Taking sides : clashing views on controversial moral issues
Author(s)
Bibliographic Information
Taking sides : clashing views on controversial moral issues
McGraw-Hill/Dushkin, c2004
9th ed
Available at / 2 libraries
-
No Libraries matched.
- Remove all filters.
Note
Includes bibliographical references and index
Description and Table of Contents
Description
This debate-style reader is designed to introduce students to current controversies in moral philosophy. The readings, which represent the arguments of leading philosophers and commentators, reflect a variety of viewpoints, and are presented in a pro/con format. By requiring students to analyze opposing viewpoints and reach considered judgments, "Taking Sides" actively develops critical thinking skills.
Table of Contents
- PART 1. Fundamental Issues in Morality ISSUE 1. Is Morality Relative to Culture? YES: Melville J. Herskovits, from "Cultural Relativism and Cultural Values," in Frances Herskovits, ed., Cultural Relativism: Perspectives in Cultural Pluralism (Random House, 1972) NO: Louis P. Pojman, from Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, 2d ed. (Wadsworth, 1995) American anthropologist Melville J. Herskovits (1895--1963) takes the position that morality has no absolute identity and that it is a social and cultural phenomenon that varies according to the customs and beliefs of different cultural groups. In his view, the great enemy of relativism is ethnocentrism, especially as expressed by European colonialism. Professor of philosophy Louis P. Pojman holds that ethnocentrism is a prejudice like racism or sexism. He agrees that moral beliefs and practices vary greatly across cultures and from one person to another, but he finds very serious problems in the contention that moral principles derive their validity from dependence on society or individual choice. 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. Does Feminism Provide a Positive Direction for Society? YES: Ruth Sidel, from On Her Own: Growing Up in the Shadow of the American Dream (Viking Penguin, 1990) NO: Elizabeth Powers, from "A Farewell to Feminism," Commentary (January 1997) Author and social scientist Ruth Sidel contends that although feminism has made some progress, it holds the promise of even greater progress in the future toward a more caring society. Author and educator Elizabeth Powers argues that feminism naturally leads to strong governmental enforcement of feminist demands
- a devaluing of housework, childrearing, and the family
- and a struggle against the biology that links women with childbirth. ISSUE 4. Does Pornography Violate Women's Rights? YES: Rae Langton, from "Pornography, Speech Acts, and Silence," in Hugh LaFollette, ed., Ethics in Practice: An Anthology (Blackwell Publishers, 1997) NO: Nadine Strossen, from Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women's Rights (Scribner, 1995) Philosopher Rae Langton argues that an analysis of the concept of speech acts shows that pornography subordinates women and silences their voice. Therefore, pornography destroys political liberty and equality and should not be allowed. Nadine Strossen, president of the American Civil Liberties Union, asserts that pornography itself is a manifestation of free speech, and its presence must be accepted as part of the affirmation of the values of liberty that support all rights, including women's rights. ISSUE 5. 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 6. 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 7. Should Congress Stay the Course on Education for Sexual Abstinence Until Marriage? YES: Joe S. McIlhaney, from "Should Congress Stay the Course on Education for Sexual Abstinence Until Marriage? Yes," Insight on the News (May 20, 2002) NO: James Wagoner, from "Should Congress Stay the Course on Education for Sexual Abstinence Until Marriage? No," Insight on the News (May 20, 2002) Joe S. McIlhaney, president of the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, argues that the idea of "safe sex" is a dangerous myth that has led to an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) among young people. He states that condoms are not effective on certain common but incurable STDs. James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, maintains that abstinence-only sex education programs are unrealistic and ineffective. Young people, he asserts, must also know about contraception in order to help prevent unwanted pregnancies, STDs, and HIV/AIDS. ISSUE 8. 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 9. Should the Government Support Faith-Based Charities? YES: Ronald J. Sider and Heidi Rolland Unruh, from "'No Aid to Religion?' Charitable Choice and the First Amendment," 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) 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) Ronald J. Sider, president of Evangelicals for Social Action, and Heidi Rolland Unruh, project analyst for Evangelicals for Social Action, argue that the First Amendment, which prohibits the establishment of religion, should not stand in the way of the equal treatment of all religious sects. In particular, religious charities that refrain from proselytizing should be included among those charities that receive government assistance. 