Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Moral Issues - Brossura

Satris, Stephen

Brossura

ISBN 10: 007312950X ISBN 13: 9780073129501

Casa editrice: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2005

Riassunto

This debate-style reader is designed to introduce students to controversies in global issues through readings that reflect a variety of viewpoints. Each issue is framed with an issue summary, an issue introduction, and a postscript. The Taking Sides readers feature annotated listings of selected World Wide Web sites. Taking Sides is supported by our student website at www.dushkin.com/online/.

Su questo libro

Contenuti

PART 1. Fundamental Issues in Morality

ISSUE 1. Is Moral Relativism Correct?

YES: Gilbert Harman, from “Moral Relativism,” in Gilbert Harman and Judith Jarvis Thomson, eds., Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity (Blackwell, 1996)

NO: Judith Jarvis Thomson, from “Moral Objectivity,” in Gilbert Harman and Judith Jarvis Thomson, eds., Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity (Blackwell, 1996)

Philosopher Gilbert Harman argues that relativism is true for morality—much as Einstein proved it was true for motion. Just as motion always presupposes some framework in which it occurs (and something can be in motion relative to one person but not to another), morality too always presupposes some framework. Philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson denies moral relativism and maintains that there is such a thing as finding out whether a moral claim is true. The very act of what she calls moral assessment (trying to find out or figure out) whether a moral claim is true presupposes that morality is objective. If it were not objective, she claims, moral assessment would be pointless.

ISSUE 2. Does Morality Need Religion?

YES: C. Stephen Layman, from The Shape of the Good: Christian Reflections on the Foundations of Ethics (University of Notre Dame Press, 1991)

NO: John Arthur, from “Religion, Morality, and Conscience,” in John Arthur, ed., Morality and Moral Controversies, 4th ed. (Prentice Hall, 1996)

Philosopher C. Stephen Layman argues that morality makes the most sense from a theistic perspective and that a purely secular perspective is insufficient. The secular perspective, Layman asserts, does not adequately deal with secret violations, and it does not allow for the possibility of fulfillment of people’s deepest needs in an afterlife. Philosopher John Arthur counters that morality is logically independent of religion, although there are historical connections. Religion, he believes, is not necessary for moral guidance or moral answers; morality is social.

PART 2. Gender, Sex, and Reproduction

ISSUE 3. Should the Navy Assign Servicewomen to Submarine Duty?

YES: J. Michael Brower, from “Should the Navy Assign Servicewomen to Submarine Duty? Yes,” Insight on the News (April 3–10, 2000)

NO: Elaine Donnelly, from “Should the Navy Assign Servicewomen to Submarine Duty? No,” Insight on the News (April 3–10, 2000)

Writer J. Michael Brower argues that women have a strong role to play in the modern military. Male/female distinctions have become less relevant in modern warfare, which is significantly based on technology rather than brawn. Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, asserts that it is inappropriate to place women on submarine crews. To do so would threaten to bring disciplinary problems and military weakness. This is a case of civilians trying to force feminism on the military.

ISSUE 4. Is Abortion Immoral?

YES: Don Marquis, from “Why Abortion Is Immoral,” The Journal of Philosophy (April 1989)

NO: Jane English, from “Abortion and the Concept of a Person,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy (October 1975)

Professor of philosophy Don Marquis argues that abortion is generally wrong for the same reason that killing an innocent adult human being is generally wrong: it deprives the individual of a future that he or she would otherwise have. Philosopher Jane English (1947–1978) asserts that there is no well-defined line dividing persons from nonpersons. She maintains that both the conservative and the liberal positions are too extreme and that some abortions are morally justifiable and some are not.

ISSUE 5. Must Sex Involve Commitment?

YES: Vincent C. Punzo, from Reflective Naturalism (Macmillan, 1969)

NO: Alan H. Goldman, from “Plain Sex,” Philosophy and Public Affairs (Princeton University Press, 1977)

Philosopher Vincent C. Punzo maintains that the special intimacy of sex requires a serious commitment that is for the most part not required in other human activities. Philosopher Alan H. Goldman argues for a view of sex that is completely separate from any cultural or moral ideology that might be attached to it.

ISSUE 6. Should Congress Be Giving More Financial Support to Abstinence-Only Sex Education?

