Where can buy Morality Play Case Studies in Ethics 2nd Edition Jessica Pierce ebook with cheap price

Download the full version of the ebook at
https://ebookfinal.com
Morality Play Case Studies in Ethics 2nd

Edition Jessica Pierce
https://ebookfinal.com/download/morality-play-
case-studies-in-ethics-2nd-edition-jessica-pierce/
Explore and download more ebook at https://ebookfinal.com

Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.
Business Ethics Kant Virtue and the Nexus of Duty

Foundations and Case Studies 2nd Edition Richard M.
Robinson
https://ebookfinal.com/download/business-ethics-kant-virtue-and-the-
nexus-of-duty-foundations-and-case-studies-2nd-edition-richard-m-
robinson/
ebookfinal.com
Concepts and Case Studies in Chemical Biology 2nd Edition

Herbert Waldmann
https://ebookfinal.com/download/concepts-and-case-studies-in-chemical-
biology-2nd-edition-herbert-waldmann/
ebookfinal.com
Business Ethics Readings and Cases in Corporate Morality

5th Edition W. Michael Hoffman
https://ebookfinal.com/download/business-ethics-readings-and-cases-in-
corporate-morality-5th-edition-w-michael-hoffman/
ebookfinal.com
Case Studies in Psychopharmacology The Use of Drugs in

Psychiatry 2nd Edition David Taylor
https://ebookfinal.com/download/case-studies-in-psychopharmacology-
the-use-of-drugs-in-psychiatry-2nd-edition-david-taylor/
ebookfinal.com
Case Studies for Health Information Management 2nd Edition
Patricia Schnering
https://ebookfinal.com/download/case-studies-for-health-information-
management-2nd-edition-patricia-schnering/
ebookfinal.com
Altruism and Christian Ethics New studies in Christian

Ethics 1st Edition Colin Grant
https://ebookfinal.com/download/altruism-and-christian-ethics-new-
studies-in-christian-ethics-1st-edition-colin-grant/
ebookfinal.com
Fair Play The Ethics of Sport 4th Edition Robert L.Simon
https://ebookfinal.com/download/fair-play-the-ethics-of-sport-4th-
edition-robert-l-simon/
ebookfinal.com
Ethics Unbound Chinese and Western Perspectives on

Morality 1st Edition Katrin Froese
https://ebookfinal.com/download/ethics-unbound-chinese-and-western-
perspectives-on-morality-1st-edition-katrin-froese/
ebookfinal.com
Case Studies in Islamic Banking and Finance Case Questions

Answers 1st Edition Brian Kettell
https://ebookfinal.com/download/case-studies-in-islamic-banking-and-
finance-case-questions-answers-1st-edition-brian-kettell/
ebookfinal.com
Morality Play Case Studies in Ethics 2nd Edition Jessica
Pierce Digital Instant Download
Author(s): Jessica Pierce
ISBN(s): 9781478606727, 147860672X
Edition: 2
File Details: PDF, 3.19 MB
Year: 2013
Language: english
second edition
Morality Play
Case Studies in Ethics
Jessica Pierce
d
individual liberty
an co war and terrorism
er
future generations
y cio global justice
ert
n
lib
ethics and medicine risk assessment
suicide/euthanasia privacy
va
uel
abortion animals
li f e a
nd death
an
d
cul
ture
c ri m e
and
y
n it
pu
ma
environment
ni
hu
sh
religion and morality

m
nt
nd
e
ta
science and technology

ta
capital punishment sex love marriage

bi
ha
lying, cheating and stealing ethics and business

Pierce 2E.book Page i Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:24 PM
second edition
Morality Play
Case Studies in Ethics
Jessica Pierce
WAVELAND
PRESS, INC.
Long Grove, Illinois
Pierce 2E.book Page ii Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:24 PM
For information about this book, contact:

Waveland Press, Inc.
4180 IL Route 83, Suite 101
Long Grove, IL 60047-9580
(847) 634-0081
[email protected]
www.waveland.com
Copyright © 2014 by Jessica Pierce
10-digit ISBN 1-4786-0672-X

13-digit ISBN 978-1-4786-0672-7
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any
means without permission in writing from the publisher.
Printed in the United States of America
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Pierce 2E.book Page iii Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:24 PM
Contents
Topical Table of Contents vii

Theory-Based Table of Contents xii
Principle-Based Table of Contents xv
Introduction 1
Why Think about Morality? 2
Using Case Studies to Think about Morality 3
Morality Play 4
Ethical Argumentation
(and Arguing Ethically) 6
Pluralism, Relativism, and Absolutism 7
A Quick Review of Critical Thinking 8
1 Crime and Punishment 11

Stanley “Tookie” Williams and
the Problem of Redemption 12
The Execution of Scott Hain,
Juvenile Offender 13
The Bible Used in Conviction 15
Chemical Castration for
Male Sex Offenders 17
Vicarious Sensitization 19
Torture of a Kidnapper 21
Three Nuns and a Silo 22
iii
Pierce 2E.book Page iv Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:24 PM
iv  Contents
Stealing from the Wishing Well 24

The Consenting Victim 25
Execution of an Abortion Provider’s Killer 26
White-Collar Crime 26
White Collar Crime, Take Two:
Atlantic States Foundry 28
No Lie MRI 30
2 Life and Death 35

Elder Suicide or Dignified Exit?
A Letter from Ohio 36
Exit Bags 38
Fetal Rights and the Fetus as Person:
The Case of J.D.S. 39
Fetal Rights, Take Two: Unborn Victims
of Violence Act 39
Fetal Rights, Take Three: Drug Abuse
and Fetal Abuse 40
Fetal Rights, Take Four: Sextuplets 40
Zero Population Growth 42
Suicide Concert 44
Age-Based Cost Studies 45
Medical Care for Prisoners 46
Medical Care for Prisoners, Take Two:
Donor Heart Goes to a Criminal 47
Medical Care for Prisoners, Take Three:
Organ Transplant for Death Row Inmate 48
Fetal Testing for Down Syndrome 50
Age-Extension Research 53
The Schiavos 55
3 Habitat and Humanity 59

Troublesome Trinkets 60
Famine in Africa 62
A-Hunting We Will Go . . . 64
GloFish 65
Taking Your Pet to the Grave with You 67
Pierce 2E.book Page v Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:24 PM
Contents  v
Ecoterrorism: Kill the Hummers! 68

War Is Terrorism 72
Would Pain-Free Animals Be
Guilt Free, Too? 72
Dolphin Parks 73
Eating Sea Turtles 76
PBDEs and the Precautionary Principle 79
Canned Hunts 83
Zoos and Euthanasia 85
Cosmetic Surgery for Pets 86
O Canada, How Could You? 88
Grilled Dog 90
4 Liberty and Coercion 93

DanceSafe: Making Ecstasy
Safer for Partiers 94
Obesity: Personal or Political? 96
Worried about Harry Potter 100
Walmart Keeps Its Shelves Clean 101
License-Plate Liberties 104
Pledge of Allegiance 105
Ed Rosenthal and Medical Marijuana 107
Cameras Watching Students 109
High School Tells Student to
Remove Anti-War T-Shirt 110
CRACK—Get Sterilized, Get Cash 112
Shame Campaign 114
My Hummer, My Choice 116
“Let Those Who Ride Decide”: Motorcycle
Helmet Laws and Biker Rights 117
USA Patriot Act 119
The Right to Be Forgotten 121
5 Value and Culture 125

