morals is more oppressive to freedom of choice, which would go against the foundation of the constitution of the United States. Although it is hard to know where to draw the line on when the government should step in and define what is morally wrong and right for the individuals of a country, defining when human life begins oversteps their boundaries.
I was not however satisfied with where it was all left. I agreed that it was probably one of the more logical middle grounds to take, I thought they still made some very significant regulations. If I had it my way I would have a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortions except in the cases of rape or the health of the woman (which combined is only 7% of the over 1 million abortions preformed in the United States annually). I told them that this was for two reasons. First, that I believe human life begins at conception. Because our genetic makeup never changes from that point it is morally wrong to terminate something of our own species out of convince.
Sarah’s response to this point is that there are more rapes not reported and that it is too hard to determine what type of health takes precidence in the other cases. Why is physical health more important than emotional or mental health? Also, Sarah says that it is very much a philosophical debate as to when life begins. Sarah doesn’t believe that human life begins at conception. And it is morally wrong to bring a human life into a situation where it is not wanted or welcome. She sees that it is more socially detrimental to not allow abortion than to allow it. If a woman is opposed to getting an abortion and has moral quams against it she does not have to obtain one.
Second is because if you have to make a decision you ought to draw it at the most clear definite line or draw no line at all. The court made implied definitions of when a fetus has a moral status and when it doesn’t and when it’s unsure. Which seems to be a weak call and shows a lacking ability to make official ruling on what is right and wrong or just (which is their job). I asked the group if they thought that this decision would ever have a significant change done to it. If the conservatives would keep fighting to win or if the liberals would push for more. Mr Dominguez didn’t seem to think that it would change. That it was a sound strong ruling. Krissy however believed that this debate was not over and would not end soon, if ever. That the conservatives have not had their way and will try to move the line back and that the liberals will defend it and that eventually it will surface in a popular vote or supreme court case again. I agreed with Krissy that this issue will not go away, but differed in that I think the issue is stagnant, that no real headway will be made in either direction. Although I said earlier, I disagree with the court’s moderate ruling, I think they played it safe with a choice that will be hard to change.
Sarah thinks that the issue will continue to be ongoing, although she agrees that there has been no significant headway in either direction. The only way for either side to make a budge on this issue would be if there was concrete evidence about when human life actually begins. Sarah also thinks that type of evidence is too hard to prove in either direction but both liberal and conservative sides will continually seek evidence to prove or disprove either side’s claim.
1-13-09
Weekly Group Summary
Triple Certified:
Our group discussed question 1 on page 27. “If the wrongness of killing derives from the fact that the victim is deprived of the value of his or her future, does it follow that it is less wrong to kill someone fifty years old than it is to kill someone twenty years old? If so, does this implication suggest that there is some deficiency in Marquis’s theory about the wrongness of killing?”
Our discussion began with reference to the major assumption that his article is predicated on, and the lack of attention to the problem of providing compelling argument to support his claim that a fetus holds the same moral standing as an adult human being. We discussed how this problem is at the basis of many considerations in the ethical issues regarding abortion. However, if we are to take Marquis’s argument (assumptions and all) for it’s own sake then we agreed that there are some interesting ideas presented.
Bentley commented that his theory on the wrongness of killing is very intuitive and self-evident. It seems to be a realistic account of why we consider killing to be so morally wrong. Carson raised the objection that his theory is perhaps too broad in the fact that it also accounts for the wrongness of killing other entities other than human beings. All sorts of living things have values in their future’s and to deprive them of their future would be as wrong as depriving a human being of it’s future. If his stance on abortion is to be based on this expansive theory on the wrongness of killing then we all agreed that the theory could be narrowed a bit to account for this relevant objection. We then discussed how his theory attributes equal moral status to both fetus’s and adult human beings. Kaleen mentioned that it’s impossible to know exactly what kind of future a developing fetus has. Alexei agreed and continued the objection that some unborn children suffer third trimester miscarriages and have no future to value at all. Kaleen continued the thought and stated that some children are born with severe birth defects, and some may die a miserable death at a very young age.
To address the question that started our lively discussion we concluded that the value that one has on his or her future seems to increase with age to a peak, after which the value would begin to decrease until death. With increased life experiences our valuable future increases and becomes more robust. We concluded that it seems to us (all rational and reasonable adult human beings) that the value a 40 year old has for his or her future is in some way more valuable than the future of an average 2, or 85 year old. This concern for the need to distinguish between the differences in values doesn’t necessarily diminish Marquis’s theory on the wrongness of killing, but it may affect the relevant moral status a fetus has as compared to the moral status of an adult human being.
Our discussion was a successful one and caused each of us to further consider the relevant ethical issues from a conservative perspective to a greater depth. Each group member’s participation was essential to the progress and conclusions of the discussion.
1-20-09
Roe V Wade Question 3
Our discussion commenced with drawing the line between morality and legality. Kaleen brought up the point that the Justice’s point to make a legal decision can be easily misinterpreted by those after a moral decision. Particularly, we looked at whether it was government’s job to even discern a moral choice such as supposed murder for us or whether they should simply, as done in the decision, draw a line and allow a practice to occur that is clinically safe and whose morality is of personal choice.
Moreover, Bentley went on to bring up that in many ways the argument of abortion could be perceived as an epistemological one. Namely what is to be a human or what isn’t. How do we define human life and how do we fine murder. From this point, Bentley also drew a comparison of technological developments and philosophical development in contrast to abortion rights. Namely, he pointed out the way in which as technology has become safer in regards to abortion, and thought has evolved to further adress the issue of existence, that abortion rights have increased to the point of its legalization in our nation. However, to this I brought up the issue that abortion has been ongoing since the dawn of history. In terms of philosophical discourse, I brought up Plato’s republic where Plato’s Socrates moves to a darker horizon by advocating not just abortion’s morality and legality but also controlled breeding and infanticide.
At this point Carson brought up how technological progression has also caused what could be perceived of a weakening of “survival of the fittest” and noted how modern medicine has not just advanced abortion rights but in a broader scope has also allowed for children that could not have been kept alive even a hundred years ago to live to adulthood. He asked whether perhaps as medicine grows and our world becomes overpopulated due to lack of natural controls, if abortion couldn’t be seen as a self imposed population control method. This brought us around to a point from our previous meeting. Namely, the drawing of arbitrary lines to define when its morally right to kill,or in this case, to have an abortion.
We agreed that the Justice’s reasons for drawing the line where he did is properly backed up. We also moved on to talk about viability, though. And of how viability age keeps dropping. Namely, how since the time of the writing of the decision the age of viability of a fetus has gone down by two weeks. This brought us to discuss what the future of abortion will be. I brought up the issue that perhaps eventually when, as Kaleen noted, viability will be at the moment of conception, that one could have adoption after conception—perhaps a replacement for emergency contraception. However, both Kaleen and Carson brought up that as we noted earlier, overpopulation could lead such a future to still favor abortion, as the foster care system is already overburdened and an increase in the number of children given up for adoption might not be the way to go. Namely we brought up an issue that had been raised in both our previous meeting and in class, the value of quantity versus quality of life. Is it worth it to have thousands of new lives that would have been aborted if it means that they will be raised in an inadequate foster care system?
We came full circle at this point as we discussed the morality of abortion versus its legality as drawn out by the Blackmun. Moreover, we noted that at their heart, our two discussions had boiled down to three arguments : morality v legality, quantity v quality, and the drawing of arbitrary lines.
I start out our conversation with a bit of a cynical point of view, Can you think of some concrete situations in which considerations related to motherhood and/or respect for creation might incline a woman to abortion? Can you think of some concrete situations in which considerations related to motherhood and/or respect for creation might incline a woman against abortion
I start out our conversation with a bit of a cynical point of view, I do believe this was carried out extensively in class, but the point of view I stand behind was very much different than my classmates, seeing as though I enjoy being able to determine what change comes into my life and how a baby should be a blessing not a misfortune. I believe that as sad as it is our foster homes and orphanages globe wide are full of kids that didn’t ask to be born into an abusive home, or ask for their mom to smoke crack during the duration of her pregnancy. I can also take the position of life is all over more valuable than some brat who can’t keep her legs closed, obviously abortions should not be permissible after 4 months or as a means of birth control on a regular bases. I won’t go as far to say Little made any concrete point, unless of course you can explain to me the connection between a baby and a violin.
Jon’s point of view — First Q: In the respect for creation aspect, one could say that if conceived under less than ideal circumstance, a mother could have such respect for life that she could believe that life should be able- and deserves– to have all the commodities and comforts available. If she feels that the child wouldn’t be able to have all those comforts, she could somehow reason that life would be better to not exist in that case. – long shot?
Q2: I feel that most people fall under this category. that doesn’t make it wrong or right. I find that many women feel that motherhood is a divine calling, and although they might feel overwhelmed by an unexpected pregnancy, they would be honored and respectful of the opportunity to bring life into the world.
Alice finished us up — Well, I think that if you talk to many different women about what a concrete situation that they would consider respect for creation and push a woman towards abortion, you would get many answers. One might consider taking this fetus out of this crazy world before it got forced into it respect for creation and decide to end the fetus’s life. Another might consider ending the pregnancy because the child was conceived with someone that the mother didn’t love or have relations with anymore as respect for creation and motherhood. I personally don’t think either of these situations would be my reasoning for abortion, but like I said, you have many different brains out there thinking about what they consider respect for motherhood and creation.
I think that Jon has the second part of this question right on with what I would consider to be true. I think that for a lot of women, they believe that the opportunity to become a mother and carry such a precious calling as to bring a child into the world, that they would never even consider abortion. But I also know that there are those women out there that have that same respect for life and motherhood that get pregnant but don’t want that high of a calling yet and decide not to do an abortion, but choose to do the adoption route.
Group discussion #2
Based on Blackmun’s article and the answers we discussed to numbers 2.
Question number 2 asks whether the court’s choice of when the point of viability has any substantial justification, or whether it is fundamentally arbitrary. I (Molli), do not believe abortion should be legal at any point, because I do not believe anybody, especially a court, can determine an exact point to when the fetus actually becomes a living fetus. Who’s to say a fertilized egg is not a human.
Shelly, (Lishelle) disagrees, she believes yes the court is reasonable in the matter. She also agrees that you should not be allowed to have an abortion after the first trimester. She feels that thier should be no abortion unless the mother is in cruical circumstances that will be affecting her life.
Sarah took a similar approach as Shelly, she agreed with the court in terms that after the 3rd trimester abortion should not be permissable. She didn’t agree with the court in the matter that abortion is any more permissable before the 3rd trimester. She doesn’t think that any fetus develops at exactly the same rate and that you should put an exact time (3rd trimester) when now abortion is not allowed. Sarah does not believe abortion should ever be permissible.
Shantel says, “I personally don’t think that the child shouldnt be protected untill “viability”. Maybe the child isn’t really a living human been the second it is concieved, but it doesn’t take more than a few weeks when it starts developing into a baby.” She thinks the court has the the right to protect the future personage. Only on the case of rape should abortion be taken out of the governments hands, or if the mother will die if she gives birth. But any other reason, the woman should not be allowed to have an abortion, everyone deserves a right to life and the state’s legitmate interest in protecting potential life becomes compelling at the point of conception.
I think everybody has a similar opinion, in that the court did the best they could in this type of situation to please everybody. Shantel and I, however, still do not believe this is the best law because we have strong feelings against abortion.
I know our class has moved from abortion to euthanasia, but there was something I felt inclined to comment on regarding the previous topic. There were a handful of comments made in class and on the blog about how women considering abortions shouldn’t have had sex in the first place. To this, I would like to say that our discussion is concerning organisms that have already been conceived. We are discussing whether or not it is moral to terminate pregnancies that are already in progress, not whether or not the woman in question should have engaged in sex.
That’s an excellent observation. I would also add that the old “… then you shouldn’t have had sex in the first place” reply makes a significant presumption: that abortion is so wrong that people should regulate their behavior so as not to put themselves in a position where abortion might be a good option. In other words, they presume that the woman has an obligation to carry the fetus, because she had sex. But the very question is whether there is any such obligation. If there is no obligation then it makes no sense to talk about what she should or shouldn’t have done. (Note that premarital sex could still be wrong on other grounds, though; chapter 4 is on the way.)
Anonymous does make a good point, and I agree with Huenemann’s take on it. But I want to look at it from another point of view:
Studies suggest that the vast majority of Americans find abortion as birth control to be morally objectionable. (I take the ‘you should not have to worry about abortion because you should not have had sex in the first place’ to be an objection to using abortion as birth control). What is interesting is that this holds even for those who self-identify as “pro-choice”. I think this is one of the most interesting facts about how people view abortion, and it is something worthy of further reflection.
Does this point to an internal inconsistency in their position? If they are pro-choice for good reasons – they don’t think the unborn is a human being/person yet – then they should find nothing at all objectionable in aborting for whatever reason, even if it is mere convenience or birth control. (If the unborn is not a person but is just tissue, then who cares – no one objects to someone picking a scab or biting their nails, after all). But yet, almost everyone does object to abortion as birth control. Is there, buried in their ‘Implicit Philosophy’, a recognition that the unborn is something more than a pile of tissue? That it is, in fact, ‘sacred’ in some way (a person)?
Here is the point: that so many people (including pro-choice folk) find it morally objectionable to abort as birth control suggests that there is a basic moral intuition that the unborn has some sort of ‘special standing’.
Now there are a few possible conclusions we might draw from this interesting fact about the widespread discomfort with abortion as birth control (there might be more than these 3, but this is what immediately comes to my mind):
a) There is no inconsistency, we can admit that the unborn has a ‘special standing’ of some sort. It has sufficient moral status to not be aborted for convenience sake or for mere birth control, but lacks sufficient moral status to have an absolute claim to life (Thompson makes roughly this sort of a claim in her article).
b) There is an inconsistency, but it is the common moral intuition hidden in the rejection of abortion as birth control that is wrong-headed.
c) There is an inconsistency, and the moral intuition hidden in the rejection of abortion as birth control is right. The inconsistency arises from having been seduced by the language of ‘choice’ in such a way that one over-rides their more basic moral sensibility.
I found Kleiner’s thoughts on the potential inconsistencies of pro-choice arguments very thought-provoking, but I would like to ask for a bit of clarification on this matter: is abortion not always a means of birth control? The very nature of abortion is to control birth by preventing it. I would assume, then, that the “intuitive moral objection” Kleiner raises is an objection to abortion as the only means of birth control (and interesting to note, the links above say that around half of abortions are performed for women who were using a method of contraception the month they conceived). This, I think, is best explained by Kleiner’s first point. The unborn are part of our species and, if possible, most people would prefer to prevent their existence rather than terminate it early on.
At least, that’s where I stand.
My language was a little sloppy – Anonymous is right, all abortion is ‘birth control’ taken literally. To clarify a bit:
I was relying on a pretty conventional way the public seems to break abortions down. For better or worse, the public debate sorts out the reasons for abortion as: life/health of the mother, health of the unborn (genetic defects, etc), rape/incest, or ‘elective’ abortions. This latter reason is quite broad, and could include any number of reasons (financial, familial, mere convenience, etc etc). When I above referred to ‘abortion as birth control’, I had in mind these ‘elective’ abortions, or perhaps a subset of these elective abortions (the ones made for the most flippant of reasons).
The evidence suggests that the overwhelming majority of Americans would support abortion in cases where the mother’s life or health is at risk or in cases of rape/incest. A smaller but still large majority would support it when the unborn’s health is at risk (genetic defects). In each of these cases there is some over-riding moral reason given for the termination of the pregnancy. In other words, you could believe the unborn has some special standing and still make some sort of argument for abortion in these cases (particularly if you are utilitarian).
(Aside: It is worth noting that abortions for those reasons make up, at most, about 10% of all abortions in the United States.)
What is telling, though, is that ardent pro-choice people (like Hillary Clinton) call other ‘elective’ abortions ‘tragic’. Why call them ‘tragic’, why work hard to avoid unwanted pregnancies, if the unborn does not have some special moral standing? I think Mary Anne Warren, in your text, has the most consistent pro-choice argument – if the unborn is not a person, then you can do whatever you want with that lump of tissue, whenever you want to, for whatever reason. But since that strikes most Americans (including pro-choice Americans) as at least morally callous, if not morally atrocious, this suggests that some deep moral intuition is instructing even most pro-choice people that the unborn has a special status.
In sum, I think it is interesting that most pro-choice Americans are so uneasy about ‘elective’ abortions (especially those made for particularly flippant reasons). What does this tell us about their deeper moral intuitions about the unborn? Does it suggest a basic inconsistency in their pro-choice position?
(Prepared by Richard) The question our group chose to discuss was question 1 on page 74: “Is there a valid distinction between killing and allowing to die?” Heidi thought that for instance taking an aging grandma off her respirator is allowing her to die; or taking someone off a feeding tube is essentially killing them, because this act is in actuality ending the life of this person. I agree that this would constitute murder if the victim were unwilling to give up their own life.
However, the job of a doctor seems that it should more follow the idea of making the patient comfortable, whether this includes extended treatment. But it could also justify methods which would end the life of the patient in a dignified and comfortable manner, and if this is what the patient wants, then it is within their rights. She also brought up the fact that if euthanasia was legalized through doctors or organized institutions it could actually prevent some unnecessary deaths because counseling would be an integral part of the process; and perhaps some people may be willing to talk to caring professionals about their problems under this system, and this may lead to a prevention of unnecessary and painful suicides.
There was also an interesting distinction between the two authors, especially on the aspect of whether a person has a right to their own life, and control over every aspect of it. Heidi did feel that many of these aspects were highly dependent on the morals of individuals, and perhaps legislation is not an answer to these complex problems. Instead, maybe the decision should ultimately lie with the individual over the direction their lives will take.
However, one issue that Heidi took offense with was the decision to end the lives of babies with Down’s Syndrome. The author Daniel Callahan proposed that ending the lives of severely handicapped children may be an acceptable option for euthanasia, and this was directly contrasting to her personal beliefs. She believed that every individual has a right to live regardless of their intelligence or awareness level. These are still human beings, and to simply euthanize these babies on account of their disabilities is unethical in her mind. I agree with her on this point, because I see how these are human beings, and in spite of their disabilities, they deserve an equal chance at life on their own level.
It seemed that we were able to see eye to eye on these issues, and that we were able to each talk and contribute to the group as a whole, without overpowering each other.
Righteous Killers
Discussion #3-Euthanasia
This issue is one that sparked a lot of controversy and conversation for our group. We stuck mainly to the Rachels paper. In general our group seemed to agree that there are situations in which nonvoluntary active euthanasia should be an option. Ethan summed it up best for us by saying that “nonvoluntary active euthanasia should be permissible under conditions of an eminent certain death.” He talked about how there are many situations in which it is definitely the more humane thing to do. It seems useless and cruel that we prolong life that is only full of pain and suffering. Lino talked about a situation where his family had longed to have an option of nonvoluntary active euthanasia. Even in situations where nonvoluntary active euthanasia is an option, the utmost care must be taken to ensure that the family is aware of all of the options that would be available to them. “We need to exercise our best judgment about what is ultimately humane,” states Lino. Ethan also makes the statement that each case needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There is no one size fits all rule for this issue.
When we moved on to bring it closer to home the issue really divided our group. We talked about in what situations we would consider ourselves better off dead and would consider active euthanasia as an option. Craig said that he never would consider active euthanasia as a possibility, but would rather opt for passive and then only in a vegetative state. Lino and Ethan both agreed that they would opt for active euthanasia if they were to develop extreme dementia or be found in a vegetative state.
We next moved on to the topic of how much our religious background played a role in our feelings. Craig felt that his religion wasn’t as big a factor as just wanting to release his family from having to make the decision of when to actively end a life. Lino said of how religion had influenced him, “when Christ said come unto me, he meant it.” Ethan seemed to feel that this decision was based more on his own feelings rather than what was specifically said by his religion.
