Deck 11: Analyzing Ibe

Question 1

The passage below makes a moral IBE. In the space provided, represent the argument in standard form clearly and precisely, being sure to provide both the Principle Justification and Principle Application sub-arguments.
The passage:
There are rare cases in which taking someone else's property without their permission can be morally justified by appealing to some other, weightier value. For example, when Jean Valjean steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving nieces and nephews in Les Miserable, he takes someone's property with good moral justification. We think he did the right thing in that case because it was the only way to save those children's lives. In almost every other case, though, it is wrong to take someone else's property without their permission. It is wrong to steal a phone from a store, and it is wrong to pick someone's tomatoes from their garden without asking first. It is wrong to take a bike from someone's yard, and wrong to steal beer from the back of a delivery truck. These examples suggest that stealing is rarely morally permissible, and then only when the stakes are very high. I would frame this thought as a general principle, with a built-in exception: taking someone else's property without their permission is wrong unless it's necessary to avoid disaster.
Although intellectual property is a special kind of property, with a complicated relationship to the people who own it, it is undoubtedly a form of property. When people illegally download movies and music from the Internet, they are taking another person's property without their permission. And downloaders are not downloading movies and music in order to prevent disaster-they are doing it because they want to consume entertainment for free. This is the argument that has persuaded me that illegally downloading music and movies is morally wrong.

Answer 1

The correct answer is not displayed for Written Response type questions.

Question 2

The passage below makes a moral IBE. In the space provided, represent the argument in standard form clearly and precisely, being sure to provide both the Principle Justification and Principle Application sub-arguments.
The passage:
Aggression against the property or person of another is always wrong. This follows from practical commitments that all reasonable people share.
-If I want money, it is wrong for me to mug you. Why?
Because mugging is a form of aggression.
-If I want my fields planted, it is wrong for me to enslave you and force you to do it. Why?
Because slavery is a form of aggression.
-If I've had a bad day at work, and need to blow off some steam, it is wrong for me to smash the windows out of your car. Why?
Because destroying your property is a form of aggression.
-If I don't like you, it is wrong for me to punch you in the nose. Why?
Because punching you is a form of aggression.
-Aggression is always wrong. But sometimes, the form aggression takes is subtle. Paying your taxes, for example, might not feel, in the moment, as if you are the victim of aggression. But you are. Imagine what would happen if you did not pay your taxes. Eventually, the government would show up with their guns and throw you in prison. That, obviously, is a form of aggression.
Since taxation is a form of aggression, and aggression is always wrong, taxation is always wrong.

Answer 2

The correct answer is not displayed for Written Response type questions.

Question 3

The passage below makes a moral IBE. In the space provided, represent the argument in standard form clearly and precisely, being sure to provide both the Principle Justification and Principle Application sub-arguments.
The passage:
People have a prima facie right to own guns. We can see this by examining some cases everyone on the political spectrum could agree on.
Suppose you were attacked in a dark alley and had a choice: you could urinate on yourself, expecting that your attacker will be so disgusted he will leave you alone. Or you could fight back, punching him in the nose so that he runs away in pain. Surely you have a right to choose the latter, more dignified, option even if the pants-peeing option were equally effective. Or, suppose you are fleeing an attacker, fumbling to find the can of pepper spray you keep in your backpack. Just as you grab your pepper spray, you notice an open sewer grate. You could squirm inside and cower neck-deep in a pool of human waste; your pursuer would not find you. Or you could stand your ground and use the pepper spray to defend yourself. Surely you have a right to choose the pepper spray option.
These cases show us something important: people have a prima facie right to defend themselves in a dignified rather than undignified way. In some cases, guns will provide the only dignified means of self- defense. People therefore have the right to defend themselves with guns.

Answer 3

The correct answer is not displayed for Written Response type questions.