Same-Sex Unions and the
Defense of Marriage 126
Gay Sex and Adultery 129
Pierce 2E.book Page vi Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:24 PM
vi  Contents
Sex Education in Schools 130

Evolution vs. Creationism in Public Schools 132
Evolution, Take Two:
Professor Dini’s Recommendation 135
Growth Hormone for Shortness 137
Abortion and Fetal Heartbeat 140
Sports Supplementation: Fair or Foul? 142
Sports Supplementation, Take Two:
Ross Rebagliati 145
Extreme Makeover 145
Extreme Makeover, Take Two:
Human Barbie 147
Culture Wars 148
Bright Rights 150
A Call to Civil Society 152
Ethics for the Information Age:
The SCANS Report 153
Character Education of Children 154
Character Education, Take Two: Georgia’s
“Respect for the Creator” Principle 158
Rigoberta Menchú: The Purpose of Truth 159
Pierce 2E.book Page vii Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:24 PM
Alternative Tables of Contents
Topical Table
of Contents
If you are interested in cases that deal with a particular topical

category in applied ethics, see the suggestions below.
Abortion
Fetal Rights and the Fetus as Person: The Case of J.D.S. 39
Fetal Rights, Take Two: Unborn Victims of Violence Act 39
Animals
A Hunting We Will Go . . . 64
GloFish 65
Taking Your Pet to the Grave with You 67
Would Pain Free Animals Be Guilt Free, Too? 72
Dolphin Parks 73
Canned Hunts 83
vii
Pierce 2E.book Page viii Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:24 PM
viii  Topical Table of Contents

Cosmetic Surgery for Pets 86
Grilled Dog 90
Capital Punishment
The Execution of Scott Hain, Juvenile Offender 13
Civil Disobedience
Environment
Famine in Africa 62
A Hunting We Will Go . . . 64
Dolphin Parks 73
Ethics and Business

White-Collar Crime, Take Two: Atlantic States Foundry 28
GloFish 65
Canned Hunts 83
Pierce 2E.book Page ix Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:24 PM
Topical Table of Contents  ix
Ethics and Medicine

Chemical Castration for Male Sex Offenders 17
Fetal Rights, Take Four: Sextuplets 40
The Schiavos 55
Future Generations
Global Justice
Famine in Africa 62
Individual Liberty
DanceSafe: Making Ecstasy Safer for Partiers 94
High School Tells Student to Remove Anti-War T-Shirt 110
Pierce 2E.book Page x Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:24 PM
x  Topical Table of Contents
Shame Campaign 114

“Let Those Who Ride Decide”: Motorcycle
Helmet Laws and Biker Rights 117
USA Patriot Act 119
Evolution, Take Two: Professor Dini’s
Recommendation 135
Extreme Makeover, Take Two: Human Barbie 147
Lying, Cheating, and Stealing

Stealing from the Wishing Well 24
No Lie MRI 30
Physician-Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia
Elder Suicide or Dignified Exit? A Letter from Ohio 36
Exit Bags 38
Suicide Concert 44
The Schiavos 55
Privacy
No Lie MRI 30
Fetal Rights, Take Three: Drug Abuse and Fetal Abuse 40
USA Patriot Act 119
Religion and Morality

Same-Sex Unions and the Defense of Marriage 126
Pierce 2E.book Page xi Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:24 PM
Topical Table of Contents  xi

Culture Wars 148
Bright Rights 150
Character Education, Take Two: Georgia’s
“Respect for the Creator” Principle 158
Risk Assessment
Science and Technology

No Lie MRI 30
GloFish 65
Sex, Love, and Marriage

Same-Sex Unions and the Defense of Marriage 126
War and Terrorism

War Is Terrorism 72
High School Tells Student to Remove Anti-War T-Shirt 110
USA Patriot Act 119
Pierce 2E.book Page xii Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:24 PM
Theory-Based
Table of Contents
If you are interested in cases that suggest the application of a par-

ticular theoretical approach or that highlight the tension between
types of theoretical approach, see the suggestions below.
Utilitarianism/Consequentialism
USA Patriot Act 119
Deontology/Kantianism/Categorical Imperative
No Lie MRI 30
xii
Pierce 2E.book Page xiii Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:24 PM
Theory-Based Table of Contents  xiii

Suicide Concert 44
The Schiavos 55
Famine in Africa 62
GloFish 65
Same Sex Unions and the Defense of Marriage 126
Virtue Theory
Canned Hunts 83
Shame Campaign 114
Sports Supplementation, Take Two: Ross Rebagliati 145
Culture Wars 148
Ethics for the Information Age: The SCANS Report 153
Biocentrism/Ecocentrism
GloFish 65
Would Pain-Free Animals Be Guilt Free, Too? 72
Dolphin Parks 73
Canned Hunts 83
Pierce 2E.book Page xiv Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:24 PM
xiv  Theory-Based Table of Contents
Evolution/Sociobiology
Evolution, Take Two: Professor Dini’s
Recommendation 135
Justice
Retributive Justice
Distributive Justice
Relativism
Grilled Dog 90
Culture Wars 148
A Call to Civil Society 152
Ethics for the Information Age: The SCANS Report 153
Ethical Egoism
Extreme Makeover, Take Two: Human Barbie 147
Pierce 2E.book Page xv Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:24 PM
Principle-Based
Table of Contents
If you are interested in exploring a particular moral principle

(such as justice or compassion or nonmaleficence), check some
of the suggestions below.
Justice
Respect for Autonomy

No Lie MRI 30
Exit Bags 38
xv
Pierce 2E.book Page xvi Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:24 PM
xvi  Principle-Based Table of Contents

Suicide Concert 44
Beneficence
Age Extension Research 53
The Schiavos 55
Nonmaleficence (Do No Harm)

The Schiavos 55
GloFish 65
Dolphin Parks 73
Canned Hunts 83
Grilled Dog 90
Pierce 2E.book Page 1 Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:24 PM
Introduction
Why Think about Morality?

Using Case Studies to Think about Morality
Morality Play
Ethical Argumentation (and Arguing Ethically)
Pluralism, Relativism, and Absolutism
A Quick Review of Critical Thinking
1
2  Introduction
 Why Think about Morality?

