« September 2005 | Main | November 2005 »
October 27, 2005
Presentation #5: Drug Legalization
In 1975, Robert Randall, who suffered from glaucoma, was arrested for cultivating his own marijuana. He won his case by using the "medical necessity defense," forcing the government to find a way to provide him with medicine. As a result, the Investigational New Drug (IND) compassionate access program was established, enabling some patients to receive marijuana from the government.
Do you think Robert Randall should have won his case? Why?
Do you believe IND is a good program?
Do you think that drugs should be legalized? If so, on what terms?
Posted by seschmid at 02:00 PM | Comments (23)
October 18, 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 a 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?
Posted by seschmid at 02:26 PM | Comments (4)
Presentation #4: Gay Marriage
On February 12, 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom gave gay citizens the opportunity to apply for marriage licences and exchange vows. In approximately four weeks, more than 4,000 wedding ceremonies were performed. On March 11, 2004, the California Supreme Court ordered the city to desist in their issuance of same-sex marriage licenses. Those couples who had already exchanged vows were informed that their marriages would not be legally recognized. The full article is here.
Should the United States ban gay marriage? Do you believe that same-sex couples should be granted the same rights as heterosexual couples? Should marriage actually be considered a right? Should the gay-marriage ban be considered discriminatory?
Posted by seschmid at 01:38 PM | Comments (26)
October 13, 2005
Presentation #3: Copyright Piracy
Tim Mouser was accused of illegally copying music over the internet. Last year, he paid $50 to a web site in order to download legally. In February, he was told of his unlawful activities. Most people accused of illegal downloads settle out of court. Mouser, however, chose to fight back.
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has sued thousands of people for the music industry. They subpoena internet providers to get names that are attached to certain accounts. The court cases are listed as John Does unless, like in Mouser’s case, they fight back. The article is here. So, here are some questions to think about:
Is this fair to Time Mouser? What should his punishment be? What kinds of fines seem appropriate for music piracy? Are there any instances when piracy of copyrighted material is okay? And, is the process by which the RIAA uses to prosecute individuals appropriate? Or, does it invade our privacy?
Posted by seschmid at 03:33 PM | Comments (24)
October 11, 2005
The Happiness Machine
Imagine there is a machine that you could plug into and that would satisfy any desire you might have. Inside this machine, you are given any experience you desire. The scientists in control of this machine stimulate your brain into thinking you are the greatest athlete, the richest person on earth, the most famous celebrity, a wonderful novelist, or you are simply enjoying physical and psychological pleasures. Moreover, the scientists vary the pleasures so you don't get bored.
Even though you are inside the machine, it's as if you were living in the real world. On top of that, you are free to leave the machine at any time, although no one ever has.
Would you plug yourself into this Happiness Machine? Why or why not?
Posted by seschmid at 02:41 PM | Comments (15)
October 05, 2005
Presentation #2: Designer Babies
"In 2002, a British couple, Michelle and Jayson Whitaker, sought permission from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to genetically select an embryo which would be a near perfect match to their four year old son Charlie who had a life threatening blood disorder."
Do you think that it is right to have a child for the sole purpose of sustaining or improving the life of another child?
How do you feel about the use of gene therapy to "improve" one's offspring?
What are your general opinions on genetic engineering? Do you think that it is allowable in some circumstances but not in others? If so, which circumstances would merit genetic modification and which would not?
The full article for the case study (and more information about designer babies and biogenetics) can be viewed here.
Posted by seschmid at 10:42 PM | Comments (30)