Exam 2 Ethics

4. I. give three example of "serious errors" that are the result of incompetent defense lawyers

(1) an examination of 461 capital cases by the dallas mornign news found that nearly one in four condemend inmates had been represented at trial or on appeal by court-appointed attorneys who have been disciplined for professional misconduct at some point in their careers (2) according to an investigation by the chicago tribune, 12% of those sentenced to death from 976-1999 were represented by an attorney who had been, or was later, disbarred or suspended (3)9.5% of inmates have received a new trial or sentencing becuase their attorneys' incompetence rendered their verdict or sentence unfair

5. ii. give three examples of facts related to poverty which would appear to be unjust

(1) nearly 1/2 of the world's population- more than 3 billion people- live on less than $2.50 a day. more than 1.3 billion live in extreme poverty- less than $1.25 a day (2) 1 billion children worlwide are living in poverty. according to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty (3) preventable diseases like diarrhea and pnemonia take the lives of 2 million children a year who are too poor to afford proper treatment

6. I. give a clear accurate statement of hardin's lifeboat metaphor. your answer should include: a) a clear accurate statement of the unlimited sharing option b) a clear accurate statement of the selective sharing option c) and a clear accurate statement of the no sharing option

Hardin's lifeboat metaphor says rich nations are lifeboats full of rich people and poor nations (much more crowded) lifeboats full of poor people. due to overcrowding, people in the poor lifeboats begin to fall into the sea. they swim in the water hoping to be admitted on a rich lifeboat or otherwise benefit from its "goodies". the unlimited sharing would let all 100 on the boat. now have 150 people on a boat that has a 60-person carrying capacity. the boat is swamped, everyone drowns. complete justice, complete catastrophe. the selective sharing option is the boat has an excess capacity of 10, so 10 would be admitted. whatever decision we make would be arbitrary the no sharing option says nobody is let on the boat and survival of people on the lifeboat is possible. hardin argues for this option.

7. iii. give a clear accurate account of the "we're all entitled to our beliefs" objection to singer and singer's response

If someone lit a cat on fire for fun, most of us probably wouldn't think that this is permissible because the person is "entitled to their beliefs". and if we reject moral relativism in some cases, we should reject it in all cases

5. I. give a clear accurate explanation of john rawls version of social contract theory. your answer should include: a) a clear accurate explanation of justice as fairness b) a clear accurate explanation of the original position c) a clear accurate explanation of the veil of ignorance d) a clear accurate explanation of the principle of equal liberty e) a clear accurate explanation of the difference principle

John Rawl's version of social contract theory contains justice as fairness, original position, veil of ignorance, principle of equal liberty, and the difference principle. justice as fariness says the principles of justice are those principles that free and rational persons would accept in an initial position of equality. the original position is a hypothetical scenario where everyone is deciding on guiding principles with the intention of advancing their own interests. veil of ignroance says individuals in the original position are ignorant of, for example: their place in society, their social status, how talented they are compared to others, and their conception of the good. the principle of equal liberty says i have the right to as much liberty as is possible without compromising the liberty of others. lastly, the difference principle says inequalities are to be arranged so they are to everyone's advantage and attached to positions and offices open to all.

4. ii. give an example of a "serious error" resulting from suppression of evidence by the prosecution

Michael Wearry, a Lousiana prisoner whose conviction and death sentence were overturned by the US supreme court in 2016 because prosecutors witheld exculpatory evidence, has filed suit against livingston parish district attorney scot perriloux and former sheriff's deputy marlon kearney foster based upon new evidence that they deliberately fabricated testimony against him.

1. iii. give a clear, accurate explanation of Nathanson's two arguments against the law of retribution

Nathanson says that (1) the law of retribution does not provide a measure of moral desert (or what someone morally deserves) and (2) it does not provide an adequate criterion for determining appropriate levels of punishment. what this means is the principle renders inappropriate verdicts on punishment, such as raping rapists or torturing tortureres. and in other cases, it tells us nothing about how to punish, such as in cases of embezzlement, drunk driving, prostitution or practicing medicine without a license.

