Ethics Final

Front 1

Sommers on The Traditional Family

Back 1

Criticizes "assimilationist" feminist critiques of traditional family roles as well as the volunteer theory of obligations. Argues that there is presumption in favor of "common sense" about the moral significance of the traditional family roles.

Front 2

Mills on The Traditional Family

Back 2

Says that Sommers places too much weight on conventional understandings of social roles. And that English's friendship model can't account for un-chosen relationships, like family. Argues that these are based on unconditional love and are a "great good". We have moral reasons to participate in them.

Front 3

Engish on Neglecting one's parents

Back 3

Defends a friendship model of family obligations.
Argues that family members don't "owe" each other anything, (because then we would have to re-pay a debt) Instead, family obligations are based on mutuality, and the existence of friendship between parent and child.

Front 4

Dixon on Neglecting one's parents

Back 4

Also endorses a friendship view, but modifies it to deal with...1- Duties that outlive the friendship " Residual duties" 2-Cold, unfriendly children

Front 5

Jordan on Same-Sex marriage

Back 5

Public dilemma about homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Should be resolved through accommodation. Refuse to recognize same-sex marriages, but permit private homosexual acts.

Front 6

Boonin on Same-Sex marriage

Back 6

Argues that Jordan rests on equivocation between homosexual acts and same-sex marriage. Jordan's argument would also entail that we shouldn't recognize interracial marriages.

Front 7

Sullivan on Same-Sex marriage

Back 7

Argues that because marriage is a public (not private) institution, it mist be accessible to all citizens on equal terms, this requires the recognition of same sex marriages.

Front 8

Horowitz on Reparations for slavery

Back 8

Offers ten reasons to reject reparations for slavery

Front 9

Chrisman & Allen on Reparations for slavery

Back 9

Point-by-point refutation of Horowitz's argument

Front 10

Robinson on Reparations for slavery

Back 10

Argues that the US government owes a debt to slaves that was never paid. Should be paid to the descendants of the slaves, who still suffer.

Front 11

Himma on Affirmative Action

Back 11

Offers a "fairstart" defense of affirmative action. Concludes that AA is permissible but not obligatory in order to counteract the effects of stereotypes about women and people of color.

Front 12

Newton on Affirmative action

Back 12

Counters Himma's claim that good motivations can make a difference whether we should use factors like race or gender in hiring or admissions. Also argues that not all members of the beneficiary groups are all equally effected by racism/sexism.

Front 13

Levin on Racial Profiling

Back 13

Argues that it's ok as long as it's statistically proven, and that the state is obligated to use race as a factor.

Front 14

Thomas on Racial Profiling

Back 14

Argues that Levin applies the stats in a dangerous way. That we can use other features to determine whether or not they pose a threat to use.

Front 15

Nathason on the Death Penalty

Back 15

Argues that capital punishment is arbitrarily administered. Factors like race play too big a roll.

Front 16

Van Den Haag on the death penalty

Back 16

Argues that even if some people who deserve to die are not executed it's not unjust to execute someone who deserves to die on the basis that others aren't executed.