SOC120 Week 2 D1 and D2

2

Ethical Questions in the Public Square

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Discuss the interdependent relationship between ethics and law.

• Describe different sides of the issue of prayer in public schools and apply ethi- cal theory to the problem.

• Explain how ethics can help resolve conflicting values within a society.

• Describe how ethics can be understood in the context of a historical issue: women’s suffrage.

• Apply ethical theory to a contemporary social issue: the regulation of pornography.

Courtesy Everett Collection

CN

CO_LO

CO_TX

CO_BL

CT

CO_CRD

mos85880_02_c02.indd 41 10/28/13 1:15 PM

CHAPTER 2Introduction

Introduction

Now that we have discussed the basics of ethical theory, we can apply them to actual situations, and see what they have to say about moral issues in specific, concrete situations. This approach has two practical advantages. First, by seeing how a specific ethical theory can be applied to an actual issue, we will see how the theory can better help us understand what the real problems are. Ultimately, we may not solve these problems in a way that will satisfy everyone, but we should have a much better grasp of the problems themselves. This will help us focus our ability to think about these questions more critically and eliminate some of the detours, side issues, and irrelevant parts of the debate that may interfere with our understanding of the questions.

Second, by applying the various theories to actual moral problems, we will also come to better understand the theories themselves. It is one thing to understand what a basic ethi- cal position is, but it can be very helpful to see how that ethical position works in dealing with difficult ethical questions.

In this chapter, we will look at questions that arise when individual rights are threatened or violated, as well as instances when one person’s rights may infringe upon another per- son’s rights. As examples, we will look specifically at school prayer and pornography. We will also look at a historical debate over a woman’s right to vote. This historical discussion should help us realize that some ethical questions can be resolved, and that talking, and arguing, about them may lead to significant changes in people’s lives.

Each discussion will present a debate on a specific topic. For example, we will give an argument for why prayer should be allowed in public schools, and then look at the coun- terargument for why it should be restricted or prohibited. After presenting the debate, we will show how these positions relate to the ethical theories in Chapter 1—in this case, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. On other occasions, we may apply the same theory in two different ways, to demonstrate that a specific ethical theory may give quite differ- ent results in some cases. This will help remind us that although ethics provides guidance and insight into moral issues, very rarely does it offer solutions that everyone will accept. We will then look at some of the results of the debate and the theories involved, and some of the implications that may emerge from those results. After each specific issue is treated in this way, we will briefly discuss a different, but related, question that will make clear some of the larger issues involved.

mos85880_02_c02.indd 42 10/28/13 1:15 PM

CHAPTER 2Section 2.1 Can Ethical Principles Conflict With the Law?

2.1 Can Ethical Principles Conflict With the Law?

Laws, for a given society, are designed to guarantee those rights recognized in a society, as well as guarantee the security of those who live in it. Debate has raged for thousands of years about what specific rights and responsibilities are involved here. Some argue for a minimal state that does little but guarantee contracts and protect the safety of citizens by providing secure borders and such minimal services as police and fire departments. Others argue for a much bigger role for the state, insisting that the state function to provide health care, education, parks, libraries, unemployment support, and many other social services to support a well-functioning and productive society. Of course, there are also many positions in between these two.

Often individual or group ethical principles conflict with the laws that govern the state in which the person or group lives. As we know from history, one might be a member of a

A Brief Review of Ethical Theory

The ethical theories being applied in this chapter are discussed at greater length in Chapter 1, but as a quick reminder, here are the basics of the three classical ethical theories:

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism evaluates the morality of an act in terms of its consequences: Act utilitarianism emphasizes the act itself, and whether what one chooses to do will produce, given any other alternative, the greatest good for the greatest number of those affected by that choice. Rule utili- tarianism focuses on whether the choice conforms to a rule that, in general, produces the greatest benefit for the greatest number of those affected. Because it focuses on the results of an act in its evaluation, utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory of ethics.

Deontology

Deontological theories focus on duty, and the rules one is required to follow to be moral; this can be seen in the etymology of its root word deon, a Greek work meaning “necessity” or “obligation.” Deontology does not regard the results of an act as relevant to the moral evaluation of that act, and is thus a nonconsequentialist theory of ethics.

Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics emphasizes the moral character—the virtue—of the agent in evaluating its morality. Thus, instead of looking at the results of the act (as in utilitarianism) or the necessary rules that constitute morality (as in deontology), virtue ethics turns its attention to the person carrying out the act, and whether that act demonstrates, adds to, or subtracts from the virtue of that person.