You have undoubtedly been a moral philosopher at one
time or another. Perhaps you worried about whether to break a
promise or give away a secret when there seemed to be a com-
pelling reason for doing so. In an election maybe you supported
a clean environment as more important than a strong economy,
though your father was out of work. Perhaps you have debated
with family and friends on issues such as abortion, capital pun-
ishment, sex education in schools, and global warming.
But isn’t philosophy more abstract than this? Isn’t it the
pursuit of wisdom for its own sake? The search for an under-
standing of the nature of reality? The search for the grounds of
morality—for the meaning of right and wrong, good and evil,
rather than for everyday answers? Yes, philosophy is about all
that. But moral philosophy is also practical, aimed at determin-
ing how best to live from day to day in an ever-changing world.
Moral philosophy is about making deliberate, conscious
choices in both the mundane challenges of daily life and the
more extraordinary quandaries that humans often face. It is
also about developing certain personal qualities and not others,
working in one career rather than another, and relating in cer-
tain ways and not others to our friends, family, neighbors, and
fellow citizens.
Moral choices are choices that matter, that will affect others
in some way, small or large. When it comes down to it, almost all
our choices do affect others. It may be that the choice of which
shirt to wear today matters little, but the choice of which shirt to
buy probably matters to some degree. Do I shop at The Gap
because I like the styles? Or do I avoid buying goods from all
corporations whose manufacturing practices are morally ques-
tionable? (And, if so, am I willing to go naked?) Sometimes we
respond passively to moral situations by letting momentum or
other people push us along or by being unaware that something
as simple as our shopping list may affect other people. But even
such passivity must be recognized as choice. Although we might
not want to go as far as Socrates and say that the unexamined
life is not worth living, it’s true that a rich, full, thoughtful life
requires attention to the moral aspect of human existence.
Morality involves establishing a considered point of view
about what is right and wrong, good and bad. As we mature
into adults, we go through a complex mental and emotional
Morality Play 3
process—often a grueling one—to develop such sensibilities.

Trying to be a moral person requires work because the moral
dimension of life is complex and nuanced. And although some
moral challenges are easily resolved, many are not. So, how do
we prepare ourselves?
One way is to apply conscious effort to developing our
moral sensibilities by thinking critically about a whole range of
moral problems that divide well-meaning people. Moral judg-
ment is shaped by disciplined thought and fostered by repeated
practice. We might liken morality to physical fitness. To main-
tain a level of health, we must exercise regularly; to improve
involves even more sweat and tears and some time on the track
or in the gym. Similarly, we can do strengthening exercises to
keep moral muscles limber and strong. One such exercise is the
case study.
 Using Case Studies to Think about Morality

In this book you will find a series of vignettes, events, pro-
posals, technologies, and news stories, each of which presents
a conflict of values. These items vary widely in topic, but all
concern how we ought best to live together. Some call on our
individual conscience (for example, questions of responsible
consumption), others on our social conscience (should capital
punishment be legal? abortion?). All of them address issues of
importance; all are drawn from real events. They are called
“case studies.”
A case study plucks a moral problem out of the teeming
chaos of life and isolates it in a fishbowl—behind glass, apart
from relatives and friends—so that we can examine it up close.
The case study presents a discrete problem through which we
can engage our abstract notions about morality. General ethical
rules, which may enjoy near universal support, are actually
subject to a great deal of interpretation. We all may agree that it
is wrong to kill innocent people. But are enemy soldiers inno-
cent? Are day-old fetuses people?
Case studies are indispensable in the study of law, busi-
ness, and medicine. In moral inquiry, they have a longer but
more checkered history. Although it had been a venerable art
for many centuries, casuistry (the analysis of specific cases)
degenerated during the 16th and 17th centuries into a method
4  Introduction
of elaborately building excuses and justifications for doing bad

things. Casuistry’s tarnished reputation caused it to be largely
ignored during the development of modern philosophy—until
recently, when the art and science of the case study began to
enjoy a renaissance.
Moral philosophy has focused much of its attention on the
articulation of principles such as justice, respect for autonomy,
avoiding harm, and benefiting others. These core principles
enjoy broad support. But interpreting and applying principles
can get tricky. It is one thing to give an abstract definition of jus-
tice that would find broad support in everyday life: let’s say “giv-
ing each person his or her due.” But what is due to whom, and
why? Is capital punishment what is due to someone like Scott
Hain, who committed a brutal crime at the age of 17? (See the
second case in the Crime and Punishment section.) Cases serve
as a way to practice reasoning and to work toward the specifica-
tion of abstract principles in relation to the concrete cases.
The cases in this book are not fictional: They are drawn
from newspaper accounts, legal opinions, and other factual
sources and most of them involve real, very cold, and uncom-
fortable consequences. They are meant to test such generaliza-
tions as “do not lie” and “do not kill” by generating thought and
dialogue about concrete events that can alter the way a person
chooses to live, day by day. If, for example, the issue of exploi-
tation of sweatshop workers is troubling to us, we may become
conscious of where and how we shop.
 Morality Play
There are many ways to use these cases, but they have
been particularly designed as the basis for a game called Moral-
ity Play. The two most obvious places to play this game are in
the classroom and at get-togethers of friends and family.
Participants will take turns being the moderator. Agree on
some fair method for choosing the sequence of moderators.
Players may forfeit their turn as moderator if they wish. The
moderator begins by reading the chosen (or assigned) case out
loud. He or she may want to read it more than once so that
players can absorb the relevant details.
The moderator is then responsible for engaging the group
in discussion—asking probing questions, seeking clarification
Morality Play 5
of statements, asking particular players to explain their posi-

tions in more detail: doing whatever is necessary to encourage
a civil, provocative discussion. Each case includes a list of dis-
cussion questions that can be used to guide discussion, if
desired, or the moderator can devise his or her own questions.
A turn is up when the moderator, with the agreement of the
group, feels that the case has been thoroughly mined. Depend-
ing on the group, the time spent may be as short as five minutes
or as long as an hour or more. Then switch moderators and
move on to a new case.
Morality Play works best with a group of four to six, so a
large class should be broken down into manageable units. Two
can play; interestingly enough, this tends to produce intense
dialogue. A solo game adds the challenge of forcing the player
to imagine all sides of an issue for him- or herself. A solo game
will be particularly enjoyable if the player writes down
thoughts and then deliberately takes other viewpoints. When
we have to articulate our thoughts, either aloud or on paper, we
move closer to clarity.
The Resources section at the end of each case study pro-
vides a list of readings.
The Rules of Morality Play

1. Elaborate your arguments and conclusion, don’t just state
them.
2. Listen carefully to your fellow players. Try to understand
their point of view.
3. Players may ask other players to clarify a statement or position.
4. Aim for dialogue—a back-and-forth discussion among play-
ers. The moderator can encourage those who are hesitant to
speak and hold back those who monopolize the conversation.
5. The following statements (and others of the same variety)
are off-limits during play because they are conversation
stoppers: “That’s just my opinion.” “Just because!”
6. Stick to ideas. Watch out for personal attacks: “Only a moron
would hold such a belief” or “You are obviously a misogynis-
tic pig.” There are more graceful ways to undermine silly or
offensive beliefs.
7. Play fair. Avoid tricking other players by using any logical
fallacies (see A Quick Review of Critical Thinking on p. 8 if
6  Introduction
you need to remind yourself). Persuade others of your point

