This Eleventh Edition of TAKING SIDES: SOCIAL ISSUES presents current controversial issues in a debate-style format designed to stimulate student interest and develop critical thinking skills. Each issue is thoughtfully framed with an issue summary, an issue introduction, and a postscript. An instructor's manual with testing material is available for each volume. USING TAKING SIDES IN THE CLASSROOM is also an excellent instructor resource with practical suggestions on incorporating this effective approach in the classroom. Each TAKING SIDES reader features an annotated listing of selected World Wide Web sites and is supported by our student website, www.mhcls.com/online.

Unit 1 Fundamental Issues in Morality

45804

Issue 1. Is Moral Relativism Correct?

YES: 39723 Gilbert Harman, from "Moral Relativism," in Gilbert Harman and Judith Jarvis Thomson, eds., Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity (Blackwell, 1996)

NO: 45805 Lois Pojman, from "The Case Against Moral Relativism," in Louis P. Pojman and Lewis Vaughn, eds., The Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature (Oxford University Press, 2007)

Philosopher Gilbert Harman argues that relativism is true for moralitymuch 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. Louis Pojman carefully distinguishes what he calls the diversity thesisthat moral rules differ from society to societyfrom ethical relativism. The diversity thesis is a straightforward description of what are acknowledged differences in the moral beliefs and practices of various human groups. But he argues that moral relativism does not follow from this diversity.

34393

Issue 2. Does Morality Need Religion?

YES: 24193 C. Stephen Layman, from The Shape of the Good: Christian Reflections on the Foundations of Ethics (University of Notre Dame Press, 1991)

NO: 24194 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 peoples 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.

45806

Issue 3. Is Ayn Rand's Ethical Egoism Correct?

YES: 45807 Ayn Rand, from Atlas Shrugged (The Penguin Group, 1992)

NO: 45809 Lois Pojman, from "Egoism and Altruism: A Critique of Ayn Rand," in Louis P. Pojman and Lewis Vaughn, eds., The Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature, 3d ed. (Oxford University Press, 2007)

Ayn Rand argues against the idea that morality is something that is for the good of others, and thus something that requires self-sacrifice. Here, in her novel Atlas Shrugged, she has the leading character speak in favor of moral egoismthe idea that one should look after oneself and ones own happiness. Louis Pojman argues that Rand has confused the concept of selfishness with that of self-interest. Since she thinks of selfishness as a virtue, this leads her to devalue altruism, or acting for others, as a vice. His own account aims to establish some middle ground between complete altruism and complete egoism.

Unit 2 Gender, Sex, and Reproduction

34395

Issue 4. Is Abortion Immoral?

YES: 24200 Don Marquis, from "Why Abortion Is Immoral," Journal of Philosophy (April 1989)

NO: 24201 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.

34396

Issue 5. Must Sex Involve Commitment?

YES: 24593 Vincent C. Punzo, from Reflective Naturalism (Macmillan, 1969)

NO: 24592 Alan H. Goldman, from "Plain Sex," Philosophy and Public Affairs (Spring 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.

39733

Issue 6. Should Same-Sex Marriage Be Allowed?

YES: 39734 Jonathan Rauch, from Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America (Times Books, 2004)

NO: 39735 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. (Blackwell, 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 societya society composed of free and equal individuals.

34398

Issue 7. Should Human Cloning Be Banned?

YES: 21950 George J. Annas, from "Why We Should Ban Human Cloning," The New England Journal of Medicine (July 9, 1998)

NO: 21949 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.

Unit 3 Law and Society

45808

Issue 8. Is Cloning Pets Ethically Justified?

YES: 45810 Autumn Fiester, from "Creating Fido's Twin," Hastings Center Report (July/August 2005)

NO: 45811 Hilary Bok, from "Cloning Companion Animals Is Wrong," Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science (vol. 5, no. 3, 2002)

Autumn Fiester argues in support of cloning animals (in particular, peoples pets). She emphasizes the point that pet owners really care about their pets. One result of this is that they spend large amounts of money on veterinary care for their pets. Cloning their pets could serve as a useful extension of this ideaand also serve as a positive demonstration to society in general that individual pets have intrinsic value and cannot simply be replaced by new pets. Hilary Bok argues that cloning pets is immoral first of all because it causes great harm to animals. The animal that results from the cloning, for example, is much more likely to have physical defects than the animal from which it was cloned. Moreover, the process of cloning itself necessarily involves harm to other animals (e.g., the animal that will carry the new pet to term). Finally, the end result simply does not provide pet owners with what they were looking for.

39731

Issue 9. Should Congress Allow the Buying and Selling of Human Organs?

YES: 40054 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: 40055 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. Glueckboth physiciansargue 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 fewernot moreorgans available.

40798

Issue 10. Should Drugs Be Legalized?