In addition, there are other approaches to ethics that were also discussed. Particularly significant for the current discussion is relativism:

Relativism

Relativism argues that there are no objective moral truths, but that any moral evaluation is relative to someone, whether a single person or a larger group, such as one based on language, culture, gender, ethnicity, ideology, or another type of community.

CHAPTER 2Section 2.2 The Issue: Prayer in Public Schools

Remy de la Mauviniere/Associated Press

Many French Muslims saw the ban on full-face veils as a restriction of their religious freedom.

religious minority in a society where virtually all the other members of the society follow a distinct religious tra- dition, or even in a country that has an official state religion. But even in a society that is diverse and places a high value on tolerance, this issue can arise. Whenever a society enacts laws, there is the potential that those laws will conflict with the views of some of the individuals in that soci- ety. For instance, a state may outlaw a drug, or ritual, that a group living in that state regards as sacred and fundamental to its religious practice. In 2011, France outlawed the wearing of full-face veils (the niqab) (Erlanger, 2011); many French Muslims (and others) objected to this as a restriction of religious practice, while the French government saw the law as fundamental to preserv- ing traditional French culture. Numerous such examples of this kind of conflict—between a state and the values of those who live in that state—can be found throughout the world. The issue this raises for ethics is how one deals with the confrontation between one’s morals and the laws of one’s state when the two conflict. A state cannot survive if people choose to ignore its laws, but does that mean a person must either leave the state—if that is even possible—or accept laws that are fundamentally at odds with his or her most profound ethical (and possibly religious) views? Traditionally, in a democratic society, citizens have the right to organize, express their opinions, and use the democratic process to change, eliminate, or enact laws. But while that seems to be a theory with many attrac- tive features, it may be a daunting thing to accomplish. Ethics helps us clarify our ethical choices, but can it help us with having our ethical choices respected? Can it show us how we can guarantee that our moral views aren’t violated? And can it give us any guidance when there is a harsh contradiction between one’s moral viewpoint and the laws of one’s society? These are difficult questions that arise within ethics, and particularly when ethics is combined with an examination of the political process. They may be difficult to answer, but they are good questions to keep in mind when thinking about ethics and the moral values one’s state chooses to enforce as its rules and its laws.

2.2 The Issue: Prayer in Public Schools

Prayer is a particularly personal topic, and thus the role of prayer for an individ-ual has led to some of the most divisive arguments over religious practice, such as prayer in public schools. Here, will we look at this debate, and then apply the theory of utilitarianism in two different ways to clarify the issues involved.

Let’s examine some of the arguments over whether organized prayer should be allowed in public schools and try to clarify the issues involved by distinguishing between “allowing”

mos85880_02_c02.indd 44 10/28/13 1:15 PM

CHAPTER 2Section 2.2 The Issue: Prayer in Public Schools

prayer and “promoting” prayer, as well as noting the difference between an individual praying privately and a group participating in an organized, coordinated prayer.

The Argument for Prayer in Public Schools The relationship between a person and God is the most precious relationship of all. Society must respect that relationship, and, recognizing this, the First Amendment to the Consti- tution of the United States prohibits any interference with religion. Because prayer can be considered the most sacred right a religious person possesses, the government absolutely cannot, and should not, interfere with that right by preventing someone from praying. As the First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (U.S. Const. amend. I). To prohibit school prayer is to prohibit the free exercise of one’s religion. Thus, not only is eliminating prayer from public schools wrong, it is also unconstitutional. Moral and legal reasons demon- strate that prayer in public school should, therefore, be allowed.

Clearly, one’s right to prayer is protected by the Constitution; however, there are many other benefits to allowing prayer in public schools. Religious values, such as honesty, charity, and nonviolent problem solving are important to a well-functioning society. Few places are more important than public schools to emphasize these values; indeed, pub- lic schools provide a tragic example of how these values have been neglected. Teenage pregnancy, STDs, gang violence, and drug and alcohol abuse are common in many public schools. Reminding students that these are wrong and that there are ways of avoiding them are valuable moral lessons students need now more than ever.

This is not an argument for a specific religion’s view to be imposed on public school stu- dents; that would, indeed, violate the language of the First Amendment and what is known as the Establishment Clause. Rather, the argument here is for voluntary prayer for students who wish to participate. This allows these students to exercise their religious rights and to promote important moral values. Furthermore, most religions promote the

same kinds of moral values. The Golden Rule, for instance, can be found in many different religions and in many different cultures. To remind students to treat others as they would want to be treated estab- lishes no specific religion and reinforces a value fundamental to a well-ordered and moral society.

History and current practice also sup- port allowing prayer in school. From the founding of the United States, and for almost 200 years, public schools allowed voluntary prayer. Thomas Jefferson refers to the unalienable rights of American citizens as hav- ing been granted by their “Creator” in the Declaration of Independence.

