Answer one and only one of the following numbered questions. Please ensure that you answer each part of the numbered question you select to answer. Your essay needs to be typewritten, in black ink, double-spaced, with one-inch margins on all sides. You must either use MLA or CMS style. I prefer Times New Roman font, size twelve. Lastly, your essay needs to be at least three FULL pages in length, but the essay should not exceed five pages. If you should have any questions, please let me know.
1. Rising above feelings. Kant holds the very interesting view that one of the characteristic features of human beings is that human beings can always rise above their feelings in order to do what is right. Thus, on Kant’s view there is no excuse for crimes of passion (where you walk in on your spouse in bed with another person, say Bruno). But is Kant’s view too strong? Are there circumstances when we rightly excuse a person for failing to do what is right, owing to the feelings that the individual has as a result of the predicament that the person is in owing to no fault of her or his own. If you had to choose one such instance of this sort, what would it be? Why would you excuse the person? Why would you criticize those who refused to excuse the individual? What distinguishes this case from cases in which you would not excuse the person?
2. Licensing parents. LaFollette argues that the state should require all parents to be licensed, precisely because the “potential for harm is so great and the need for competence so evident.” Some clear cases of legitimate licensing include driving, the practice of medicine, and the preparation of fugu in Japan, to name a few. LaFollete’s essential point is this: if you don’t have an unconditional right to drive a car, practice medicine, or prepare fugu, then, by analogy, you don’t have an unconditional right to be a parent. Do you think LaFollette is right about that? Are there any conceptual differences between these cases and the case for parenting? If there are any, identify them. If there are none, be sure to explain why.
3. It has been suggested that, evolution being what it is, monogamy is not obviously something that human beings are suited for. Human beings are all but plagued by sexual desire. So this raises the interesting question of whether or not monogamy is a rational social practice. If it is, there ought to be some very good reasons for it notwithstanding the aches of sexual desire.
So make the case for monogamy. This requires speaking to the weaknesses and strengths of monogamy. And in making your case, be sure to take into account the extent to which the considerations you proffer are or are not at odds with evolution.
4. For several decades, bioethicists have debated whetherkilling differs from letting die. A leading physician in medical ethics once admitted, “I have had occasion to give a patient pain medication we both knew would shorten her life.” Obviously, we can ask: does this differ from killing her? Some have argued that just as rape and making love are different, so are killing and assisted suicide. Even so, James Rachels argues that this distinction has no inherent moral value and often leads to decisions about death based on irrelevant factors. What argument(s) does Rachels’ use to help to establish this thesis? Is intending death by removing a respirator equivalent to suffocating a patient with a pillow? Is it difficult to draw a line between active and passive? Why or why not?
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|