Ethics Essay II
[1] Carefully explain Singer’s argument for the claim that we have a duty to contribute to famine relief. Critically evaluate his argument in light of the objections raised by Kant, Hardin and Wolf. Do you think any of these objections undermine Singer’s argument?
Part I: Introduction
Topic Sentence + Introduce the Philosophers and their Positions + Thesis Statement
Thesis: Do you think any of the objections undermine Singer’s argument?
Part II: Singer’s Argument
You may quote the argument from my lecture notes.
[1] If we can prevent something very bad from happening without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, we ought to do it. (premise)
Ethics Essay II
[2] Absolute poverty (not having enough money to purchase the basic necessities of life—clean water, food. Immunizations for children) is very bad. (premise)
[3] We, the absolute wealthy, are in a position to prevent absolute poverty without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance—after all, Singer says he’s not asking you to give up your last bowl of rice. (A person is absolutely wealthy just in case that individual has enough money to purchase the basic necessities of life and has a surplus left over—that’s just about all of us.) (premise)
[4] Therefore, we ought to contribute to famine relief. (conclusion)
Draw Quotes from Singer’s article that reflects each premise and the conclusion.
Part III: Hardin’s Objection
Hardin is rejecting premise [3]—that by contributing to famine relief we do sacrifice something of comparable moral significance. Overpopulation is a major threat to planet Earth. Singer responds to this objection by saying that if you think overpopulation is the problem, then donate condoms, not food.
Add analysis: Do you think Hardin’s objection undermines Singer’s argument or do you think Singer’s reply shows Hardin’s objection is flawed.
Part IV: Kant’s Objection
Kant targets Premise [1] of Singer’s argument—our duty is done if we refrain from using others merely as a means to an end. I only have a duty to help if I am the direct cause of their plight—e.g., Kant puts great weight on the difference between reparations and charity. Singer argues that there is no such distinction.
Analysis: Whose concept of duty do you find more convincing?
Ethics Essay II
Part V: Wolf’s Objection
Do you think Singer’s view on our duties to others requires that we serve as moral saints?
Part VI: Conclusion
[2] Carefully explain Singer’s argument in support of animal rights. Critically evaluate his argument in light of the objections raised by Steinbock and Cohen. Do you think either of these objections undermines Singer’s argument?
Part I: Introduction
Topic Sentence + Introduce the Philosophers and their Positions + Thesis Statement
Thesis: Do you think any of the objections undermine Singer’s argument?
Part II: Singer’s Argument
You may quote the argument from my lecture notes.
[1] Speciesism is failing to consider the interests of nonhuman animals, or deeming the interests of nonhuman animals as less significant than the interests of human beings. (premise)
[2] If a being can feel pain (and pleasure), its interests must be considered. (premise)
[3] Nonhuman animals can feel pain (and pleasure), therefore we must consider their interests. (from 1 & 2)
[4] To say that the interests of nonhuman animals merit consideration, but not equal consideration, is a prime example of speciesism. (premise)
[5] Like racism and sexism, speciesism is morally wrong. (premise)
Ethics Essay II
[6] Therefore, morality requires that we consider the interests of animals on par with the interests of human beings. (from 3, 4 and 5)
Part III: Kant’s Objection
Kant’s objection targets premise [2]. Analysis: Do you think Kant’s objection undermines Singer’s Argument? (If you support Singer’s argument, you need a principled reason for rejecting Kant’s objection.)
Part IV: Steinbock’s Objection
Steinbock targets premise [5]. Analysis: Do you think Steinbocks’ objection undermines Singer’s argument. (If you support Singer’s argument, you need a principled reason for rejecting Steinbock’s objection.)
Part V: Cohen’s Objection
Singer’s argument can be extended to cover animal research. His argument is that if we wouldn’t do it to a newborn child, we shouldn’t do it to an animal. Cohen thinks Singer has the utilitarian calculus wrong. Yes, we do need to consider the suffering of animals, but the benefits of animal research outweigh the pain and suffering of the animals.