Fuse/Thinkstock

Some would argue that since fewer people have objected to the custom of saying the Pledge of Allegiance in schools, history and practice support allowing prayer in school.

mos85880_02_c02.indd 45 10/28/13 1:15 PM

CHAPTER 2Section 2.2 The Issue: Prayer in Public Schools

Mike Brinson/The Image Bank/Getty Images

Opponents of prayer in school argue that prayer at school events could be seen as involuntary.

Both the Senate and the House of Representatives maintain a chaplain, who begins each legislative session with a prayer; legal tender (money) in the United States reads “In God We Trust”; the Pledge of Allegiance includes the phrase “One nation under God”; and presidents of both political parties frequently end speeches by saying “God bless Amer- ica.” Few people have seen these practices as violations of the First Amendment.

To prevent students from the exercise of their religion is to require students to obey the dictates of a nonreligious minority. A short prayer at a commencement exercise, at a foot- ball game, or at a school assembly not only reminds students of the importance of reli- gious and moral values but is generally regarded to reflect the wishes of a large part of the student body in most public schools. Thus, to prevent it violates the Constitution and distorts the wishes of the students themselves, as well as their parents. To deny one the right to have prayer in public schools, therefore, is immoral and unconstitutional, pre- vents important moral lessons from being made and reinforced for a large group of stu- dents who may need those lessons, neglects the history of the United States, and conflicts with the desires of the majority of students and their parents. Therefore, prayer should be allowed in public schools.

The Argument Against Prayer in Public Schools The United States is a remarkably diverse country, particularly in terms of its citizens’ reli- gious affiliations. In addition to the numerous Christian denominations, there are Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Zoroastrians, Wiccans, Sikhs, and Native Ameri- cans with their varied spiritual practices. There are also many who do not identify with any religious affiliation, including agnostics and atheists. All Americans have the right to religious expression, or no expression, and to impose state-sanctioned prayer on them is to violate their constitutional rights. Parents have the right, as well, to have their views respected, and a student whose religious views (or lack of religious views) are at odds with those of a school prayer may not only be offended, but that student’s constitutional rights are also being violated.

A prayer at a school assembly or foot- ball game may seem innocent enough, but if one’s religious views are funda- mental to that person, then a prayer that specifies a particular concep- tion of God, or a particular relation- ship between a person and God, may well make that student feel singled out. On the other hand, if the prayer is so vague and general that it really offers very little specific content, it is not clear what purpose it serves; in addition, it will still impose a reli- gious viewpoint on those students who do not share that viewpoint. A student can be required to attend certain school functions; if a prayer is part of that function, the student is

mos85880_02_c02.indd 46 10/28/13 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 2Section 2.2 The Issue: Prayer in Public Schools

not participating in that prayer voluntarily. In addition to having his or her views possibly contradicted, the role of peer pressure and embarrassment should not be underestimated. Many students may prefer to stay in a setting where a prayer is being offered instead of leaving and thus identifying themselves even further as, somehow, not “belonging.” Com- bining a school-sanctioned prayer with such peer pressure makes clear that such an activity is not in any genuine sense voluntary.

Furthermore, it is not the role of public schools to impose specific religious values on their students. Schools are quite free to teach about religion, its history, and its role in society; schools are not permitted to do anything that could be interpreted as endorsing a par- ticular religious viewpoint. Schools have important obligations to see that their students receive a quality education in such subjects as English, mathematics, natural sciences, history, and foreign languages. Given the relatively low achievements in these areas, rela- tive to other countries in the developed world, public schools clearly need to do a better job in carrying out their educational mission. Spending such valuable time on prayer and imposing specific religious viewpoints on students is neither part of the mission of public schools, nor is it an efficient use of time. Moreover, many parents prefer that specific reli- gious and moral teachings not be part of the school curriculum.

For this last reason, even many religious parents demand that religious material be excluded from school curricula. These parents argue that religious values are, indeed, extremely important. For that very reason, they insist that the public schools should not interfere with parents’ desire to teach these values at home, and at places of worship: pre- cisely those places where it is appropriate to focus on religious teachings.

The Constitution does not allow public schools to promote any specific religion or reli- gious viewpoint. Any school-sanctioned prayer would either violate this constitutional requirement or be so vague as to be meaningless. Given a diverse student body, no prayer can respect all the religious views of those students, particularly if one considers that some of those students may have no religious values or even reject religion entirely. Public schools have more important things to devote their time to as part of their legitimate mis- sion. Many parents do not want the values they teach their children contradicted in the public schools and prefer that the religious and moral teachings be provided by parents, not schools. School-sanctioned prayer, due to its setting and to peer pressure, cannot be regarded as voluntary. Therefore, due to both constitutional issues and other compelling moral and social challenges, prayer in public schools should be prohibited.