of view by making its reasonableness shine forth.
8. Be humble. Don’t engage in clever rhetoric just so you sound
smart.
 Ethical Argumentation
(and Arguing Ethically)
Argumentation in ethics aims to explore and justify a possi-
ble decision, course of action, or point of view. We seek to jus-
tify that a belief or position is reasonable. To this end, we
engage shared principles, factual information, and logical,
coherent, reasonable argument. A conflict of opinion is usually
not a conflict over basic values (that torture is wrong, say) but
over the application of the general rules in a particular case. Is
torture wrong even when, as in the case of Jakob von Metzler
(the sixth case in Crime and Punishment), it might lead a kid-
napper to reveal the whereabouts of an innocent boy whose life
is in danger? Ethical argumentation doesn’t necessarily resolve
an issue—we may still disagree about torturing the kidnapper—
but through discussion each participant reexamines, refines,
and adjusts his or her attitudes and assumptions.
Particular cases often form the basis for a broader social
debate. For example, the case of J.D.S., an institutionalized men-
tally handicapped woman who was raped and became pregnant,
has become the focal point of a social and legal debate over
abortion and the status of the fetus. Is J.D.S.’s guardian also the
guardian of the fetus? Or is the fetus a person with interests of
its own, deserving of a separate guardian for those interests?
Who should decide whether an abortion is to be performed?
Discussing moral problems involves an inner process of
self-examination and mental clarification, during which we
may change our present beliefs. We may begin by trying to per-
suade others of our Truth, but as we expand, refine, and alter
our own conceptions, we develop a more critical, more
thoughtful view of things than the one we had when we started.
There is, of course, a strong element of persuasion
involved: when we feel strongly about a certain moral point of
view, we want to bring others around to see things as we do.
But this is not our sole agenda. Ethical argumentation itself
Morality Play 7
needs to be ethical. That is, we agree to be fair, play by the

rules, and work toward mutual understanding.
 Pluralism, Relativism, and Absolutism

Ethics doesn’t allow for the exactness of geometry, where
there is (usually) one correct solution to a given problem. This
leads some people to feel that dialogue about moral problems is
an exercise in futility. “Let’s just all agree to disagree,” they’ll
say, “and leave it at that.” But the fact that ethics is fuzzy does
not mean that there is no method to the madness of argument.
Practical reasoning—what Aristotle called phronesis—is action
oriented. We reason so that we may act well. The conclusions
we reach are not true in an enduring way (as 2 plus 2 always
equals 4), but they can be sensible and plausible at a particular
point in time. And they can be understood as sensible and plau-
sible by other people.
Moral values are fluid—but not so fluid that they simply
wash down the drain, which is what happens when one sub-
scribes to a crude (but common) form of relativism, where val-
ues are nothing more than one person’s opinion. And it is
precisely the thickness of moral values that makes discourse
important. After all, there is no reason to talk about moral
issues if one view is as good as another—better just get out your
stick and convince people by hitting them with it. However, dog-
matic absolutism can be dangerous as well as self-righteous.
Religious justifications are sometimes lumped into the cate-
gory of “absolutisms” and are shrugged off by “rational” philos-
ophers. However, many people hold that moral values spring
from religious beliefs about the world and that we should not
deny these foundations. Indeed, these foundational beliefs
should be respected as part of reasonable dialogue. Those who
hold strong religious beliefs are often the first to note that inter-
pretation and independent personal reflection are necessary.
After all, religious texts are notoriously ambiguous. And even
where they are clear, they require interpretation. The Bible
commands us not to kill and also commands us to punish with
death those who murder another man. To which command
should we adhere, under what circumstances, and why? Reli-
gious belief can get people into trouble when it becomes rigid—
and can be an excuse to avoid dialogue and self-examination.
8  Introduction
A common claim is “Oh, well, you don’t have any experi-

ence with this issue, so your opinion is invalid.” This sometimes
happens, for example, with the abortion discussion, when the
opinions of men are dismissed as intrusive and illegitimate. But
direct experience is not a prerequisite for sound moral judg-
ment. Most of us, as we consider capital punishment, for exam-
ple, have never committed a serious crime. And consider this:
men do face issues related to abortion. Not all of them take
responsibility for their part in an unexpected or unwanted
pregnancy, but many do. And men are both lawmakers and citi-
zens, creating and obeying the nation’s laws. Having an abor-
tion and enacting capital punishment are moral choices with
which an entire society is involved.
 A Quick Review of Critical Thinking

An argument is not a quarrel but a piece of reasoning
aimed at making a point or offering a conclusion. Typically, an
argument will have at least one premise and a conclusion. The
premises offer reasons for the conclusion. A good argument is
one in which the conclusion follows from the premises and in
which the premises are true or at least warranted.
A fallacy is an error in reasoning. Such error can be quite
persuasive, when the fallacy goes unnoticed. The following fal-
lacies are commonly found hiding in discussions:
• Argumentum ad hominem—Argument “against the per-
son” rather than the person’s ideas. (“Of course he’s
wrong. He wears his pants too tight.”)
• Argumentum ad ignorantiam—Argument “from igno-
rance.” Claiming that a proposition is true if it hasn’t
been proven false. (“There is no life on Mars. No one has
ever been able to find any.”)
• Argumentum ad populam—“Appeal to the people.” Some-
thing is true because “everybody thinks so.” (“Everyone
knows that diet pills are the fastest way to lose weight.”)
• Argumentum ad verecundiam—“Appeal to authority.” The
testimony of someone believed to be an authority is called
upon in support of a conclusion. It is important to distin-
guish between an appeal to unqualified authority (a fal-
lacy) and a reasonable appeal to qualified authority in
Morality Play 9
support of evidence. (“Ephedra is completely safe—it says

so on the Ephedra Manufacturers Association’s website.”)
• Equivocation—Deliberate confusion of two or more
meanings of the same word, where the word is used to
mean one thing in a premise and another thing in the con-
clusion. (“All banks are beside rivers. Therefore, the bank
where I deposit my money has a great water supply.”)
• False dichotomy—The mistaken assumption that there
are only two possible solutions to a problem or that we
must choose between only two alternatives. (“People or
nature!” “Jobs or spotted owls!”)
• Faulty analogy—An argument that because two things
are alike in some respects, they will also be alike in
other respects. (“When a woman is raped and becomes
pregnant, the fetus is like a stranger intruding on her
body. Just as it is justifiable to kill a stranger in self-
defense, it is justifiable to have an abortion after a rape
results in pregnancy.”)
• Hasty generalization—A generalization formed on the
basis of limited data. (“Eight high school shootings were
committed by boys who watched violent video games.
These games obviously incite violent behavior and should
be outlawed.”)
• Petitio principii—“Begging the question,” or assuming the
conclusion as part of a premise. The premise and conclu-
sion say the same thing in different words. (“Capital pun-
ishment is wrong because it is murder.”)
• Post hoc ergo propter hoc—“After this, therefore because
of this.” The claim that one thing is caused by another
simply because it follows from the other. (“There are
more people in prison than ever before in US history.
Therefore, we have the best police force we’ve ever had.”)
• Red herring fallacy—Moving attention away from the
argument at hand by diverting the dialogue to extraneous
issues. (“Sex education in schools will lead to increased
teen sexual activity. Already, the availability of condoms
in Maryland high schools over the past three years has
led to higher rates of sex among students.”)
• Slippery slope—A claim that a chain of causal events will
occur; if we allow one kind of practice, other horrible
10  Introduction
practices will follow (where it is unproven whether the

chain of events will occur). (“If any more nations back
out of the Kyoto Treaty on global warming, we’ll never be
able to have an effective international treaty to protect
the environment.”)
• Straw man—Attacking a distortion of an opponent’s posi-
tion, rather than his or her position. (“She supports the
preservation of the snail darter even though it will cost
some jobs. She must hate people.”)
RESOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR THE INTRODUCTION

