Cases will be made available as soon as possible as a non-semester course on blackboard, and on
the Ethics Society website.
Rule of the debate:
Two teams, decided on by a coin toss, labeled as Team A or Team B. Then one case from the 12
given out will be distributed to everyone, and Team A will have 8 minutes to present their
argument, Team B will have a 5 minute rebuttal, Team A will have a 5 minute sur-rebuttal. The
judges will then have 10 minutes to ask questions of Team A regarding their argument. Another
one of the 12 cases will be distributed, and the roles will reverse. The judges will then score both
teams based on their presentations, giving them a numerical score. We will hopefully have a
copy of the judges score-sheet to distribute beforehand, so we’ll know what the judges are
looking for. We already know the judges are looking for well-planned, well-articulated
arguments, which present clear points, the issues of the cases, and particular ethical principles
that apply.
Utilitarianism – the best course of action is the one that produces the greatest good for the
greatest number of people. For example, it would be wrong to rob a bank because, while it’s
good for one person, it’s bad for everybody else who have their money in the bank (disregarding
the fact that the bank has insurance…)
However, there are some problems with utilitarianism. Different people can be looking at
utilitarianism in different ways, for instance, trying to maximize happiness vs. trying to
maximize profit.
Also, utilitarianism can be bad for any type of minority, because if you’re only looking at what’s
the most good for the most people all of the time, you’ll ignore the wishes or desires of the
minorities. Freedom is often opposite utilitarianism, for this reason.
Finally, it can run counter to normal moral values – if nine people get a million dollars and a
tenth gets tortured vs. nothing happens to any of the people; for utilitarianism, the most good for
the most people would be the million dollars for the nine. But, torturing the one guy is wrong,
even if it gives everybody else a million dollars.
This is an example of rule utilitarianism – rules, like torturing or killing people, shouldn’t be
violated at all, even if it is utilitarianism.
Act utilitarianism – the ends justify the means – this can be bad.
Goes along with Kant’s categorical imperative. Example: should you lie on your resume in order
to get an awesome job? Two questions:
1. Can the action be done by everyone (universalizable) with no harmful effects to society?
In this case, no, of course not – if everybody did that, then no one would be qualified at
all, and society would be in chaos.
2. Are you treating the person/situation as a means to an end, or as an end in itself? Kant
says you can’t use people as means to an end. For example, you can’t give a guy to a
lynch mob without a trial just to keep them from rioting. While it would be good to stop a
mob from rioting, you can’t treat the guy as a means to that end. Likewise, lying on your
resume is a means to an end (getting a great job) – not an end in itself (if there was no
motivation to get a good job afterwards, you wouldn’t do it).
Case #5: application of these principles
Website for Westboro Baptist Church: www.godhatesfags.com
Who are the parties involved: Westboro Baptist Church (right to protest), families of the
deceased military peoples (right to have a peaceful funeral), policy makers and the motorcycle
group (the Patriot Guard Riders, who have the right to protest)
Look a public opinion polls, and it might give you good ideas about utilitarianism arguments
Preferences vs. good – most Americans would prefer to have legislation barring protests at
military funerals, but at the same time is it for the common good to limit first amendment rights
to assemble and protest.
The law doesn’t limit speech itself, it just limits the expression of the speech – they can protest in
other times and at other places
SLAPS test – government has more interest in limiting speech if it doesn’t have any serious
literary, artistic, or political or scientific value.
The Church still has the right to protest, they just have to be a respectful distance away
The families can argue that the Church is infringing on the freedom and the rights of the families
to have a peaceful funeral – principle of equal freedom
Simultaneously, to keep people from protesting in this area would be limiting the freedoms of the
church members
Yes, these Church member are doing something really messed up and we think it’s “wrong,” but
at the same time it’s not really for us to judge what’s right and wrong, and make sure you get
ethical principles to back up everything you say.
Case #8:
Who are the parties involved: the parents, hospital/physicians, Michelle, the unborn child
Motives – if they want the other child as a biological stockpile, then it fails Kant’s principle of
using the other child as a means to an end, and everybody can’t just have more kids to save the
existing ones. However, if they actually want another child, then it’s ok.
But, is it okay even when they’re using the other kid as a biological stockpile if they actual will
love her and she’ll have a good, successful, healthy, happy life?
Utilitarian in 2 perspectives: It’s good for Michelle because she would be saved, and good for the
parents, they’d have 2 living children instead of 1 dead one
Or, it would be better not to have the other child because the parents wouldn’t treat the other
child the same, and their would be an unequal relationship, or the family might not have the
resources for the second child. Also, would it be different if the children were being produced
normally (naturally) as opposed to in vitro? Would it be different if a naturally born child were
able to be used as a donor?