Question 4

The passage below makes a moral IBE. In the space provided, represent the argument in standard form clearly and precisely, being sure to provide both the Principle Justification and Principle Application sub-arguments.
The passage:
There are many cases where it would be wrong for the government to prohibit people from engaging in hobbies and activities that have personal or cultural significance for them. It would be wrong, for instance, for the government to prohibit people from playing role- playing board games, going to black metal concerts, or practicing sword-swallowing, even if most other people see no value in such things.
Still, there are cases where it is justifiable for the government to limit or regulate activities even if those activities have personal or cultural value. For instance, there is no problem with the government regulating the sale of dynamite, even though some people would enjoy detonating it for fun. There is no problem with the government prohibiting the marriage of young girls to older men. Regardless of the personal or cultural value some people might attach to these things, governments are justified in regulating or banning them.
Reflection on these cases reveals there are limits to people's rights to engage in practices with personal or cultural significance: governments are justified in regulating activities that risk significant harm to those who haven't consented to take part in them. This lesson has implications for gun-control laws. Governments are justified in regulating gun use and ownership, even for gun owners who attach significant personal or cultural value to their guns.

Question 5

The passage below makes a moral IBE. In the space provided, represent the argument in standard form clearly and precisely, being sure to provide both the Principle Justification and Principle Application sub-arguments.
The passage:
People sometimes disagree about what counts as the wrongful sexual use of another person. Like that news story about Mr. Bigshot, the CEO of his own private movie company
who offered an actress a role in a movie in exchange for sexual favors. Some people seem to think this was no big deal, while others are out for his blood.
But this disagreement is hard to square when we reflect on other cases. Suppose a successful businessman, Danny, is attracted to an intern, Eva, at one of his companies. Dan has made a point of explaining to Eva how powerful he is and how well-respected he is, and he's always touting his influence at the company. Knowing she'll be hesitant to resist, Danny gropes Eva in the copy room one day, even though she clearly looks uncomfortable when he comes close. Feeling scared about the interaction but hesitant to resist for fear of reprisal, Eva lets the groping happen but leaves at the first opportunity. Danny, I think we can all agree, has wrongfully used Eva.
What makes Danny's conduct wrongful use of another is that he uses his position of power to get what he wants from someone with less power. This also explains other cases.
Suppose Belinda, a teacher, seduces her high-school student into a sexual relationship, or that a police officer threatens to ignore criminal threats against someone unless they cough up money for a bribe. As in Danny's case, Belinda and the officer are wrongfully using others because they're using their power over others for their own benefit.
This provides clarity on cases like Mr. Bigshot's. If using your power over others to get what you want counts as wrongfully using them, then Mr. Bigshot is clearly wrongfully using the actress.

Question 6

The passage below makes a moral IBE. In the space provided, represent the argument in standard form clearly and precisely, being sure to provide both the Principle Justification and Principle Application sub-arguments.
The passage:
Mr. Bigshot, the CEO of his own private movie company, was just revealed to have done something shocking: he offered an actress a role in one of his movies in exchange for sexual favors. Many have charged that he wrongfully used the actress for sex. This charge is unwarranted.
Consider some clear cases of wrongful sexual use. Sean knows Gertrude will not have sex with him unless they use birth control, so he lies to her and tells her that his doctor has certified he is sterile. Grant gets Shanice extremely drunk so that she can no longer resist his advances, as she always has before. Max threatens to accuse Lola of cheating on an exam unless she has sex with him.
Consider also a case where wrongful sexual use is clearly absent. Mark and Dominick are in a long-term, loving relationship. Sometimes, when Dominick is not in the mood, Mark persists in trying to persuade him by giving him a long back rub, which eventually leads to their both desiring and having sex.
These cases show that threats, force, or deception are necessary conditions of wrongful use. Sean, Grant, and Max are wrongfully sexually using others because they hope to obtain sex through force, threat, or deception. Mark is not sexually using Dominick because he's not using force, threat, or deception to win him over.
What of Mr. Bigshot?
He offered an actress a role in exchange for sex. This is not an instance of force, threat, or deception. Since he did not meet the necessary conditions of wrongful sexual use, Mr. Bigshot did not wrongfully sexually use the actress.