Discussion #3-Euthanasia
This issue is one that sparked a lot of controversy and conversation for our group. We stuck mainly to the Rachels paper. In general our group seemed to agree that there are situations in which nonvoluntary active euthanasia should be an option. Ethan summed it up best for us by saying that “nonvoluntary active euthanasia should be permissible under conditions of an eminent certain death.” He talked about how there are many situations in which it is definitely the more humane thing to do. It seems useless and cruel that we prolong life that is only full of pain and suffering. Lino talked about a situation where his family had longed to have an option of nonvoluntary active euthanasia. Even in situations where nonvoluntary active euthanasia is an option, the utmost care must be taken to ensure that the family is aware of all of the options that would be available to them. “We need to exercise our best judgment about what is ultimately humane,” states Lino. Ethan also makes the statement that each case needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There is no one size fits all rule for this issue.
When we moved on to bring it closer to home the issue really divided our group. We talked about in what situations we would consider ourselves better off dead and would consider active euthanasia as an option. Craig said that he never would consider active euthanasia as a possibility, but would rather opt for passive and then only in a vegetative state. Lino and Ethan both agreed that they would opt for active euthanasia if they were to develop extreme dementia or be found in a vegetative state.
We next moved on to the topic of how much our religious background played a role in our feelings. Craig felt that his religion wasn’t as big a factor as just wanting to release his family from having to make the decision of when to actively end a life. Lino said of how religion had influenced him, “when Christ said come unto me, he meant it.” Ethan seemed to feel that this decision was based more on his own feelings rather than what was specifically said by his religion.
Prepared by Tyler Hohnholt.
Our group discussion this week was mostly centered on James Rachels article. We discussed active, passive, voluntary, and involuntary euthanasia; however, focused mostly on active and involuntary euthanasia.
Although many have argued that passive and active euthanasia are essentially the same; we did not agree that “letting someone die” and “making someone die” were the same thing. However, there was still a great amount of debate as to which one was more “ethical.” The argument against active euthanasia was, simply, that it was murder; and the argument against passive euthanasia being that it was much more painful than active euthanasia. As it is with most ethical debates; no consensus was reached as to which one was most “ethical.”
There was, however, a consensus that after proper counseling, consent forms, and a waiting period the individual has the full right to active, voluntary, euthanasia. However, there was a great amount of discussion about whether or not involuntary euthanasia should be allowed. We proposed a theoretical scenario in which an individual was in a vegetative state, and could not communicate; at the same time this individual seems either miserable or “lifeless.” The question was, “should a close family member be able to choose active/passive euthanasia for them?” Our group was split on this scenario because the individual would have had no say in whether or not they wanted to live. Half of us concluded that it would be unjust for us to let/make them die and that it is our responsibility to keep them alive. The other half of us concluded that it would be just after the proper precautions have been taken; the requirements that this half decided on were that the individual must have had no apparent cognitive functioning for a given amount of time (1 or 2 weeks) and that the decision should only be made by a close family member.
Also, it was agreed upon by everyone that doctors should have the full right to opt out of administering euthanasia if it is opposed to their moral standards.
Weekly Group Summary
Triple Certified:
Our group decided to talked about Potts’ argument. The discussion started with Kaleen bringing up the possible benefits of active Euthanasia, specifically that requiring therapy for anyone seeking euthanasia might actually prevent suicides. This led Bentley to bring up the statistics that were quoted from the Dutch model. He said he was surprised by how large the percentage of mortality was from euthanasia. I brought up the point I made in class about not being sure that any decision to kill yourself could be rational, Kaleen disagreed. She believes that regardless of whether its rational or not there are a lot of things that are irrational that we let people do all the time. The subject of plastic surgery was brought up as an irrational surgery that is performed everyday. Alexei said that there were possible psychological benefits for the procedures we were deeming irrational and brought us back to Euthanasia by bring up the psychological benefits of not suffering.
We decided to talk about some of the specific points that Potts made against the legalization of Euthanasia. We all agreed that #8, the slipper slope argument, was a bad one that we found unconvincing. Kaleen brought up #5, pressure on the patient,7 as the only one she thought was good. Bentley agreed, saying you have no control over how the patient will feel and they might feel pressured but added that he thought the overall argument made by Potts was not convincing. I agreed but said that I still thought it was a bad idea to institutionalize euthanasia. Alexei said he thought that all of Potts’ arguments were moral but not ethical and that he thought people needed to have the right to choose. Bentley asked if death was intrinsically harmful. I then brought up that it is possible that any experience whether it is good or bad might be better than no experience. Alexei said that even if that was true it was a belief and that I can’t force my beliefs on other people.
Alexei wanted to give us three reasons he though euthanasia should be legal: less stress on the family, the healthcare system, and the person. I brought up Potts’ 5th point again, saying that even if there were not many cases of it there would most definitely be cases of someone who did not really want to die but did not want to burden their family. Bentley said he thought what was most disturbing were possible cases where the family stressed the individual into asking for euthanasia. Kaleen said that this could possibly be addressed by highly structured safeguards. She further added that in cases of an individual wanting to be euthanized for the sake of their family, that in other cultures that kind of self sacrifice was very honorable. Here, we all came to decide that to legalize euthanasia, there would have to be a highly structured system in place. We talked about making special clinics for euthanasia where a physician, a lawyer, and a therapist would all have to work to give the procedure a system of checks and balances. I left our meeting feeling like I was a lot closer to the view that euthanasia should be legal, that it needs to be structured, and that the benefits could far out way any possible harm.
Prepared by: Shantel Flanary
Our group decided to discussion question three on page seventy one. We didn’t have many disagreements when it came to there being any circumstance in which you would be better off dead. But if we were to decide to participate in euthanasia it would be passive, never active. Molli stated, “Personally, I cannot imagine a circumstance where I would necessarily be “better-off” dead, I do, however, believe there is possibly a situation where I may feel I have done all that I can in my life and so it would be alright if I died. If I was in such excruciating pain, with a terminal illness, I do believe in passive euthanasia. It took me a long time to decide whether or not I am for or against active euthanasia, but I have determined that I am against it. I just think that active euthanasia becomes too close to killing, and that it will create a slippery slope that may become irreversible. My religion does play a factor in my beliefs, although I am not sure what their stand is, I believe that God has put you on this earth and knows when to take you out of it, so participating in active euthanasia is interfering with God’s plan.” Our religion played a major role in the choice of euthanasia. We felt that we were put on this earth for a reason and that we are to live with whatever comes our way. Sarah gave her opinion that, “There are very few medical circumstances where I think the patient would be better off dead. There are circumstances when the patient is brain dead and will be a veggie till they die and I think those are situations where you can ask the family what they want to do. I would never allow the possibility of active euthanasia, but there are times when I think passive are something the family might want to think about. My religious does play a part on what I would do. Because of my religion I wouldn’t do active euthanasia.” When it comes to being in a vegetative state we came to an agreement that it would then be up to the family. Shelly thought, “There are many circumstances that I can imagine myself better off dead. But most I wouldn’t take action, for example I could not imagine being paralyzed. Not being able to participate in sports, or in life activities would kill me. And many times when a person becomes paralyzed they would rather die than live and be miserable depending on their attitude. I wouldn’t take action in letting myself die because in this situation I could learn so much. But in other cases if I were surviving on life support only, my brain was a vegetable and the cost to keep me alive was outrageous. And If my family was just watching me lie there, I would rather die; only by passive euthanasia. But it all depends on the different circumstances. And only if you have done all that you can do into saving a person’s life. And my religion plays a huge role into making some decisions. If it is meant to be through my faith the best turnout will happen. Active euthanasia would not be an option. I consider that killing another human being. Were here on earth to learn and experience the difficulties and the joys in life.” Overall, we came to an agreement that depending on the circumstance and the opinion of the family as well, that the only euthanasia that we would ever would be passive, never active euthanasia.
Our group made the decision to work on question 2 (and to some extent 3) from Rachel’s article on page 71.
Question 2. Rachels seems to argue for the moral legitimacy of active euthanasia in general, not the moral legitimacy of voluntary active euthanasia in particular. Is nonvoluntary active euthanasia ever morally justified?
Question 3. Can you imagine medical circumstances in which you would be better off dead? If so, would you welcome the possibility of active euthanasia, or only passive euthanasia? Do your religious beliefs play any role in your thinking on this issue?
At the beginning of the discussion, there seemed to be a general consensus that we believed that active euthanasia is wrong, but for the sake of discussion I started off with the arguments that could possibly be in favor of active euthanasia. I pointed out cases such as societies without resources to care for themselves, may feel a need to let the older people die (or even assist them) in order to spare them suffering and to spare resources for younger generations. We also discussed religious beliefs, such as the belief that keeping someone on total life support is an attempt to ‘play god’ by keeping a body alive that should be dead, and how religious beliefs may have a strong impact on a person’s decision about euthanasia.
Kachiri brought up Rachel’s argument that killing someone and letting them die should not have any moral distinction, because dead is dead, however it happens, but then brought up that there are a few cases where a person may actually be ‘better off dead. Again religious beliefs and individual cases were brought up where different instances may, or may not, justify euthanasia whether passive or active.
We talked about some religions believing that life is so precious it must be protected at all costs. We also talked about religions that believe that because there is an afterlife devoid of the pain and suffering we experience as mortals, it may be better to let (or help) someone die, who is already dying and in extreme pain.
We also discussed whether DNR or living in a vegetative state justify euthanasia.
One major point we discussed that I wish to share is our final discussion point about what happens if we allow some forms of euthanasia. By the end of the discussion, it appears we had all changed our minds slightly about whether all forms of euthanasia are immoral. We seem to have agreed that if some forms of euthanasia are allowed but very strictly regulated, that it could allow doctors to prevent patients and families from taking matters into their own hands, and also allows them to have an established reason to say yes or no to a request for euthanasia, either by the doctor or the patient or their family. However we felt that depression should be something that instantly exclude a person from being in any way eligible for any form of euthanasia.
(Prepared by Jon) Our group started by discussing question 1on page 77: “Are considerations of self-determination and individual well-being sufficient to establish the moral legitimacy of voluntary active euthanasia?” Danielle felt that it was definitely enough to justify any decision one makes about self-wellbeing, especially whilst living in “the land of the free.” Alison somewhat agreed, but felt that, although it is your body and your choice, doctors should never have to be drug into the issue. Alison and Jon felt that it goes against the moral center of medical professionals to welcome death, and those who chose suicide need not involve others in that decision. It was noted that there are plenty of ways to end a life, few of which require assistance.
Our second question was number 3 on page 71: “Can you imagine medical circumstances in which you were better off dead? If so, would you welcome the possibility of active euthanasia, or only passive euthanasia? Do your religious beliefs play any role in your thinking on this issue?” As with the above query, Jon and Alison had very similar views; likely because they both said their answers were highly swayed by religious beliefs. The group agreed there were many scenarios in which on could desire to be dead rather than cope with pain or a severe decline in one’s quality of life. Danielle stated that she would much rather be euthanized than deal with a life contrary to her dreams and ambitions if caused by disease or accident. Alison felt that choosing death was “playing God” and not okay. Jon believes that everyone should play the cards they are dealt and that “quitting” is not an option. Danielle reasoned that active euthanasia is a valid option because it is quick and relatively painless.
Active and Passive Euthanasia Question 1: Can the conventional doctrine on active and passive euthanasia be defended against Rachel’s arguments.
(perpared by Kristen Gully) Our discussion started out with a clarification on what consists of passive euthanasia. I was slightly confused about whether or not it entailed withholding food and water over a long period of time or just the refusal of medical treatment. It was settled, in our group, that it was a combination of the two. Delving into the proposed question, Tom’s view on passive and active euthanasia was that there was a distinct difference between the two, and that the conventional doctrine held its own against Rachel’s arguments. He argued that the manner in which an act is done matters more than the eventual outcome. His concern with the blurring distinction between the two types of euthanasia was the doctor’s rights, and whether or not it was infringing upon their morals to legalize killing in their profession (active euthanasia) as opposed to the patients right to refuse treatment (passive euthanasia). Leibnitz added that he does not agree with euthanasia except in cases of terminal illness or when a patient is in a permanent vegetative state. He further stated that if euthanasia were legalized, that both passive and active should be made available. My view on the distinction between passive and active euthanasia is that they are the same acts. Where one is physically aiding in the death of another human, the other is most commonly referred to as “letting one die”. I don’t agree with this simplification of passive euthanasia. In my view passive euthanasia is not so passive, by doing nothing you are, essentially, doing something. You are denying that patient his/hers more basic human needs (food and water). Therefore when I look at the two acts side by side one does not seem more evil than the other. I believe it is the intent with which you do the act that makes a difference in its moral permissibility. In the case of both active and passive euthanasia the desired outcome is the death of the patient, which blurs the line between the two considerably in my eyes.
Rachels on Euthanasia: Question 1
Dan’s states that his knee-jerk reaction is that there is no substantial difference between active and passive euthanasia, essentially agreeing with Rachels and disagreeing with the AMA’s “traditional statement”. We explored this for a while. Jake asked if there was a difference in the seriousness of committing an act vs. omitting an act, stating that in law, a person who omits is likely guilty of negligence whereas crimes of commission are more serious. Consider a man who stands next to Hitler and could kill him before Hitler kills 50 million Jews, but he does nothing. Is he as guilty as Hitler because of what he “allowed” to happen? The process of actively creating destruction seems inherently different than passively allowing destruction to happen. This causes Jake to think that perhaps there is a difference.
Jake also states that he wonders whether Rachels is committing the fallacy of equivocation on the bottom of pg 69. Rachels seems to want to say that a non-act is an act. Once the two are equivalent his job of showing no difference is obviously easy. But can a non-act be an act? Jake states that he is unsure and the issue is explored further. Dan argues that a non-act can be an act, because, as he defines it, an act is a choice and that which follows from the choice. In this case passive euthanasia would be equivalent to active. Jake concedes this is insightful and might even be intuitive since those who do not help, we feel, have done something wrong. So perhaps a choice and that which follows can be an act. This would certainly help Rachels in the equating of the two. Dan is sure Rachels has succeeded. For Jake, the jury is still out.
(Prepared by Kaleen Fox) Our group discussion began by addressing the question of whether the principle of “an eye for an eye” should be present in meting out legal punishment. Bentley said he believed that punishment was necessary for certain deeds, but that “an eye for an eye” was too much. Carson agreed, saying that anything demanding a forfeiture of life as punishment was not justice, but revenge disguised as justice. Alexei expanded on this thought by saying that the death penalty, at its heart, was vindictive; it sought emotional punishment, not logical justice. I then brought up that, though I agreed with his statement, emotion was part of the human experience and as such should not be completely dismissed. We all agreed that it was a valuable component in decision-making, but needed to be kept in check and coupled with logic. Here the point was raised that punishments deemed cruel and unusual are not legal in sentencing and that the death penalty could be considered cruel and unusual. Bentley said that desiring vengeance may, indeed, be a human response, but that if the intent is practical, then life imprisonment should be a suitable alternative to the death penalty. Also, life imprisonment could appease the emotional side of those indirectly victimized by considering that a life sentence might be worse than the death penalty. Here, I mentioned that I found it interesting that we had not encountered the “slippery slope” argument with the death penalty that had accompanied the previous discussions regarding ending human lives. Bentley replied that this could be because we were discussing innocent lives in the previous discussions; the subjects of this discussion are not innocent. Alexei responded to this by saying that, though these criminals had killed, they were still human and it was the prosecutors saying they were guilty enough to die. In Alexei’s opinion, no one was so guilty as to deserve to be involuntarily stripped of his or her right to life. I agreed, also mentioning that I found Primoratz’s argument to be too absolute in saying that a life demands a life; even if this were true, would it be equally applied to someone who accidentally killed versus someone who intentionally killed? Carson agreed that intention should play a role in determining punishment, though he also believed that punishment should never require taking life. I then brought up my belief that no one is born a killer; circumstances always play a role and to require a life as punishment is to place all responsibility on the killer. Bentley said that the universe operates in cause and effect scenarios, but that it does not absolve anyone of moral responsibility; still, he agreed that it was difficult to make the leap from expecting moral responsibility of individuals to capital punishment being just. The entire group agreed that, in light of class and racial stereotypes, courts should not determine punishments with irrevocable finality like capital punishment. The group ended our discussion by addressing the possibility of rehabilitation or life imprisonment as alternatives to the death penalty.
Prepared by Molli Merrill
Our group discussed the topic of the Death Penalty. We discussed question #1 on page 125. The question asks, “Is Justice Marshall correct in claiming that the American people, if fully informed about the death penalty, would consider it morally uncceptable?”
I personally think that there are too many circumstance and too many people with different backgrounds to assume that people would believe the death penalty is unacceptable. Although I do believe if someone is educated on the subject of the death penalty, their views may change, or they may find the other sides view explained better, I do not think that everyone would automatically accept that the death penalty is acceptable. Maybe if people simply knew the facts about the death penalty they would find it inhumane, but I think we need to go back to the comments Mr. Footracer made about how he believes the death penalty is warranted in one situation, but not in the other, although both crimes had the same ending result. Shantel says, “I agree to an extent that if people fully informed about the death penalty that they would consider it morally unacceptable. I personally think the death penalty should only be even considered on very extreme cases. If you killed every murderer than it would be very unacceptable, especially those who could equally be just as innocent. But for those who are serial killers, or serial rapist I think the death penalty should be put on the table as a possibility. Some criminals might rather die than be sent to prision for life, because prision is almost worst than death if you are sentenced to prision for life, you will die in jail. I do think that the death penalty if used to often for punishment could be classified as morally unacceptable. But for the family of the poor innocent person that was killed, they much rather see the murder die than just sent to prision where he could possbily get out on “good” behavior. I don’t think you could say the death penalty is morally unacceptable, but should only be considered on very extreme circumstances.” Lishelle thinks, “I feel that when we are more informed about things going on in the world for example the death penalty we are less likely to support it. As we have discussed in class the death penalty i have learned more therefore I agree that it is morally unaccpetable. People don’t realize what goes on behind close doors but the more they are informed the more the views of the people will be changed. And the views of the death penalty, i feel like people will think it is morally unacceptable.”
So I came to the conclusion that Shantel and I are in agreement that it really depends on the case, and not everybody will think it is morally unacceptable. However, Lishelle takes the view that people would believe it is morally unacceptable, she agrees with Justice Marshall.
Prepared by Tyler Hohnholt.
Our group discussion this week started with the Nathanson article. However, we did not focus on it much; rather, we went off on a tangent on the general principles of the death penalty and whether it should be enforced or not.
Once again our group was divided on whether or not the death penalty should be legal, and also whether or not the death penalty is actually cheaper than sustaining life in prison. However, there were also a few things that our group reached a consensus on. The main concern on both sides was that an individual could be killed for a crime which they did not commit. For this reason; we agreed that if there is any chance of killing an innocent victim then the death penalty should not be enforced.
Although we did agree on this, we argued the “ethics” of the situation for quite a while. Some of us felt that an individuals’ death was not something that the state should be able to determine (no matter how unethical the crime was). The rest of us felt that the death penalty should be reserved, and enforced, for extreme crimes; and only in cases that we are certain that the individual did, in fact, committed the crime.
Although none of us knew the actual statistics; for the majority of the time we discussed the idea that the death penalty was more expensive to taxpayers than keeping them in prison for life was. We discussed the idea that individuals on death row were given so many chances for appeal that the costs for lawyers, judges, court time, etc ended up outweighing the cost of life in prison. However, we also discussed the idea that the lawyers that were used for individuals on death row were not generally state issued lawyers; thus, the price for these lawyers did not necessarily come out of the taxpayers pocket. The other side of the argument was that things such as three meals a day, wage for prison employees, heating in prisons, etc were all things that were paid for by taxpayers directly. The other point that was raised was that individuals not on death row were also given the option for appeal; it was just not nearly as frequent. We concluded that there was probably not a universally correct answer for this issue; and that it was probably different from case to case; there were many factors that contributed to this such as: the age of the individual, whether or not the lawyer is state issued, and the quality of the prison. Once again, no consensus was reached on this issue.
