Major Questions in Humanities Ethics - Coursework Example

Task: Humanities Ethics Question Hospers asserts that if everybody owned everything, no one would be responsible for anything.What does he mean by this? How does this fit with his larger arguments about the rights that all persons have? Hospers presents very interesting arguments regarding the libertarian debate. At the core of libertarianism, Hospers observes that everyone has rights to live and notes that these rights do not include infringing the liberties of others. In this statement, Hospers presents his views that in a world where everyone owned everything responsibilities to defend the rights of others. This statement fits with Hospers larger arguments on the rights that all persons have including the right to life, liberty, and property. He suggests that even the government cannot infringe on these rights but rather should protect them. In particular, Hospers suggests that governments are prone to violating citizens’ property rights. Question 2: Discuss the legal and moral implications of outlawing the use of drugs that seem not to harm others. Compare this to other laws, e.g., requiring even a lone driver to wear a seatbelt. Excessive drug use in society remains one of the most challenging issues to governments. In addition, prohibiting drug use particularly of those that do not harm others presents legal implications. It is notable that the less a drug is harmless the fewer the legal legislations designed to tame their use. However, outlawing the use of harmless drugs presents legal scenarios such as inability to enforce such legal frameworks. Furthermore, the prohibition of such drugs presents moral implications in that the society will eventually use the medication under cover. Central to the efforts to tame drug use is the notion of society and pubic protection from harm. The laws requiring lone drivers also emerged because of the need to protect the public. Question 3: Some First Amendment free-speech advocates say that cyberporn cannot be restricted. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed (Reno v. ACLU 1997), making it the responsibility of Internet users to protect themselves and their children from obscene or indecent material. Defend, logically and specifically, the rationale for one or the other position. Cyberporn is a challenging phenomenon to the society because of its potential dangers and I oppose the views of the First Amendment free speech advocates because the vice can be restricted. The Supreme Court tasking the public with the responsibility of protecting themselves appears as the most neutral and workable solution. The internet users are in a position of employing certain technological or programming steps protect users from accessing such content while in the internet. This is a workable solution and the United Nations and major organizations have implemented such initiatives to bar people from accessing pornographic content. Question 4: State J. S. Mill’s harm principle, critiquing it in light of Lynn’s reasoning that “we should punish harmful behavior, not harmful thoughts.” Szasz (a la Mill) further says, “The individual is sovereign,” and has the right to use drugs even if they harm him/her. Wilson disagrees. For the 25 million U.S. cocaine users, is drug use just a private/civil rights issue? Is it harmful to others? Give a studied explanation of your response. Individuals have rights and they must be left alone to enjoy those rights including the liberty to choose the life they want to live. However, in the context of drug use, these individuals observe that the legal instruments that seek to outlaw and curb users infringe their private and civil rights. Drugs are highly harmful to other people especially passive users. The effects of drugs on the social functioning cannot be overemphasized. Drug use is harmful to others in the sense that people who do not use the drugs suffer a great deal because of their relationship with consumers. Question 5: Singer introduces two moral principles, the second of which has a strong version and a weak version. What are these two moral principles, and how does he illustrate them using the example of affluent persons donating money to people in East Bengal? Singer’s principles entail a response to the public on his perception regarding “famine, affluence and morality” in which he offers two principles on exposition and appraisal and how wealthy people should donate money to those suffering in East Bengal. The Strong Principle: “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it (Trusted 187). The Weak Principle: “If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it” (Trusted 187). He illustrates his position stating that the affluent only needed to donate little money to assist those in poverty. Furthermore, he says that in any case, the famine does not end, and then affluent people should donate money until they remain at a similar state as those suffering in poverty. Question 6: Leopold’s land ethic contends that the earth, as well as plants and animals, have intrinsic (inherent) value, while the conventional view is that they have only instrumental values (serving human needs). Develop your case for one position or the other, using the points presented in Chapter 8. I contend with Leopold’s views presented in the land ethic that the earth and all material in it have intrinsic value. The earth does not exist to serve humanity needs. The earth and humanity are meant to operate side by side through supporting one another but not that human beings become superior over the earth. The earth has the qualities to support human beings by providing all the necessary items needed by humanity. However, the earth has the ability to rejuvenate itself including the plants and animals in it. The overexploitation by human beings for self-satisfaction has seen the earth intrinsic value tampered with. This has lead to the numerous calls rallied by environmentalists that people must practice sustainability in order to maintain the earth’s intrinsic value. Question 7: Growing American industrial and commercial interests encourage the exploitation of Alaskan oil reserves, lumbering of Pacific coast forests, expanding nuclear power, increased mining and manufacturing, all of which are said to threaten our global environment with depleted resources, and escalating