Lecture 13: Three Discussion Questions
Lecture 13
Exam Tutorial / Discussion
Discussion Questions
13.1 The Death Penalty
Preliminary Questions:
1). The following arguments have been offered in favor of the death penalty.
a). The death penalty prevents future murders. (That is, the death penalty acts as
a deterrent).
b). In a fair society, if you kill someone, society should kill you.
Do you agree, or disagree? What do your colleagues think?
2). The following arguments have been offered against the death penalty.
c). If the court makes a mistake, an innocent person may be killed.
d). Sometimes the death penalty is used unfairly.
Do you agree, or disagree? Why?
3). Do you think that Japan should retain the death penalty? If so, for which crimes?
4). What is a religion?
5). What is a cult?
6). What is the difference between a cult and a religion?
Asahara’s Execution Finalized
Adapted from The Japan Times, September 2006
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected an appeal by lawyers for Aum Shinrikyo founder Shoko Asahara, finalizing the death sentence for the man who masterminded the cult’s horrific nerve gas attack on the Tokyo subway system in 1995. Members of the Aum cult released sarin gas into subway carriages, killing 12 people and seriously injuring some 5,500. The prosecution argued that Asahara ordered the mass killing to “overthrow the government and install himself in the position of King of Japan.”
Asahara’s lawyers argue that he is not sane, and so should not be executed. Six psychiatrists working with the lawyers say that Asahara is “unable to communicate,” and he often does strange, disgusting things in the presence of lawyers, psychiatrists and family members. The prosecution argues that Asahara is just pretending to be crazy.
Of course, many are pleased that Asahara will be executed. But not everyone is happy. Takeshi Tsuchimoto, a law professor at Hakuoh University Law School, says that the biggest question concerning Asahara will never be answered. “All of his disciples made statements in court, but the ringleader has never said anything about what happened… for the Japanese people, this has left only a feeling of total emptiness.”
Post- reading Questions
1). Aum Shinrikyo changed its name in 2000 to Aleph, and is still active. They have publicly apologized for the gas attack and have offered to pay victims money, although none has been paid so far. Do you think they are being sincere? And do you think Aleph should be an illegal organization? On what grounds?
2). Do you think Asahara is sane, or insane?
3). If Asahara is insane, should he be executed regardless?
4). Takeshi Tsuchimoto thinks that killing Asahara now will lead to a feeling of ‘emptiness.’ Why, do you think? Is there any benefit to keeping Asahara alive, and could it outweigh the benefits of simply killing him?
5). a). Suppose that the attackers thought that they were doing their duty, in following Asahara’s orders. Would Kant agree? b). Would Kant approve of executing Asahara?
Sources:
“Asahara’s Execution Finalized. “The Japan Times Online http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20060916al.html
For information on the death penalty:
Michigan State University Death Penalty Information Center
http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/c/about/arguments/contents.html
13.2 Drugs
Preliminary Questions:
1).What are some enjoyable, but potentially lethal, activities? (lethal’ [adjective] means ‘something that can kill you,’ i.e. ‘this snake is lethal’).
2). What are the psychological effects of smoking tobacco?
3). What are the physical effects of smoking tobacco?
4). Of the activities in response to question 1), which ones have been banned in Japan or elsewhere, either now or in the past? Which ones, do you think, should be legal but have an age limit? Are there some dangerous but fun activities which should not be banned? Which ones? And why?
The following is a letter to the editor of The New York Times, in response to an article on the ‘tobacco debate’- that is, the debate as to whether or not tobacco should be banned. Many people argue that tobacco is lethal, and so the public needs to be protected from lethal things. Mr. Grant, the letter writer, disagrees.
To the Editor:
In the current climate of anti- tobacco hysteria (“Smoked Out,” Op-Ed, June 4), certain elements of common sense seem to have been forgotten: (1) the more you complain about tobacco use, the more attractive you make it to teenagers, as the latest statistics confirm. Smoking has never been so hip, rebellious and cavalier.