(Prepared by Rich)Our group focused on two questions this week. One concerning “eye for an eye” being incorporated in our criminal justice system and the other about establishing a retributive system of punishment. I started the discussion with the “eye for an eye” question. I believe that an “eye for an eye” would be a good system of punishment in the sense that the families of the victims would feel a sense of closure. However, I believe that the punishment should be equal to the crime, not the same. Kachiri agreed with me on this point. She also pointed out the the rule of an “eye for an eye” is barbaric. Quoting Nathanson, she said “Applied strictly, it would require that we rape the rapists, torture the torturers, and burn the arsonists whose acts have led to deaths. In general, where a particular crime involves barbaric and inhuman treatment, Kant’s principle tells us to act barbarically and inhumanly in return.” Justin differed in opinion. He stated that he would be all for the rule of an “eye for an eye” in our criminal justice system as long as our system was 100% perfect and no mistakes were made. One’s punishment would be inflicted in the mind, not physically. Since such a program doesn’t exist, Justin disapproves.
When it came to the second question, we all agreed on the fact that the death sentence should not be incorporated in our system based on the fact that our system is not perfect and mistakes are made. Also, we believe that the death sentence lets off murderers easy. A life time imprisonment without parole would better satisfy justice. I touched on the hypocrisy of killing a murderer to show that killing is wrong. Kachiri talked of how mistakes are made in our system and it would be better to make sure another innocent person was not killed. Justin spoke of a better, more strict lifestyle in our prisons. Instead of the death sentence, life time imprisonment would be a harsher punishment if and only if prison was not a fun place. There would have to be no comforts.
We discussed the first question from pg. 121. Melanie headed off the discussion with the argument that within the crimes listed (i.e. armed robbery, rape, treason, and air craft hijacking) there are varying degrees of severity, so applying the death penalty to those cases wouldn’t be proportionate retribution. Michon concurred with her statement; although Justin thinks whoever rapes or injures a child should be sentenced with the death penalty. Kellene thinks the death penalty isn’t an appropriate punishment in any circumstance.
Michon challenged the circumstantial question of whether a representative of a murder victim knew the victim was against the death penalty, wouldn’t that take into affect the way the perpetrator would be punished. Wouldn’t we want to acknowledge the victim’s will and not the courts judgment? Justin counter argued her statement with another question, what if the victim was a relative of yours wouldn’t you want some sense of justice? Michon argued that killing the perpetrator would only show we as a society are just as barbaric as them. Justin then concluded, as well as everyone else, that there is a fine line between justice and revenge.
Melanie thinks the perpetrator of heavy offenses must be mentally capable in order to be considered for capital punishment.
Michon thinks there should better rehabilitation and support systems in jails in order to prevent crime rate. Justin thinks criminals would cheat the system to be released sooner. Kellene brought up the fact that criminals sometimes don’t feel comfortable in the “real” world, so they commit crimes in order to come back into prison. If there are better rehab centers then that would prevent those kinds of situations. Melanie added to her statement that prison systems have become too comfortable for criminals and it is in fact making our jail systems fail at their purpose, correction.
Kellene thinks the death penalty is not a sufficient deterrent for crime. She thinks it would in fact create a domino effect of revenge that would never end. Melanie thinks the murderer looses their rights as soon as they take away someone else’s right to live. Justin thinks it’s not wrong to punish someone for doing wrong.
Michon made the argument that a prick of a needle doesn’t recompense for a lost life, and that it is too easy for a criminal; therefore, she believes prison for life is a much better alternative. She also thinks that the death penalty should be a choice because there should always be hope. Kellene thinks the answer should always be life in prison over the death penalty because the purpose is to keep criminals away from doing more harm.
Altogether everyone came to the consensus that each trial should be evaluated individually according to the severity, and that there could never be a proscription for which cases should end with a death penalty sentence.
The Death Penalty
For our Thursday night group meeting, we discussed Justices Potter Stewart, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., and John Paul Stevens’ opinion in Gregg v. Georgia. In particular we focused on the question as to whether Georgia’s statute to retain the death penalty not only for the crime of murder but also for “kidnapping for ransom or where the victim is harmed, armed robbery, rape, treason, and aircraft hijacking” (# 1, pg. 121). I think that all of us unanimously agreed that capitol punishment should be reserved for those who actually follow through with an act of murder. From there we discussed the situation of a hypothetical aircraft hijacker. We said that it would be problematic for society if that individual were to be released and then carried out an act of terror. Ethan made the point that you cannot judge someone for something that they did not do… despite the threat of terrorism, we do not know for certain what an individual will do. Juan also made the point that the death penalty can be an acceptable punishment. However, “the death penalty is for the extreme cases… if you take a man’s life you should have to pay for it.”
The other subject that we discussed in our group meeting was the issue of how blacks and the poor are more likely to receive the death penalty (#2, pg. 131). The textbook asks whether or not we should abolish the death penalty completely because it targets minority populations. Our group members agreed that we shouldn’t end the death penalty but rather we should “fix the real problem.” Our group agreed that we could take certain measures to remove racism, but ultimately only individuals can make those decisions for themselves. I made the assertion that if judges and juries were to know a bit more about the defendants, perhaps they’d be more understanding. In short, education is the key to overcoming prejudice.
(Prepared by Richard) Our group chose to discuss question 1 on page 131. The question is “Would you endorse a retributive rationale for the retention of the death penalty? If so, should you say that all murderers deserve to die or just some? If just some deserve to die, which ones?”
Heidi wasn’t sure exactly as to the justifiability of the death penalty, because it seems like it may be in some cases motivated more along the lines of revenge than an actual concern for justice. And this retributive rational may not be justified in a moral society—and the death penalty seems to focus more on punishment than justice. The modern penal system is based on rehabilitation mainly, and so it seems that maybe the goals of the death penalty are not in accordance with a charitable society.
However, there was also the question of choosing a punishment that fits the crime. This seems to have an obvious appeal to the retention view regarding the death penalty, as the death penalty is almost always argued as a punishment for those convicted of violent murder. If we as a society claim to hold life as the highest value, then perhaps the death penalty (obviously the harshest of punishments) fits these murders, which are the greatest of crimes.
We did, however, also find a possible difficulty with this argument. And that is that if we claim to value life so highly, then taking the life of another person is violating the foundation of our beliefs. And so even if the person receiving the punishment has committed a horrible crime, does this justify us nullifying the most fundamental aspect of our judicial beliefs?
Heidi also noted that in the past, executions were more of a public nature. This may have showed more forcefully the fact that there were punishments for crime—especially murder. However, she also realized the difficulties associated with the death penalty. These include the possibility of false accusation, unnecessarily harsh punishments for crimes, potential inequalities in the administration of the death penalty, etc.
She had seen a video on youtube of a serial killer who had brutally killed upwards of 50 girls. He said that there was a gradual escalation in his life, and that it all began with pornography. However, as he gradually grew adjusted to it he felt the need for greater thrills, and it progressed until he was a full fledged serial killer. However, when this killer went to prison, he was at the bottom of a brutal hierarchy—and the bottom of this social pyramid of prison is often essentially a death sentence. Was it necessarily better to send this man to a violent death in prison, than maybe to simply sentence him to death in a humane manner? We weren’t able to come to a firm conclusion, but we feel there are definitely important philosophical implications to this argument.
(Prepared by Alison Daybell) The discussion this week started out with the question, “To what extent, if at all, should the principle of “an eye for an eye” be incorporated into our system of criminal justice?” I started out discussing this topic with a thought that has been running through my mind a bit about how we teach our children about punishment. At early ages we teach our kids that if they do something wrong they might go to jail. But when we teach our kids about not hurting other people, we still tell them something to the effect of… ‘when you are a grown up and you hurt someone so bad that it makes them die, you go to jail for a long time.’ We don’t tell our kids that they could possibly die for their punishment, it is just the threat of jail that we reinforce. I wonder if this logic of “eye for an eye” is just too much for even us as adults that we feel like we can’t even tell our kids the absolute truth about not hurting other people because maybe if we teach them the truth while they are young, they might be more prone to not commit those types of crimes.
But on the other hand, Jon brings up a great point. Jon says that the “eye for an eye” concept as a whole is barbaric and reflective of a culture’s adolescence. He explains further by saying that if we as a community/nation are mature enough to contribute to society; be it thru taxes, or municipal positions, or whatever; and can establish a system for justice, then we sure had be able to employ something better than that medieval logic.
Danielle also brings up a great point about the families and loved ones of a murderer and wonders where we draw the line? The impact of the crime and then the death sentence affects more than just the victim here, it affects the murderer, murderer’s family, community, and all others who have gone through the trial. But on the other hand Danielle does not know of a punishment fitting enough for such a heinous crime like murder, just not a slap on the wrist and send them home. It definitely needs to be a more fitting punishment.
We all agreed that when you commit such crimes like murder, rape, and many others that take away the freedoms of someone else, you have forfeited your rights of freedom and should therefore be punished. There are always going to be feelings of justice and a need for it from the victims families, that will never go away in our society, but the punishment of death for the crime of death, should not exist. Our current justice system, for the most part, has worked effectively thus far and there are better ways of dealing with these types of crimes other than with the adage of “an eye for an eye.”
Jake begins by asking ‘what is justice?’ He said we need to be able to define justice, and if it necessarily needs to include revenge. In class, many people argued against the death penalty and opted more for rehabilitation, arguing that the death penalty is revenge. Jake argued that these people were actually arguing for mercy over justice. He believes that those that were arguing for justice AND rehabilitation were incorrect and self contradicting. He also said that it isn’t necessary for people to receive the very action that was their crime (rape for rape), (eye for eye idea). He says that instead we need to consider justice as a ‘losing of rights’. But the question then is how long do they need to be punished? Any time would be arbitrary. Then, tying it into the death penalty, since the loss of a life is permanent and doesn’t change, it should follow that the loss of rights in the name of justice requires a permanent loss of rights to the killer – one that does not end. Dan argues that the death penalty is the loss of rights, but that also that the loss of life outside prison is a loss of rights. He then begins to say that we see this as a justice issue, but shouldn’t we consider the ‘custodial’ point of view, that the real reason that society needs to do something to the criminal is to protect themselves as societal members. Yes, justice plays a key role, but for society on the whole, the more important matter is protection and therefore, if we were to lock said criminal away for life, with absolutely no possibility of regaining societal status, that both justice (in Jake’s definition) and protection would be accomplished. Also, it shows more distinct boundaries between mercy and justice. Dan also brings up that it would be unfair to put these murderers in a society of other prisoners who don’t deserve to be killed, either. Dan submits that a solitary confinement of murderers who CANNOT have contact with other people fulfills most of people’s concerns on the issue of the death penalty.
After consideration of said proposal, Jake concurs that solitary confinement does fulfill most of the needs of justice, mercy, and even revenge. He says that it is much easier to see the distinction of justice, mercy, revenge, and protection in this proposal and that it is possibly the best solution that we have at the current time.
Discussion Group Lead By: Leibnitz Dominguez
Paper Written By: Tom Weiler
Opinion in Gregg v Georgia Question 1
With regard to the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of murder, Justices Stewart, Powell, and Stevens write, “We cannot say that the punishment is invariably disproportionate to the crime.” The Georgia statute, under which Gregg was sentenced, however, retained the death penalty not only for the crime of murder but also for “kidnapping for ransom or where the victim is harmed, armed robbery, rape, treason, and aircraft hijacking.” In your view, is the death penalty a disproportionate punishment for such crimes?
Leibnitz chose this topic because he thought it was interesting to look at what other crimes could be considered for the death penalty. He had some unique insights on the topic coming from a different culture especially in reference to how the death penalty is used. He strongly believed that any crime committed involving a child or a minor should look to the death penalty (DP) as a possible punishment. In his country they have no DP and he thinks it’s needed to prevent crime against children. He doesn’t really see the rest of the crimes as a big enough crime to demand the DP.
My opinion was fairly conservative. In general I do not believe that the DP is necessary to satisfy justice. On the other hand I do not think that it is a disproportionate punishment for certain crimes. I repeat, I do not think it is necessary, but I do not think it is going too far. There are only two crimes in which I think justify a death sentence; aggravated and extreme cases of murder, and grand treason. Whether or not murder validates the death penalty is not the topic at hand and it is one where I can be undecided or unsure, but treason is one where I am sure that the death penalty is justified, and if anywhere, necessary. The reason why treason is such a serious crime and qualifies is centered in two main issues. First is the damage done to the general populace when successfully executed. The damage done effects society and therefore society needs reparations through capital punishment. For those who attempt but are intercepted still require the maximum sentence in order to repel future attempts. For other instances, even if you take it in an eye for an eye approach, you are overstepping and dueling out an already controversial sentence for a lesser crime. It is disproportionate.
Sarah was pretty torn and seemed to have a problem coming up with a definite answer. On the one hand she strongly agreed with Leibnitz, that crimes against children need to treated with the most seriousness. She also agreed with me and thought that treason was a capital crime that warrants capital punishment, and once Leibnitz understood what treason was he agreed. Where she was torn was if the DP was ever right and if the focus should be on rehabilitation. But she feels so passionate about children she felt that was an extreme that needs action.
From there we got onto the discussion of if what we were looking for was revenge or justice, if justice and revenge are different, and if one, both, or neither are a good enough motive for the DP. We established that they are different, that revenge (R) is emotionally driven and that justice (J) is more of a social debt. Then we decided that the DP is more so being driven by R. Whether it’s a family wanting the criminal to be punished (aka DP) or in the case of crimes against children it’s just so disgusting and offensive that society wants R. However, Leibnitz and Sarah seemed to agree that although the DP might not be necessary to satisfy J, it was necessary to satisfy R which is reason enough. I disagreed and thought that our emotions should not govern our justice system. We saw that the discussion was about to go much future and stray future away from the question and we had prior arrangements to go to so we decided to end there.
Krissy was not able to attend and we did not receive an email from her.
(Prepared by Ethan) This week’s discussion covered questions one and three of the reading by Corvino on sex and marriage. First we discussed the question as to whether homosexual sex was unnatural. Craig and Juan simply agreed and proposed that frankly concerning anal sex because “you poop out of it, and that’s it, there are no other uses.” So by their definition anal sex is unnatural. Ethan argued that being natural is a perspective. We have cases where people are born with tendencies toward violence. This also indicates that people can have different fetishes or different views on which gender they should be or are attracted to. For some people it may be highly arousing and pleasure able to have anal sex.
The next part of the question was as to whether homosexual sex unnatural nature implicates that it is immoral. Even though according to Juan and Craig this sex was unnatural they did not feel that it followed that it was immoral. Juan argued that if we ruled that unnatural things were immoral then we would all be immoral because through the perception argument that Ethan argued we would all be unnatural in some sense to each other. The unnatural equals immoral argument we ruled as an argument that was too strong. Lino does feel that this sex is immoral. He feels that just because it maybe natural for some people doesn’t make it morally acceptable for the rest of us to just ignore. He introduced the idea that people should have a self-mastery. From this he also said that as an extension of nature and morality there something called virtue, put in place by God, that is worth preserving. He describes morality as an extension of humanity something that we must exert ourselves in order to achieve, that we are instructed to do by God.
Next we discussed question three asking ourselves does this pose a threat to society and if so to what extent? Craig stated that throughout history we can easily see that as civilizations grow, they will reach a point where homosexuality is accept as an okay thing; these civilizations then come to a peak and fall. Juan’s argument was that it undermined the family. Kids growing up with two dads or two moms would be more exposed and possibly predisposed to homosexuality as they grow older. If everyone becomes okay with homosexuality in this way, Juan believes that it will also bring down society. Lino tended to agree with both Juan’s and Craig’s arguments but he also acknowledged that these are individuals and they have the rights. Ethan argued that maybe these societies declined because they did not properly deal with this issue or they were not socially mature enough to handle this. In society today the lager part is heterosexual and Ethan highly doubts or sees that everyone is going to become gay because as small few of the population decide that they are. Possibly what we need to do is accept these people and let them live out their lives as they see fit and they could possibly come to find that they do not enjoy this lifestyle. If they do find that they enjoy the lifestyle, then they will die homosexual and without children.
Prepared by Molli.
Our group discussed question 3 on pg. 215: “If marriage is once redefined to make way for same-sex marriage, how would you react to a proposal to redefine marriage again, this time to make way for polygamy and other forms of “plural” marriage?”
Shantel began our discussion with a very strong opinion about same-sex marriages. She said, “I feel very strongly that marriage should be restricted to a male and a female. Man and Woman were created and evolved to marry each other, not the same sex. Alot of my beliefs and feelings on the matter are from my religion, but I can argue to those that don’t believe that we were created from God and man and woman are meant to marry. Even if we have evolved from monkey’s they still to this day mate the opposite sex, and did since they began. Its just natural for a man and woman to get married, is the only way to create a child, so obviously same sex couples are unnatural. Polygamy being another question, I don’t think should be allowed. Marriage should be a devoted and commitment between one man and one woman, not a man and man, or woman and woman or a man and a dozen of women. I find it appauling at how our societies standards are becoming so low. Thirty plus years ago, it was considered wrong to have same sex couples, but today somehow it has become acceptable and those who are against it are being persecuted for not excepting the lowering of our standards. Marriage is for a man and woman and we should do everything possible to keep it that way.”
I, agree with Shantel in everything she says. It also has alot to do with my religion. Unfortunately, my religion is being persecuted because we are against same sex marriage. Personally, I say that if you want to have a relationship with someone of the same sex that is your life, and I may not agree with it but it’s not my place to say that. I do, however, have a problem with same-sex marriage because it is something that is very sacred to me and it is something that I believe should be kept that way. As far as plural marriage, I do not believe in it either. But, I don’t understand why people are so adimate that plural marriage is wrong, when they think same-sex marriage is ok. The difference is that mormon’s had plural marriage’s a long time ago so it must be wrong. If mormon’s spearheaded same-sex marriage, then people would believe it was terribly wrong also. So if you’re going to have one, I guess you have to have the other. I do still believe that neither are right though.
Lishelle agreed with both of and took more of an emotional approach to her disagreement with same-sex and plural marriages by saying, ” But the tradition way of marriage of a man and woman is what I strongly believe. And the fact that they have redefined to make way for same- sex marriage I disagree as well. So the thought of even thinking to change polygamy makes me sick. The world would be in chaos from so much confusion of what is right and what is wrong. I have seen many children grow up in broken homes, same sex marraige and other cases which then makes kids a head case, or confused or made fun of because it is unacceptable in our society. So polygamy would just cause more problems if we stop and take a second and look at past trangression with polygamy it just cause more problems more illegal things going. Making it and redefining marriage would leave the public wanting more absurd things to come into play. Making abnormal things more and more ok. So “plural” marriage is not ok.”
Sarah took the side of children and argued that same-sex and plural marriages have a large effect on children. “Marriage and families is something that is really important to me. It’s important to me to bring up a family and raise your kids with one dad and one mom. No kid should be raised thinking that it’s ok to marry the same sex and rasie your family like that. Today society is saying that it’s normal to marry in the same sex, but i will never think it’s right to raise your family like that. Same with polygamy, it’ s not right for kids to be raisd in a family like that.”
Needless to say we are a very conservative group.
