About the Book
This debate-style reader is designed to introduce students to controversies in global issues through readings that reflect a variety of viewpoints. Each issue is framed with an issue summary, an issue introduction, and a postscript. "The Taking Sides" readers feature annotated listings of selected World Wide Web sites.
Table of Contents:
PART 1. Fundamental Issues in Morality ISSUE 1. Is Moral Relativism Correct? YES: Gilbert Harman, from "Moral Relativism," in Gilbert Harman and Judith Jarvis Thomson, eds., Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity (Blackwell, 1996) NO: Judith Jarvis Thomson, from "Moral Objectivity," in Gilbert Harman and Judith Jarvis Thomson, eds., Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity (Blackwell, 1996) Philosopher Gilbert Harman argues that relativism is true for morality-much as Einstein proved it was true for motion. Just as motion always presupposes some framework in which it occurs (and something can be in motion relative to one person but not to another), morality too always presupposes some framework. Philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson denies moral relativism and maintains that there is such a thing as finding out whether a moral claim is true. The very act of what she calls moral assessment (trying to find out or figure out) whether a moral claim is true presupposes that morality is objective. If it were not objective, she claims, moral assessment would be pointless. ISSUE 2. Does Morality Need Religion? YES: C. Stephen Layman, from The Shape of the Good: Christian Reflections on the Foundations of Ethics (University of Notre Dame Press, 1991) NO: John Arthur, from "Religion, Morality, and Conscience," in John Arthur, ed., Morality and Moral Controversies, 4th ed. (Prentice Hall, 1996) Philosopher C. Stephen Layman argues that morality makes the most sense from a theistic perspective and that a purely secular perspective is insufficient. The secular perspective, Layman asserts, does not adequately deal with secret violations, and it does not allow for the possibility of fulfillment of people's deepest needs in an afterlife. Philosopher John Arthur counters that morality is logically independent of religion, although there are historical connections. Religion, he believes, is not necessary for moral guidance or moral answers; morality is social. PART 2. Gender, Sex, and Reproduction ISSUE 3. Should the Navy Assign Servicewomen to Submarine Duty? YES: J. Michael Brower, from "Should the Navy Assign Servicewomen to Submarine Duty? Yes," Insight on the News (April 3-10, 2000) NO: Elaine Donnelly, from "Should the Navy Assign Servicewomen to Submarine Duty? No," Insight on the News (April 3-10, 2000) Writer J. Michael Brower argues that women have a strong role to play in the modern military. Male/female distinctions have become less relevant in modern warfare, which is significantly based on technology rather than brawn. Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, asserts that it is inappropriate to place women on submarine crews. To do so would threaten to bring disciplinary problems and military weakness. This is a case of civilians trying to force feminism on the military. ISSUE 4. Is Abortion Immoral? YES: Don Marquis, from "Why Abortion Is Immoral," The Journal of Philosophy (April 1989) NO: Jane English, from "Abortion and the Concept of a Person," Canadian Journal of Philosophy (October 1975) Professor of philosophy Don Marquis argues that abortion is generally wrong for the same reason that killing an innocent adult human being is generally wrong: it deprives the individual of a future that he or she would otherwise have. Philosopher Jane English (1947-1978) asserts that there is no well-defined line dividing persons from nonpersons. She maintains that both the conservative and the liberal positions are too extreme and that some abortions are morally justifiable and some are not. ISSUE 5. Must Sex Involve Commitment? YES: Vincent C. Punzo, from Reflective Naturalism (Macmillan, 1969) NO: Alan H. Goldman, from "Plain Sex," Philosophy and Public Affairs (Princeton University Press, 1977) Philosopher Vincent C. Punzo maintains that the special intimacy of sex requires a serious commitment that is for the most part not required in other human activities. Philosopher Alan H. Goldman argues for a view of sex that is completely separate from any cultural or moral ideology that might be attached to it. ISSUE 6. Should Congress Be Giving More Financial Support to Abstinence-Only Sex Education? YES: Kathleen Tsubata, from "Should Congress Be Giving More Financial Support to Abstinence-Only Sex Education? Yes," Insight on the News (November 11-24, 2003) NO: Cory Richards, from "Should Congress Be Giving More Financial Support to Abstinence-Only Sex Education? No," Insight on the News (November 11-24, 2003) Kathleen Tsubata argues that abstinence is more effective than condoms in preventing both unwanted pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) such as AIDS. Moreover, she argues, teenagers' ability to refuse sexual activity transfers to the ability to say no to other things, such as drugs, alcohol, and smoking. Cory Richards argues that, realistically speaking, many teens are already sexually active, and contraceptives and condoms are effective in reducing unintended pregnancies and the spread of STDs. Abstinence-only education addresses only the failures of contraceptive measures. Young people are not armed with the information they need to make responsible decisions. ISSUE 7. Should Human Cloning Be Banned? YES: George J. Annas, from "Why We Should Ban Human Cloning," The New England Journal of Medicine (July 9, 1998) NO: John A. Robertson, from "Human Cloning