2). Long before Government warnings, it was common knowledge that cigarettes were addictive. Smokers know the risks and choose to smoke regardless.
3). A third of smokers die a premature death. So what? It’s nobody’s business but their own. Those who complain about the cost of treating smokers’ illnesses should congratulate them for dying young and reducing the Social Security burden.
4). Don’t even think of banning cigarettes. How much more evidence does America need that prohibition doesn’t work?
R.L.Grant
Tuscon, Arizona, June 4, 1997
Questions:
1). What is the argument here?
- what is the conclusion?
-What are the premises?
2). Grant notes that the criticism of smoking is increasing, and that the rate of smoking amongst teenagers is also increasing. He concludes that the hostility towards smoking is causing teenagers to smoke. Is this a good argument?
3). Grant argues that smokers are rational, and are making a rational decision when they smoke. So their rationality should be respected. a). Is this a Kantian idea, a Hobbesian idea, or a Utilitarian idea? b). Are smokers really free and rational?
4). Grant argues that smokers are doing us a favor by dying younger, so reducing the medical costs that we, the tax payers, would need to pay for. Hence, everyone is either happier, or dead. Is this a Kantian idea, a Hobbesian idea, or a Utilitarian idea?
5). Whether smokers die young or not is “nobody’s business but their own.” That is, they aren’t harming anyone else- so there is nothing wrong with what they do in private. Is this a Kantian idea, a Hobbesian idea, or a Utilitarian idea?
6). What would a Utilitarian say about the proposal to ban tobacco? What would a Hobbesian, or a Kantian, say?
13.3 Virtue Ethics
Nobody has written a complete Virtue Ethics for Politicians. Formulate one.
1). What virtues should a politician have, or at least try to have?
2). Could you have all of these virtues and still do wicked things?
3). If you wanted to train someone to be a good and moral politician, which would be better training for them- Kant, Hobbes and Utilitarianism, or Virtue Ethics? Why?
4). Can you name a real politician or leader that has all or most of the virtues you thought of in answer to Question 1?
Exam Tutorial / Discussion
Discussion Questions
13.1 The Death Penalty
Preliminary Questions:
1). The following arguments have been offered in favor of the death penalty.
a). The death penalty prevents future murders. (That is, the death penalty acts as
a deterrent).
b). In a fair society, if you kill someone, society should kill you.
Do you agree, or disagree? What do your colleagues think?
2). The following arguments have been offered against the death penalty.
c). If the court makes a mistake, an innocent person may be killed.
d). Sometimes the death penalty is used unfairly.
Do you agree, or disagree? Why?
3). Do you think that Japan should retain the death penalty? If so, for which crimes?
4). What is a religion?
5). What is a cult?
6). What is the difference between a cult and a religion?
Asahara’s Execution Finalized
Adapted from The Japan Times, September 2006
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected an appeal by lawyers for Aum Shinrikyo founder Shoko Asahara, finalizing the death sentence for the man who masterminded the cult’s horrific nerve gas attack on the Tokyo subway system in 1995. Members of the Aum cult released sarin gas into subway carriages, killing 12 people and seriously injuring some 5,500. The prosecution argued that Asahara ordered the mass killing to “overthrow the government and install himself in the position of King of Japan.”
Asahara’s lawyers argue that he is not sane, and so should not be executed. Six psychiatrists working with the lawyers say that Asahara is “unable to communicate,” and he often does strange, disgusting things in the presence of lawyers, psychiatrists and family members. The prosecution argues that Asahara is just pretending to be crazy.
Of course, many are pleased that Asahara will be executed. But not everyone is happy. Takeshi Tsuchimoto, a law professor at Hakuoh University Law School, says that the biggest question concerning Asahara will never be answered. “All of his disciples made statements in court, but the ringleader has never said anything about what happened… for the Japanese people, this has left only a feeling of total emptiness.”
Post- reading Questions
1). Aum Shinrikyo changed its name in 2000 to Aleph, and is still active. They have publicly apologized for the gas attack and have offered to pay victims money, although none has been paid so far. Do you think they are being sincere? And do you think Aleph should be an illegal organization? On what grounds?