YES: Kathleen Tsubata, from “Should Congress Be Giving More Financial Support to Abstinence-Only Sex Education? Yes,” Insight on the News (November 11-24, 2003)

NO: Cory Richards, from “Should Congress Be Giving More Financial Support to Abstinence-Only Sex Education? No,” Insight on the News (November 11-24, 2003)

Kathleen Tsubata argues that abstinence is more effective than condoms in preventing both unwanted pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) such as AIDS. Moreover, she argues, teenagers’ ability to refuse sexual activity transfers to the ability to say no to other things, such as drugs, alcohol, and smoking. Cory Richards argues that, realistically speaking, many teens are already sexually active, and contraceptives and condoms are effective in reducing unintended pregnancies and the spread of STDs. Abstinence-only education addresses only the failures of contraceptive measures. Young people are not armed with the information they need to make responsible decisions.

ISSUE 7. Should Human Cloning Be Banned?

YES: George J. Annas, from “Why We Should Ban Human Cloning,” The New England Journal of Medicine (July 9, 1998)

NO: John A. Robertson, from “Human Cloning and the Challenge of Regulation,” The New England Journal of Medicine (July 9, 1998)

Law professor George J. Annas argues that human cloning devalues people by depriving them of their uniqueness and that it would radically alter the idea of what it is to be human. Law professor John A. Robertson maintains that there should not be a complete ban on human cloning but that regulatory policy should be focused on ensuring that it is performed in a responsible manner.

PART 3. Law and Society

ISSUE 8. Are Government-Supported Faith-Based Charities a Good Idea?

YES: Jo Renee Formicola, from “The Good in the Faith-Based Initiative,” in Jo Renee Formicola, Mary C. Segers, and Paul Weber, eds., Faith-Based Initiatives and the Bush Administration: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003)

NO: Melissa Rogers, from “The Wrong Way to Do Right: A Challenge to Charitable Choice,” in E. J. Dionne, Jr., and John J. DiIulio, Jr., eds., What’s God Got to Do With the American Experiment? (Brookings Institution Press, 2000)

Jo Renee Formicola argues that government programs are not the most desirable way to deal with social problems; government support can be given to faith-based charitable organizations that already address these problems. Faith-based programs currently underway in New Jersey are examined and shown to be useful and effective. Melissa Rogers, general counsel at the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, contends that entanglements between government and religious entities are dangerous and should not be encouraged. Government support of faith-based charities, in her opinion, will bring government oversight and regulation to the religious entity and will open the door to numerous abuses.

ISSUE 9. Should Congress Allow the Buying and Selling of Human Organs?

YES: Robert J. Cihak and Michael A. Glueck, from “Should Congress Allow the Buying and Selling of Human Organs? Yes,” Insight on the News (May 7, 2001)

NO: James F. Childress, from “Should Congress Allow the Buying and Selling of Human Organs? No,” Insight on the News (May 7, 2001)

Robert J. Cihak and Michael A. Glueck—both physicians—argue that a free market in human kidneys would be much more beneficial than the current arrangement. Those in need of a kidney would be able to acquire it, and those in financial need would be able to sell one of their kidneys. James F. Childress, professor of ethics and professor of medical education, argues that a free market would cause the loss of important altruistic motivations and would turn organs into commodities; moreover, such an untried market might make fewer—not more—organs available.

ISSUE 10. Should Drugs Be Legalized?

YES: David Boaz, from “A Drug-Free America—or a Free America?” U.C. Davis Law Review (1991)

NO: Drug Enforcement Administration, from “Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization,” http://www.DEA.gov (May 2003)

Political analyst David Boaz argues that in a free country, people have the right to ingest whatever substances they choose without governmental interference. Moreover, as our national experience with Prohibition shows, attempts at restricting substances create more problems than they solve. The Drug Enforcement Administration presents the case that drugs are illegal for good reason—they are harmful. If the legalization proponents were heeded, we as a society would be much worse off. We should be concentrating hard er on fighting drug use and drug trafficking, where there is significant progress.

ISSUE 11. Is Affirmative Action Fair?

YES: Albert G. Mosley, from “Affirmative Action: Pro,” in Albert G. Mosley a...

Product Description

Book by Satris Stephen

Dettagli dell?edizione

• Editore: McGraw-Hill Higher Education
• Data di pubblicazione: 2005
• ISBN 10: 007312950X
• ISBN 13: 9780073129501
• Rilegatura: Copertina flessibile
• Lingua: Inglese
• Numero di pagine: 384
• Contatto del produttore: non disponibile