Chat with AIExam 7: Developing an Argument From Principle
Below is a scenario that raises a moral question. Using the strategies described in Chapter 7 of Doing Practical Ethics, develop an Argument from Principle that addresses the moral question and represent it in standard form. Then, write a brief paragraph of supplementary information for each premise (explaining what the premise is saying and why we should think it is true).
The scenario: The Case of Henry Rayhons: Donna Lou Rayhons developed dementia when she was in her late seventies and, just before being admitted to a nursing home, could not recall her daughters' names and sometimes expressed confusion about how to do things she previously could do (like eat hamburgers). She and Mr. Rayhons had sex in the nursing home until the doctors told Mr. Rayhons that she was not competent to consent. Mrs. Rayhons sometimes initiated the sexual contact, and she often showed signs she enjoyed it, and she never showed any signs that she resisted it. Was it morally permissible for Mr. Rayhons to have sex with his wife?
(43) 
Answered by Examlex AI CopilotIt is morally permissible for Mr. Rayhons to have sex with his wife.
Premise 1: Individuals have a right to bodily autonomy and the ability to make decisions about their own bodies.
Supplementary information: This premise asserts that individuals have the right to make decisions about their own bodies, including decisions about sexual activity. This is a widely accepted principle in ethics and is supported by the idea that individuals should have control over their own bodies.
Premise 2: In cases of dementia, individuals may still experience pleasure and desire for sexual activity.
Supplementary information: This premise acknowledges that individuals with dementia may still experience pleasure and desire for sexual activity. It is important to recognize that individuals with dementia are still capable of experiencing pleasure and should not be denied the opportunity to engage in activities that bring them joy.
Premise 3: Mr. Rayhons' wife never showed signs of resistance to the sexual activity and sometimes initiated it, indicating a level of consent.
Supplementary information: This premise highlights the importance of considering the wife's behavior and actions in determining her level of consent. If she initiated sexual activity and did not show signs of resistance, it suggests that she may have been willing and able to consent to the sexual activity.
Conclusion: Based on the principles of bodily autonomy, the ability of individuals with dementia to experience pleasure, and the wife's behavior indicating a level of consent, it is morally permissible for Mr. Rayhons to have sex with his wife.
Below is a scenario that raises a moral question. Using the strategies described in Chapter 7 of Doing Practical Ethics, develop an Argument from Principle that addresses the moral question and represent it in standard form. Then, write a brief paragraph of supplementary information for each premise (explaining what the premise is saying and why we should think it is true).
The scenario: Eco-sabotage. Hayduke is an Army veteran who lives in rural Oregon near an old-growth forest. That forest houses a thriving ecosystem of plants, fungi, birds, insects, and mammals that Hayduke has studied, admired, and loved since he was a child. It was this forest that prompted him to become an environmentalist, donating money to mainstream groups like Greenpeace, and also to more extreme environmentalist organizations, including Earth First!.
Hayduke learns that a logging company has secured the legal rights to clear-cut his beloved forest. He believes, with reason, that this will destroy the local ecosystem, which will have terrible effects for the region. Without the forest, many plants and animals, some of them relatively rare, will die. Erosion into a local river will likely become a problem, perhaps even causing flooding in an area that has never experienced flooding.
Because of his Army training and long-standing friendship with members of Earth First!, Hayduke has a good grasp of the the kinds of eco-sabotage techniques that will effectively damage, or even destroy, the logging equipment the company has begun to assemble at
the border of the forest. Some of these techniques are as simple as sugar in the gas tanks of the bulldozers. Some techniques are more complicated, but still within his ability. He knows, for example, how to mix thermite, which can destroy any machinery he chooses to target. Hayduke believes that he, acting alone, could cause enough damage to heavy logging equipment to convince the company to leave his beloved forest alone, and to move, instead, to a forest ecosystem that could withstand logging without collapsing.
Hayduke has never before destroyed property in pursuit of his environmentalist goals, but he believes this is a special case. If the government understood the importance of the forest, he believes they wouldn't have issued the logging permits, and he even believes that if the logging company knew the forest as well as he does, they would leave it alone. But at this point, Hayduke feels he has no other options: do nothing and allow the forest to be clear-cut, or prepare for a night mission to destroy as much heavy equipment as he can. Is it morally permissible (or morally wrong, or morally required) for Hayduke to destroy logging equipment to stop the destruction of his beloved old-growth forest?
(Adapted from The Monkey Wrench Gang, by Edward Abbey.)
(35) Answered by Examlex AI CopilotP1: It is morally permissible for Hayduke to destroy logging equipment to stop the destruction of his beloved old-growth forest.
Supplementary information for P1: This premise is saying that in this specific situation, it is morally acceptable for Hayduke to take action to prevent the destruction of the old-growth forest. This is because the potential harm caused by the logging, such as the destruction of the ecosystem and the risk of flooding, outweighs the harm caused by destroying the logging equipment. Additionally, Hayduke has exhausted other options and believes that this is the only way to protect the forest.
P2: The preservation of the old-growth forest and its ecosystem is of greater moral importance than the property rights of the logging company.
Supplementary information for P2: This premise is saying that the value of preserving the old-growth forest and its ecosystem outweighs the property rights of the logging company. The forest has intrinsic value and provides important ecological benefits, while the logging equipment is replaceable and the company can seek alternative locations for logging.
P3: Hayduke has a moral obligation to protect the old-growth forest and its ecosystem due to his deep connection and understanding of its value.