3. iii. give a clear accurate statement of reiman's reasons for thinking that refusal to execute has a civilizing effect and teaches the wrongfulness of murder

Refusal to execute has a civilizing effect and teaches the wrongfulness of murder. accounts for the failure to show that the death penalty has an increased deterrent effect. there is a deterrent effect from not executing criminals

3. ii. give a clear accurate statement of reiman's reasons for thinking that the view that "the risk of death by execution deters" is mistaken

Reiman believes this is mistaken because criminals already face the risk of death. anyone not already deterred by the substantial risk of death due to committing a crime is unlikely to be deterred by the addition of the much more distant risk of death after apprehension, conviction, and appeal.

3. I. give a clear accurate statement of reiman's reasons for thinking that the view that "a penalty that is feared more is a better deterrent" is mistaken

Reiman says one penalty that is feared more than another is not necessarily a better deterrent because we tend to assume that death is more likely feared than life imprisonment but if the probability of death or life imprisonment is equal, life imprisonment poses as much of a deterrent threat. But even if life imprisonment does not pose as much of a threat, it may still pose enough of a threat

3. iv. give a clear accurate statement of rieman's reasons for thinking that van den haags argument proves too much

Reiman says we must assume that if one punishment is more feared than another, it will deter criminals who are not deterred by a less fearful punishment. Van Den Haag's arguments implies that we should institute death by, for instance, the Judas Cradle or Crocodile shears if it is a more fearful punishment

7. ii. give a clear accurate statement singer's philosophical argument that has as its conclusion that if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong

Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad. if it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so. By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important. therefore, if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong

1. ii. give a clear, accurate statement of the two views presented in class on how a punishment might "fit" the crime

The two views of fitting the crime are the law of retribution (lex talionis) or the principle of proportionality. the law of retribution says for a punishment to fit the crime, the same kind of action must be done to the wrongdoer that he or she did to the victim(s). the principle of proportionality says the punishment should be in proportion to the crime.

2. ii. give a clear, accurate explanation of van Den Haag's consequentialist argument in favor of the death penalty

Van Den Haag argues in favor of the death penalty on consequentialist grounds by mainly appealing to the deterrent function of capital punishment. the basic idea: we threaten punishments in order to deter crime and impose punishments to make threats credible. threats and punishments are necessary to deter, and deterrence is a sufficient practical justification for them. execution of those who have committed murder can deter others from murdering. and if it does so deter then it is justified

2. I. give a clear, accurate statement of the consequentialist theory of punishment. your answer should also include the two supplemental claims that accompany the consequentialist theory of punishment

on its own consequentialist theory of punishment doesn't entail that capital punishment is morally permissible. it usually supplemented by one of two claims: (1) proponents argue that the threat of captial punishment can deter potential murders. since many human beings' greatest fear is death, the threat of death should deter murder. (2) proponents point to the fact that capital punishment is the ultimate incapacitation. clearly, if a murderer is dead, then he can never harm anyone again

1. iv. give a clear accurate explanation of Nathanson's discussion of the principle of proportionality. your answer should include: a) his view on how we determine whether a punishment is in proportion to a crime b) his view that the principle of proportionality doesn't require the death penalty

nathanson's discussion of the principle of proportionality says you rank crimes in order of seriousness. then construct scale of punishments and correlate it to the rankings. punishments would be proportionate to crimes as long as the more serious crime was the higher on the punishment scale was the punishment administered. it does not require the death penalty because it doesn't tell us what the most severe punishment should be.

7. I. give a clear, accurate explanation of singer's drowning child thought experiment

on your way to work you pass a small pond and see a young child who seems likely to drown if you don't wade in and pull him out. if you pull him out, though, you will ruin your new shoes, dirty your suit, and be late for work. the common intuition is you should try to save the child. if you don't you will have done something morally wrong. this suggests that we ought to donate relatively small amounts of money to save those who are dying from starvationg, easily treatable diseases, etc.