Triple Certified Weekly Discussion (#5). 2-10-2009
(Prepared by Bentley). Our group discussed Corvino’s article and primarily question 1 on page 191. We tried to determine whether or not homosexual sex is unnatural and in what way it would be considered an immoral act if it is. We began by discussing the definition of some relevant terms: Morality being understood as the conformity to ideals of right human conduct or behavior, and Immorality being understood as conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles. We found these definitions troublesome and circular in nature. Alexei commented that (philosophically) there should be more of an “absolute” when discussing moral questions, but we determined that the subject matter is intrinsically cumbersome when striving for an unconditional conclusion. Carson mentioned that morality may be 100% cultural and might not be understandable without considering the context of the society that holds the moral principles in question. Kaleen commented that if homosexuality was more mainstream we wouldn’t have such the difficulty with trying to ascertain the lifestyle’s moral standing. We determined that many of the classic objections to homosexuality have very little support to stand on. Most of the arguments against homosexuality are fueled by a general prejudice against homosexual individuals (universally) rather than homosexuality (in particular). “That it is unusual or abnormal” (and therefore immoral) is predicated by the notion that human beings don’t like that, which is different. To single one out for being different is bigotry. “What does not proceed from innate desires is unnatural” (and therefore immoral) presupposes that homosexual individuals aren’t capable of having “correct” innate desires. Certainly homosexuals have innate desires; to conclude that these desires are immoral can only follow in two ways. Either their desires aren’t as valuable as heterosexuals (social prejudice), or they do have heterosexual desires and act in homosexual ways out of some sort of perversion (homosexuals classified as social-sexual deviants). Bentley claimed that the only objection to homosexuality that could plausibly stand is that which considers our genitals principle purposes. We discussed the objection to this claim that in order to exclude the homosexual use of our sex-organs, we must also exclude the non-procreative use of our sex organs. This clearly doesn’t seem right in that it doesn’t mirror our natural intuitions in regards to our freedom. We eat non-nutritious food all the time. We consume all sorts of things that we shouldn’t. Because we are violating the principle purpose of our stomach, should we consider the eating of Twinkies immoral? As a group we concluded that homosexuality could only be considered unnatural within a (heterosexual) social-cultural agenda. Whether or not this unnatural-ness is immoral is a culturally loaded question.
On Monday February 9, 2009 group No Name sat to discuss the moral ethics of prostitution. Question number three on page one hundred and eighty three. Zack started it off by telling us a story about working in southern Oregon, him and his friends would go down town to the casinos. Across the street from the casinos there were whore houses, he told us how nasty it looked. He said that there were big, fat, ugly, truckers getting out of their eighteen wheelers on their way to call some weekend prostitutes. I shivered from the disgusting image and Richard stated how it might be weird but that shouldn’t be grounds to make it illegal. We all agreed that it is their choice. I explained my view how girls, and guys for that matter, have the right to do what they want with their bodies. However, prostitution involving slavery and sex trade is wrong. I asked them if they have seen the movie Taken and Richard had, it’s Hollywood’s version of the sex trade in Europe, pretty scary stuff. We decided that those issues were to be discussed in a different topic. We all thought that being a prostitute wasn’t for us but, who are we to say that they couldn’t do it. The boys didn’t think there was anything wrong premarital sex, but I thought otherwise. I said that for a girl it is mentally destroying to lose her virginity, for males it’s not that big of a deal- being portrayed as a pimp vs. a slut. We talked about how true that really was, about society making different expectations for us. We all believed that once you are married, you are committed to that one person. Unlike one of the guy’s in our class that said that it should be fine. I told them how on Trya, she had a couple who’s wife was bisexual and would bring another female to bed. The boys found that awesome, while I was concerned about the couple’s jealousy in their relationship. In my view, which is different then the boys, sex isn’t something to be handed out. But, just because I believe that doesn’t mean that other people are doing wrong if they think differently. We are very respectful and understanding of each others views. We like thinking that everyone can live the way they want to, including us.
(Prepared by Andrew)
We concentrated our discussion on the first question presented after the Corvino article. We had an interesting debate with the majority of our group (3 to 1) often arguing for more liberal definition of sexual morality. Our path to these conclusions however was quite interesting. I will go over our discussion of the two parts of the question: “Is homosexual sex unnatural? If so, does it follow that homosexual sex is immoral?”
1) The first part of this question, the inquiry into whether or not homosexual sex is natural or unnatural was the source of great disagreement. Over this issue our group came to be equally split. The discussion went something like this: If we accept that man is and has always been primarily and naturally a rational and self-interested creature, and evolutionary fitness is in his best interest, and that fitness is defined as the ability to reproduce, then man is not by his nature homosexual. This point however was countered by separating self-interest at a special level from that at an individual level. It was argued that while certainly the practice of only homosexual sex is a suicidal one when it completely replaces heterosexual sex throughout the entire species, at an individual level the occasional homosexual act could conceivably be very much in the interest of any given person. It should be noted that we limited our discussion to what is natural of man, feeling that there are a great many things that animals both do and do not, and using them as our moral compass makes little sense.
2) The second part of the discussion however resulted in a majority consensus. The two members of our group who felt that homosexuality was natural (Tyler and Anna) had no problem granting it morality. Likewise, Andrew, though he felt it was unnatural said that there are many unnatural things which he enjoys in his daily life, and if someone would like to include homosexuality among their personal list, it was fine by him. Derrick, who also felt that homosexuality was unnatural, maintained that while the innate “naturalness or unnaturalness” of a thing does not necessarily dictate its morality, homosexuality, due to its self-destructive nature when taken as a common standard, should be considered immoral.
(prepared by Jon) Our group discussed question 2 on page 183 – What is promiscuity? Is promiscuity immoral?
As a group, we all agreed -even defined- promiscuity as not restricted to one sexual partner. Danielle stated that she did see this as immoral, mostly becase of the increased risk of spreading STIs or unplanned/unwanted pregnancy. Alison feels that it is up to each individual to decide whom they become intimate with. Jon stands that it is indeed immoral to engage in such activities with more than one individual at a time. He believes that any act of affection, especially sex, comes with a sense of trust and sincerity from at least one of the partners and is an unspoken promise to the other party involved. To act in a promiscuous manner would be to deceive and hurt the other -even in the case that you aren’t the one with any feelings.
We also looked at question 1 page 191 – Is homosexual sex unnatural? If so, does it follow that it is immoral?
Jon feels that it is neither natural, nor moral. Attempting not to get too graphic, the anus is simply not build for such activities(Period). It produces no lubricant with which it would naturally accept the “intruder”. Danielle stated “To condemn someone as immoral due to their sexual preference is immoral.” She fells that the act of homosexuality can be traced back through history and therefore natural. Danielle does not believe homosexual sex to be immoral, just different. And Alison, she believes that it is an unnatural act for religious beliefs. Alison, however, did not connect that to immorality. The idea that two consenting adult could make that choice, is enough for her. Jon would argue that people choose to be immoral everyday, even if they don’t see it as immoral.
1. Does society, as Rauch claims, have a compelling interest in the acceptance of same-sex marriage?
Rauch claims that society has a compelling interest in the acceptance of same-sex marriage based on two premises: the restraint and civilization of men through the binding agreement of marriage and the caretaking, supportive infrastructure that a married person becomes a part of when married. The group discussed the validity and completeness of these claims. A general consensus was reached that marriages co-supportive benefits are unmatched, and in that regard all agreed that society should have some degree of interest for that reason. Far less agreement was reached concerning the need to “civilize” men by breaking up their groups and shuffling them into pairs, heterosexual or not. The point was brought up that if the point is to civilize men, perhaps a greater interest would be in proper socialization, more emphasis on honor and integrity. While there was general disagreement as to which avenue would be most effective in “civilizing” men, Dan brought up the question as to whether or not it was an overgeneralization to characterize all independent males as people who collapse into barbarian hordes. Here, the argument was made that perhaps Rauch has committed the opposite of the straw man fallacy and set up an easily defeatable problem, which his answer saves us all from.
The biggest question though was whether or not these two points constitute all of the interests that society might have in the matter. The topic of raising children in a same-sex household was of highest interest in our group. Jake argued that the balancing influences of male and female personas was crucial to a balanced individual and that settling for anything less was not in societies best interests. Others disagreed citing practical reasons, but jake argued that these are now arguments about the current system and not about what is best anymore.
Prepared by Richard.
Our group chose to discuss question 1 on page 234. The question is “Is it possible to provide a workable definition of “degrading pornography,” or is this concept hopelessly subjective?
Heidi thought that this was definitely a subjective issue, but just because this is a highly subjective issue does not necessarily constitute a viable reason to reject it. She noted the case of Ted Bundy, where nearly all of the criminals in prison had a common link of pornography. But we were not sure if this indicated a relationship between criminal activity and pornography, or if there were other confounding variables involved. It is difficult to define any specific relationship between the two, but it seemed like pornography was definitely a part of the lifestyle of these men, even if it didn’t necessarily drive them to commit the crimes they did.
Another issue here was the issue of the media. Pornography is almost never a set of real situations, but is usually instead staged like any other normal movie. And we don’t ban movies because of their messages, but instead leave that up to the discretion of the viewers involved. The movie system already has a set of ratings to indicate the content of the movies, and then the decision is left up to the viewer. We think that one of the main problems of pornography is that it objectifies women and sex, but we were unable to reach a viable solution to this problem.
And this brought up another issue for us, that of personal liberty. Even if pornography is not morally justifiable, does this give us the power to make it illegal? We talked about it, but we couldn’t really come to a consensus on what the proper action should be taken in regard to porn. On one side, it is obviously offensive to some people, and there may be significant moral reasons to reject pornography. However, on the other hand, to curtail pornography would constitute a vast imposition on the personal liberties granted to all citizens by our country’s laws. And so it is difficult to advocate any policy with regards to pornography, so we decided that ultimately porn is a moral issue that should not be dictated by any organization—as a decision of morality, it should be left up to the discretion of individuals.
Our group started with the question of whether or not we could accept Longino’s conclusion about pornography, specifically that “its control is necessary”(p. 242). I (Carson) said that I like Longino’s distinction between erotica and pornography. Bentley brought up that last week in Lee’s he saw the black poster boards that are used to censor Hustler and Playboy at the newsstand covering magazines like People and Vogue. We thought this was an interesting pseudo-censorship happening right now. We talked about men who cannot get women and how Kaleen and I have a theory that some men look at women much the way they look at gadgets and wonder, “Why can’t I get one of those?” Bentley thoughts were that this contributes to anti-social behavior and there is some link between anti-social behavior and stalker behavior. At this point Kaleen told us a story: “There was a friend I had in high school and he was fairly explicit about his porn preferences. One day him and some of our friends and I were running around his apartment stealing a candy bar from each other. When I finally got the candy bar back, he said that that was just like the intro to a low budget porno.” Kaleen then expressed disgust at him even thinking about her in that context.
Bentley said that someone could probably propose an argument that lust fuels lust and the exposure to pornographic behavior is going to create pornographic thought. We walked down this slope until Kaleen said that she didn’t disagree, but that it sounded way too much like a slippery slope. Pornography is bad, but you cannot censor it with the exception of snuff films and child porn and the like. Bentley said he thought that pornography can be dangerous but just because something is dangerous doesn’t mean you can regulate it. We agreed. Bentley talked about the difficulty of coming up with a definition of pornography that was to be regulated.
I tried to make an argument about how we couldn’t regulate pornography just because we thought it was bad. All we could do is look down on the consumption of it like the way most people look down on smoking. This brought up some problems about how when people look at pornography they do is in private. Bentley then brought up Canadian cigarettes: they have huge black labels that say they cause cancer. Kaleen wondered what kind of impact it would have if on the cover of pornographic magazines we put large labels that said, “This is dehumanizing!!” We then talked for a little while about how some of the same arguments that can be made about the harmfulness of porn can also be made about the harmfulness of some non-pornographic magazine covers and some album covers and many music videos.
Our conversation turned to the topic of hate speech. We all agreed that hate speech is a damaging thing and that it is on a different level than pornography. I made an argument about why we could not regulate hate speech because the same thing could be said to a person by two different people, one person could say it because they hated the group that the person belonged to, the other person could say it because they were mad at the person. We concluded that pornography and hate speech are harmful and that even though hate speech is on a different level of harmfulness than pornography, neither can be censored. Maybe a better solution to this problem would be education from a earlier age.
Page 266
Question 1
(Prepared by Shantel Flanary)
I feel that our group gets along pretty well and for the most part has the same views. But it was interesting when it come to the topic of hate-speech. I personally feel there are psychological harm produced by hate speech. I mean your skin can only be so thick. Lishelle argued that, “Lawerence provides a compelling analysis that is completely justifable in speechlessness. I totally agree. Considering looking at our Country’s past acts. Racial insults are much more that just an insult. They mean a lot more and are much more crucial. They are more than just a word. These word are attached with feelings of pain, history and much more than have more of an effect.” I do agree with here that racial insults especially are more than just an insult, especially considering our countries history. Molli stated however, “I actually don’t agree that Lawrence’s comments are a compelling analysis of the speechlessness often experienced by those who are racially insulted. Although I don’t think racially insulting people should be accepted and encouraged, or used by political figures in any way, I do believe it should be a part of free speech. If we ban racial slurs or insults, where does it stop. I think people need to be a little more thick skinned. If someone came to me and told me something terrible about my being mormon, I would probably be mad for 5 seconds but then i’d just realize how much of an idiot that person was and shrug it off. And don’t try to tell me that’s not the same thing as being insulted because you’re black because mormons are a minority and they’ve been persecuted too. America needs to grow a spine.” I do agree with her to an extent, but when it comes to my religion I do personaly hate when LDS standards and people get bashed on. Just because someone is different doesnt mean they should be made fun of or insulted. Yeah some people do take things a little to personally. But when someone intentionally attacks you personally, they are trying to hit you where it hurts most. Hate speech may be argued as free speech, but thats crap. Its like saying when a mother wants an abortion its her privacy, yeah maybe to an extent, but she has another human being in side her that she is deciding for and will harm. So hate speech may be free speech, but it harms other human beings and therefor is wrong.
(Prepared by Juan)
Today’s discussion was focused on censorship and hate speech. We decided to first undertake a simple question about the harm inflicted by face-to-face racist speech. We began by discussing Lawrence’s essay and answering the question on whether he provided a compelling analysis of the “speechlessness” often experienced by those who are subject to racial insults. Ethan, Craig and I unanimously agreed upon the direct harmful effects of such speech. However, we differed on some points about how to deal with it. Ethan acknowledged the harm inflicted, but he was rather inclined to refuse to remain speechless about such things, but rather fight back with words or fists if necessary, on a situation where face-to-face insult ensues. He pointed out that more often than not, taking flight or ignoring the insults does not stop the name caller from continuing the assault and incites the name-caller to engage on an even more aggressive behavior. Ethan is inclined to the view that people should toughen up. On the other hand, Lino commentedthat racial insults should not be protected by the First Amendment. However, in the event that one does slight a person using racial insults I know from personal experience that it is not worth one’s time trying to argue. Sometimes silence is the best answer to wrath. . Craig and I felt that someone belonging to a minority group does feel defenseless against such acts, since it is not only the name-caller that takes part on the insulting, but a “cultural chorus of equally demeaning speech and symbols”.
So we were left with the question on whether that kind of speech should be censored. According to Lawrence they are the functional equivalent of fighting words, which are not protected by the First Amendment. But if we turn away from that point of view, and treat such speech a non-fighting words, is there justification to censor it? And so we turned to our second question which related to hate-speech code on campuses. If the Stanford hate-speech code had survived constitutional analysis, would you support the introduction of a similar code on your campus? Ethan and Craig were analyzing the costs and benefits of such a policy and at the end we all agreed that the cost will in fact outweigh the benefits. According to Lino, although the intents are noble and he feels that hate-speech is distasteful, he thinks that it is not the responsibility of government or schools to enforce moral codes of this particular type. People are always going to express what they feel, regardless of what policy is enacted. People do not like to feel that they are being controlled. If in fact such a code would be implemented on this university, a code which not only prohibits fighting words (which we are all okay with) but also seeks to proscribe insults and offensive speech, the general disgust of the student population towards such a policy would fuel more anger amongst people. We felt that the line was drawn too far and our right to free speech would be violated. Lino went on to comment that there are other means of confronting hate-speech and that in more extreme cases, peace protests would be permissible Again Ethan endorsed the idea that people have to toughen up and deal with what people throw at them (in matters of speech). My final thoughts, in contrast with Ethan’s democrat views, is that we cannot let people say or publish whatever they want because, if history is any evidence, we human beings have become somewhat destructive means, and it is only by the grip of the government and their power to control, being censoring, requiring, punishing, etc., that we hold ourselves as a civilization.
In our group we discussed the first question after the article by John Stuart Mill. The question asks if it is true that mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest? We did not come to a complete consensus on this topic, but we were not too far off. Some of us felt that people do have an inherent right to live their life as they please and no one, especially the government does not have the right to impose on that liberty. What one wants to do with himself is not the concern of the government, so long as it has no effect on others. The argument was then raised that rarely can you do something and it not affect others. Family, friends and people around you will be affected by what you do, even if you do not think that it does. The idea that we should force people to live by what is good for the whole is not what we believe this country stands for. Personal liberty is such an important part of our culture and it does not matter if one person out of every person in the world is different; they are guaranteed the same rights as everyone else. It is without question that certain things harm our society and do not bring good to it. It is up to each individual to fight those things by not contributing to their success. If the American people are so disgusted with pornography then they should not buy it. If television shows and movies are becoming to graphic then people should stop watching them. It is impossible for these industries to survive if they do not have the money to continue. The amount of money that we pour into these different industries is tremendous. So long as people are willing to pay for something it will continue to be produced. The argument was made that the government can play a role by helping to enforce laws to censor certain things that children are exposed to. Until the age of maturity, we have an obligation to protect children from certain things. Once they reach the age of maturity hopefully we, as a society, have instilled in them a certain way of life that will contribute to society. Overall though, we need to respect each person’s individuality. I hope I captured our discussion, but as we have seen these debates often go off in many different directions.
Loganistan (prepared by Kristen Gully)
Question: Is it true, as Mill claims, that “mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest”?
Our discussion started off with Tom taking the conservative view because of his undecided stance on the issue of legal paternalism. Tom stated that if he had to take an apparent stance he would either side with two extremist options, the first being anarchy, where no government exists, the second, an institutionalized utopia. He stated that his views were as such because he doesn’t believe in a world where harm can only effect one’s self. His thoughts were that no matter if the harmed individual is close to a person or not, there is a possibility that an outsider will always be harmed as well in some way, the most evident being emotionally.
Leibnitz also took a more conservative view on this topic, saying that no one is perfect or right all of the time and that since this is an imperfect world where mistakes are made, we have to set up a model of behavior that is best for the whole of society.
Sarah’s views fell somewhere in the middle of the conventional conservative and liberal views. Her main point was that it is very important for society to be aware of the harm that individuals can possibly cause to others, but not so much the harm to themselves. She also state that potential damage versus actual damage caused is why it is too hard for society and the government to regulate.
I sided with Mill on this topic. I believe that Mill’s ideas of dissociating ourselves from legal paternalism is correct. That we gain more from having a diverse society that doesn’t censor people based on the feelings and emotions another may feel. Although I don’t inherently disagree with Tom’s idea that there is no such thing as harm solely to one’s self, I do believe that its not the governments place to dictate what an individual does to themselves based on those grounds.
Tom also argued that if we throw out our morals in accordance with the law then that will lead to a “slippery slope” of a demoralized and criminal society. But I believe that if we allow the government to continue censoring our actions and coddling the people we may or may not effect then that will lead to a “slippery slope” towards a society where nothing can be said in fear of inflicting emotional pain on someone else.
Sarah also stated that it is the responsibility of the law to regulate liberties only because of the potential to harm, especially since it is such a hard thing to regulate and draw a line. Its not as if society can always prevent an individual from causing emotional pain to another person, what if that one rude comment ends up being the last straw for someone and they commit suicide? Who is responsible? The person that made a rude comment or the person that was emotionally unstable?
Tom’s final statement was that the better each of the parts, the better the society as a whole, therefore it is in the best interest of society to put legal paternalism and moralism into effect.
Leibnitz agreed with this stating that humans have a need to be free. And since we aren’t a completely free society we need to implement rules that steer us towards a goal of a better community of people as a whole, not merely on an individual level.