Supplementary information for P3: This premise is saying that Hayduke's personal connection and understanding of the value of the old-growth forest creates a moral obligation for him to protect it. His knowledge of the ecosystem and the potential harm caused by logging gives him a unique responsibility to take action to prevent its destruction.
Below is a scenario that raises a moral question. Using the strategies described in Chapter 7 of Doing Practical Ethics, develop an Argument from Principle that addresses the moral question and represent it in standard form. Then, write a brief paragraph of supplementary information for each premise (explaining what the premise is saying and why we should think it is true).
The scenario: A Psychologist's Dilemma. Zhang is a psychologist evaluating a 5-year- old boy for a learning disorder. During the process, Zhang comes to believe that the father has at times treated the boy in a way that seems just severe enough to count as reportable verbal abuse and neglect. The boy's parents are both aware that the father's parenting falls far short of ideal, and the father says he's willing to seek counseling to help him manage his flashes of anger. Zhang's position is complicated by the fact that the parents are undocumented immigrants. Reporting the father's incidents of verbal abuse to child protective services (CPS) risks exposing the parents to arrest and deportation. This would likely lead to great stress for the family, including the child. Should Zhang report the father to CPS or take some other action?
(37) Answered by Examlex AI CopilotP1: It is morally wrong to allow a child to remain in a potentially harmful or abusive environment.
Supplementary information: This premise is based on the principle that the well-being and safety of a child should be a top priority. Allowing a child to remain in a potentially harmful or abusive environment goes against the duty to protect and ensure the welfare of the child.
P2: Reporting incidents of abuse and neglect to child protective services (CPS) is a necessary step to ensure the safety and well-being of the child.
Supplementary information: This premise is based on the legal and ethical obligation to report incidents of abuse and neglect to the appropriate authorities. Reporting to CPS is a necessary step to ensure that the child receives the necessary protection and support to address the situation.
P3: The potential consequences of reporting the father to CPS, such as arrest and deportation of the parents, would cause great stress for the family, including the child.
Supplementary information: This premise acknowledges the potential negative consequences of reporting the father to CPS, including the impact on the family's well-being and the emotional distress it may cause to the child. It recognizes the complexity of the situation and the potential harm that may result from taking action.
C: Zhang should report the father to CPS, despite the potential consequences, in order to fulfill the moral obligation to ensure the safety and well-being of the child.
Supplementary information: This conclusion is based on the prioritization of the child's safety and well-being over the potential negative consequences for the family. It acknowledges the difficult decision that Zhang faces but emphasizes the importance of taking action to protect the child from potential harm.
Below is a scenario that raises a moral question. Using the strategies described in Chapter 7 of Doing Practical Ethics, develop an Argument from Principle that addresses the moral question and represent it in standard form. Then, write a brief paragraph of supplementary information for each premise (explaining what the premise is saying and why we should think it is true).
The scenario: A Makah Whale Hunt. Factual background: in the late 1990s, the Makah tribe of Neah Bay in Washington State, near the US border with Canada, fought a multi- year, international political battle to restore the tribe's right to hunt whales. The whale hunts, an important part of their cultural history, had ended in the early 1900s, as whale populations collapsed in the face of large-scale commercial whaling. Then, in the 1980s, international bans on whale hunting were passed by most nations, including the USA, and whale hunting became illegal nearly everywhere, including Neah Bay. But in 1996, it was the Makah tribe's position that those laws did not apply to them; they maintained that their original treaty with the US government granted them the right to hunt whales.
Eventually, the tribe won its case and in 1999 a team of Makah men killed their first whale in living memory.
Fictional scenario: Ben is the 20-year-old nephew of a tribal elder. He has been invited to participate in the Makah tribe's second modern whale hunt, planned for the spring of 2000. The previous year he had watched as the first whale hunt brought the community together like he had never seen before. Everyone worked together to help the hunters
train physically and prepare spiritually. Elders met to try to reconstruct, as best they could, any fragments of cultural memory of how the hunts had unfolded 100 years before. The preparations for the hunt were the focus of multiple conversations every day. When the men returned triumphantly, with the body of a gray whale in tow, the community's celebrations were long and intense. Ben ate a meal of barbequed whale meat, and it tasted to him like the best steak he'd ever had.
When he was invited to participate in the second hunt, Ben was deeply honored. He has practiced in his canoe daily, and is stronger than he has ever been. The whalers have gone on several retreats, to purify themselves and spiritually prepare for the hunt. These retreats have brought Ben closer to men in his community that he previously did not know well.
But as the day of the hunt drew closer, Ben's misgivings began to grow. Now, when he thinks about the hunt, he gets sick to his stomach. He knows well how intelligent the whales are, with a complex language that humans haven't even begun to decode. He has spent hours admiring them from the shore and from his canoe, and believes them to be gentle, even kind creatures. He cannot deny that last year's whale hunt had a positive effect on the community, but the tribe certainly doesn't need whale meat to survive.
Ben feels trapped in a moral dilemma. If he pulls out of the hunt at the last minute, he worries he will be wronging his community, including his uncle (the tribal elder who fought so hard for whaling rights), and the hunters he has grown close to over months of preparation. But if he participates, he worries he will be committing something that feels, to him, increasingly close to murder. What is the right thing for Ben to do in this situation?
(44) 
Filters
- Essay(0)
- Multiple Choice(0)
- Short Answer(0)
- True False(0)
- Matching(0)