Aristotle. 1962. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated, with an introduction
and notes, by Martin Oswald. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Audi, Robert. 1989. Practical Reasoning. New York: Routledge.
Beck, Robert N., and John B. Orr. 1970. Ethical Choice: A Case Study
Approach. New York: The Free Press.
Bedau, Hugo Adam. 1997. Mortal Choices: Three Exercises in Moral
Casuistry. New York: Oxford University Press.
Burch, Robert W. 1997. A Concise Introduction to Logic. 6th ed. Bel-
mont, CA: Wadsworth.
Jonsen, Albert, and Stephen Toulmin. 1988. The Abuse of Casuistry: A
History of Moral Reasoning. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kahane, Howard, and Nancy Cavender. 2002. Logic and Contemporary
Rhetoric. 9th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Lanham, Richard A. 1991. Handbook of Rhetorical Terms. 2nd ed.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Miller, Richard B. 1996. Casuistry in Modern Ethics. Chicago: The Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Parker, Michael, and Donna Dickenson. 2001. The Cambridge Medical
Ethics Workbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paul, Richard W. 1993. Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs to
Survive in a Rapidly Changing World. 3rd ed. Santa Rosa, CA:
Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Pence, Gregory E. 2000. Classic Cases in Medical Ethics. 3rd ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Stevens, Edward. 1997. Developing Moral Imagination: Case Studies in
Practical Morality. Kansas City: Sheed & Ward.
Walton, Douglas. 2003. Ethical Argumentation. Lanham, MD: Lexing-
ton Books.

1
Crime and Punishment
Stanley “Tookie” Williams and the Problem of Redemption

The Execution of Scott Hain, Juvenile Offender
The Bible Used in Conviction
Chemical Castration for Male Sex Offenders
Vicarious Sensitization
Torture of a Kidnapper
Three Nuns and a Silo
Stealing from the Wishing Well
The Consenting Victim
Execution of an Abortion Provider’s Killer
White-Collar Crime
White Collar Crime, Take Two: Atlantic States Foundry
No Lie MRI
11
12 Chapter 1  Crime and Punishment
 Stanley “Tookie” Williams and

the Problem of Redemption
From his cell in San Quentin State Prison, Stanley “Tookie”
Williams did what he could to make the world a better place.
Williams, who was on death row for more than 20 years, spent
his time trying to lure kids away from a life of gangs. He was
familiar with them: In 1981, Williams, along with a friend,
started the infamous Crips gang in South Central Los Angeles.
When he was 26, Williams was convicted of murdering four
people during two attempted robberies (crimes for which he
never admitted guilt). He was sentenced to death. During his
20-odd years in prison, Williams witnessed an enormous
growth in gang membership and violence. The Crips gang grew
in power, and many copycat gangs sprouted up in other cities.
Stanley Williams tried to make amends. Among other
things, he wrote eight books for teenagers and started the
Internet Project for Street Peace, which reached out to children
not only in the inner cities of the United States but all over the
world. Williams provided what many inner-city teens lack: a
positive role model. He tried to convince them that they need to
believe in themselves—that they are good people and can
accomplish good things in the world. In his “Letter to Incarcer-
ated Youth, No. 1,” Tookie wrote,
It’s time to flip the script. You and I can complain 24X7
about the problems of poverty, drugs, violence, racism and
other injustices, but unless we choose to initiate a personal
change, we will remain puppets of unjust conditions.
Unless we change, we will be incapable of changing the
circumstances around us. (Williams, n.d.)
By all accounts, Williams had an enormous influence. Indeed,

his work was notable enough to earn him several nominations
for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger denied Wil-
liams’ pleas for clemency, on the grounds that despite his posi-
tive contributions, Williams nevertheless refused to admit guilt
or express remorse for his crimes. Williams died by lethal injec-
tion on December 13, 2005.
Many people still feel that the governor should have com-
muted Williams’s death sentence to life in prison to reward his
good works. Others think that redemption is not the issue—that
punishment should be meted out according to the crime, not

according to whether a criminal develops a conscience after the
fact. They think that Williams was still a murderer and still had
to pay for his crime, as an example to others.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. Should remorse, rehabilitation, and redemption play any
role in what punishment a person receives? Or is the punish-
ment simply a response to the crime, and nothing more?
2. Did Williams redeem himself through good works?
3. Should Williams have been put to death?
4. Is it appropriate for someone who has done very bad things
to be rewarded with one of the world’s highest honors?
RESOURCES
Williams, Stanley (“Tookie”). n.d. My Letter to Incarcerated Youth.
http://www.virginiaheroes.org/docs/7th_grade/Gr7_session10_
handouts.pdf
Williams, Stanley, with Barbara Cottman Becnal. 2001. Life in Prison.
New York: SeaStar Books.
Williams, Stanley, with Barbara Cottman Becnal. 2001, 2003. Tookie
Speaks Out Against Gang Violence (eight readers aimed at urban
youth). New York: Powerkids Press.
 The Execution of Scott Hain,

Juvenile Offender
On October 6, 1987, 17-year-old Scott Hain and his friend
Robert Lambert were out drinking and looking for trouble in
Tulsa, Oklahoma. They spotted a young couple sitting in their
car in a parking lot outside a restaurant. Hain and Lambert
hijacked the car, with the couple in it. After some time, Hain
and Lambert stopped the car, robbed the man and woman, and
then shoved them into the car’s trunk. Lambert then set fire to
the car, burning the man and woman alive.
Scott Hain, a juvenile at the time of his offense, was con-
victed of felony murder. In April 2003, 16 years later, Hain was
finally executed by lethal injection in the state of Oklahoma. He
was the last person executed in the US for crimes committed by

a minor. (Lambert was also sentenced to death, but the sen-
tence was later overturned by the Oklahoma Supreme Court
because he was shown to be intellectually disabled. He is in
prison for life, without parole.)
Since 1976 (the year the death penalty was reinstated in the
US), there have been 22 executions of juveniles. The constitu-
tionality of executing juvenile offenders was reviewed by the
US Supreme Court in 1988 (in Thompson v. Oklahoma) and
again in 1989 (in Stanford v. Kentucky). In 1988 the court held
that “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a
maturing society” dictated that offenders 15 years old and
younger should not be executed. And in 1989, the court held
that the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits “cruel and
unusual punishment,” does not prohibit the execution of 16-
and 17-year old offenders. In 2002, the Supreme Court
appeared ready to revisit the issue of juvenile execution. In the
case In re Kevin Nigel Stanford, four of the justices signed a
joint statement calling capital punishment for juveniles a
“shameful practice.” Yet a year later the court declined to
review Hain’s case (Hain v. Mullen, 2003). Finally, in 2005, the
US Supreme Court ruled, in Roper v. Simmons, that the death
penalty for minors was cruel and unusual punishment.
Opponents of the death penalty for juvenile offenders have
argued that “evolving standards of decency” do, indeed, indi-
cate a strong social aversion to executing juveniles. The Inter-
national Justice Project cites the United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child, which prohibits the execution of juve-
nile offenders. Only five countries are known to have executed
juveniles since 1990: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, and
the United States.
Those who support the execution of juvenile offenders
argue that the moral soundness of any punishment, including
capital punishment, is based on the idea that punishment should
be proportionate both to the seriousness of the crime and to the
culpability of the offender. Those who support the execution of
16- and 17-year-old capital offenders—typically murderers—
argue that at 16 or 17 a person can act autonomously enough to
be held responsible for his or her actions and that the maturity
of an offender would need to be judged on a case-by-case basis.
Although age may be a mitigating factor in assigning punish-
ment, it is not (unlike intellectual disability) an absolute stan-
dard for making judgments. Opponents argue that because of

