Deck 1: We Shouldnt Even Be Having This Discussion

Question 1

Could it ever be wrong to have a moral debate? That is, could it ever be so clear that something is morally okay (or morally wrong) that we shouldn't even discuss it anymore? If so, can you give some examples? What do they have in common? Why are topics like these off the table? And if you think it's always fine to have a moral debate, why do you think that? What's John Corvino's view here, and what do you think about it?

Answer 1

Include a thesis that's focused and appropriate given the assignment.
Clearly and succinctly state the main argument for the thesis.
Correctly identify and defend the argument's controversial premises using sound reasoning, well-chosen examples, insightful analogies, etc.
Explain Corvino's position on whether "obvious" moral truths should be up for debate and respond to his position.

Question 2

In his essay, John Corvino discusses the importance of assessing something's merits and faults in an informed way. That's why his essay contains a number of personal anecdotes. In your essay, explain Corvino's defense of first-person accounts in some ethical debates. Then respond to the following, "Are there any cases where first-person accounts would make it harder to make an ethical assessment?" If so, offer an example and explain the risk. If not, explain why first-person accounts are always important.

Answer 2

Recreate and explain Corvino's position in favor of offering first-person accounts in the context of the homosexuality debate.
Either argue that there are at least some moral arguments where first-person accounts are unnecessary for coming to a conclusion on the subject, explaining at least one example.
Or, argue that there aren't any moral arguments where it's unimportant to learn from first-person accounts when making a moral assessment.

Question 3

In the section, "Why Argue?," John Corvino discusses the way that he thinks about morality. In your essay, explain what he means when he uses the word "morality." Then, offer an argument in favor of, or against, this way of talking about morality.

Answer 3

 Reproduce and explain Corvino's description of the term "morality."
 Either argue that this is the right way to think about morality and ethics.
 Or, argue that this is a flawed way of thinking about morality and ethics.

Question 4

What does Corvino say about his relationship to Glenn Stanton, an evangelical Christian and defender of the religious right?

A) They are professional rivals
B) They are enemies
C) They are friends
D) They are married
E) None of the above

Question 5

Corvino offers a description of the term "morality." Which of the following does NOT fit Corvino's description?

A) Morality is quintessentially a matter for public concern
B) Morality is about how we treat each other
C) Morality is about the kind of society we want to be
D) Morality is essentially a private matter
E) None of the above

Question 6

Corvino affirms that there is no relationship between morality and the law.

Question 7

Corvino believes that the claim that "we ought not judge one another" is misguided. Which of the following is NOT one of his reasons why?

A) It is politically misguided because prosecution requires judgment
B) It is rhetorically misguided because it makes liberals seem as if they have conceded "moral values" to the other side
C) It is morally misguided because the moral tone of society is everyone's responsibility
D) It is logically misguided because it is self-refuting
E) None of the above

Question 8

Which of the following explains how Corvino thinks about gay people's ability to make arguments on homosexuality?

A) No one should be having moral arguments about this discussion at all
B) Only gay people can speak with authority on homosexuality; they know it firsthand
C) Some gay people can be trusted to put bias aside when making arguments, but not all
D) One's sexual orientation doesn't affect the soundness of that person's arguments
E) Gay people can't be trusted to assess their own experience

Question 9

Which of the following is Corvino's positive case for homosexuality?

A) Same-sex relationships are a human universal
B) Same-sex relationships make some people happy
C) Same-sex individuals are morally good people
D) Same-sex relationships are necessary for a healthy society
E) Same-sex individuals make positive contributions to society

Question 10

What does Corvino have to say about the role of sex in relationships?

A) Sex is pleasurable, and pleasure is the source of all value, including the moral value of relationships
B) Physical intimacy is always connected to other forms of intimacy
C) Sex, whether it is had in the context of homosexual or heterosexual relationships, only has moral value in long-term relationships
D) Sex does not really play an important role in relationships, even romantic ones
E) There are good reasons to doubt that one can remove the sexual aspect of relationships and have all others remain the same

Question 11

What does Corvino have to say about the question, "Where does morality come from?"

A) The question is ambiguous
B) The question must be answered to resolve the homosexuality debate
C) The question has an obvious answer
D) The question is nonsensical
E) None of the above

Question 12

Corvino argues that there is a straightforward and simple way of explaining where moral truth comes from.

Question 13

Corvino suggests that there are moral arguments that should not be dignified with a response.