and the Challenge of Regulation," The New England Journal of Medicine (July 9, 1998) Law professor George J. Annas argues that human cloning devalues people by depriving them of their uniqueness and that it would radically alter the idea of what it is to be human. Law professor John A. Robertson maintains that there should not be a complete ban on human cloning but that regulatory policy should be focused on ensuring that it is performed in a responsible manner. PART 3. Law and Society ISSUE 8. Are Government-Supported Faith-Based Charities a Good Idea? YES: Jo Renee Formicola, from "The Good in the Faith-Based Initiative," in Jo Renee Formicola, Mary C. Segers, and Paul Weber, eds., Faith-Based Initiatives and the Bush Administration: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003) NO: Melissa Rogers, from "The Wrong Way to Do Right: A Challenge to Charitable Choice," in E. J. Dionne, Jr., and John J. DiIulio, Jr., eds., What's God Got to Do With the American Experiment? (Brookings Institution Press, 2000) Jo Renee Formicola argues that government programs are not the most desirable way to deal with social problems; government support can be given to faith-based charitable organizations that already address these problems. Faith-based programs currently underway in New Jersey are examined and shown to be useful and effective. Melissa Rogers, general counsel at the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, contends that entanglements between government and religious entities are dangerous and should not be encouraged. Government support of faith-based charities, in her opinion, will bring government oversight and regulation to the religious entity and will open the door to numerous abuses. ISSUE 9. Should Congress Allow the Buying and Selling of Human Organs? YES: Robert J. Cihak and Michael A. Glueck, from "Should Congress Allow the Buying and Selling of Human Organs? Yes," Insight on the News (May 7, 2001) NO: James F. Childress, from "Should Congress Allow the Buying and Selling of Human Organs? No," Insight on the News (May 7, 2001) Robert J. Cihak and Michael A. Glueck-both physicians-argue that a free market in human kidneys would be much more beneficial than the current arrangement. Those in need of a kidney would be able to acquire it, and those in financial need would be able to sell one of their kidneys. James F. Childress, professor of ethics and professor of medical education, argues that a free market would cause the loss of important altruistic motivations and would turn organs into commodities; moreover, such an untried market might make fewer-not more-organs available. ISSUE 10. Should Drugs Be Legalized? YES: David Boaz, from "A Drug-Free America-or a Free America?" U.C. Davis Law Review (1991) NO: Drug Enforcement Administration, from "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization," http://www.DEA.gov (May 2003) Political analyst David Boaz argues that in a free country, people have the right to ingest whatever substances they choose without governmental interference. Moreover, as our national experience with Prohibition shows, attempts at restricting substances create more problems than they solve. The Drug Enforcement Administration presents the case that drugs are illegal for good reason-they are harmful. If the legalization proponents were heeded, we as a society would be much worse off. We should be concentrating hard er on fighting drug use and drug trafficking, where there is significant progress. ISSUE 11. Is Affirmative Action Fair? YES: Albert G. Mosley, from "Affirmative Action: Pro," in Albert G. Mosley and Nicholas Capaldi, eds., Affirmative Action: Social Justice or Unfair Preference? (Rowman & Littlefield, 1996) NO: Louis P. Pojman, from "The Case Against Affirmative Action," International Journal of Applied Philosophy (Spring 1998) Professor of philosophy Albert G. Mosley argues that affirmative action is a continuation of the history of black progress since the Brown v. Board of Education desegregation decision of 1954 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He defends affirmative action as a "benign use of race." Professor of philosophy Louis P. Pojman contends that affirmative action violates the moral principle that maintains that each person is to be treated as an individual, not as representative of a group. He stresses that individual merit needs to be appreciated and that respect should be given to each person on an individual basis. ISSUE 12. Should the Supreme Court Prohibit Racial Preferences in College Admissions? YES: Deroy Murdock, from "Should the Supreme Court Prohibit Racial Preferences in College Admissions? Yes," Insight on the News (February 18-March 3, 2003) NO: Jamin B. Raskin, from "Should the Supreme Court Prohibit Racial Preferences in College Admissions? No," Insight on the News (February 18-March 3, 2003) Columnist Deroy Murdock contends that programs of preferential treatment that award special bonus points to applicants of certain racial or ethnic backgrounds are no more than academic racial profiling. These programs assume that certain people need the bonus points. Murdock reasons that this shows that people from certain racial or ethnic groups are thought to be intellectually inferior. Professor of constitutional law and local-governmant law Jamin B. Raskin states that programs of affirmative action in college admissions do not violate the Constitution. If equality of opportunity is the goal, then there are many steps-not immediately involving the abolition of affirmative action-that could be taken in order to work toward that goal in a meaningful way. ISSUE 13. Should Same-Sex Marriage Be Allowed? YES: Jonathan Rauch, from Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America (Times Books, 2004) NO: Jeff Jordan, from "Contra Same-Sex Marriage," in Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum, eds., Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debate, 2nd ed. (Prometheus Books, 2004) Jonathan Rauch argues that same-sex marriage would provide a stabilizing effect on gay relationships and would benefit children. He argues that society has a stake in encouraging these stabilizing relationships and in benefitting children, and should therefore support same-sex marriage. Jeff Jordan considers various "models" of marriage. In issues of same-sex marriage, these models clash. Jordan uses these models in order to argue that extension of marriage to same-sex couples actually violates the foundations of a liberal society-a society composed of free and equal individuals. ISSUE 14. Should Hate-Crime Laws Explicitly Protect Sexual Orientation? YES: Elizabeth Birch, from "Should Hate-Crime Laws Explicitly Protect 'Sexual Orientation'? Yes," Insight on the News (July 24, 2000) NO: Paul M. Weyrich, from "Should Hate-Crime Laws Explicitly Protect 'Sexual Orientation'? No," Insight on the News (July 24, 2000) Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, reviews data on the prevalence and seriousness of hate crimes, including crimes against gay males and lesbians. She favors a federal law that addresses these matters because the federal government is traditionally responsible for the prosecution of civil rights violations and because the federal government can aid state and local police in law enforcement efforts. Paul M. Weyrich, president of the Free Congress Foundation, argues that the inclusion of sexual orientation as a protected category is part of a gay agenda that seeks the mainstreaming of homosexuality. ISSUE 15. Should Handguns Be Banned? YES: Nicholas Dixon, from "Handguns, Violent Crime, and Self-Defense," International Journal of Applied Philosophy (2000) NO: Daniel D. Polsby, from "The False Promise of Gun Control," The Atlantic Monthly (March 1994) Philosopher Nicholas Dixon examines the contrast between gun ownership and murders in foreign countries and gun ownership and murders in the United States. He argues that there is a causal relationship between gun ownership and murder and that a ban on handguns would bring more benefit than harm. Professor of law Daniel D. Polsby asserts that gun control legislation is misguided. He maintains that if there were a ban on handguns, criminals would still arm themselves, but law-abiding citizens would not, resulting in more crime and more innocent victims. ISSUE 16. Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished? YES: Michael Welch, from Punishment in America: Social Control and the Ironies of Imprisonment (Sage, 1999) NO: Ernest van den Haag, from "The Death Penalty Once More," U.C. Davis Law Review (Summer 1985) Criminologist Michael Welch argues that the death penalty encourages murder and is applied in a biased and mistake-laden way to growing groups of people. Much of the recent popular support of capital punishment is due to ignorance of the facts. Professor of law Ernest van den Haag argues that the death penalty is entirely in line with the U.S. Constitution and that although studies of its deterrent effect are inconclusive, the death penalty is morally justified and should not be abolished. ISSUE 17. Should Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legalized by the States? YES: Faye Girsh, from "Should Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legalized by the States? Yes," Insight on the News (March 8, 1999) NO: Rita L. Marker, from "Should Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legalized by the States? No," Insight on the News (March 8, 1999) Faye Girsh, senior vice president of the Hemlock Society, maintains that patients have a right to physician-assisted suicide, that physicians themselves should not be regarded as criminals since they are complying with their patients' wishes, and that a public policy of physician-assisted suicide will not have the dire consequences that some opponents anticipate. Attorney Rita L. Marker argues that a policy that would permit physician-assisted suicide is best examined in the real-world context in which it would be implemented. Here, there is cost-consciousness in medical care, which brings about strong constraints on the amount of time physicians can spend with patients and encourages physicians to seek lower-priced alternatives whenever possible. Therefore, the relatively lower monetary cost of physician-assisted suicide makes it a desirable alternative for the wrong reasons. PART 4. Human Beings and Other Species ISSUE 18. Is It Morally Permissible to Eat Meat? YES: Holmes Rolston III, from Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in the Natural World (Temple University Press, 1988) NO: John Mizzoni, from "Against Rolston's Defense of Eating Animals: Reckoning With the Nutritional Factor in the Argument for Vegetarianism," International Journal of Applied Philosophy (Spring 2002) Environmental thinker Holmes Rolston III maintains that meat eating by humans is a natural part of the ecosystem. He states that it is important that animals do not suffer needlessly, but it would be a mistake to think that animals, like humans, are members of a culture. Rolston concludes that people too readily project human nature on animal nature. Philosopher John Mizzoni counters that eating meat is not a nutritional requirement for humans and that by eating meat we are following a cultural practice-one that causes unnecessary suffering. Mizzoni agrees with Rolston that there is an important distinction between culture and nature but asserts that Rolston misapplies this distinction.