Cohen also takes the Kantian line that rights apply only to human beings. Analysis: Do you think Cohen’s objections undermine Singer’s argument? (If you support Singer’s argument, you need a principled reason for rejecting Cohen’s objections.)
VII: Conclusion
[3] Carefully explain the arguments advanced by arguments presented by Noonan, Thomson and Warren. Noonan argues abortion is permissible only when necessary to save the life of the mother. Thomson argues that abortion is permissible to save the life of the mother, in the case of rape and if reasonable precautions (birth control) was used. Under what conditions do you think abortion is morally permissible?
Ethics Essay II
Part I: Introduction
Topic Sentence + Introduce the Philosophers and their Positions + Thesis Statement
Thesis: Your thesis for this essay should indicate whether you side with Kass or Brock, and why you hold this position.
Pay attention to the question: Do you think cloning would be morally permissible once the technology has advanced to the point where it is safe and effective.
Part II: The Argument from Risk of Genetic Deformity
Explain Kass’s Argument. Parfit is one of the few philosophers who disagrees with this argument. If you want to reference Parfit, here’s the link. I actually think next term I will have students read this article.
https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil308/Parfit1.pdf
Part III: The Argument from Psychological Harm
Explain Kass’s argument. Explain Brock’s objection. Analysis: Do you think Brock’s objections undermine this argument?
Part IV: The Argument from the Perversion of the Parent-Child Relationship
Explain Kass’s argument. Explain Brock’s objection. Analysis: Do you think Brock’s objections undermine this argument?
Part V: The Argument from Commodification
Explain Kass’s argument. Explain Brock’s objection. Analysis: Do you think Brock’s objections undermine this argument?
Part VI: Brock’s Arguments in Support of Human Reproductive Cloning.
Included a different paragraph for each of the following arguments.
The Argument from Procreative Liberty
Human Cloning may be the Only Way Some Couples Can Reproduce
Human Cloning may Permit Individuals with Known Genetic Risk to Reproduce without Harm to their Offspring
Therapeutic Benefits of Human Cloning
Ethics Essay II
VII: Analysis
Do you think the pros of of human reproductive cloning outweigh Kass’s second, third or fourth arguments? Note that one person in the class found cloning problematic, but not for the reasons advanced by Kass. Here you would need to advance your own argument for opposing cloning.
VIII: Conclusion
[5] Carefully explain Pojman’s arguments in support for retributivism. Reiman objects that from the fact that one deserves to die it does not follow that the state is justified in killing that individual. Carefully explain both the Best Bet Argument (BBA) and the Common Sense Argument (CSA). Pojman notes that BBA depends on CSA. Reiman and Bedau seek to undermine CSA, and thereby undermine BBA. Critically evaluate Pojman’s arguments in support of capital punishment in light of the objections raised by Reiman and Bedau. Do you think capital punishment is justified? Defend your answer.
Part I: Introduction
Topic Sentence + Introduce the Philosophers and their Positions + Thesis Statement
Thesis: Your thesis for this essay should indicate whether you side with Kass or Brock, and why you hold this position.
Part II: Pojman’s Retributivism
P1: Explain Pojman’s retributivist position.
P2: Explain Reiman’s objection.
Part III: Pojman’s Deterrence Theory
P1: Explain BBA
P2: Explain CSA
Part IV: Reiman’s Objections to the CSA
P1: Reiman’s Objection to premise [1] of (the Law of Diminishing Utility)
P2: Pojman’s Reply to this objection (lighthouse example)
P3: Reiman’s Objection to premise [2] of CSA (Criminals don’t plan on getting caught)
P4: Pojman’s Reply to this objection
Part V: Bedau’s Objection to CSA
P1: Bedau’s Objection to premise [3] of CSA (the death penalty is inhumane)
P2: Pojman’s reply to this objection
Part VI: Analysis
Do you think any of the objections raised by Reiman or Bedau undermine Pojman’s arguments in support of capital punishment?
Conclusion