their emotional and cognitive immaturity, juveniles are not as
culpable as adults. Recent research indicates that the human
brain undergoes rapid development during the adolescent years,
particularly in the parts of the brain that control impulses and
emotions, leaving teenagers less capable of consciously control-
ling their behavior than adults. Psychiatric research suggests
that childhood trauma from neglect and abuse causes physical
changes in the brain, often leading to violent behavior. Some
people have argued, on these grounds, that Scott Hain’s chaotic
childhood and family background should have been considered
mitigating factors. His parents were both heavy drinkers who
offered their children little positive guidance or nurturing.
Hain’s father introduced him to marijuana at age 9 or 10.
1. Should Scott Hain have been executed?
2. Should the United States look to international consensus on
capital punishment as an “evolving standard” to which we
should adhere?
3. Should minors be subject to the same punishments as adults?
4. When it comes to culpability for a crime, is age 18 an appro-
priate line to draw between minor and adult? Why not 17? 16?
RESOURCES
Cassel, Elaine. 2003. “Did the Malvo Case Influence the Supreme
Court on Juvenile Executions?” CNN.com, February 11.
Greenhouse, Linda. 2003. “Justices Deny Inmate Appeal in Execution
of Juveniles.” New York Times, January 28, A19.
The International Justice Project, information on juvenile execution.
See, particularly, “Brain Development, Culpability and the Death
Penalty.” www.internationaljusticeproject.org/juveniles.cfm
Death Penalty Information Center. 2013. “Juveniles and the Death Pen-
alty.” http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/juveniles-and-death-penalty
 The Bible Used in Conviction

By all accounts, Robert Harlan’s crime was a heinous one.
He was convicted in 1995 in Colorado of kidnapping, raping,
and murdering a young woman and shooting—and leaving par-

alyzed—another woman who had stopped to help the first.
Judge John J. Vigil, who sentenced Harlan, noted that his
crimes were among the most horrible he had ever seen and
admitted that the death penalty was utterly justified, yet Vigil
felt compelled to overturn Harlan’s death sentence. The reason:
some of the sequestered jurors had used their hotel Bibles dur-
ing deliberation over sentencing. Although it is unclear
whether Bibles were actually carried into the deliberation
room, several jurors had handwritten notes with scriptural pas-
sages that support the death penalty (in particular, Leviticus 24:
20–21, “fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he
has disfigured a man, he shall be disfigured. He who kills a
beast shall make it good; and he who kills a man shall be put to
death.”). Since biblical code is not part of Colorado law, the use
of these passages, according to Harlan’s defense team, was
improper. According to the judge, it was unconstitutional
because the verdict had been unduly influenced. Prosecutors
countered that sequestering jurors means shielding them from
media, not filtering out their own moral beliefs.
1. Was the judge right to consider the use of a Bible in a jury
deliberation an “undue” influence?
2. If a juror knew a biblical passage by heart (e.g., the Leviticus
24 passage) and cited it as his or her moral belief during
deliberation, would this be different from carrying into the
deliberation room a scrap of paper with the Leviticus passage
scribbled on it? What if the passage in question was from a
“nonreligious” source like Stephen King’s The Green Mile?
3. Should deeply religious people be banned from jury duty?
4. Can religious belief serve as a foundation for morality in a
pluralistic society?
5. Juries are asked, “Can you decide this case in conformity to
US law?” But is there not a higher law of right and wrong?
RESOURCES
WorldNetDaily. 2003. “Judge Kills Death Sentence Because Jurors
Read Bible.” May 24. http://www.wnd.com/2003/05/18964/
 Chemical Castration for Male Sex Offenders

Each year, over 200,000 people in the United States become
victims of sexual assault. According to the Rape, Abuse, and
Incest National Network, someone in the US is sexually
assaulted every one or two minutes. One in every six women
will be raped during her lifetime. The number of children who
are sexually molested each year is uncertain, but the Justice
Department estimates that about 1.9 per 1000 children will be
raped or assaulted.
Section 645 of the California Penal Code reads:
Any person guilty of a first conviction of [specified sexual
offenses], where the victim has not attained 13 years of
age, may, upon parole, undergo medroxyprogesterone ace-
tate treatment or its chemical equivalent, in addition to
other punishment prescribed for that offense or any other
provision of law, at the discretion of the court.
In 1996, California became the first state to approve the use

of “chemical castration.” California law mandates that sex
offenders convicted more than once of child molestation will be
injected with Depo-Provera or some other testosterone-reduc-
ing drug, with the intention of reducing their sex drive. The law
allows judges to order first-time offenders to take the drugs. If
the felon doesn’t voluntarily submit to chemical castration, he
will be surgically castrated. In 1997, Montana became the sec-
ond state to approve chemical castration. Montana law does
not mandate injections but allows judges to impose them for a
second offense of rape or incest. Florida passed a similar law in
1997, imposing weekly injections of Depo-Provera on paroled
sex offenders. Altogether, eight states currently allow chemical
castration of sex offenders.
Depo-Provera is widely used as a long-acting birth control
pill for women. One injection lasts about three months. Depo-
Provera blocks the production of testosterone, the male hor-
mone that generates sex drive. Effects of the drug are generally
short term, and sex drive returns to normal once the injections
stop. Still, long-term and permanent changes to a man’s body
chemistry can occur, including “feminizing” effects such as
gynecomastia (“man boobs”), loss of body hair, and loss of
muscle mass. Adverse health effects such as increased body fat
and reduced bone density are also possible.
Proponents of chemical castration argue that it is a humane