Sarah‘s final thoughts were that there is no easy answer to the amount of regulation of personal liberties that are required to maintain a healthy and helpful type of society. Her answer is that the government should not put many restrictions on any type of liberty, and that society is responsible to govern actions itself and teach people to be courteous to each other but strong enough to handle when others are extremely unkind and crass.
I agreed with Sarah on this point, I don’t think that it’s the laws place to be acting on such a subjective matter. Feelings a emotions are always going to get hurt, its an unavoidable fact. And since the law can’t cater to everybody with hurt feelings, is it right for them to create laws based on that emotional harm at all?
Our group discussed the question from Mill’s article: “Would you endorse an argument for the censorship of pornography based on the principle of legal paternalism? Would you endorse a procensorship argument based on the principle of legal moralism?”
This discussion began by Dan stating that we need to have a clear definition of what pornography is for this argument. Everyone stated their opinion, and concurred that it should be defined in our discussion as pictures or videos that are explicitly sexual or have explicit sexual acts. Dan then stated his opinion that nothing should ever be banned completely from being created. He said that he liked the way that porn has established increased levels of censorship already in place. Jake agreed with the idea that people should be allowed to view pornography if they so choose, but that it should not be forced on the public, or people that have no intention or desire to look at it. He referenced the fact that pornography has a great influence over the psychology of people, and is extremely addicting. If it is allowed in public places where no censorship exists, it could lead to addictions that people originally did not want. Mike said that is very much torn on the issue and that he would argue for a leveled increase of censorship of pornography based on paternalism, and based on the ideas that already been stated. He agreed with Dan and said that the censorship ratings and restrictions already set in place are not bad. He said he would petition for a more efficient method. Jake did not agree with this, and referenced how the internet has websites that are not restricted to anyone, yet have pornographic images. Mike then stated that he would have no idea how to censor the internet. Since none of us had any ideas on this, we simply decided that we had no idea of how the internet should be censored. The complication comes from the fact that the majority of the people in a country would have to be the ones to decide what was inappropriate or not. The internet is a mixing pool of many ideas, cultures, customs, and countries that all have contradictory laws. For instance, African women who wear no shirts in their tribe come to the U.S., we expect them to wear clothes, and reference a pornographic display to the public. But, would we also therefore be forced to say that any American woman that goes to the Middle East where they wear hijabs is also required to cover every part of her skin, since in the majority of the people believe that women showing skin is sexual and pornographic in nature? Therefore, we all concluded that pornography should not ever be restricted in its creation, but that it can be censored so as to not reach the general public unless the people of the public wish to view it; and this idea is based somewhat on legal paternalism. The reason we reference legal paternalism is not because we agreed that pornography is in itself destructive to the viewer, but rather we agreed that it has the potential to be a strong, addictive influence over the viewer. We also agreed it could only be censored effectively in individual countries. (not a broad, sweeping censorship for the entire world)
Question #1 (pg 234) Is it possible to provide a workable definition of “degrading pornography” or is this concept a hopeless subject?
I would have to agree, unfortunately once you “set a standard” people will find a way around it, and those ways would put people in a much worse situation then they are now could you imagine a porn black market? Where pretty much you could make billions off of the government making your “goods” valuable? No thanks! Of course this entire “argument” is based on the predetermined condition of everyone being over the age of consent.
Question #2 (pg 270) If the Stanford hate-speech code had survived constitutional analysis, would you support the introduction of a similar code on your campus?
I mainly picked this one simply because my main argument IS that it was against my RIGHTS, but still I think a huge part of college isn’t learned from books or lectures but how to deal with and successfully manage your life. I really think if everyone went around with their “heads in the sand” it would be detrimental to their growth, and in that case college is useless. In Japan, they know this they teach all their kids really well, then they pick the cream of the crop to go to these universities to learn how to be the rest of the populations bosses.
For question #1: I’ll answer this, but I think it’s a bit unfair to include this as a main aspect/question in the write-up because it’s on an article that we didn’t read, but I’ll comment on it based off of what we did read. I don’t think there is a workable definition of “degrading pornography” because I feel like all pornography is degrading in one form or another. I think it portrays the act of sex in a manner not appropriate for any age and should be harder to get ahold of.
Question #2: I actually like the idea of having a regulation on some speech that is said on campus. I think a lot about growing up is definitely learned on campus and through college classes and having a say in things is all a part of life and very beneficial to the growing up process. But I think a part of growing up is knowing that there are limits and there are tactful ways of saying things and that you don’t have to always use crude or hurtful words to prove your point. I think a lot of the time we hide behind our “freedom of speech” as a way to express our opinion, but we don’t realize that we can still express our opinions through tactful and more appropriate ways that actually make you sound more “grown up” or professional. BUT I do think there are times that warrant a good cuss word, but when it puts others in an uncomfortable situation or is hurtful to another, it should be punished or come with some consequences. I’m not saying anything too destructive unless the magnitude of the situation warrants it.
Q1 I think that the word pornography already holds the “degrading” connotation. I think there exists tasteful nude art that is not offensive or meant to arose the senses, put pornography does just that.
Q2 I think it’s perfectly fine for institutions to set any codes of conduct that they deem fit. If we want a degree from a certain university, we should be willing to submit to their curriculum as well as standards. I would welcome any code that would clean up the language here on campus. I think most individuals here do not understand the difference between being free to say what they want and making an fool of themselves. I agree with Alison that there are much better ways to make a point than to curse; it generally just sounds stupid.
In the end I do agree with Jon on the topic that IF USU was to enforce stricter rules that would be completely within their bounds (as long as they were considered a provate school like BYU)
Question #1 (pg 234) Is it possible to provide a workable definition of “degrading pornography” or is this concept a hopeless subject?
I would have to agree, unfortunately once you “set a standard” people will find a way around it, and those ways would put people in a much worse situation then they are now could you imagine a porn black market? Where pretty much you could make billions off of the government making your “goods” valuable? No thanks! Of course this entire “argument” is based on the predetermined condition of everyone being over the age of consent.
Question #2 (pg 270) If the Stanford hate-speech code had survived constitutional analysis, would you support the introduction of a similar code on your campus?
I mainly picked this one simply because my main argument IS that it was against my RIGHTS, but still I think a huge part of college isn’t learned from books or lectures but how to deal with and successfully manage your life. I really think if everyone went around with their “heads in the sand” it would be detrimental to their growth, and in that case college is useless. In Japan, they know this they teach all their kids really well, then they pick the cream of the crop to go to these universities to learn how to be the rest of the populations bosses.
For question #1: I’ll answer this, but I think it’s a bit unfair to include this as a main aspect/question in the write-up because it’s on an article that we didn’t read, but I’ll comment on it based off of what we did read. I don’t think there is a workable definition of “degrading pornography” because I feel like all pornography is degrading in one form or another. I think it portrays the act of sex in a manner not appropriate for any age and should be harder to get ahold of.
Question #2: I actually like the idea of having a regulation on some speech that is said on campus. I think a lot about growing up is definitely learned on campus and through college classes and having a say in things is all a part of life and very beneficial to the growing up process. But I think a part of growing up is knowing that there are limits and there are tactful ways of saying things and that you don’t have to always use crude or hurtful words to prove your point. I think a lot of the time we hide behind our “freedom of speech” as a way to express our opinion, but we don’t realize that we can still express our opinions through tactful and more appropriate ways that actually make you sound more “grown up” or professional. BUT I do think there are times that warrant a good cuss word, but when it puts others in an uncomfortable situation or is hurtful to another, it should be punished or come with some consequences. I’m not saying anything too destructive unless the magnitude of the situation warrants it.
Q1 I think that the word pornography already holds the “degrading” connotation. I think there exists tasteful nude art that is not offensive or meant to arose the senses, put pornography does just that.
Q2 I think it’s perfectly fine for institutions to set any codes of conduct that they deem fit. If we want a degree from a certain university, we should be willing to submit to their curriculum as well as standards. I would welcome any code that would clean up the language here on campus. I think most individuals here do not understand the difference between being free to say what they want and making an fool of themselves. I agree with Alison that there are much better ways to make a point than to curse; it generally just sounds stupid.
In the end I do agree with Jon on the topic that IF USU was to enforce stricter rules that would be completely within their bounds (as long as they were considered a private school like BYU)
Interesting statistic: Utah is once again the ‘leader’ in the country for per capita online porn subscription rates. Those in counseling psychology (like my wife) will tell you that the rates of various sex addictions are sky high here compared to other states.
http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_11821265
I do not know if this in any way relate to the statistic (and since statistic is not 100% accurate, we cannot say it is a fact) that Utah is once again the leader in the country for per capita online porn subscription rates, but last semester my Management Information System professor told us about a similar statistic in which Utah ranked #1 in porn sites visits (or hits in terms of the number of times the website was accessed). However, this was due “for the most part” to filtering and scanning software firms were using to spot porn sites and restrict access to them from their networks. As the software scanned thousands of sites, porn sites received many hits, and so the result reported. Nevertheless, I again do not know if this has any significance on the statistic that Dr. Kleiner found out about. It is a bizarre, and frightful, idea that we may be living among “pervs”.
Mr. Giuliani — that is an interesting problem regarding how to measure “web interests.” But from the article I gather what was being counted was how many subscriptions there were to porn sites — and my guess is that the censor software doesn’t subscribe!
Legalization of Drugs
We started off by talking about the questions on page 302. We could see both arguments made and the benefits that were present in both. Ethan talked about how he sided with Szasz in the fact that he believed that even with the risks associated with drug usage, everybody should have the write to decide whether or not they will partake. Given this privilege he also said that people who chose to do so needed to be educated about the risks and consequences that are associated with usage. Ethan also stated that when we force others to comply with our opinion we forfeit our rights. Juan however sided with Nadelmann. Juan said that Nadelmann’s argument was based on more rational principles of the moral and economic benefits and costs that would come from the legalization of illicit drugs.
We also talked about what should be done to bring more moral consistency to the drugs laws. Juan stated that it would be better to legalize the illegal drugs since there were so many problems that arose during the Prohibition Era from the banning of alcohol. Most of the group agreed with that position. Craig differed in the fact that he stated that if we are going to be “morally consistent” we should follow the way that is more moral. If our morals are to allow everything, what purpose do they serve? This would cause great societal uproar though as was evidenced during the Prohibition Era. Ethan stated that if we were to legalize illicit drugs they would have to be greatly controlled and therefore safer than the drugs that are on the street today.
Prepared by Tyler Hohnholt.
Our group discussion this week was mostly centered on James Wilson’s anti drug legalization article. Wilson’s argument was centered on the idea that drug users cause harm to others by producing babies addicted to drugs and neglecting spouses and children. He then goes on to say that drug legalization would lead to a sharp increase in drug use, a widespread degradation of the human personality, and a greater rate of accidents and violence.
This was one rare occasion where our entire group agreed that not all drugs should be legalized; and since Wilson’s argument mostly focused on “heavy” drugs such as Heroin and Crack, we agreed with him for the most part.
However, even though we agreed with Wilson on many of his points, all four of us thought that there were far worse ways that drug addiction affects our society than producing drug addicted babies, and neglecting their family members. Although these are legitimate concerns, we seemed to be more concerned with the inability for individuals on drugs to make logical decisions and the negative results that follow.
Although our group reached a general consensus on this topic, our group was split on his argument that drug use would increase if it were legalized. Anna and I argued that with proper drug awareness, drug use would not increase, and could possibly even decrease. On the other hand Derrick and Andrew argued that drug use would, in fact, increase.
Szasz question #1 pg 289.
(Prepared by Molli)
Our group discussed the question, “Do we have a moral right to decide for ourselves what drugs we will and will not use?”
I actually believe we do not have any moral right to choose what drugs to use and what not to use, simply because we are and always will be uneducated about the total extent of how drugs affect our bodies. If we chose what we could and could not partake, there would be no reason for agencies such as the FDA. Society as a whole is not responsible enough to allow individuals to choose what they can do with their bodies. My problem is that a slippery slope would be created. When you give people the right to use whatever drugs that may harm their body, (as long as it brings no harm to anyone else) where does that stop. If they can harm their body, why can’t they harm their property, or their animals, or eventually their children. I just think the only way to draw a line is to keep drugs illegal.
Shelly actually disagreed with me and said, “Yes! It is our decision on what drugs we use, and allow to enter into our body. If we strongly have a belief in something and have the right to decide what substances we partake of, it is our body and our will to take care of in the matter we allow ourselves. Life is great and you will be happy with the drugs that you use to make you feel better. That is my opinion. We are given the opportunity to be knowledgeable in drugs therefore we know what will benefit us and not.”
Sarah also had a different view saying, “I think that everyone is capable of deciding what drugs or going to be harmful to our human body, and knowing that we i think it is our moral right to decide what drugs we will or will not use. many people abuse drugs and quickly become addicted and then cannot make the choice to stop taking drugs. we have the moral right to decide what drugs we are going to allow to enter our body, hopefully most people will be smart and make that decision right away that they won’t let harmful addictive drugs enter into their body.” The only problem i have with this is that we honestly can’t depend on people to be responsible.
Shantel took kind of the middle ground on this issue, “To an extent yes we have a moral right to decide what drugs we will or will not use. When it comes to a doctor deciding to use a particular drug and you refuse to, than yes you have the moral right to not use the drug if you so desire. But when it comes to harmful drugs such as heroine, cocaine, it’s morally wrong to even take the drugs, and so you shouldn’t have the choice legally take the drugs that is. If you want to take harmful substances and risk your life, than that is your idiotic decision. But drugs as such should never be legal to be taken, and is not a moral decision.”
This is the first time we’ve actually disagreed so much on an issue. It’s quite interesting to see how each person took the question a little differently.
(Prepared by Alison Daybell)
Drug control and addiction will always be a major topic of discussion through out the world. We all agree that something needs to be done to help crack down on illegal drug use and how easy it is to get a hold of those drugs, but how do we do that? Our group discussed two questions that addressed the issues of control more than addiction because that is where the issues start.
The first discussion question we discussed was from Nadelmann’s Case for Legalization argument and it reads, “Does moral consistency require that we either (a) legally prohibit alcohol sale and use or (b) legalize the use of currently illicit drugs, such as marijuana and cocaine?” Alison argued that moral consistency does not require prohibition of alcohol sale and use and it also does not legalize the use of illicit drugs. Alison argues that the government could surely make a switch of alcohol and cigarettes becoming illegal for the legalization of marijuana, but it does not make it a moral consistency issue.
Jon argued that in order for consistency to happen, all drugs needed to be on the same level. He also argues that the moral issues come down to each individual person. He also goes on to say, “I see no correlation between morality and legality on this issue. Just because alcohol is legal, I don’t find it morally sound to consume. I think people use the law as a giant skirt to hide behind. It is not acceptable to use substances that alter your performance, personality, perception of reality, etc.”
Danielle also did not agree that moral consistency requires the legalization of some drugs and the prohibition of sale and use of alcohol and makes a valid argument of using the money that could be gained from taxes of those drugs for other causes. She states “I do believe that Prohibition has many more down falls then positive reactions; people will always look to get cigarettes and alcohol, why hand over our “gringo green backs” to a bunch of pirates, when we could tax the heck out of them and pay for health care for children.”
The second question that we discussed was from Wilson’s Against the Legalization of Drugs argument and it reads, “Are there good reasons to believe that legalizing current illicit drugs will result in a serious increase in addiction?” Danielle took a stance on the opposing side for the most part, except when it comes to the hard drugs like Heroin. She commented on how she is a believer of things in moderation and how there are those in this world who will overdose or become the target of major concern from a large group of people and therefore unnecessary judgment will then be placed on something that is not a fair assumption. She states, “…the poor kid who overdosed on alcohol here on campus, all the fraternities and sororities got labeled as “bad”. I truly doubt anymore drinking happened more this year than any other but this year the drinking “problem” at USU was wider known.”
Both Jon and Alison took the same agree stance on this argument because of the deterrence factor. Jon states “Curiosity would condemn many, many people to a life of drug highs and lows that would become insatiable.” Both Jon and Alison thought that the deterrence of drugs being illegal was far greater than most people would like to believe and that keeping them that way is keeping a lot more people from using them. Alison’s learned experience of having a close friend addicted to drugs is enough for her to keep them as a harder thing to get rather than an item that can be picked up like soup at the grocery store. Drug control and addiction are apart of everyone’s daily routine whether we realize it or not.
(Prepared by Richard)
Our group discussed question 1 on page 289, “Do we have a moral right to decide for ourselves what drugs we will and will not use?”
This is a very difficult question, and we are not sure that there will ever be an easy answer. On one side, there are drugs like marijuana, which have obviously been included in the “drug problem” by mistake, when compared to hard, opiate or amphetamine-based drugs. And this was a slight problem for us, because it represents the subjectivity of the whole matter. The laws have not been given to us by a supernatural, all-knowing Congress. In fact, it is probably a safer bet that many drug laws were originally instated based on whims of legislators or various lobbying groups.
But we are also not sure that this justifies wholesale drug legalization. Sure, there are inequities in the drug system, but that does not necessarily mean that we should allow anyone access to some of the highly addictive, dangerous drugs.
Another problem we have had is that conclusive research has not been done in the illegal drug field. The drugs are illegal, and so this necessarily makes research on these substances difficult. The drugs come in different quantities, different purities, and with dozens of other variables. And so we think that the current research is unsatisfactory, because it often confuses causation with correlation when trying to prove the dangers associated with illegal drugs.
And so ultimately our decision was not a terribly conclusive one. We think that government has no place restricting non-habit forming drugs used for recreational purposes. However, once a line is crossed and the drugs begin heavily impairing an individual’s judgment, perhaps this is sufficient danger for the government to step in and regulate these substances.
We decided to discuss questions #2 on page 308: Are drugs like cocaine and heroin dehumanizing? I believe that cigarettes are just as dehumanizing as cocaine or heroin.
Bentley thinks that to answer that question we will have to address the distinction between hard drugs like cocaine and heroin and the legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol. The effects of tobacco are not as immediately noticeable as the effects of cocaine. The short term perception change and the long term personality changes are far greater with cocaine than they are with tobacco. I wasn’t completely in agreement, tobacco gives a very short term gratification and getting used to that feeling will have long term personality changes. To counter Bentley said that if we are going to argue that tobacco use is as dehumanizing as cocaine then we’ll have to argue that tobacco use will end up making the user do things like the harder drugs will; dress sloppy, have poorer job performance, stealing from loved ones in order to get their tobacco fix, etc…. I think that tobacco can do that. A smoker needs to take work breaks far more frequently than a non-smoker and I wonder if the habits of tobacco users would be far more like the habits of cocaine users if tobacco was illegal. Kaleen thought that it would. If tobacco was illegal tobacco users would have to be more secretive, tobacco would be more expansive, and when the tobacco dealer was busted there would be nic-fitting tobacco users looking for a new dealer. Bentley wondered if you have two drugs, tobacco and cocaine you illegalize one and legalize the other, what would it be like if you could buy 20 hits of cocaine instead of 20 cigarettes for 5 buck? But the effects of cocaine are so much stronger! Kaleen disagreed, don’t you think it could be because of the doses people take? What if you reduced the strength of the cocaine?
Bentley thought that maybe this would have the desired effect but then he thought of a friend he once had that got nicotine poisoning. He said they were driving in the car and his friend was using chewing tobacco and he was doing fine, doing fine, and then bam! he hit a plateau and got deathly sick and ended up passing out. I added that with cocaine you would not get sick… you would just die. To die from tobacco you have to ingest it. Kaleen thought that was interesting but wondered if it was because of all the chemicals they put into cigarettes. I talked for a little while about my experience with drugs that I had done which lead Bentley to wonder if negative drug use could be largely a social construct. My thoughts were that they were. Kaleen brought us back to the question we were discussing, “But do we think there are drugs that are dehumanizing, that they take away from what ever archetypical essence we have in us.” Bentley and I don’t think so. But I did wonder if meth might be a different case. Bentley agreed, he thought meth might be the exception.