Question 7

The passage below makes a moral IBE. In the space provided, represent the argument in standard form clearly and precisely, being sure to provide both the Principle Justification and Principle Application sub-arguments.
The passage:
A number of public libraries across the country have recently hosted a controversial event: drag queen story hour. Although organizers and participants emphasize the ways they could help combat invidious bias against LGBT people, some library patrons find these events morally problematic. Some have gone so far as to suggest that drag queen story hour should be banned on the grounds that these events use taxpayer money to promote morally questionable behavior to children.
But even those of us who agree with the moral criticisms of drag queen story hour should not seek to have them banned. Virtually no one would advocate that hunting clubs, horror movie clubs, or evangelical Christian churches should be prohibited from using public library space to host their meetings. Many people are morally opposed to hunting, horror movies, and evangelical churches, but nearly everyone believes these groups should be allowed to meet in the library.
Cases like these are what motivate many people to endorse a principle of viewpoint neutrality: it is unjust to limit an individual or group's access to public facilities on the basis of their worldview or values.
The principle of viewpoint neutrality entails that banning drag queen story hour would be unjust.

Question 8

The passage below makes a moral IBE. In the space provided, represent the argument in standard form clearly and precisely, being sure to provide both the Principle Justification and Principle Application sub-arguments.
The passage:
In 1999, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), a group of animal rights activists, carried out a massive direct action campaign against the University of Minnesota. Activists broke into twelve labs, destroying and vandalizing equipment and freeing more than one hundred animals (including pigeons, mice, rats, and salamanders). The raids caused $1 million in damage and, according to officials at the University, have seriously impeded important medical research on conditions such as cancer and Parkinson's disease. After taking credit for the raid, the ALF announced that the animals had already been placed in homes.
Despite their admirable concern for the welfare of animals, however, this raid violates basic standards of moral decency. Suppose someone who opposed the negative environmental impacts of cars went around destroying people's personal vehicles. Clearly that would be wrong. The same would be true of well-meaning activists who destroyed soda machines (in ways that scared children) to help prevent childhood obesity, or an opponent of a local tax referendum who used personal threats to silence opponents. These cases suggest it is morally wrong to use methods intended to spread fear as a means to achieving a controversial social or political objective. It is therefore obvious that the ALF's Minneapolis raid was morally reprehensible.

Question 9

The passage below makes a moral IBE. In the space provided, represent the argument in standard form clearly and precisely, being sure to provide both the Principle Justification and Principle Application sub-arguments.
The passage:
If we look outside our own culture, it is easy to recognize instances in which removing statues and other honorific monuments was clearly the right thing to do. After World War II, it was appropriate for Germans to remove statues of Hitler. It would have been wrong to leave them up. Similarly with cities, parks, and schools named after Stalin. It would have been wrong for the Soviet government not to change the names of those places after the end of his reign. Similarly with statues of Saddam Hussein. After the fall of his regime, it was appropriate for Iraqis to remove his statues, and it would have been wrong to leave them up.
When we look at these uncontroversial historical examples, two points in particular are salient. First, these are all three men who carried out grave injustices. Second, leaving those statues and monuments in place would continue to confer honor and esteem on them. (That is, after all, why these monuments were established in the first place.) Once we've recognized these salient points, it is easier to explain exactly why these statues needed to come down: it is morally wrong to confer honor and esteem on people who have carried out grave injustices. That is why it would be morally wrong to maintain monuments that confer honor upon Hitler, Stalin, and Hussein.
Now, let us turn our attention closer to home, to the issue of monuments to Confederate generals and soldiers who fought against America during the US Civil War. There is no doubt that these men carried out grave injustices-they fought a war in defense of racial slavery. And there is no doubt that monuments to these men, like all monuments, confer honor and esteem upon them. We should apply to monuments of our own the same moral principle that we correctly apply to monuments to Hitler, Stalin, and Hussein. It is morally wrong to maintain statues of Confederate soldiers.

