Ethics Test 2 Study Guide Section A You will be asked to explain five different concepts ideas out of the list below You will need to explain these clearly and coherently and use examples to support your explanations Not all of the concepts from the list will appear on the test but you will have some choice with regards to what concepts you will explain Each of these five answers will be weighted at 10 of your total grade Gun Control from LaFollette Gun Control 1 inherently dangerous 2 Fundamental moral right Guns are inherently dangerous Inherently dangerous is a term used to describe objects that have been created for the purpose of harming an individual Lafollette uses this term in his argument for Gun Control in his paper because anything created to harm or kill should be more strictly controlled them better at harming They are used to harm then the more reason there is to restrict it The more serious the harm that general gun ownership causes They are designed to harm They are improved by making Guns increase risk of harm A right that is to protect a fundamental or particular individual interest that can make a person happy in life Fundamental rights protect fundamental interests LaFollette believes owning guns is not a fundamental right you do not have the right to own something harmful to others Fundamental rights do not harm society Allowing gun ownership harms society Thus gun ownership is not a fundamental right Even if gun ownership was a fundamental right restrictions may still apply 3 Fundamental interest See fundamental right above Fundamental interests are common to everyone and concern our living good lives Owning a gun is not a fundamental interest It is not a constitutive element of our flourishing Thus owning a gun is not a fundamental right 4 Derivative moral right Derivative rights are rights that allow others to live as they freely choose Derivative rights are rights that derive from fundamental rights Example we have a fundamental right to non interference I am free to do what I want as long as I do not pose a harm to others My drinking alcohol does not pose harm to others Therefore I have a derivative right to drink alcohol Such a right to drink may still be restricted drink driving laws LaFollette thinks this argument seems to apply to gun ownership Given that i people have a prime facie derivative right to own guns and ii many people deem it important to do so and iii there are costs to enforcing laws to control guns we should not restrict gun ownership without good reasons LaFollette suggests that there are including that guns are inherently dangerous objects Death Penalty from Nathanson An Eye for an Eye 5 Equality retributivism Equality retributivism is when we would repay criminals with punishments equal to their crimes Nathanson s position Neither equality retributivism nor proportional retributivism can justify the death penalty Problems with the law of retribution It does not provide an adequate criterion for determining appropriate levels of punishment it recommends punishments which are unacceptable rape torture kidnapping etc It does not provide a measure of moral desert as sometimes it says nothing at all about how to punish people e g spies drunk drivers airline hijackers drug users In order to justify using the eye for an eye as a guiding principle of punishment for murder we need to establish it first as a satisfactory general principle But because of inadequate moral desert or appropriate punishment levels we cannot do so Possible counter objection to why retributivism could be sufficient Punishment needs not to be strictly identical with crimes It is only required that it produces an amount of suffering in the criminal which is equal to the amount suffered by the victim Nathanson s reply problem still applies problems with calculating suffering individual differences some crimes do not produce suffering Proportional retributivism is when punishment needs to be proportional to the crime but not exactly equal to the crime Proportional retributivism does not support the death penalty either due to its flexibility it allows for a range of different punishments for murder It does not yield any specific recommendations regarding punishment All that proportional retributivism requires is that if the murder is the most serious crime then murder should be punished by the most extreme punishment on the scale it does not tell us what this punishment should be though Counter Arguments to Retribution capital punishment as vengeance and the anticipatory suffering of the criminal 6 Proportional retributivism 7 Deterrence argument for the death penalty Deterrence is the use of punishment as merely a threat to deter people from making certain offences such as murder When contrasted with retributivism punishment is a necessary consequence of a crime and should be calculated based on the gravity of the wrong done eye for an eye Counter Arguments to Deterrence the statistical evidence is unclear no one knows whether the death penalty deters more than other punishments some of those executed may not have been capable of being deterred they would not have known about the laws Problems with Deterrence Argument Death penalty states often have high murder rates vs neighboring non death penalty states Sexual Ethics 8 Casual View of Sex from Benatar Two Views of Sexual Ethics Sex need not have a significance in order to be morally permissible Sexual pleasure is morally like any other pleasure and may be enjoyed subject only to the usual sorts of moral constraints 9 Significance View of Sex from Benatar Two Views of Sexual Ethics For sex to be morally acceptable it must be an expression of romantic love or signify feelings of affection that are appropriate with the intimacy of sexual union Sexual union can be acceptable only if it reflects the reciprocal love and affection of both parties in that union 10 Marriage as a Universal Human Institution from Gallagher Normal Marriage Two Views Marriage is described as a public sexual union privilege of a married reproductive couple is the given protection of interests for their children and interests of society Drive for same sex marriage is largely due to the symbolic cultural issue rather than society benefits such as health insurance or taxes Marriage exists in virtually every known human society and marriage varies considerably in different cultural contexts but marriage has been a universal human institution or a
View Full Document
Unlocking...