1. I. give a clear, accurate statement of the retributive theory of punishment

retributive theory of punishment says what morally justifies punishment of wrongdoers is that those who break the law deserve to be punished. the punishment for a particular offense against the law should "fit" the crime

7. iv. give a clear accurate account of the "we have a right to our hard-earned money" objection to singer and singer's response

suppose you have a terminally-ill family member in the hospital. and you decide to get drunk instead of help. having the right to do this doesnt settle the question of what you should do.

2. iii. one objection to van den haag appeals to the facts about the distribution of the death penalty. explain this objection and also include van den haag's two responses

the objection brings about the point that mainly whites are sentenced to the death penalty and murderers who murder whites are sentenced majority of the time. Van Den Haag's first response says maldistribution of any punishment among those that deserve it is irrelevant to the justice of morality. justice requires that as many of the guilty as possible be punished, regardless of whether others have avoided punishment. to let those others escape the deserved punishment does not do justice to them or society. But it is not unjust to those who could not escape. his second response says that this discrimination affects criminal victimizers in an unexpected way. murderers of white are more likely to be executed then murderers of blacks. black victims are less fully vindicated than white victims. but because most black murderers kill blacks, black murderers are spared the death penalty more often than white murderers.

2. v. one objection to van den haag appeals to the suffering of people given the death penalty. explain this objection and also include van den haag's two responses

the objection of suffering says (1) the imposition of the death penalty may encourage and endorse unlawful killing and (2) murderers who receive the death penalty suffer more than their victims. van den haag's first response says the death penalty doesn't legitimize killing anymore than imprisonment for kindapping legitimizes kidnapping. his second response says we cannot know whether the murderer on death row suffers more than the victim; however, unlike the murderer the victim deserved no suffering

2. iv. one objection to van den haag appeals to facts about deterrence. explain this objection and also include van den haag's response

the objection to van den haag about deterrence says that the death penalty is not a better deterrent than a punishment such as life imprisonment. statistics show that non death penalty states have a lower murder rate than states with death penalty have. van den haag's response to this is because of its finality, it is more feared than life imprisonment and at least deters some prospective murderers not deterred by the threat of imprisonment

6. iv. give a clear accurate explanation of the ratchet effect

the ratchet effect is one where emergencies occur in the form of natural disasters and thuse serve as a check on the population. the population then returns back at the carrying capacity after the emergency. with aid involved it would result in total collapse of the whole system because sharing would institute a ruinous system of the commons

4. iii. give a clear accurate statement of the stages of judicial review in death penalty cases. your answer should also include: a) the overall error rate and the percentage of error b) the average length of time it takes to determine whether a case is error free c) the two main implications- discussed by james s. Liebman, Jeffery Fagan, valeri west, and jonothan Lloyd- that all of this has

the stages of three stages of the judicial review in death penalty cases is (1) direct appeal, (2) state post-conviction, and (3) federal habeas corpus. the overall error rate is the frequency with which cases were overturned at one of the three review stages (68%). the average time it takes for a decisions about whether a case is error- free, is 7 years. the two implications is (1) costly reversals indicate a misuse of financial resources and (2) public faith in the courts is a casualty

6. iii. given a clear accurate explanation of the world food bank proposal

the world food bank proposal creates a commons, an international food reserve depository. nations contribute according to their abilities to draw from it according to their needs. the problem is that openeing a world food bank only perpetuates the problem. countries will take from it when they need and not be motivated to save resources since whenever they are in need they can easily be bailed out

6. ii. give a clear accurate explanation of the tragedy of the commons

tragedy of the commons says under a system of private ownership, a person who owns property recognizes that it is their responsibility to take care of it. if they don't they suffer. suppose a pasture is run as a commons to all. it only takes one person to ruin this by overloading the commons. mutual ruin would ensue. this is the core of the tragedy of the commons