alternative to life imprisonment and allows sex offenders to
return to society, while reducing (though not eliminating) the
chances that they will continue to commit sex crimes.
Those opposed to chemical castration as punishment argue
that our entire system of treating and punishing sex offenders
is flawed and that we need to do more to prevent violent sex
crime. The lack of effective intervention with young sex offend-
ers is a key problem. More important, sex offenders are not
always, or perhaps not even usually, driven by sex but, rather,
by a desire for power or control over others. Chemical castra-
tion fails to treat the root problem.
Opponents also argue that the law is a serious infringement
on the right to privacy, in particular the right to control our own
bodies and refuse unwanted medical treatments. It also consti-
tutes “cruel and unusual punishment,” prohibited under the
Eighth Amendment.
In a twist on the castration theme, Ricardo Jose Garcia, a
37-year-old former social studies teacher in Florida, asked to be
surgically castrated rather than face life in prison. He was
accused of molesting an 11-year-old boy. The judge in the case
denied Garcia’s request, saying, “I will not order you to be
mutilated.” In another case, Texas inmate Larry Don McQuay
begged the state to surgically castrate him. He claimed to have
molested over 200 children and said he just couldn’t help him-
self and would resume his pattern of abuse when released from
prison. The state agreed, and McQuay underwent surgery
before his release. Texas is the only state to permit surgical cas-
tration of sex offenders.
1. Is chemical castration an appropriate “treatment” for sex
offenders?
2. Is it a treatment or a punishment?
3. Do convicted criminals have a right to privacy, or do they
forfeit this right when they commit a crime?
4. Should voluntary requests for castration, chemical or surgi-
cal, be honored? In exchange for a lighter sentence?
RESOURCES
American Civil Liberties Union. http://aclu.org
Douglas, Emily M. and David Finkelhor. 2013. “Childhood Sexual Assault
Fact Sheet.” http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/factsheet/pdf/CSA-FS20.pdf
California Penal Code. 2004. www.legalinfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network, Statistics. www.rainn.org/
statistics/ html
Spalding, Larry Helm. 1997. “Chemical Castration: A Return to the
Dark Ages.” http://neuro.bcm.edu/eagleman/neurolaw/papers/
%5BSpalding%5DFloridasChemicalCastrationLaw.pdf
 Vicarious Sensitization
Most adult sex offenders commit their first offense as teen-
agers. Add to this fact a second one—that at least half a million
juveniles commit a sex crime every year—and you know we have
a serious problem. Many specialized treatment programs have
arisen to address this epidemic of sex offenses. Some employ a
method called vicarious sensitization (VS), a kind of aversion
therapy whereby the sex offender learns to associate “deviant
arousal” with humiliation, pain, jail, and emotional rejection.
In VS, offenders are shown videotapes that include such
vignettes as an offender molesting someone and being caught
by his mother, being threatened with shooting by the victim’s
father, his arrest being broadcast on TV news, castration sur-
gery being prescribed by a doctor, and similar incidents of pain
or humiliation. Following is an excerpt from a VS study funded
by the National Institutes of Mental Health, conducted by M.
Weinrott, PhD:
. . . 69 adolescent child molesters were exposed to 300–350
VS trials over 25 sessions. . . . Youths were ages 13–18 and
had offended one or more victims at least four years
younger than they, and had demonstrated moderate to
high levels of deviant arousal in a pre-treatment phallome-
tric assessment. . . . Results of the phallometric assessment
showed that, for most stimuli, significant decreases in
arousal were obtained for youths who had received VS.
(Weinrott, Riggan, and Frothingham, 1997)
The development of VS is seen, by the study’s authors, to offer

a distinct improvement over other methods of aversive condi-
tioning, particularly electroconvulsive (shock) therapy, which is

ethically problematic.
Aversion therapy does have its critics. Some have ques-
tioned the whole idea of “therapeutic punishment,” arguing
that therapy and punishment should remain distinct social and
individual goals. Others are bothered by the notion that psychi-
atry is used to enforce social conformity to particular sexual
norms. (Aversion therapy is still used in some cases as a thera-
peutic tool to convert gays into heterosexuals.) Some see aver-
sion therapy as a form of mind control (see Anthony Burgess’s
A Clockwork Orange). And, finally, some have worried about
the issue of informed consent. Are teenagers old enough to give
“informed” consent to participate in a research trial on VS? Is
there potential for psychological trauma, and is this potential
compelling enough to advise against VS for young people?
1. Are teenagers old enough to give “informed” consent to par-
ticipate in a research trial on VS?
2. In the research study reported above, voluntary written con-
sent was obtained from all of the subjects. But where “treat-
ment” is part of a punishment, the line between voluntary
and coerced may become blurred. If VS were ordered as part
of a court sentence, would it be ethically objectionable?
3. Does VS sound like “mind control”? And is “mind control” a
bad thing?
4. Does the notion of “therapeutic punishment” make sense?
RESOURCES
Burgess, Anthony. 1988. A Clockwork Orange. New York: W. W. Norton.
Leinwand, S. N. 1976. “Aversion Therapy: Punishment as Treatment
and Treatment as Cruel and Unusual Punishment.” Southern Cali-
fornia Law Review 49(4): 880–983.
Matson, J. L., and T. M. DiLorenzo. 1984. Punishment and Its Alterna-
tives. New York: Springer.
Weinrott, Mark R., Michael Riggan, and Stuart Frothingham. 1997.
“Reducing Deviant Arousal in Juvenile Sex Offenders Using Vicari-
ous Sensitization.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 12(5): 704–728.
 Torture of a Kidnapper
In September 2002, Jakob von Metzler, the 11-year-old son
of a prominent German banker, was abducted on his way home
from school. The wealthy family readily agreed to pay the ran-
som money. During the hand-off, police identified their sus-
pect. When the boy had still not been released after several
days, the police made the arrest. Acting on the possibility that
the boy might still be alive, the police officer questioning the
kidnapper decided to do what he must to make the suspect talk,
even if it meant hurting him. As it turned out, the threat of vio-
lence was enough to make the suspect confess, and he revealed
that the boy was already dead.
But the case was hardly resolved in the public’s mind. Was
it appropriate for the police to threaten a suspect with physical
violence? Would carrying through with physical torture have
been justified, had it been necessary to elicit information? Was
the deviation from accepted rules of police conduct worth the
possibility of saving a child’s life?
Human rights advocates were appalled that the possibility
of torture had even been raised. The German constitution
declares it unlawful to threaten with violence someone held in
police detention. Even more broadly, the United Nations Uni-
versal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 5) and the Interna-
tional Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 7) both
provide that no person “shall be subjected to torture or to cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Torture is
defined by the United Nations as “any act by which severe pain
or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally
inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him
or a third person information or a confession” (United Nations
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Article 1).
1. Is it ever acceptable to do something “bad” in order to reach
a “good” outcome? (In other words, does the end ever justify
the means?)
2. Does it matter that it was uncertain whether using torture to
get information would help?
3. How immoral is threatening to torture, compared with actu-

ally torturing?
4. What if you have no intention of carrying through with the
torture? What if you do?
5. Compare this with the question raised by Katherine Big-
elow’s film Zero Dark Thirty: Was torture justified in the
hunt for Osama bin Laden?
RESOURCES
Dershowitz, Alan M. 2003. “Threat of Torture Raises Painful Moral
Questions.” Los Angeles Times, April 21.
Jessberger, Florian. 2005. “Bad Torture—Good Torture.” Journal of Inter-
national Criminal Justice 3: 1059–1073.
http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/jicjus/bad%20torture.pdf
United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
1987. “Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment.” You can read the relevant
section here: http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/
declaration/5.asp
 Three Nuns and a Silo

