« February 2005 | Main | April 2005 »
March 30, 2005
Morris and One's Right to Punishment
Morris takes a very Kantian approach to rules and their role in our lives.
According to Morris, what is the purpose of the system of rules? What is the purpose of the system of punishment?
Morris claims that our "right to be treated as a person is absolute." What does he mean by this? Why is he saying this?
Early in the article, Morris states that we have a right to punishment. It is difficult to see why he thinks this until you understand some of the points he makes later in the article. Why does he argue for our right to punishment? Answering the questions above should help you grasp what Morris has in mind.
Finally, do you think Kant would agree with Morris?
Posted by seschmid at 01:13 PM | Comments (2)
March 29, 2005
Presentation #7: Gay Marriage
How would you react if your friend or relative announced that they were gay?
How would you react if your mom or dad wanted to remarry someone of the same gender? Would you want to be a part of the wedding? If not, why?
Posted by seschmid at 02:04 PM | Comments (23)
Presentation #6: Death Penalty
Imagine you are on a jury. Would you be able to sentence to death a 23-year old, slightly mentally ill person that killed a young, 16-year old girl? What justification would you have for sentencing someone to death?
Posted by seschmid at 01:20 PM | Comments (27)
March 17, 2005
Presentation #5: Stem Cell Research
During his State of the Union Address, President Bush announced: “I will work with Congress to ensure that human embryos are not created for experimentation or grown for body parts, and that human life is never bought and sold as a commodity.”
If you had the opportunity to cure millions of people waiting on a transplant list, would you be willing to sacrifice human embryos to do so?
A current practice which has been somewhat experimental is the taking of marrow from a newborn in order to grow skin cells, tissue cells, or even organs, because these cells are still young they have the potential to develop more fully than adult marrow cells. Would you ever consider letting your newborn donate marrow?
Posted by seschmid at 12:11 AM | Comments (21)
March 12, 2005
Survival Lottery
Harris's "Survival Lottery" makes what seems like a pretty outrageous claim. But, is it really that outrageous? If our moral behavior is guided by respect for human life and/or some principle of utility, then it appears the Survival Lottery is plausible.
What do you think about the Survival Lottery? What about the proposal doesn't sit well, even if you agree with the principles justifying the lottery?
Is there a similarity between Harris's refusal to see a difference between killing and letting die and Rachels's refusal to give the distinction any moral significance?
Posted by seschmid at 08:27 AM | Comments (3)
March 09, 2005
Presentation #4: Environmental Ethics
The year is 2007 and we have developed a large bowl (like a big satellite dish in the ground) which is covered in a new, space-age material which will enable us to power the continent. The only known side-effect would be an increase of 5 degrees Fahrenheit worldwide and would add to global warming.
Would creating this energy be worth the risk of increasing the world's temperature?
Posted by seschmid at 05:54 PM | Comments (23)
March 06, 2005
Rachels and Euthanasia
Rachels considers the case of Smith and Jones. Smith will inherit a lot of money if his cousin dies. Jones also will inherit lots of money if his cousin dies. Smith intentionally kills his cousin. Jones also intends to kill his cousin. But before Jones can act on his intention his cousin has an accident and Jones refuses to save his cousin's life. Rachels asks, should we consider Jones less morally culpable than Smith because the former merely let his cousin die? Is there a moral difference between Smith's and Jones's act?
Similar to Smith and Jones, Rachels argues that cases of passive and active euthanasia do not admit of any moral difference. Do you agree? Regardless of whether you agree with Rachels, what is the key principle to the Smith & Jones case?
Also, you will find the paper topic posted to the Notes and Handouts page. We will talk about the paper topic on Tuesday.
Posted by seschmid at 05:36 PM | Comments (6)
March 01, 2005
Presentation #3: Drug Legalization
Let's say you were undergoing chemotherapy for cancer and as a result you were constantly nauseated and becoming weaker due to your lack of desire for food.
Would you feel morally okay with buying marijuana illegally and using it as a method of therapy to regain your appetite and, therefore, your strength?
If you were caught, do you feel your punishment would be warranted?
Posted by seschmid at 12:33 PM | Comments (23)