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 10. Should There Be Payment for Body Parts? YES: Michael B. Gill and Robert M. Sade, from "Paying for Kidneys: The Case Against Prohibition," Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal (March 2002) NO: David J. Rothman, from "The International Organ Traffic," The New York Review of Books (March 26, 1998) Assistant professor Michael B. Gill and professor of surgery Robert M. Sade maintain that healthy people should be allowed to sell one of their kidneys while they are still alive. They contend that it is not intrinsically wrong for a healthy person to sell a kidney, nor does selling body parts have the potential to exploit the poor. Professor of history David J. Rothman counters that payment for organs exploits the poor and benefits the wealthy. He asserts that it is doubtful that the sellers of the organs give their informed consent. Therefore, argues Rothman, body parts are turned into mere commodities, and this is degrading to people. ISSUE 11. Should Drugs Be Legalized? YES: David Boaz, from "A Drug-Free America--or a Free America?" U.C. Davis Law Review (Spring 1991) NO: David T. Courtwright, from "Should We Legalize Drugs? No," American Heritage (February/March 1993) 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. Professor of history David T. Courtwright maintains that the complete legalization of drugs is morally irresponsible. Moreover, controlled legalization will not work. Easy access to drugs through complete legalization will lead to more drug abuse and more drug addiction, and legally controlled access will result in a new black market. ISSUE 12. Is It Morally Permissible to Eat Meat? YES: Holmes Rolston III, from Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in the Natural World (Temple University Press, 1988) NO: John Mizzoni, from "Against Rolston's Defense of Eating Animals: Reckoning With the Nutritional Factor in the Argument for Vegetarianism," International Journal of Applied Philosophy (Spring 2002) Environmental thinker Holmes Rolston III maintains that meat eating by humans is a natural part of the ecosystem. He states that it is important that animals do not suffer needlessly, but it would be a mistake to think that animals, like humans, are members of a culture. Rolston concludes that people too readily project human nature on animal nature. Philosopher John Mizzoni counters that eating meat is not a nutritional requirement for humans and that by eating meat we are following a cultural practice--one that causes unnecessary suffering. Mizzoni agrees with Rolston that there is an important distinction between culture and nature but asserts that Rolston misapplies this distinction. ISSUE 13. Is Affirmative Action Fair? YES: Albert G. Mosley, from "Affirmative Action: Pro," in Albert G. Mosley and Nicholas Capaldi, Affirmative Action: Social Justice or Unfair Preference? (Rowman & Littlefield, 1996) NO: Louis P. Pojman, from "The Case Against Affirmative Action," International Journal of Applied Philosophy (Spring 1998) Professor of philosophy Albert G. Mosley argues that affirmative action is a continuation of the history of black progress since the Brown v. Board of Education desegregation decision of 1954 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He defends affirmative action as a "benign use of race." Professor of philosophy Louis P. Pojman contends that affirmative action violates the moral principle that maintains that each person is to be treated as an individual, not as representative of a group. He stresses that individual merit needs to be appreciated and that respect should be given to each person on an individual basis. ISSUE 14. Should the Supreme Court Prohibit Racial Preferences in College Admissions? YES: Deroy Murdock, from "Should the Supreme Court Prohibit Racial Preferences in College Admissions? Yes," Insight on the News (February 18--March 3, 2003) NO: Jamin B. Raskin, from "Should the Supreme Court Prohibit Racial Preferences in College Admissions? No," Insight on the News (February 18--March 3, 2003) Columnist Deroy Murdock contends that programs of preferential treatment that award special bonus points to applicants of certain racial or ethnic backgrounds are no more than academic racial profiling. These programs assume that certain people need the bonus points. Murdock reasons that this shows that people from certain racial or ethnic groups are thought to be intellectually inferior. Professor of constitutional law and local-governmant law Jamin B. Raskin states that programs of affirmative action in college