Question 10

The passage below makes a moral IBE. In the space provided, represent the argument in standard form clearly and precisely, being sure to provide both the Principle Justification and Principle Application sub-arguments.
The passage:
Many more people need liver transplants than can get them-the supply of transplantable livers is far, far smaller than the demand for them. This makes the ordering of transplant wait-lists literally a matter of life and death; people at the top of the list are more likely to get a liver, and people at the bottom are more likely to die waiting for one.
Some have argued that the order of the list should take into account the kind of liver failure a patient is experiencing. The most common cause of liver failure is chronic alcohol abuse, but that is not the only cause. Some people who believe that alcoholics are responsible for bringing their liver failure on themselves believe that alcoholics should be de-prioritized on the transplant wait lists, and people whose livers are failing for reasons unrelated to alcohol should be moved ahead of them in line. I believe de-prioritizing recovering alcoholics for liver transplant is obviously morally wrong.
The wrongness becomes clear as soon as we start imagining other cases of doctors de- prioritizing patients for treatment based on the judgment that they are responsible for their own condition. Imagine a religious doctor who declines to treat an atheist patient,
because he believes the sickness is a punishment for sin. Imagine a socially conservative doctor who refuses to treat a patient for an STD, based on the judgment that she brought it on herself with a promiscuous lifestyle. Imagine a team of doctors who wait to treat a person injured in a car crash until they can establish that they were not driving drunk.
As soon as we turn our attention to cases like these, it becomes obvious that it is always morally wrong for medical professionals to withhold care from patients based on their moral evaluation of those patients. Doctors should provide the best possible care to patients even if they believe those patients are sinners, or jerks, or dirtbags, or deadbeats. No doctor should ever ask, "is this person someone who morally deserves medical care?
"
Too many doctors forget this general principle when faced with recovering alcoholic patients suffering from alcohol-related liver failure. The question should not be "does this patient morally deserve care?
" because that is never the appropriate question. The question, as always, should be "what is the best possible course of treatment for this patient under the circumstances?
" In some cases-as when a patient has been unable to stop drinking-a liver transplant is not the best course of action, because it has little chance of success. In other cases, when an alcoholic patient is in recovery and has demonstrated a commitment to sobriety, a liver transplant might be the best course of treatment. The fact that some doctors believe the patient brought their liver failure on themselves is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether or not alcoholics are to blame for "bringing it on themselves." To de-prioritize recovering alcoholics for transplant is morally wrong.

Question 11

The passage below makes a moral IBE. In the space provided, represent the argument in standard form clearly and precisely, being sure to provide both the Principle Justification and Principle Application sub-arguments.
The passage:
Imagine that there are two homeowners, and that each has his or her home destroyed. In one case, the homeowner sets his own house on fire and watches it burn down. In the other, the homeowner watches her house be destroyed by a tornado. If we only had enough relief to provide for one of the homeowners, whom should we choose?
Intuitively, we would fund the second homeowner, since her house was destroyed through no fault of her own. This intuition might drive some more general moral principle which says that we must hold individuals accountable for what they do and prioritize those who are blameless over those who are blameworthy. If we accept this principle-and I expect most all of us would-then we might have a reason to deprioritize alcoholics [who are waiting for liver transplants] on the grounds that they are to blame for their condition.

Question 12

The passage below makes a moral IBE. In the space provided, represent the argument in standard form clearly and precisely, being sure to provide both the Principle Justification and Principle Application sub-arguments.
The passage:
Many cases can be marshaled in support of the ethical principle that scarce health care resources should be allocated in such a way that they do the most good. Consider just these few:
-Two people have dangerous bacterial infections, but the hospital has only a single course of a single antibiotic: penicillin. Patient A is not allergic to penicillin, and patient B is.
-Two patients face imminent death from blood loss. There is only enough whole blood available to treat one of them. Patient A will likely recover fully after the transfusion. Patient B will almost certainly die within hours from multiple organ damage, whether or not he gets the transfusion.
-An EMT is called to the site of an accident. There are two casualties, both gravely injured: patient A is a 19-year-old woman and patient B is a 97-year-old woman. The EMT must pick one to treat first and the other is likely to die.
-In all these cases, it is Patient A who should receive the treatment. Why?
It isn't because Patient A is the first in line, or has the best insurance, or is the youngest, or is the sickest. In all these cases, Patient A should receive the treatment because scarce resources should be allocated in such a way that they do the most good.
Donated livers are every bit as scarce as the resources in the fanciful examples. Livers, then, should be allocated in such a way that they do the most good. Recovering alcoholics, obviously, are at greater risk than non-alcoholics of relapsing into alcoholism. They are thus at greater risk of destroying scarce livers. Transplanting those livers to non-alcoholics would thus do more good. That's why non-alcoholics should be moved ahead of recovering alcoholics on wait-lists for liver transplants.