1. The political leader of your country, a scholar, a janitor, a nurse, a former convict, and you are all in a boat that capsizes. You are a trained life saver, but you can save only one of the other passengers. Which one would you save according to Kant and any other two of the theories we have studied from Hobbes through Ross? Does it make any difference if some of the people in the water are single, others are married, and some have dependent children? Explain why you think that each of the three theorists you discuss would make the decision that you think he would make. After you answer this question, evaluate all three approaches to the problem. (Note that I am not asking for an evaluation of each thinker’s approach in general, but rather the strengths and weaknesses of how his theory applies to this case, what it successfully describes as relevant to this case and what it ignores or distorts.)
2. About thirty years ago, New York City was the site of a major moral debate. At the urging of the mayor, the city council passed an ordinance that banned begging in the subways. Both the mayor and the city council expressed concern about the poor and the homeless, and indeed they tried to find increased city, state, and federal funds to alleviate the plight of the homeless in various ways. The city officials claimed, however, that public begging significantly diminishes the quality of life for all New Yorkers, and that people have a right to ride the subways without being accosted by beggars. They also were concerned that if riding the subway often included this kind of embarrassment and unpleasantness, people would simply avoid public transportation. This would add to the congestion of traffic, which was already unbearable. The federal court, however, declared the (over) ordinance unconstitutional on the grounds that it interfered with the beggars’ free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution. The city appealed but lost.
Explain how Kant and any other two of the philosophers we have discussed from Hobbes to Ross would respond to both the ordinance and the decree of the court. Then evaluate the responses to this question of the three theories you described. (Note that I am not asking for an evaluation of each thinker’s approach in general, but rather the strengths and weaknesses of how his theory applies to his case, what it successfully describes as relevant to this case and what it ignores or distorts.)
0 comments