2). Do you think Asahara is sane, or insane?
3). If Asahara is insane, should he be executed regardless?
4). Takeshi Tsuchimoto thinks that killing Asahara now will lead to a feeling of ‘emptiness.’ Why, do you think? Is there any benefit to keeping Asahara alive, and could it outweigh the benefits of simply killing him?
5). a). Suppose that the attackers thought that they were doing their duty, in following Asahara’s orders. Would Kant agree? b). Would Kant approve of executing Asahara?
Sources:
“Asahara’s Execution Finalized. “The Japan Times Online http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20060916al.html
For information on the death penalty:
Michigan State University Death Penalty Information Center
http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/c/about/arguments/contents.html
13.2 Drugs
Preliminary Questions:
1).What are some enjoyable, but potentially lethal, activities? (lethal’ [adjective] means ‘something that can kill you,’ i.e. ‘this snake is lethal’).
2). What are the psychological effects of smoking tobacco?
3). What are the physical effects of smoking tobacco?
4). Of the activities in response to question 1), which ones have been banned in Japan or elsewhere, either now or in the past? Which ones, do you think, should be legal but have an age limit? Are there some dangerous but fun activities which should not be banned? Which ones? And why?
The following is a letter to the editor of The New York Times, in response to an article on the ‘tobacco debate’- that is, the debate as to whether or not tobacco should be banned. Many people argue that tobacco is lethal, and so the public needs to be protected from lethal things. Mr. Grant, the letter writer, disagrees.
To the Editor:
In the current climate of anti- tobacco hysteria (“Smoked Out,” Op-Ed, June 4), certain elements of common sense seem to have been forgotten: (1) the more you complain about tobacco use, the more attractive you make it to teenagers, as the latest statistics confirm. Smoking has never been so hip, rebellious and cavalier.
2). Long before Government warnings, it was common knowledge that cigarettes were addictive. Smokers know the risks and choose to smoke regardless.
3). A third of smokers die a premature death. So what? It’s nobody’s business but their own. Those who complain about the cost of treating smokers’ illnesses should congratulate them for dying young and reducing the Social Security burden.
4). Don’t even think of banning cigarettes. How much more evidence does America need that prohibition doesn’t work?
R.L.Grant
Tuscon, Arizona, June 4, 1997
Questions:
1). What is the argument here?
- what is the conclusion?
-What are the premises?
2). Grant notes that the criticism of smoking is increasing, and that the rate of smoking amongst teenagers is also increasing. He concludes that the hostility towards smoking is causing teenagers to smoke. Is this a good argument?
3). Grant argues that smokers are rational, and are making a rational decision when they smoke. So their rationality should be respected. a). Is this a Kantian idea, a Hobbesian idea, or a Utilitarian idea? b). Are smokers really free and rational?
4). Grant argues that smokers are doing us a favor by dying younger, so reducing the medical costs that we, the tax payers, would need to pay for. Hence, everyone is either happier, or dead. Is this a Kantian idea, a Hobbesian idea, or a Utilitarian idea?
5). Whether smokers die young or not is “nobody’s business but their own.” That is, they aren’t harming anyone else- so there is nothing wrong with what they do in private. Is this a Kantian idea, a Hobbesian idea, or a Utilitarian idea?
6). What would a Utilitarian say about the proposal to ban tobacco? What would a Hobbesian, or a Kantian, say?
13.3 Virtue Ethics
Nobody has written a complete Virtue Ethics for Politicians. Formulate one.
1). What virtues should a politician have, or at least try to have?
2). Could you have all of these virtues and still do wicked things?
3). If you wanted to train someone to be a good and moral politician, which would be better training for them- Kant, Hobbes and Utilitarianism, or Virtue Ethics? Why?
4). Can you name a real politician or leader that has all or most of the virtues you thought of in answer to Question 1?
posted by G. Roche at 11:02 AM
<< Home