At dawn on October 6, 2002, with the United States poised
to go to war against Iraq, three people dressed in white jump-
suits cut through a security fence at “November 8” (N-8), the
Defense Department’s name for the Minuteman missile site
near Greeley, Colorado. Within the hour, Air Force security
forces arrested the intruders at gunpoint.
As it turned out, the white jumpsuits belonged to three
Roman Catholic nuns, who called themselves “disarmament
specialists” and members of the Citizen Weapons Inspection
Team. The nuns were engaged in symbolic disarmament: they
poured their own blood, in the pattern of a holy cross, onto the
missile silo and hit the lid of the concrete silo with ball-peen
hammers. They did no physical damage to the missile or the
silo property. October 6 marked the one-year anniversary of the
US invasion of Afghanistan.
The three nuns are members of the Plowshares Movement
(named for the biblical injunction to “beat swords into plow-
shares”) and were protesting the continuing nuclear armament
by the US government. As inspection teams were scouring Iraq

looking for weapons of mass destruction, the nuns formed an
internal WMD inspection team. According to the nuns, the Min-
uteman III is a first-strike weapon prohibited by international
treaty. A Minuteman missile has an explosive power of 300
kilotons, about 20 times more powerful than the bomb dropped
on Hiroshima, according to testimony at the nuns’ trial from a
professor of international law.
Jackie Hudson, Carol Gilbert, and Ardeth Platte were con-
victed of obstructing national defense and damaging government
property. They were sentenced in July 2003 to prison sentences
ranging from 30 to 40 months, about half as long as called for by
federal sentencing guidelines. All three had previous protest-
related convictions. In his statement to the nuns, US District
Judge Robert Blackburn called the nuns’ actions “dangerously
irresponsible” and “incredible and inexcusable” because they
placed the Air Force security teams who responded to the inci-
dent in harm’s way.
Supporters of these peace activists were disappointed with
the sentences. Some argued that because the war with Iraq was
imminent, the prosecution of the nuns was overly punitive and
was motivated to suppress antiwar sentiment.
1. Should the nuns have been convicted of a crime and put in
prison?
2. Was their punishment overly severe? Was it severe enough?
3. How should the government respond to acts of civil resistance?
4. Should the government respond differently if the country is
at war?
RESOURCES
Bedau, Hugo Adam. 1969. Civil Disobedience. New York: MacMillen.
Brennan, Charlie. 2002. “A Force of Habits: Nuns Raid Silo Site.”
Rocky Mountain News, December 4. www.commondreams.org/
headlines02/1204-06.htm
Coffman, Keith. 2003. “Nuns Sentenced to Prison for Colorado Nuclear
Protest.” http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0726-01.htm
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
BEDFORD SQUARE, SOUTH SIDE
PLATE 62
No. 1 BEDFORD SQUARE.
GROUND FLOOR PLAN.
FIRST FLOOR PLAN.
PLATE 63
No. 1, BEDFORD SQUARE, FRONT
VIEW
PLATE 64
PLATE 65
ENTRANCE HALL, LOOKING SOUTH

ENTRANCE HALL, SHOWING
STAIRCASE, No. 1, BEDFORD SQUARE
PLATE 66
No. 1, BEDFORD SQUARE, CEILING IN

ENTRANCE HALL
PLATE 67
No. 1, BEDFORD SQUARE, CHIMNEY

BREAST, REAR ROOM, GROUND
FLOOR
PLATE 68
No. 1, BEDFORD SQUARE, CEILING,
REAR ROOM, FIRST FLOOR
PLATE 69
No. 6, BEDFORD SQUARE
PLATE 70
No. 6, BEDFORD SQUARE, LANTERN
OVER STAIRCASE
PLATE 71
No. 6, BEDFORD SQUARE,
CHIMNEYPIECE, FRONT ROOM,
FIRST FLOOR
PLATE 72
ON CHIMNEY BREAST, FRONT ROOM,
GROUND FLOOR
ON CHIMNEY BREAST, REAR ROOM,

GROUND FLOOR
No. 9, BEDFORD SQUARE, PLASTER PLAQUES OVER DOOR,
FRONT ROOM, GROUND FLOOR
PLATE 73
No. 9, BEDFORD SQUARE, CEILING, FRONT ROOM, FIRST
FLOOR
PLATE 74
FRONT ROOM, FIRST FLOOR
PLATE 75
PLATE 76
No. 11, BEDFORD SQUARE, EXTERIOR
PLATE 77
CHIMNEYPIECE, FRONT ROOM,
GROUND FLOOR
PLATE 78
PLATE 79
PLATE 80
ENTRANCE DOORWAY
PLATE 81
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade
Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!
ebookfinal.com

Where can buy Morality Play Case Studies in Ethics 2nd Edition Jessica Pierce ebook with cheap price

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Where can buy Morality Play Case Studies in Ethics 2nd Edition Jessica Pierce ebook with cheap price

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Where can buy Morality Play Case Studies in Ethics 2nd Edition Jessica Pierce ebook with cheap price

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Download the full version of the ebook at

Morality Play Case Studies in Ethics 2nd

Explore and download more ebook at https://ebookfinal.com

Business Ethics Kant Virtue and the Nexus of Duty

Concepts and Case Studies in Chemical Biology 2nd Edition

Business Ethics Readings and Cases in Corporate Morality

Case Studies in Psychopharmacology The Use of Drugs in

Altruism and Christian Ethics New studies in Christian

Fair Play The Ethics of Sport 4th Edition Robert L.Simon

Ethics Unbound Chinese and Western Perspectives on

Case Studies in Islamic Banking and Finance Case Questions

ethics and medicine risk assessment

religion and morality

science and technology

capital punishment sex love marriage

lying, cheating and stealing ethics and business

For information about this book, contact:

Copyright © 2014 by Jessica Pierce

10-digit ISBN 1-4786-0672-X

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced,

Printed in the United States of America

Topical Table of Contents vii

1 Crime and Punishment 11

Stealing from the Wishing Well 24

2 Life and Death 35

3 Habitat and Humanity 59

Ecoterrorism: Kill the Hummers! 68

4 Liberty and Coercion 93

5 Value and Culture 125

Sex Education in Schools 130

Alternative Tables of Contents

If you are interested in cases that deal with a particular topical

viii  Topical Table of Contents

Zoos and Euthanasia 85

Ethics and Business

Topical Table of Contents  ix

Ethics and Medicine

x  Topical Table of Contents

Shame Campaign 114

Lying, Cheating, and Stealing

Religion and Morality

Topical Table of Contents  xi

Sex Education in Schools 130

Science and Technology

Sex, Love, and Marriage

War and Terrorism

If you are interested in cases that suggest the application of a par-

Theory-Based Table of Contents  xiii

Fetal Rights and the Fetus as Person: The Case of J.D.S. 39

xiv  Theory-Based Table of Contents

If you are interested in exploring a particular moral principle

Respect for Autonomy

xvi  Principle-Based Table of Contents

Zero Population Growth 42

Nonmaleficence (Do No Harm)

Why Think about Morality?

 Why Think about Morality?

process—often a grueling one—to develop such sensibilities.

 Using Case Studies to Think about Morality

of elaborately building excuses and justifications for doing bad