Kaleen still didn’t think that the drug itself was dehumanizing. At this point Bentley brought up the date rape drug. My thoughts were that it was not the drug but the way it was used. Kaleen agreed, she added that it’s the intent. Bentley added that it is the behavior associated with the drugs that are bad. Kaleen asked him if he thought meth could be used in a socially responsible way. Bentley didn’t think so. We didn’t discuss this further but it seems we disagreed were Kaleen thought meth was not an exception but Bentley thought it might be.
Our discussion took a turn here and for a while we talked about food and taxes. We agreed that fatty and sugary foods and even TV and video games were drugs but that there was not really a good way to regulate them. We talked about doing things like making it so users had to have licenses to buy tobacco or cocaine but we could not agree on if this would actually do any good or not since so many people use things that they are not legally aloud to use.
Our group discussion was led by Melanie Kirschbaum. We started our discussion with the first question on page 333.
Kellene started off the discussion by arguing that terrorism involves a political campaign. Michon gave a beautiful counterargument that there are some people in the world that just want to create chaos. She brought up the example of the Joker in the new Batman movie. After realizing we were getting off topic Justin redefined terrorism as simply taking away the rights from others.
Michon decided to change the subject completely to bring up the fact that there are some people that think God tells them to attack. Kellene clarified that if it’s religious then it is a social campaign.
We then talked about certain cases in which terrorism might be morally permissible. For instance Michon brought up a hypothetical situation: if the US dropped a bomb on a country to protect from starting a war we would be sacrificing a small group to protect a larger group.
Kellene thinks no matter what governments/ political groups should try to protect others from clear and immediate danger such as physical danger of civilians.
We then talked about why the terrorist attack of 9/11 was not morally permissible, but that the bombing on Horishima might be morally acceptable. Melanie brought up the fact that we generally justify any act America takes because we want to be patriotic and we don’t like viewing ourselves as the bad guys. Also Horishima might be considered morally permissible because both countries were already in an act of war; whereas the attack of 9/11 was unnecessary.
Kellene said there is a distinction between war and terrorism. Justin stated that terrorism is cowardly and war is more gentlemanly and noble. Michon brought up the fact that a lot of terrorists believe their intentions are noble and that their deeds are brave.
Melanie brought up the fact that with war they have taken the certain precautions to have peace and war is the last result whereas terrorism goes around the communication process it doesn’t try to establish peace. Michon counter argued her statement by saying, if there is a smaller group in a country that is being oppressed they don’t have the power to follow through with the proper declaration of war. Terrorism is a last result because they don’t have the political strength to go through with the proper steps.
Kellene brought up the fact that terrorism can be used as a declaration of war. She then asked everyone if we thought the attack on Japan was or was not a terrorist attack initiated by the US. Justin stated that according to the justifiable declaration of war rules the attack on Japan was not justifiable, and therefore could be considered a terrorist attack.
We then brought our discussion back around to come to a solid conclusion about what we think terrorism entails. We concluded that terrorism is intense violence to bring forth political and social desires. Even though, we don’t like the fact we realize our country is even responsible for acts that we have defined above.
Triple Certified Weekly Discussion (#8). 3-24-2009
(Prepared by Bentley). Our group meeting on terrorism was most interesting when we began discussing how to define terrorism, and when we tried to determine what role intention could possibly play in differentiating acts of terrorism from non-terrorist acts of extreme violence. We also turned to question one on page 342 that asks if we agree with Jagger’s broad understanding of terrorism that reaches so far as to possibly include acts such as domestic violence.
We began the discussion by introducing the idea that good intention (or lack of terrorist-minded intention) at first glance seems like a sufficient condition in avoiding the label “terrorist” in some act of extreme violence. The three of us discussed this idea for a bit and quickly came to the conclusion that intention has absolutely no affect on the difference between acts of terrorism and non-terrorist acts of violence. We came to this conclusion by way of two foundational reasons. First, trying to determine a potential terrorists’ intentions within some act of extreme violence would be virtually impossible; and second, one’s intention, no matter how innocent and pure it may be is never a sufficient condition to avoid responsibility for those actions. We are held accountable everyday for things that we do not intend to do. If I’m an environmentalist and I intentionally bring down the Hoover Dam only in an effort to restore the natural ecosystem of the surrounding areas and I inadvertently cause the deaths of 5,000 Americans, then my action would certainly be classified as ‘terrorist’, and therefore I would be classified as a Terrorist, even though I had no terrorist intentions.
Our discussion then turned to what “terrorism” actually is. We found it interesting that terrorism is all to often only associated with acts of violence that result in the deaths of innocent people. Although these acts are certainly to be considered terrorist, Kaleen, Carson, and myself all seemed to be able to recognize that acts, which don’t necessarily include the loss of innocent lives, could also be classified as terrorist. While we were discussing Jaggar’s article we definitely agreed with aspects of her theory that would expand the reach of ‘terrorism classification’ to include things such as attacks on empty buildings, and perhaps less politically minded violence such as domestic violence. Perhaps there ought to be a defining line between terrorism and political terrorism. Making such a distinction would allow us to accurately describe terror-instilling acts that don’t involve political motivation or the loss if innocent lives as terrorist.
prepared by heidi saville
Richard and I agree that the legal justifications of terrorism don’t exist because as soon as it is labeled as terrorism it is an act of violence against innocents to make a statement – killing of civilians to make a point- that is definitely wrong.
We talked about how in class we gave the rules of war, and how most of our wars are not justified because the rules were not followed. Revolutions and wars against little things are not ok because its not conducted with the ‘proper authority’ –our war against terrorism isn’t against a proper authority figure and therefore isn’t a justified war. interesting.
Alison m. Jaggar asks–What is terrorism, why is it wrong and could it ever be morally permissible…
Richard defined terrorism as an attack on civilians with the soul purpose of creating fear or initiating terror. And it is not relevant if it is persons or if it is an organization… I agree that fear and confusion are always in the heart of a terrorist activity and that if we were to define it as a person or organization it just complicates the definition.
So I asked in regards, what about tourist attacks on nonhuman stuff? Richard responded with, tourism is to destroy and cause ciaos. You cannot always justify an attack on infrastructure because it still is causing destruction. That made sense to me so we moved on.
The methods of terrorism- terrorism usually involves, breaking the code of conduct- the messages of terrorism are normally using physical things like guns and bombs against bystanders. You cant defend yourself against terrorism because as a civilian we cant protect ourselves, so terrorist instead of attacking a military attack those who cant protect themselves- that’s messed up! Definitely not moral.
But then when we thought about gangs and the fact that they cause terror and destruction and sometimes kill innocent bystanders. So what about gangs being terrorists? We decided that it depends on your definition of terrorism. Because gangs tend to kill civilians and innocent people but by our definition- I don’t think that gangs are usually doing things to purposely make ‘chaos.’
Is terrorism ever morally permissible? …no, by nature terrorism is immoral to attack an unprotected people. So no it is never permissible. I couldn’t agree more, its not just violent but it is violent to be violent- to make chaos is wrong.
What’s the difference in war and terrorist attack –in ‘causalities?’ Richard told me that’s where it gets sketchy- there will always be civilians killed in war but whether or not it is on purpose. So I said -what about ww2 dropping the bombs to end the war killing innocents… it was to end war but it was really on purpose. He said it might not be terrorism but it could still be immoral.
Is there ever a just cause for terrorism… no if it is ‘terrorism’ it is wrong – we will call it something else if it is justified… no it has to be wide spread or it is just violence… conducted against innocent people with a purpose… just murdering an innocent person isn’t terrorism… its just violence.
Prepared by Molli
Our focus today was on question number 1 on page 333.
“Is Nathanson correct in holding that being part of a campaign to promote a political or social agenda is one of the defining features of terrorism.”
Our group got back to our agreement form on this issue. We all believe that in some way or another a defining feature of terrorism is that there is some political or social agenda. I think that if someone is just trying to kill another person out of anger or prejudice, then they will simply kill and we call it murder. However, in instances of terrorism, I think there is an aspect behind it that causes shock. That seems to be one main reason of terrorism. If you can shock a country, maybe they will begin to question their political leaders, which eventually breaks down parts of a political system. Taking 9/11 for instance, you see the lasting turmoil it has caused throughout this country. Conspiracy theorists are thriving. The more people they can convince, the more divided our country will be.
Lishelle strongly agrees with Nathanson. She says, “Yes, I do believe that terroism has a huge part and is greatly defined as a political and social agenda. A great example to this is 9/11. Was that significant date in history to show America, oh call 911. And a start in a political and social battle. Schedule is everything I think. War is tried to be taken and ended with dates and deadlines. Human rights are compromised wether they want to be involved or not. And other terroist attacks that are like the animal liberals setting fires, the tree huggers, anti- abortion bombing clinics they promote their social campain with violent acts. And also make a status by bombing or killing innocent people to make thier argument and show where they stand.”
I think this is interesting because I never thought about timing as such a major factor in terrorism.
Although Shantel agrees, she is not so strongly in favor of Nathanson’s approach. She says, “Nathanson to an extent is correct in holding that being part of a campaign to promote a political or social agenda is one of the defining features of terrorism. Because terrorism is an organized formed hate group. Many terrorist have a social agenda to harm or beat the group that they dislike. Usually when I think of terrorist I think of brutal groups of armies and men who hate a country or a particular religious or ethnic group. From the events of the attack on the Twin Towers on 9/11/01 my main view of terrorist is men in the middle east who hate the US and want to see it destroyed. But Nathanson takes it to another level that even here in America just being part of a campain to promote political or social agenda can define terrorism. Every terrorist has a political view and a social agenda.”
I think it’s interesting we all use references to 9/11, maybe our views would be slightly altered if we lived in places like Iraq, where terrorism is frequent.
The focus of our discussion this week was Justice Black’s majority opinion in Korematsu v. United States. The question being, should individuals who were interned at Guantanamo Bay for a long period of time and later released with no charges made against them be compensated like the Japanese-Americans shortly after World War 2?
Our discussion led us first to the question whether or not the United States was justified in imprisoning Japanese citizens during World War 2. Craig, Ethan, and I agree that it was unjustified; Juan agreed with Justice Black’s opinion that the United States was justified (because the U.S. was in a state of war and sometimes governments have to take drastic measures to ensure the safety of its citizens). Juan said that he recognized that it is unfortunate but that war isn’t necessarily convenient either. Personally I feel that making judgments on the basis of race is fundamentally wrong… to take a best bet approach to the possible threat was morally wrong.
Then we arrived to the discussion of compensation to Guantanamo Bay prisoners. . . this is where our opinions were split down the middle. Although Craig agreed that the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War 2 was wrong, he argued that the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are different in that they are not citizens of the United States. Moreover, he argued that those who were placed into holding at Guantanamo Bay were placed there because of certain “actions” that they had made that placed them under suspicion. Juan agreed with Craig and commented, “I feel very sorry for those who had nothing to be convicted for and spent years imprisoned in Guantanamo, but the authorities had to make sure these individuals were in fact not guilty of any charge.”
Ethan commented, “I completely disagree with Craig on this one. On some accounts [the Untied States] did randomly arrest ‘mid-easterners’ [and accused] those who looked some what suspicious and imprison[ed] them. Many [individuals of Mid-Eastern decent] were incarcerated under no charges whatsoever and they [were] . . . detained indefinitely since there was no incentive to try them. “ I agree with Ethan and believe that if someone is innocent, they should be given compensation regardless of race or citizenship. All in all, it is difficult making decisions in times of war and as you can see from our discussion, some people are willing to sacrifice personal liberties for security’s sake and others are not.
Terrorism Discussion Lead by Tom Weiler
This week we discussed the article by Mrs. Jaggar. What I find most interesting was what people define as terrorism, what people define as war, and what the key differences are. The reason why is because most people find war to be an unfortunate end that should be resolved as quickly as possible, while others find terrorism as something that is never acceptable. When given the challenge, it is very difficult to clearly draw an objective distinction between war and terrorism. The group as a whole accepted the author’s definition of what terrorism including household terrorism of domestic violence. I wasn’t fully satisfied. I wanted to know what made the “war on terrorism” that America is involved in makes it not an act of terrorism, while Jehad’s war against western civilization was terrorism. Because from there perspective it is the opposite, we are the terrorists and they are righteous. The idea came up that it was a some what of a global popular vote. “It is clear we are right because our culture and actions are (currently) more socially acceptable across the world.” Again, I was not happy with that. Taking a line from the Constitution, where majority rules while protecting the minority rights. So like I said, we all more or less agreed with the books definition of terrorism and didn’t really get to the point I wanted to establish of what makes war and terrorism different and more or less called all war an act of terrorism. Despite not being happy with this conclusion we moved onto the next question. When is terrorism justified. There was more clash here. Sarah came straight out and said that no act of terrorism is ever justifiable. Leibnitz was next in taking the conservative point of view. In the beginnings he saw all act of terrorism as morally reprehensible. Although as time went on he thought of a few examples where it would be justifiable, like over throwing an unjust government, or in a way, fighting terrorism with terrorism. Krissy saw it as an occasional necessary evil taking three criteria into consideration, 1 having a just cause, 2 having the right intention, 3 keeping the aim of peace above all. That the first two can be confused but the third one is the clear distinction. This is where I went off in the other way. Maybe it’s because I’ve been reading the Prince recently but I said because there is no objective moral law or way to determine who is justified and who is not, I justified everyones actions in the ends justify the means. If the motivation in leading them to do whatever they is good enough for them, I can not judge. It kind of tapered off there but that was our discussion.
(prepared by Jon) The first question our group discussed was on Page 333 Q#2 – Do you agree with Nathanson that it is possible to draw a principled distinction between (a) terrorist acts and (b) some acts of warfare that result in harm to innocent people?
Our group agreed that the line is very thin, if in existence at all. Alison feels that it is not possible to draw a distinction between the two. They both are aimed at taking lives, whether innocent or not, in order to make a point. Danielle feels similarly, stating that terrorism is defined by warfare and that “the intent may be good, but the outcome is always the same.” Jon disagreed. He found Waltzer’s “Supreme Emergency” concept very compelling. Jon stated that although this is similar to what he believes is the terrorist rational, the difference lies in direct forceful aggression. Western influence holds no gun, in merely seduces the young or unfirm of faith.
The second question we discussed was on Page 342 #2 – Do you agree with the criteria Jaggar offers for determining if an act of terrorism is morally justified? Why or why not?
Jon agrees in the application of just warfare to the terrorism scheme. He believes it to be thorough, making a fair criteria for such an act to be judged. Alison, for the time being, agrees with Jaggar. She would however call for a subgenre entitled “terroristic warfare.” Danielle, in her general apathetic manner, failed to coherently answer the actual question at hand. Something was uttered of the “A Bomb” and a justification of ends and means.
(Prepared by Kaleen) This week, our group decided to discuss question 1 on pg. 369, which asked if laws that limit liberties of the few in the interest of safety for the majority were ever morally justifiable. In our discussion, we considered the Patriot Act to be one of these laws. To begin, we discussed how the lesser segment of the population, which would have its liberties limited, would be selected. It was my opinion that this could not be done without profiling, which would inevitably lead to prejudices against the target group. Carson agreed, saying that if this could be done without profiling, it could be acceptable, but since that is not possible, laws like the Patriot Act are wrong. I then mentioned that a common ideology in the United States is that of everyone being equal and having equal rights; sacrificing the liberties of a few for the sake of the many is in direct opposition to this common ideology, and should not be implemented. Bentley agreed, saying that the argument for laws like the Patriot Act are utilitarian in nature, and that immaterial assets (such as equality and liberty) cannot be commodified in the way utilitarianism would require. Given that utilitarian arguments are all about practicality, the three of us could agree that the laws like the Patriot Act could be practical, but we also agreed that they lacked morality.
Bentley then brought up the following: the foundation of the U.S. government has always been supported by checks and balances, but the Patriot Act has none of these. As Bentley put it, there is no oversight in the Patiot Act, jut raw, unbridled power. Again, we agreed that this was practical when haste was a concern when preventing acts of terrorism, but we also agreed that this was not an acceptable way for the U.S. government to behave. I then brought up the issue of trust: a government’s purpose is to serve the people it governs, which means that trust is necessary. If the people to not trust that the government is serving them, then there is something wrong with the government that needs to be fixed. It seems that the people have been concerned with the Patriot Act, implying that they do not find the government trustworthy to use such an act. Carson summed up my point by saying that if the Patriot Act is inspiring terror in the American people, it is violating its purpose to protect the American people against acts of terrorism.
(prepared by Molli)
Question #1 page 353
“In the past, in times of crisis, the United States has adopted measures – later recognized as morally wrong – that curtailed civil liberties in the interest of security. Does the current American response to terrorism involve a morally unacceptable curtailment of liberties? Why or why not?”
We all seemed to take the same view that we do not believe the US response to terrorism is morally unacceptable.
Shantel believes it’s not easy to govern a coutntry, and although the US goverment has made some mistakes in the past years in certain measures they adopted. It’s better that they tried to fix the problem than just let it be, and become worst. I think the American government is trying its best to keep its country safe. The most recent terrorist attacks have been the worst yet, and therefore calls for extreme measures. You can’t expect one of the most feared nations to sit back and do nothing, when it comes to war as well as back on home land with its people. Not everyone is going to agree with what the government does, more times than none more will disagree with their choice, and some choices in the past by the government have been morally wrong but they later took responsability. Something needs to be done so another 9/11 doesn’t happen, and to some people the governments new actions mabe be morally unacceptable, but something needs to be done and the government is doing its best to protect its people.
Lishelle had the same views, saying, “Because like it said in the past the U.S. has dealt with matters of retailation that was uncecessary and morally wrong but and change by being more civil. So in the dealings of terrorist they are more civil in trying to end terrorist and to deterance to future times. Also trying to understand and help those governements with the high terroist groups and finding and making agreements with those leaders.”
Sarah also does not believe the government has overstepped their boundaries. She commented that, “No, the first liberty we enjoy as americans is our freedom and when terrorists come in and attack we as americans lose our freedom.”
I agree with all members of our group. Although many do not agree with the patriot act, I actually am fine with it. I do think it needs to be monitored, but as said in class, anyone that doesn’t have anything to hide should be ok with it. I know people brought up the fact that the government can take you without telling you what you’re charged with and treating you uncivily, but I refuse to believe that human beings would be that inhumane without a reason. Call me naive, but would Americans really do those things?
(prepared by Andrew)
We based our discussion on both questions 1 and 2 on page 383, as they were asking essentially the same thing: Is it a legitimate action of government to take money from one man to give it to another who may be in need?
The reaction to this question was mixed. A lively discussion ensued with two main sides formed, though with nuances and qualifiers.
Tyler and Anna both forwarded the position that while admittedly quite hard to achieve at a practical level, in theory the distribution of funds from those who have no need to those who show considerable need is a just action of government. The argument forwarded the idea that government is in place to protect its people, that includes to a basic level financially as well as physical. All human beings have a right to the necessities of life, perhaps even to those things that constitute a decent quality of life. As this is a fundamental right, then it is the duty of the government to provide its citizens with said right. In summary, while in practice it may be very hard to determine who is in need, in theory government does indeed have an obligation to its citizens.
Derrick and Andrew defended the other side, though with differences even between themselves. Derrick forwarded the notion of “compassionate conservatism.” This he defined as meaning not the direct transfer of wealth, but rather the providing of services. Simply put, while government should not direct funds directly from one citizen to another in the form of money, the government does have a duty to make sure everyone has access to the basic services of modern life; that is a home, water, power, and food.
Andrew agreed with classic liberalism or libertarianism, in espousing the progression the free market facilitates as ultimately being the most humane course of action. Leave charity work to charities which hopefully individuals will chose to support. Government has no role in forcefully taking one’s possession against his consent, at least not for the use of nonessential services, as mandated by the social contract. Ultimately liberty leads to progression which in turn leads to increased liberty.