admissions do not violate the Constitution. If equality of opportunity is the goal, then there are many steps--not immediately involving the abolition of affirmative action--that could be taken in order to work toward that goal in a meaningful way. ISSUE 15. Are African Americans Owed Reparations for Slavery? YES: Ronald Walters, from "Let's Resolve the Inequity," The World & I (April 2000) NO: Jay Parker, from "Don't Perpetuate Division," The World & I (April 2000) Distinguished Leadership Scholar Ronald Walters states that much of the wealth of America was created with unpaid slave labor, while many of the social problems that plague African Americans today are grounded in the "pauperization" of African Americans as they were systematically deprived of the wealth they helped to create. Paying reparations is paying an unpaid bill, concludes Walters. Jay Parker, president of the Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, argues that African Americans have made great strides in recent years and that to support the idea of reparations is to perpetuate racial division and strife. He maintains that this is not good for African Americans, and it is not good for American society. ISSUE 16. Should Hate-Crime Laws Explicitly Protect Sexual Orientation? YES: Elizabeth Birch, from "Should Hate-Crime Laws Explicitly Protect 'Sexual Orientation'? Yes," Insight on the News (July 24, 2000) NO: Paul M. Weyrich, from "Should Hate-Crime Laws Explicitly Protect 'Sexual Orientation'? No," Insight on the News (July 24, 2000) Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, reviews data on the prevalence and seriousness of hate crimes, including crimes against gay males and lesbians. She favors a federal law that addresses these matters because the federal government is traditionally responsible for the prosecution of civil rights violations and because the federal government can aid state and local police in law enforcement efforts. Paul M. Weyrich, president of the Free Congress Foundation, argues that the inclusion of sexual orientation as a protected category is part of a gay agenda that seeks the mainstreaming of homosexuality. ISSUE 17. Should Handguns Be Banned? YES: Nicholas Dixon, from "Why We Should Ban Handguns in the United States," Public Law Review (1993) NO: Daniel D. Polsby, from "The False Promise of Gun Control," The Atlantic Monthly (March 1994) Philosopher Nicholas Dixon examines the contrast between gun ownership and murders in foreign countries and gun ownership and murders in the United States. He argues that there is a causal relationship between gun ownership and murder and that a ban on handguns would bring more benefit than harm. Professor of law Daniel D. Polsby asserts that gun control legislation is misguided. He maintains that if there was a ban on handguns, criminals would still arm themselves, but law-abiding citizens would not, resulting in more crime and more innocent victims. ISSUE 18. Should the Death Penalty Be Retained? YES: Ernest van den Haag, from "The Death Penalty Once More," U.C. Davis Law Review (Summer 1985) NO: Mark Costanzo, from Just Revenge: Costs and Consequences of the Death Penalty (St. Martin's Press, 1997) Professor of law Ernest van den Haag argues that the death penalty is entirely in line with the U.S. Constitution and that although studies of its deterrent effect are inconclusive, the death penalty is morally justified and should be retained. Psychologist Mark Costanzo denies that the death penalty has the positive practical effects that retentionists often attribute to it and states that religious and moral arguments go against the death penalty. ISSUE 19. Should Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legalized by the States? YES: Faye Girsh, from "Should Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legalized by the States? Yes," Insight on the News (March 8, 1999) NO: Rita L. Marker, from "Should Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legalized by the States? No," Insight on the News (March 8, 1999) Faye Girsh, executive director of the Hemlock Society, maintains that patients have a right to physician-assisted suicide, that physicians themselves should not be regarded as criminals since they are complying with their patients' wishes, and that a public policy of physician-assisted suicide will not have the dire consequences that some opponents anticipate. Attorney Rita L. Marker argues that a policy that would permit physician-assisted suicide is best examined in the real-world context in which it would be implemented. Here, there is cost-consciousness in medical care, which brings about strong constraints on the amount of time physicians can spend with patients and encourages physicians to seek lower-priced alternatives whenever possible. Therefore, the relatively lower monetary cost of physician-assisted suicide makes it a desirable alternative for the wrong reasons.
by "Nielsen BookData"