pollution. Propose specific practical solutions to demonstrate how to deter the trend, while yet addressing our nation’s basic needs. The challenges emerging from the expanding population, industrial, and commercial development, which affects the global environment are massive. Human beings are also highly dependent on the environmental resources for survival. It is notable that a balance needs to be achieved between exploitation of environmental resources for consumption and development and protection and conservation of the environment. These challenges led to the proposal for sustainability in which countries were notified to practice sustainable development. This development meets the needs of the current population without compromising the ability of future populations to obtain the basic needs. The practical solution to this challenge entails undertaking these developmental agendas with sustainability in mind. Question 8: In 1998 Brazil stopped environmental protection programs that protect disappearing species and preserve the rain forest (30% of world’s total), which deters greenhouse effect. Despite international objections, Amazon forest clearing continues, providing for urgent development and population needs like agriculture, ranching, mining, and industry. As Brazil’s Prime Minister what would you do? Be specific in your proposals. The challenges facing environmental resources as populations continue to grow is real. In the case of Amazon environmental resources exploitation I would put in place ways of ensuring sustainability. This will include engaging stakeholders in discussing how best to ensure the conservation of the Amazon forest. I will develop and implement sustainable forest conservation practices such as reforestation. I will also provide people with alternative livelihood opportunities such as sustainable agricultural practices in the forest areas. There will also be the need to ensure that all development activities in the forest are subjected to environmental impact assessment, which will propose practicable ways of ensuring that the exploitation of forest resources does not entirely affect the forest. Question 9: Delineate and describe each of the four forms of pacifism, identifying each with one advocate, and evaluate the difficulties associated with each. Give your personal estimation of the probability of the United States implementing one of these. The pacifism number one is universal account, which prohibition of all killing. The Bible is used to support this version. However, there are difficulties associated with this version because the bible in itself is misguiding. The bible clearly fails to prohibit all killings since in some situations it allows murder. The second one is universal version that outlaws all violence. The difficulties emerge from the incidences of radical Christianity in which some sermons were incoherent with the version. The third one is private account for outlawing personal violence and killing. This is inconsistent with the sermons offered by Augustine in the mountain when he decided to use military force in reconciliation. The last one is the anti – war account, which allows self-defense but not war. It suggests that war is prohibited and soldiers must not continue fighting. The United States has not successfully implemented this pacifism because it is hard to achieve the aspirations. Question 10: Compare and contrast the Christian doctrine of “just war” with the Muslim concept of jihad as “holy war.” Are there more similarities or differences? Specify. Address the doctrine of double effect. Draw on historical events to illustrate. (cf. O’Brien, et. al.) The theories of just war and jihad are reasonably opposed to each other on the way they treat religion while assessing the morality of engaging in war. The jihads believe in the many scriptures and civilization about ethics, which are buttressed by religious doctrines that the laws of God are superior to laws made by man. In this case, the jihads can manage to embrace religion while explaining their assessments. On the other hand, proponents of just war lack evidence on how to explain the ethics of engaging in warfare. This makes just war proponents to rely on worldly opinions and intellectual arguments to arrive at their conclusions because religious practices allow them to make use of profane texts. Question 11: Summarize the issues relating to terrorism, drawing on the readings of Katchadourian and Calhoun. Hypothesize as to a possible scenario in which terrorism may be contained or diminished. Utilize contemporary incidents of terrorism (e.g., Israel—PLO; USA–Al Qaeda). Terrorism is a major problem to the world. The terrorists are normally motivated to practice the vice by their religious doctrines. The terrorists who executed the 9/11 attack in America were Al Qaeda who argued that Allah had instructed them to undertake the task. The hypothesis by Katchadourian and Calhoun that terrorism can be contained or reduced appears farfetched. This is because the Jihads are determined to engage in war in order to bring justice in the world and eliminate oppression. The Jihads have vowed to eliminate their enemies wherever they are. This points to a bleak future since many terrorists take pride in killing populations while their targets resolve to diminish the acts continue to diminish. Question 12: As president of the Untied States, you are charged with preventing terrorism in the United States. Debate your options of utilizing computerized ID (cards, scans), suspicionless searches, racial profiling, holding suspects without charges, assassination of terrorist leaders, and similar means to carry out your mandate of protecting America from certain and imminent danger. For the president of the United States, it will be a priority area to undertake all steps that are practicably reasonable to protect the American citizens from perceived, imagined, certain, in addition, imminent danger. There would be no options about preventing terrorism through utilizing computerized ID (cards, scans), suspicionless searches, racial profiling, holding suspects without charges, assassination of terrorist leaders, and similar means to carry out your mandate of protecting America from certain and imminent danger. Work Cited Trusted, Jennifer. Moral Principles and Social Values. New York, NY: Routledge, 2002. Print.  Read More