Our discussion this week was about terrorism as well.
We discussed Lubans question about the hybrid law-war model.
Question one asks whether or not we thought that the hybrid policy was moral and why we thought that.
Lino and Craig thought the hybrid law model was acceptable with some changes. They thought that, with the interests of security in mind, this policy can be called for and be morally acceptable with some adjustments in the methods of internment. They recognized a need to set up a system that would move people in and out of the prison, namely Guantanamo, and not leave them there indefinitely, uncharged, and unable to prove their innocence. In the case of the Patriot Act they recognized that there needed to be measures in place to give the rights back to the people after the threat has abated. Ethan thought that the hybrid law model was a gross injustice on human liberties and certain rights that had been taken away were rights that were central to our core values. The Magna Carta gave people the right to be able to know what they had been charged with. This is one of the very first rights that un-free people first fought for, which seemed quite important to maintain according to Ethan.
Question #1 page 353, prepared by Richard.
“In the past, in times of crisis, the United States has adopted measures – later recognized as morally wrong – that curtailed civil liberties in the interest of security. Does the current American response to terrorism involve a morally unacceptable curtailment of liberties? Why or why not?”
The most obvious example of this principle for our group was the internment camps of World War 2. Although Japanese Americans really posed no real threat to the American military operations, there was obviously still a significant amount of anti-Japanese sentiment that existed to send them to internment camps.
But more specifically, we came across the issue of the Patriot Act. This act was a prime example for us of unacceptable curtailment of civil liberties. The difficulty is that at the time it was passed, the Patriot Act was no controversial measure. There were not noteworthy debates or arguments over the nature of the act, or how it limited the freedoms and rights of Americans.
The most offensive part of this act for us was the treatment of suspected terrorists. Obviously terrorist threats were a real concern directly after the 9/11 attacks. Obviously measures needed to be taken to ensure the security of the nation. However, the resulting Patriot Act protects unacceptable, immoral acts–in fact, it sanctions them. This act allowed for the indefinite imprisonment of suspected terrorists, weakening of warrants and other legal protections that citizens of the United States are entitled to.
Many supporters of the Patriot Act argue that we shouldn’t really care if the government taps our phones, or goes through our library records–if we are law abiding citizens, we have nothing to fear, right? But we found that this was an exceptionally dangerous road to take. In the past, government has not willingly relinquished power that it has gained over its citizens. In fact, the truth is usually quite the opposite, with ever-expanding powers granted to the government in more and more areas. And even though we may not have something illegal to hide from the government, this definitely does not justify unconstitutional breaches of our right to privacy.
In conclusion, we found American responses to terrorist threats to be disproportionate to the real danger posed. Even though the twin towers were bombed in New York, this does not necessarily justify invading countries halfway around the world. Even though tapping phones of suspected terrorists may lead to a few more captured criminals, this does not justify unrestricted government invasions of privacy. We found that in general, American responses to terrorism have been heavy-handed, ineffective, and morally reprehensible.
Prepared by Justin
Our group discussed Luban’s article on the Hybrid approach to fighting the war on terrorism. Most of us felt very stongly that the Hybrid approach is extremely unethical because it has done more harm than good, however Kachiri pointed out the case of suicide bombers, that we can’t throw them in jail for blowing up a building, there is nobody to punish for all the death and destruction they cause, and how can we justify letting them go when we know they are going to do such a thing. Kachiri also pointed out that “terrorist acts are different. Negotiations aren’t made, there aren’t two opposing sides, etc…”. My argument however was that the hybrid approach ignored basic human rights. I personally feel that the rights granted in the U.S. Bill of Rights are the minimum rights that a government should strive to protect. Richard argued that we cannot expect people to respect our beliefs and traditions if we are violating all of them by locking up innocents without any evidence, or using torture to get confessions. We also brought up the point that with such a system there is no end to the harm that we can do to our own country. I stated that I believe people are more afraid of our own government and it’s actions that the actions of the terrorists we are trying to stop. So in the end, the terrorists still cause the fear they were hoping to create. How do the ends justify the means (which are terrible in their own right) when we cannot honestly say it is not accomplishing the terrorists’ goals rather than preventing them? We all felt that there must be a more ethical solution than this one.
Question 1 after Justice Black’s decisions:
1. In the past, in times of crisis, the United States has adopted measures- later recognized as morally wrong- that curtailed civil liberties in the interest of security. Does the current American response to terrorism involve a morally unacceptable curtailment of liberties? Why or Why not?
Jake immediately took the position that the destruction of civil liberties, under these strenuous times, is not justifiable. It hasn’t been in the past and won’t be in the future. Our freedoms are what allow us our strengths; they are also the things which endear us to our causes and inspire us to fight for them. Dan countered that we have a privileged position, and that hindsight is always 20-20. If you fear for that all our liberties might not continue to exist, it is easy to give up a few to save the rest. He argued that the fear of the absolute unknown destroys all talk of unwavering ideals and turns into a situation of the “ends justify the means”. Dan further pointed out that our ideals, which give us our “strength,” as Jake put it, are also our greatest weakness. The right to say whatever you want, peaceably assemble, the right to privacy, etc, are well known amongst our enemies and are easily exploitable, so perhaps they are not strengths at all, once we are in a conflict. Jake acknowledged that civil liberties have been suspended before and that we have recovered and adopted them again, but our current situation is so unlike any we’ve faced before; terrorism is not likely to go away, so reconstituting civil liberties after a war is unlikely simply because this is not a war at all, in a traditional sense. With the nature of terrorism, Jake fears that civil liberties would be suspended left and right and to all sorts of extremes in different groups. He asserts that the suspension of civil rights is not our only solution, we should stop treating it like it is.
Is the hybrid approach a morally acceptable way of dealing with terrorist suspects? Why or Why not?”I think it’s a more acceptable approach, but I’m not sold that it is moral. I think it’s definitely more logical than most theories but I don’t think that mass destruction is ever moral.” Alison, I love this concept just because this uses the same logic many of us do with that last cupcake, there really is no middle ground you eat your cup cake or not, you either drop a big bomb or not. Sugar coating it doesn’t make it easier to recover from mass destruction.
Japanese-Americans who were interned during WWII have received some compensation from the government. Should individuals who were interned at Guantanamo Bay for a long period of time and later released with no charges be compensated?
Alison: “Yes I think that they should be compensated. I think that if you’re going to compensate some but not others it is dishonest. You’re taking people away from their livelihood for an amount of time that their family might have to step in and try to make ends meat. These people are singled out just as much as the Japanese-Americans were. Any type of prisoner that the U.S. takes should be treated with the standards that a major world power has and that’s class. I’m not saying wine and cheese, but at least treat them civilly and respect them as if they are human. I don’t agree,
No, they should not, Japanese-Americans were singled out via race, we do not house tens of thousands of American citizens in wooden shacks in the middle of deserts and in areas with freezing temperatures, as long as they are treated according to POW standards then I believe that is the only government should be held to this is war sadly.
Group Discussion on Civil Liberties and Terrorism: lead by Leibnitz Dominguez (help writing from Tom)
We talked about the question from Luban: Is the hybrid approach a morally acceptable way of dealing with terrorist suspects? Why or why not? I started the conversation by saying that I think it is a morally acceptable option. The point that I really liked in the reading was when the author pointed out that the potential harm of a terrorist could be a dire menace and especially the suicide bomber. I think it is the trade off is fair. Some civil liberties for more security. Sarah was the first to disagree. The part of the text that she pointed out was that the U.S. Takes bits and pieces of law model and the war model and taper it to fit our best interests. But she said it is never moral to take away people’s civil liberties like a fair trial or innocent until proven guilty, rather than being arrested on suspicion. Krissy agreed with Sarah for the most part. She agreed that it would lead to a lot of wrongful incriminations, but took it even further in saying that it would make people angry and create more enemies. Because of unjust treatment, it will only fuel the current problems. Tom sided more with me. He thought that overall the ends justify the means. He made a comment about how America enjoys a lot of liberties and are selfish about themselves and the safety of the whole. They don’t expect to be a victim of terrorism but fear that the government has an interest in destroying our lives. He thought that the ends justify the means and the safety that comes from the hybrid method is worth the potential forfeit of some civil liberties. So in the end we had two for it and two against it.
(Prepared by Kaleen) Carson, Bentley and I discussed our views on the private ownership of handguns and assault weapons. The three of us seemed to compose a spectrum of views about guns, with Carson being very against them, and Bentley being more open to them. I fell somewhere between the two. None of us were gun fanatics, and we all agreed that along with guns come a lot of issues. Carson began our discussion by saying that in the past month alone, 53 people have been killed in shooting sprees. Bentley stated that at his work he has noticed an increase in the sale of handguns since Obama was elected into office. This didn’t surprise any of us, given how vehement the people of America tend to be about their right to own handguns. Carson then said that, in some ways, he could be alright with people owning a rifle if they lived in deer country and wanted to hunt, or if they wanted a handgun to protect their home, but he also thought that people should be required to go through intensive training about safety and gun management before they were allowed to have their guns. Bentley then mentioned that you do have to go through classes for a concealed weapons permit, and that you have to be fingerprinted and put your name into a federal database. I mentioned that you also have to jump through a lot of hoops to get automatic weapons, but that none of these things were really effective is lessening gun-related crimes; those who wanted handguns or automatic weapons would get them. All of us recognized that there would be no way to rid the country of guns, since the population is flooded with them, and Carson lamented that anyone who tried to confiscate guns would probably have one of the most dangerous jobs in the country. My view on this was that guns were here to stay, and that what we should focus on was not controlling the guns, but on inspecting the instances in which guns were misused and minimizing their frequency. I said that if there was a basic, assured standard of living in America, the loss of a job wouldn’t be seen as reason enough to go on a shooting spree. Likewise, if drugs were legalized I believe we would see a reduction in gang violence. Carson and Bentley both agreed that these were areas that should be given more attention by those in power. Carson then brought up an interesting point about our society’s view on guns: smoking is no longer allowed to be shown in movies with ratings lower than R, but guns are still acceptable. Bentley’s view on this was that both guns and cigarettes have bad effects, but the difference is that no good can come of cigarette smoking, whereas good (protection, hunting for food, etc.) could come from guns. Bentley did acknowledge that there is really no practical, non-harmful reason for assault weapons, and suggested that maybe there should be a limit on which guns are allowed and which are not. Carson and I were both able to agree with this.
prepared by heidi
Bill of Rights.
the discussion started with stating question number one about the first amendment and how it has been interpreted as not being able to have prayer in public schools, and having the ten commandment monuments in public parks… is this right? should we be able to have prayer in school? I say, ‘the words are straight it says that they will not prohibit the free exercise thereof- which to me means that if the teacher wants to have a private prayer and invite his students to join (not make it a grade or anything) I think that we cant deny him of his religious practices and if his religious practices include praying before an event, then let him pray before an event.’ richard says ‘exactly! like if we were forcing the kids and making them say prayers then it is violating their right protected in the first amendment but saying that they CANT pray is also taking away their rights protected under the first amendment’ so I said, ‘ya like if they dont want 30seconds of a moment of silence then they can go outside or like in class how one student said that they could pray to captain crunch man or whatever.’ rich said, ‘they teach evolution in schools and i dont believe in evolution and i have the option to walk out of class if i choose and i know i dont have to believe it, same goes with atheists and prayer- i dont have to pray but i cant take away someone elses rights to say a prayer even though i dont believe in it.’ …alright what about the 10 commandments- what about taking In God We Trust off our money? ‘yes yes i do. i think that that should definitely be separate- i think that doesnt really give the people the choice you know cuz you cant look away or ignore it… that is putting ‘god’ in our government and the first amendment says that that is not right’ …i said, ‘what about tradition? our country was really founded on that?’ …he said, ‘but change is a constant in life, we have more nonreligious people now.’…’but i think that it is really not forcing our beliefs on others, its not, its just words some can choose to believe it and others just dont stress about it. if you take one nation under god out of the pledge then you have to change everything – everything from the constitution to frankly America in general because We were built as a nation under God – the principles of free religion.’ ……. question number 2 about the right to bear arms… I say ‘you take my guns, we’re starting a civil war!’ because the bad guys will still be able to get guns… then we talked about nuclear weapons and obama and his attempts on these rights.
question number three… are there additional rights you would like to see covered?
sarcastically said in response- ‘nope if there were then God wouldve made sure they’d been in there’ -bahaha. …in all reality we ended up going back over all the social ethic discussions before… does the woman have a right to get an abortion? should we say that cruel punishment is allowing the murderer to live in jail? but ultimately we couldnt think of anything worthy of being in the bill of rights.
We decided to answer question one from Hosper’s article.
First, we decided that we needed to establish which rights are implicit and which rights we ‘establish’ and give value to. Mainly, the discussion was about property rights and whether it is possible to claim a right to own something. Jake claimed it was based on improving an object/land, and in that way you may own it. Mike and Dan argued contrary. Since this was such a tangent, we returned to discuss whether it is wrong to take something from another person. Dan said he would take a utilitarian argument and say that if the government knew without a doubt that it would do the most good for the most people, it would be moral to take money from the well-to-do and help support the poor. Dan also agreed with Mike’s observation about how throughout history many groups of low-income people have revolted against the rich. Since the rich do not want this, it is better to give up a little to the poor rather than loose it all. Jake disagreed, arguing that if it is wrong for a burglar to take money for his or someone else’s gain, then it would be wrong for the government to do so as well. Dan retained his position that if the burglar or government knew 100% it would be best for the most amount of people, it would be moral. He agreed with Jake that it is an impossibility to have that knowledge; therefore, it would not be moral in a realistic view. Mike read the phrase that government is the most dangerous organization/group that can exist. Jake argued that a government is no more dangerous than any other group that has weapons or an army. He used the example of a rogue military. Dan disagreed and said that what makes a government dangerous is not that it has the same destructive ability as a rogue military, but that the people willingly submit themselves to it, trusting it and believing it will never hurt them. We all ended up agreeing that government is the most dangerous group that can exist.
Prepared by Molli
Our group discussed question 1 on page 442 about whether there is a moral obligation to give famine relief.
Our group came out somewhat divided on this issue. Lishelle agrees with Singer and claims there is no moral obligation to give relief, but you should if you have the chance. She says, “In the discussion of world hunger and poverty of the world I agree with the idea that singer offers. Yes if course we as Americans would rather improve our appearance than save a country, go out to dinner when we could’ve stayed home, be involved in extra curricular activities. Not contributing and aiding to a country is not morally wrong and there is no obligation to my opinion, but if you have extra money that could go to a good cost or your perform in service or you help out in your community than I feel you don’t need to offer help to the outside of the U.S. but if you are on who never contributes to anywhere but your selfish reasons than that is when you need to look in the mirror and ask yourself if that is morally right and if you are happy of the thought of a starving child that you could’ve provided for with a five dollar bill. If you can look in the mirror and be fine than that is morally wrong and I would love to convince what an contribute it would be to that small child and the happiness and satisfaction it would bring to oneself.”
Shantel agrees with Lishelle on this issue. She believes, “In no way are we obligated to perform an act of charity, but it is highly recommended and morally right. But why wouldn’t you contribute to a famine relief? Especially if you have the money to do so. I find it extremely selfish if you don’t help out those less fortunate. I’m a strong believer in what goes around comes around. Aka Karma. If you pass up a chance to give back I strongly feel that it will come back to you and harm you. There honestly is no better feeling than when you give to someone else. I feel even if you are struggling with money, if you give just a little to a better cause all will work out in the end. I know I am speaking more from a relgious type point of view, but giving to a charity brings a sense of religion. The LDS church is probably the best religion/group that gives aid. After the tsunami over in Asia, they were first to respond by sending supplies and missionaries. Again after Hurricane Katrina, the LDS group were there helping find homes, giving supplies and bringing families strength. Although it may not be our “obligation” to give back, it is morally wrong not to give back what you were lucky enough to have.”
I actually take a different approach to this argument. I do believe it is our moral obligation to give back in times of need. Especially if we have extra money, and by extra money I mean money to spend on excessive wants, then we should give it away. I believe that God gave some people better circumstances then others, so they could help those with less out. I don’t think there should be a law passed or anything that forces you to give, I think that dealing with the higher moral law our class has discussed in the past, you do have a moral obligation to give back. I think if you don’t, and this is harsh, it shows you’re selfish.
(prepared by Alison) Government assistance can mean anything. There are programs to help someone buy a house, have a child, and even eat a meal once a day. But many view this as a negative aspect of what the Government should do and how they should be handling it. Our group discussed two questions that Alison felt like covered one end to the other of Governments involvement in assisting individuals and families.
The first questions was from John Hospers article and reads, “Some Libertarians argue that, from a moral standpoint, there is no difference between the actions of an ordinary thief and those of a government when it seizes money from some in order to support others. They assume that, if the former are wrong, then so are the latter. Are they correct?” Both Danielle and Alison took the same stance of no, they are not correct on this issue. Both girls put faith in the current people of the nation and the government that, as Danielle says, “it seems safe to assume that if it was happening, people would make sure that the government is governed one way or another.” Jon agreed with Danielle and Alison, he just took a different approach to looking at it. Jon states, “If we are considering a common thief, I must disagree. Robin hood might be a case in point for this argument, but I believe that the common thief steals out of necessity, for the thrill, or for some other personal/selfish reason.” He also goes on to point out that especially through taxes, we as a people, might not find it fair that they take it, but for the whole it is a positive net gain.
The second question that we discussed was also from John Hospers article and it reads, “Do you agree that the government should have no role in assisting the needy? What reasons can you advance to defend your answer?” Danielle started out saying that people are responsible for their own well being but then turned her view to one of a socialist and thinks that it might be cheaper for the state and less hassle for government if they “give them their bread and butter” and then move on to bigger and better things. Jon clearly stated that the government should have a less active role in assisting the needy. He states, “I’m a firm believer in the “teach a man to fish” idea, and I think way too many fish are just being handed out. People have no incentive to be productive because it is so easy to just have everything handed to you. The little money they do earn they just blow on crap rather than learn to save and better their situation.” And Alison is going to once again put her faith in the current government. She agrees that there are a lot of “free-loaders” out there and there are those out there who need it once in a lifetime, but she does not think that the government plays too big of a role in that. Alison states, “Yes the Government approves the applications, but they also keep up with all those very regularly. In order to gain Government assistance, there are many papers to fill out and much proof needed to determine legitimacy. I don’t think that the Government plays too big of a role because there are still high numbers of homeless people in this nation that could qualify from Government assistance, they just don’t know how or where to get it, or have too much pride to ask. There might be a day when all of us might need it and we would all probably like it to be there when we do.”
Prepared by Juan
For today’s discussion, our group discussed two issues: what libertarians consider as moral and the role of the government, and some controversies over the first two ammendments of the Bill of Rights. For the first question (pg. 383 John Hospers), is it right for the government, from a libertarian point of view, to tax some people to support others? In a system like the one in which our society operates, which is predominantly capitalism, the wealth of a nation is to be concentrated within the hands of a few elite. While the it is true that living standards have improved from the 1960s to the present, the income gap picture has not looked much better compared to 70 years ago. As Lino describes it, capitalism is is nothing more than the exploitation of the unfortunate who have access to limited resources. Capitalism (for the most part) has nothing to do with talent or merit but rather one’s socio-economic background. The welfare system exists beacause since the wealth is concentrated only with a few people, threre is no viable way to distribute that money through market forces. The government must step in to avoid an even more greater disparity on the income gap. Craig calls it a more genuine thievery, since the government is taxing based on its right to tax, and it can spend the money as it sees fit. The system is flawed, but Lino calls that social welfare is a neccesary evil. In contrast, Ethan thinks the libertarians are right in calling the government as thiefs. While some of the tax money is for our betterment as a society, he moment that money is not used for our betterment it is called thievery.
