Reference no: EM133301894
Assignment:
1. In light of debates concerning abortion, gender identity, and the nature of marriage, do you think that morality is simply something to be defined according to personal preference, or ought it to be teleologically informed? Why?
2. What do our convictions concerning racism suggest concerning the issue of relativism? Is this conclusion reinforced by our convictions on sex, gender, marriage, and abortion (regardless of which side we're on)?
3. Does the wording of the U.S. Declaration of Independence actually imply that we have a right to abortion or to same sex marriage? Explain.
4. Suppose animal rights cannot be convincingly disproved. If human beings are allegedly the "highest" or "most valuable"-at least, the most celebrated-of all the animals, what would this mean for the abortion issue since the said rights of non-human animals never rests on the variable of "personhood?" Explain.
5. To what extent is sexual slavery fueled by pornography and the drug industry? Is it possible to end the former without legislating the latter? Is justice, in this case, possible without censorship? Why/why not?
6. Recall Nancy Pearcey's evaluation of the gender-identity issue in light of the fact-value divide. "This is a devastatingly disrespectful view of the physical body. The two-story dichotomy alienates people from their own bodies, treating physical anatomy as having no intrinsic dignity or significance." Do you think her arguments have merit? Why/why not? Does her theory shed any light on the issue of marriage? Explain.
7. What do you think is the nature & purpose of sex & gender? How do our answers to these questions inform our legislative biases? To what extent are opposing views on these issues able to find common ground? If they cannot-if it is inevitable that one side will be oppressed by the values of the other, then what questions or considerations might justify the assertion of the one value over the other?
8. Some advocates of contemporary sexual freedom have compared the advocacy for same-sex marriage to that of 1960 civil rights movements concerning racism. So the argument goes: People once discriminated against racial equality and marriage, and so racial liberation was necessary for progress. Sexual discrimination is the new racism. People discriminate against homosexuality, transgender identity, and same-sex marriage, and so we must advocate for sexual liberations; that is the contemporary path to progress. Do you believe this to be a fair comparison and a valid argument? Explain.
9. If you were wrong about a given moral issue, would it be loving or intolerant for someone to tell you that you were wrong? Explain. Today, it is not uncommon to see the language of intolerance being used as a form of mass-media public shaming. Once the government is involved, and legislation becomes an issue of concern, do you believe-as some have claimed-that public shaming become a form of propaganda and social engineering -a sort of Cultural Marxist power-play, meant to overturn the allegedly-oppressive mainstream in order to advocate for the marginalized? Why/why not? When it comes to the issues discussed within this week's literature, do you lean more toward Libertarianism or Paternalism? Explain.
10. According to the Sandel reading, ancient theories of justice emphasized virtue while modern theories emphasize either maximizing welfare or respecting freedom. Which position does Sandel favor and why? When it comes to paternalism and the legislation of morality, which approach do you think is the more important emphasis: one in which the government plays the role of protecting innocence and defending virtue; or one in which the government legislates to protect freedom and individualism first and foremost? Why/why not?
11. If we cannot agree on whether an issue is morally wrong, is it better (or safer) to assume permissibly/freedom until proven immoral, Or to refrain from those actions until we find stronger arguments that lead to greater unanimity?