March 16th Discussion

According to libertarians, the greatest threat to individual rights comes from the government. Libertarians think that many kinds of laws violate people’s rights. Whenever the government prohibits a self-endangering activity—like driving without a seat belt—it is being unacceptably paternalist. Whenever the government prohibits deviant but harmless behavior—like nonstandard sexual practices—it is being oppressive. Whenever the government taxes people for redistributive purposes, it is stealing from them and forcing them to work for the benefit of other people.

Must the government stop trying to make poor people less poor, and sick people less sick, and so on, or is it possible to maintain a desirable pattern without restricting people’s liberty to do what they want with what they own?
Even if it’s not possible to maintain a desirable pattern without restricting liberty somewhat, are Libertarians right to think that people should have the liberty to do whatever they want with the things they own?

Pick one of the following (ok you can do more if you like :>) and argue pro or con. Remember to let us see you reasoning please.
Is it permissible for the government to regulate market transactions with an eye on the effects they have on the participants and other people?
Is it permissible for the government to pass laws against price gouging in the wake of a natural disaster?
Is it permissible for the government to regulate employment contracts? Are minimum wage laws really unjust?
Is it permissible for the government to insist on health and safety standards in workplaces?
Is it permissible for the government to block companies from forming a monopoly?

Feb. 16th Discussion Question 3

Does utilitarianism threaten individual rights? What if the sum total of the pain caused by sacrificing the civil rights of a minority is less than the sum total of the pleasure derived as a result by the majority?
John Stuart Mill tried to rebut the objection that utilitarianism cannot account for individual rights. He argued that, far from being in tension with individual rights, the principle of utility was actually the justification for protecting rights. In other words, Mill believed that protecting individual rights is the best way to increase the sum of happiness in the long run. Was Mill right? Is this the best reason for not violating people’s basic rights? Give your rationale.

Feb. 16th Discussion Question 2

For utilitarians like Bentham, happiness is simply the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain. People are happy insofar as they feel pleasure, unhappy insofar they feel pain; there is nothing else that goes into happiness. Abilities, achievements, friendship, love—all these are, at best, only means to being happy, and only insofar as they give rise to pleasure. How do you feel about this idea? Be sure to give your rationale.

Feb 16th Discussion Question 1

Suppose that we have to choose between building a new sports stadium and building a new hospital. How would you make this decision? Give your rationale in as much detail as you feel comfortable

Jan 26th ethical dilemma question #3

3. There are many needy people in the world who could benefit from your help. If you were to volunteer one evening per week, you could reduce need and thereby increase the sum of happiness. But if you were to volunteer all of your evenings, then you could produce even more happiness. Should you volunteer all of your spare time to helping the needy? Would it be wrong not to do so?

Jan 26th ethical dilemma question # 2

2. Suppose a man has been missing for many years, and you have just learned that he is dead. Should you tell the man’s father, even if it will crush his hopes and send him into despair? Does utilitarianism have the right answer?

Jan 26th ethical delimma question # 1

1. Suppose a man has planted a bomb in New York City, and it will explode in twenty-four hours unless the police are able to find it. Should it be legal for the police to use torture to extract information from the suspected bomber? Does utilitarianism get the right answer?
1a. Now suppose the man who has planted the bomb will not reveal the location unless an innocent member of his family is tortured. Should it be legal for the police to torture innocent people, if that is truly the only way to discover the location of a large bomb? Does utilitarianism have the right answer?