YES: 24552 David Boaz, from "A Drug-Free Americaor a Free America?" U.C. Davis Law Review (Spring 1991)

NO: 40056 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 reasonthey are harmful. If the legalization proponents were heeded, we as a society would be much worse off. We should be concentrating harder on fighting drug use and drug trafficking where there is significant progress.

45812

Issue 11. Is Gambling Immoral?

YES: 45813 Lisa Newton, from "Gambling: A Preliminary Inquiry," Business Ethics Quarterly (vol. 3, no. 4, 1993)

NO: 45814 Peter Collins, from “Is Gambling Immoral? A Virtue Ethics Approach,” in Mark Timmons, ed., Disputed Moral Issues (Oxford University Press, 2007)

Lisa Newton, a philosopher at Fairfield University, argues that gambling is immoral on the grounds that it violates stewardship (and not on the grounds that it violates anyones rights or that it leads to negative results). Most of the paper examines the concept of stewardship and how it relates to gambling. Stewardship, which is an old concept that is known to us primarily through religious tradition, can also be given a modern secular form. Peter Collins, a British philosopher, argues that gambling is not immoral. He addresses gambling from both traditional utilitarian (or consequentialist) and Kantian perspectivesand finds the critiques from these perspectives lacking. He then specifically considers the more recent criticism that is based on the idea of stewardshipthis too he finds lacking. Collins concludes with the idea of true happiness, and expresses the judgment that although gambling is not necessarily a part of a truly happy life, it is morally trivial.

45815

Issue 12. Is Affirmative Action Fair?

YES: 24206 Albert G. Mosley, from "Affirmative Action: Pro," in Albert G. Mosley and Nicholas Capaldi, eds., Affirmative Action: Social Justice or Unfair Preference?(Rowman and Littlefield, 1996)

NO: 45816 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.

39736

Issue 13. Should Handguns Be Banned?

YES: 39737 Nicholas Dixon, from "Handguns, Violent Crime, and Self-Defense," International Journal of Applied Philosophy (2000)

NO: 24558 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.

39738

Issue 14. Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?

YES: 39739 Michael Welch, from Punishment in America (Sage, 1999)

NO: 24203 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.

45817

Issue 15. Is Torture Ever Justified?

YES: 45818 Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke, from "Not Enough Official Torture in the World?” University of San Francisco Law Review (Spring 2005)

NO: 45819 Desmond Manderson, from "Another Modest Proposal," Deakin Law Review (vol. 10, no. 2, 2005)

Bagaric and Clarke remind us, first of all, that torture, although prohibited by international law, is nevertheless widely practiced. A rational examination of torture, and a consideration of hypothetical (but realistic) cases shows that torture is justifiable in order to prevent great harm. Torture should be regulated and carefully practiced as an information-gathering technique in extreme cases. Manderson argues against the "regulated torture" idea of Bagaric and Clarke and affirms the idea of an absolute prohibition against torture. Manderson stresses that Bagaric and Clarke are writingand torture is allegedly being usedin the real-world social context of "the war on terror." Yet (he says) these writers act as if their own arguments are merely a harmless exercise of reason, detached from actual events in Guantanamo, Abu Graib, etc.

45820

Issue 16. Is Physician-Assisted Suicide Wrong?

YES: 45821 Richard Doerflinger, from "Assisted Suicide: Pro-Choice or Anti-Life?" Hastings Center Report (January/February 1989)

NO: 45822 David T. Watts and Timothy Howell, from "Assisted Suicide Is not Voluntary Active Euthanasia," Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (October 1992)

Admitting that religiously based grounds for the wrongness of killing an innocent person are not convincing to many people, Doerflinger argues on mainly secular grounds having to do with inconsistencies in the arguments of supporters of physician-assisted suicide. He examines the idea of autonomy, and the tendency for something like physician-assisted suicide to spread once it becomes initially accepted in a limited way. Watts and Howell first claim that it is very important to distinguish between assisted suicide and voluntary active euthanasia. Basically, the first of these is suicide or killing oneself; the second involves being killing by someone else (e.g., a physician). Watts and Howell argue that most of the opposition to physician-assisted suicide turns out to be really opposition to voluntary active euthanasia; furthermore, they argue that physician-assisted suicide would not have the dire consequence that its opponents predict.

Unit 4 Human Beings and Other Species

45823

Issue 17. Does Morality Require Vegetarianism?

YES: 45824 Jordan Curnutt, from "A New Argument for Vegetianism," Journal of Social Philosophy (Winter 1997)

NO: 34580 Holmes Rolston III, from “Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in the Natural World” (Temple University Press, 1988)

Jordan Curnutt specifically rejects the two major lines of thought that have led to the philosophical support of vegetarianism, utilitarian ideas (based on animal suffering) and deontological ideas (based on animal rights). Curnutt offers what he calls a new argument for vegetarianism, based on the harm of killing animals, and the weakness of the reasons that people might propose for causing that harm. 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.