Turning to the bill of rights, concerning the first ammendment, we are all on the same page. Ethan says that there should not be, as currently written, any restrictions based on the first amendment as to what your religion does and how it expresses its self. Lino and I agree that we are free to express our religion anywhere we want, not only in the confines of our property or church. Craig says that e cannot make a law to promote or prevent the exercise of a religion. When we are forbidding prayer in school, we are doing just that. In matters of the second ammendment, Craig and Lino agree that the people have the right to defend themselves. But for those whose intent is otherwise, Lino proposes that more regulation is the solution in order to sort out the majority of “bad apples”. Ethan believes, in a more broad view, that if we feel that what is presented in the bill of rights is to open and unconstrained that it should be rewritten for the days.
prepared by Rich
This week we discussed the morality of a government taxing its people. When one man stealing from another is considered theft, couldn’t the same be said of government taking money from one to give to another? Rich started the disscusion by saying that from a libertarian point of view, this philosophy would make sense. Since the person is the master of himself, and no one can become a master over him in any degree, the government would have no right to take his money for any reason, even those that are good. Kachiri then stated that she did not believe it was stealing for government to raise taxes to help out. She pointed out that, yes, money that the government collects from the people can be used inappropriately, but the central idea of taxes is not stealing. Justin pointed out that in our system it is not stealing because we all agreed to be taxed by voting for our representatives who, then, passed the tax laws. Since we gave our consent, the government is not stealing from us. Rich agreed with these points and discussed that taxes can be used for highways, hospitals, roads, etc, everyone taking advantage of these entities. Kachiri then pointed out that, yes taxes pay for these things, but also said that when stealing occurs it is by the people taking advantage of government programs like Medicaid and welfare. We decided that the government is not essentially stealing from its people when collecting taxes simply because we voted for those taxes, directly or indirectly. Also, when the stealing does take place, it is by people who take advantage of the government’s programs when they might not necessarily need it.
Prepared by Shantel Flanary
We focused on a question after Matt Zwolinski article on sweat shops. The question states that corporations in the United States frequently move jobs from the United States to third world countries, paying much lower wages and benefits. Are their actions morally defensible?
I started out stating that the reason the US sends jobs to third world countries is so they don’t have to feel “responsible” about cutting their pay and lowering their wages and benefits. The US is way above the definition of third world country and so when they want to cut wages to third world country prices they know that would be morally wrong in America, but if they send them to some other country than they no longer have to worry about them and don’t feel the blame for the cut of wages. Shelly counter attacks saying, “Corporations are just running a business. So by moving their company to a third-world country to make a profit I understand their motives. But no it is not moral. But it is defensible because it makes our economy better and so therefore makes our country better and makes the countries that rely on the U.S. better off. So this world runs and relies on how well the U.S. does. And I also don’t agree what goes on in the sweatshops and think that something should be changed but then price would go up therefore make it the same. The great thing is we live in the U.S. and have tried to change and abolish sweatshops. I am happy to live in the U.S. So yes their actions are morally wrong!” I agreed and disagreed with Shelly that corporations are just running a business but it doesn’t mean their actions of moving a company to sweat shop conditions is morally right. But then again, in our world today most business has no morals. Molli spoke saying, “Even though the issue of outsourcing is terribly sad, I don’t believe the idea of cheap labor is immoral. What I do think is immoral is when there are terrible sweatshops and living conditions for workers. If a company pays people in other countries less because there is no minimum wage, and makes working conditions healthy, then I don’t think it’s immoral. I think that it’s sad that Americans are losing their jobs, but we’re too selfish. We need to understand that if we want to make money we’re going to have to work for cheap.” Sarah than responds, “I don’t agree with any kind of sweatshop. Most deal with slave labor of young kids and prostitution, which is never morally ok. It’s not ok when businesses feel they can go to third world countries and basically make slaves of these young children. I think that if businesses are going to these third world countries and offering these people real opportunities with descent opportunities then it would be beneficial to both the business and the third world countries.” I agree with Sarah more than either of the other two. That any kind of sweatshop is morally wrong, especially when it comes to young kids; we basically said the same thing that it’s not okay for businesses to feel they can go to third world countries and just make sweat shops their because it be morally wrong in the US, but not for third world countries. Molli and Shelly agreed more on that it isn’t morally wrong, but Shelly and I highly disagree with it all being morally not okay.
Prepared by Richard
Our group decided to discuss the question after Zwolinski’s article on sweatshops. There were a few fundamental issues which came up when we thought about sweat shops that we decided needed to be addressed.
The first and most obvious of these is morality. Sweatshops seem to often involve terrible working conditions, long and difficult work days, and terribly low wages. Heidi brought up the fact that these conditions occur mostly because of the location of the sweatshops. Most sweatshops seem to be located in third world countries with little or no government regulations, and so they are exploited by corporations for the products they can cheaply, if maybe somewhat less efficiently, produce.
But this brought up an issue for some of us, because we are not sure if this is the very nature of business to exploit until exploitation is no longer an option. It seems like through the natural progression of a nation, the more civilized and liberal it becomes, the tighter the regulations–and so naturally this leads to the eventual eradication of sweatshops in advanced nations. So is it inherent in a capitalist system that workers will be exploited?
One issue I had with this stance was in regard to machines. I think that although the introduction of machinery into workplaces originally made worse conditions for the workers, as mechanization reaches more advanced stages in industry the conditions of workers actually improve. The use of robotics and remote controls has greatly decreased danger to workers in many fields, especially technical ones. And it also seems to me that sweatshops seem to focus on very non-technical fields: textiles, small toys, etc. The use of sweatshop labor is not recent, and this method of production should actually be outdated in my mind soon enough.
However, Heidi did not agree with me on this point. She believes that even though perhaps technology could greatly increase the safety of the workplace eventually, that isn’t good enough for right now. For Heidi, sweatshops are intensely dangerous and unfair environments to be allowed by any civilized nation. And so she believes that a more activist stance should be taken in regard to sweatshops.
Ultimately, however, neither of us disagreed as to the fundamental immorality of sweatshops. We think that they are unnecessary to modern civilization, cruel, and essentially immoral institutions.
Loganistan
(written by Krissy Gully)
Question: Suppose that it is highly unlikely that all the nations in the world can be saved. Which would be the better moral choice: (1) to deliberately cut off the aid to those least likely to survive in order to ensure the survival of the others or (2) to continue our aid, despite our awareness of the consequences that will probably follow?
Our discussion started with Tom stating that the term “highly unlikely” is not a definite answer as to whether all of the nations in the world suffering from famine could be saved. He further stated that since the question does not pose a definite “no” then the only moral option is to provide for all of the suffering countries.
I agreed with Tom on this point, posing the question of who decides which countries would receive help in this scenario. To pick and choose who deserves to live puts an ugly value on human lives. Why would we sit back and aid one population until it flourishes while watching another wither and die knowing we could’ve done something. Wouldn’t it be more moral to better the lives of all victims of famine a little.
Sarah said it is unlikely that all the nations in the world can be saved., but the moral choice isn’t to cut off aid or continue aid, it is whether or not the countries want to survive. If they really care then they will do what they can to restructure their economic and political institutions. Maybe even their cultural identity if that is a hindrance. She didn’t think that countries should be getting aid without implementing change anyway. It isn’t a moral choice. It’s a matter of efficiency.
To this Tom brought up Darwin, and the theory of sacrificing a few to save a lot. He made the point that by choosing certain nations we would be completely ending the suffering in these places, while a few other countries may have to suffer more. He further made the point that no one “gave” America the right to wealth over Africa, it was merely our strengths and advantages that made it so. He stated that “it’s a cruel world, but that’s how it is, luck of the draw”.
I tended to disagree with Tom on this point, I thought that by denying certain nations any provisions goes against Singers argument that any and all suffering in the world is bad, not just the ones we can fix. And if all the suffering is bad then we should be actively working to prevent it all, not just select victims chosen by “luck of the draw“.
Tom agreed saying that, yes we all ought to try our hardest to save everyone but in the end we don’t, and by Singer’s standards we all already are morally reprehensible because of that. So while it would be nice to provide aid to everyone he said that he didn’t think it would happen that way because we’re all morally reprehensible anyways.
Sarah agreed with Tom saying that she didn’t think that all the nations could be saved, however, if our country is healthy enough then we should help those struggling countries. It is her opinion that our country is not healthy enough and that we should focus our resouces into the nation and have little to no resources being given out. Until all the citizens of the nation aren’t suffering extreme poverty, dying from lack of health care, and have adequete shelter in safer neighborhoods, then the country shouldn’t be giving away those resources. That is what is immoral. However, it is also up to the struggling countries to try and help themselves. Regardless of the history of oppression and imperialism that most non industiralized nations have, it is up to them to build a political and economic nation that benefits it’s citizens and if they aren’t willing to make changes then they shouldn’t be willing to receive aid.
Leibnitz was unable to attend and did not respond to any emails.
Our group replied to question 2 on page 492 where it is asked if Singer had advanced convincing reasons in support of the claim that an experiment using animals cannot be justifiable unless the experiment is so important that the use of a brain damaged human would also be justifiable. We ran into a couple of problems with this question one was the question of how much harm would be caused to either the animal or the potential human candidate there are some experiments that have been done that certainly can’t be justified as being sufficiently important regardless of levels of harm such as cosmetics testing bu there could be some things that fall into a gray area where harms would have to be weighed another would be the fact that a brain damaged human may still be functioning at a high enough level to grant consent for such tests in one way or another whereas an animal would be unable to communicate anything of the sort –though it does seem a safe assumption that if they could they would request not to be tested for the negative effects of whiplash as has been done with many higher primates– the final concern that we came across is that as a society we view human beings as having something inherently noble to them thus it would be hard to justify such tests but at the same time it could be considered that there is something inherently noble about being a mammal or even on a grander scale being alive in general. The second question we went over was #3 on page 503 where it asks if we are morally obliged to become vegetarians. The group first answered with a flat out no which makes sense even being a vegetarian myself it’s hard to say anyone has to copy me this in the end seemed to be another case where it would be better and perhaps “more moral” to do so but not necessarily something that one could say everyone would have to do as that would be obliging people to do something. in the end it doesn’t seem to have changed anyone’s minds about their diet but was an interesting question all the same.
Poverty-Prepared by Craig
We began our discussion with the questions found on page 442 of our manual. Juan said that he personally felt that we didn’t have a moral obligation to the poverty stricken nations. He said, “I should not be obligated to help those whom I did not have any responsibility in bringing their sufferings.” Ethan also said that the whole idea of capitalism argues against this type of moral obligation, but that he believes we do have a moral obligation to help.
For question two we looked into things that we would be willing to give up to help the less fortunate. We pretty much all agreed that things such as education, sufficient food, and reasonable transportation are things that we wouldn’t give up. We talked about how there are better ways of doing it that are commonly implemented and then Singer suggests. You cannot draw water from an empty well. Likewise, you cannot give extensive relief without extensive resources. We all could quit school and give the money that we would have spent on tuition to ease suffering, but in the long run it would be much better for all parties involved if we were to pursue an education and then give more once we had more to give. Craig stated that we do have an obligation to help others, but we have an obligation to do it as efficiently as possible. If we are wasting the resources that we have been so richly blessed to have, we may as well just blow it on the luxury items. It would be a waste to continue to support a broken system when we know the ways to fix it. We have an obligation to help other people live a better life.
Triple Certified Weekly Group Discussion Summary (#11). 4-20-2009
(Prepared by Bentley). Our group decided to discuss the two articles on the environment. “Does justice require the enactment and enforcement of laws that require companies and individuals to clean up the pollution resulting from their activities? (534)” “Suppose a community, town, or city agrees to allow some of its land to be used for the storage of toxic wastes in exchange for an increase of tax revenues or a necessary hospital. Is this a morally just transaction? (534)” “If corporate activities will result in harmful long-term consequences that will have a negative impact on future generations, should those activities be prohibited by law? (537)” We found all these questions closely related and thus discussed them all.
We began our discussion by assessing Narveson’s idea in which matters relating to the environment and acceptable levels of pollution ought to be left in the hands of the individual. We immediately rejected his idea because it does not provide sufficient practical solutions to environmental problems. We all try to take proper care of those things which we own or are responsible for, however, a variety of other concerns often trump our good intentions to take proper care of those things which we own. Carson and Kaleen used the example of the carpet in their home. They really like their carpet, and desire to take care of it. However, their love for their cats often trump this former desire and the carpet at times suffers. Similarly, companies might desire to not pollute the environment, however, their love for remaining profitable might very well trump this desire causing the environment to suffer.
Our discussion then shifted to the idea of allowing toxic waste to be stored on land in exchange for something like a much-needed hospital. There were several ideas brought forward in response to this transaction. First, storing toxic waste in your ‘backyard’ seems like a drastic choice for a benefit like a needed hospital. If a hospital is really that critical for the community then the community will be able to find an alternative way in which to provide themselves with one. Second, we can’t possibly understand all the consequences of making a present day decision to store toxic waste on our land. A community’s decision that will only affect that same community seems okay, however, neighboring communities might be affected unknowingly, and future communities that won’t exist for 100 years will certainly be affected. This is a significant problem; Toxic waste exists. If no community will take advantage of incentive programs like free hospitals in exchange for land to store the waste on, then how will we find a suitable location for toxic storage?
When company and individual actions result in environmental abuse it seems that we ought to think about making the acts in question illegal, or at least making the offending parties responsible for those acts. We came to a group consensus that simply making the acts illegal might not be a viable solution. Forcing the acting parties into responsibility for their actions would be the more preferred solution.
We ended our discussion with a very interesting idea. As Human beings, we have a vested interest in both our own individual survival, and the survival or our species. This understanding affects our intuitions about what things seem right and which things don’t seem right. Our intuitions are tremendously important to us. It might very well turn out that our intuitions are dead wrong. No species is meant to exist forever. Perhaps we need to come to terms with the fact that we will evolve into a position by which we will naturally bring about (through extreme pollution and exhaustion of raw materials) our own demise. Pollution and the degradation of the environment are just apart of life. If we aren’t willing to make drastic environmental changes for the better, then we ought at least accept the very negative consequences.
(prepared heidi)
our group discussed question number two on page 531, “is human benefit the only morally relevat4e criterion in determining our obligations in regard to the rest of the world?”
I started the conversion by stating that it is our moral obligation not to deplete our environmental resources because and only because we can use it for our own uses. but then what if trees have feelings?! when i was a little kid i would rip the barks off the trees and i would feel so guilty because water would leak out of the soft part -like it would be all wet you know- and i would feel so bad!! but i keep doing it because i had a weird obsession with causing pain on trees haha but i dont think that we have that sort of obligation.
richard agreed with me – he was like ya i really dont think that the grass hurts when i sit there and put it out… i think that we are totally legit with cuttoing down trees to make paper, as long as we are not depleting the population of trees.
so yes, we do believe that we as humans only have a moral obligation to the environment because we are selfish bastards – nothing that doesnt have a heartbeat doesnt feel anything… and therefore we dont have a moral obligation to save it or take care of it as long as we are taking good enough care that it will always be there, as long as we arnt hurting it bad enough to destroy it forever we are completing our ONLY moral obligation and that is that we are benefit from it.
1. Should there be some international body charged with the responsibility of setting working standards and minimum wages globally?
The group chose this question because at first the answer seemed so obvious: of course there should be some sort of regulating body in control of international standards of working. Dan says that the United States has portions of absolute impoverished people, but we don’t allow substandard working conditions to be placed upon them. Mike countered that here, in the United States, we have welfare options and other government programs for food and medication, whereas other nations have none, a point that was brought up in the article. Jake asked what kind of standards would be chosen. Different societies may have far different considerations of what appropriate working conditions are. Many third world countries would think a factory with running water would be something amazing in and of itself. The workers at such a location would be extremely grateful for this benefit alone. Given this total relativism when it comes to working conditions, how much should we really allow government agencies to interfere with a free market system? Dan agreed on the point of relativity when it comes to benefits, but pointed to abuses in factories. Everyone in our group agreed that physical and sexual abuses in factories were inhumane and absolutely undefendable. Mike asked if we couldn’t have the governing body set standards for what a “living wage” is in an area so as to remove the subjective experience of the workers, such as the water fountain argument. The group agreed that if a group were created that would take a minimal interference approach, such as preventing abuses and supporting a living wage, then the body could be a good idea. It might, however, not be practical, given all the different demands that corporations would want compared to the huge benefits that anti-sweatshop individuals might demand.
Discussion on Labor for Loganistan
Lead by Tom Weiler, participated by Krissy and Sarah
The conversation was kind of all over the place this time. I think for once there was one thing that we all pretty well agreed on and had the same reasoning for. Ha ha if you work long enough you will produce results. It was in response to the second question of the second article, wherein there should be a global standard and police of labor. We all agreed there should not be a global minimum wage based on a barrage of reasons, but that there should be some governing force in place insuring for the human rights of workers, meeting there basic needs. We knew this would be difficult but ideal. None of us had a problem with this idea. As for the first question of the moral justification of the U.S. I was a yes. The situation is less than ideal and I wish things were better, but given the circumstances it is the best thing to do. Better for both. They get more work with a higher—not high—wage, and we get a cheaper product. As for unemployment in the US, economists will tell you that no matter what (given things are healthy) it will hover around 5%. New jobs are being created and old and unwanted ones shipped out. Which is again good for both as we enter the technological stage of development and they enter the industrial. Krissy was mostly on the same page as me. It’s not great what’s happening but not morally bad. Everyone is getting what they want to an extent. She also commented that it’s important to be smart and cautious with what and where we buy though. Sarah disagreed. She heard and understood the argument that the status quo is better than is we we’re there, but that a dollar isn’t enough and that the trade off between capitalism and exploitation is not a fair trade. Where we all disagreed was with university buying. Sarah said no. There is no special obligation for college students. And there is no obligation for regular people… so no. Sarah was the middle ground in that it would be nice and some schools have had success but we really can’t control it so again we are equal with everyone else. I was a firm yes. My peers and I have a lot more power to change what the book store buys/sells—and we have been—than it protesting wal-mart. Even more important is the installment in the students. However cliché, today’s college students are tomorrow’s everything, and if the ideals, values, and hope and instilled now with success, it will spill over into careers. It is our obligation to set the bar high and be an example.
(prepared by Jon Bennion)Our group discussed Question 1 on Page 176: “Corporations in the United States frequently move jobs to third-world countries, paying much lower wages and benefits. Are their actions morally defensible?” Alison began by saying that she did not feel that it was necessarily immoral, rather that there is much to be done to improve the situation and to distance “sweatshops” from the gray area. Jon and Alison agreed that some sort of standard could be implemented regarding a higher minimum wage and required benefits to workers. Jon feels that there is definite exploitation of workers. Arguable the workers are better off than they would be without the job, but to remove some of the unfair advantage would be beneficial. Profits aren’t so important as to harm or restrict others’ growth. Danielle does not agree with these corporate actions, but believes that it is a means for the survival of many families.
We also discussed Question 2 on Page 534: “Suppose a community, town, or city agrees to allow some of its land to be used for the storage of toxic waste in exchange for an increase of tax revenue or a necessary hospital. Is this a morally just transaction?” Danielle started off by stating that she never believes in jeopardizing the health of citizens. Alison concurred, thinking that more acceptable ways of bringing tax cuts or health care should be examined. She thought that companies should be responsible for the disposal/storage of waste produced by their firms. Jon enjoyed Narveson’s argument, mostly because he felt it had holes in it. First, he thought, Jan N. was wrong to say that companies/entities will do what is best with properties and resources they own –they will do what is best for themselves with what they own. Most often, large amounts of resources are owned by single organizations. Action best for their profits often has negative affects on the environment. The balance of power is unfair. Also, Narveson states that a large push for recycling is currently unnecessary, that if we allow technology to continue to evolve then a more efficient way will surely surface in the future that is far superior to present methods. We say that technology improves through innovation, it does not age as wine or cheese. Also, Danielle didn’t want to die filled with glowing tumors.