Morality and Civil Law As we will see throughout this and later chapters, in a community of any size, conflicts will arise between the laws that community adopts and the personal morality of the indi- viduals in that community. Familiar controversies such as abortion, euthanasia, and many others will display this conflict. If one lives in a community that insists on a law that vio- lates one’s own moral principles, there are few options available: working to change the law in question, ignoring it, changing one’s behavior, or leaving the community. Each of these, of course, has its problems: to leave one’s community is costly, and many wouldn’t want to do so unless the laws involved were especially onerous; changing a law is a time- consuming and expensive thing to do, and often not successful; to ignore a law risks suf- fering the penalties involved (fines or even prison); changing one’s behavior may require a person to do something that violates an important, even sacred, principle.

mos85880_02_c02.indd 47 10/28/13 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 2Section 2.2 The Issue: Prayer in Public Schools

The tension between civil law and morality is clearly expressed in the question of school prayer in public schools. An individual has the right to pray, but it has also been found by the courts that official school prayer violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In this case, a compromise has been sought, allowing individuals to pray, and allowing groups to gather to pray voluntarily—before school, during lunch, or after school—on their own. This allows these individuals to express their own religious views, and the school avoids seeming to endorse a specific denomination, practice, or prayer by having prayers at official school functions. Many involved in this dispute are unhappy with this compromise: Some regard prohibiting prayers at assemblies and graduation cer- emonies as an infringement upon their rights, while others see public schools as religious- free zones, and urge banning songs and holiday references that include specific religious terms.

In a society as large and as diverse as the United States, with members of many different religions, ethnicities, races, languages, and cultural traditions, such compromises may be necessary. On the one hand, it may be argued that the laws of a country should reflect the values of the majority. On the other hand, if certain freedoms are actually rights, presum- ably those rights should not be subject to the endorsement or veto of the majority.

Be the Ethicist

Moral Decisions, Legal Responsibilities

Some scenarios may help bring out the tension between the law and morality. After responding to the following from your own personal perspective, consider how you might approach the issue from the perspective of someone who has a different view than you have. How are the responses different? How might you go about helping developing laws that would both respect individual freedoms but also provide for a stable community that respects everyone’s individual rights?

• Your new neighbor appears to be living with several women; when you meet him, he intro- duces himself and his wives. After several months, you have spent a good bit of time with the neighbor and his wives, and get to know them well; you are all good friends, and while you don’t really approve of polygamy, they seem to be very happy with the arrangement. Another neighbor, however, objects strongly, and tells you she is planning to call the police or other authorities to report them. What do you tell her?

• You have known your best friend’s daughter since she was an infant; she treats you almost as if you are a parent, having spent a lot of time in your home and having confided many things to you that only her parents and very best friends know. She comes to your house one evening and asks to speak to you in private. She tells you that she was raped by her uncle, and is pregnant. She needs $500 dollars to have an abortion. She cannot tell her parents, and you are the only one who knows about her situation. What do you tell her?

• You have worked at the same company for 20 years, and one other person has worked with you the entire time. She has had a rough go of it, with an abusive husband, problems with alcohol and drugs, and a son in jail. She has divorced her husband, quit drinking, and entered a drug rehab program. She is a candidate for a significant promotion at work, which will give her a substantially higher salary. You know that in the past couple of years she has occasionally smoked marijuana at home, on the weekends; it has not affected her work. The manager comes to ask you if you think she should receive the promotion, mak- ing it clear that she will not get it if she is still using drugs of any kind. What do you tell the manager?

mos85880_02_c02.indd 48 10/28/13 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 2Section 2.2 The Issue: Prayer in Public Schools

Applying the Theories One of the difficulties in studying ethics is determining the appropriate way to apply a given theory. The basic utilitarian principle dictates to do that which will produce the greatest good for the greatest number. But one of the difficulties with applying utilitarian- ism is identifying the group in question: in other words, “the greatest number of whom?” We will demonstrate this problem by examining the arguments for and against school prayer from the perspective of utilitarianism. As we will see, different conclusions follow from how we describe and apply our use of the utilitarian principle. This doesn’t mean the principle is wrong, however. But it does mean that in applying the principle, we need to be careful, and precise, in that application.

There’s an old saying, “As long as there are math tests, there will be prayer in school.” The idea here, of course, is that individual students cannot be prevented from engaging in prayer on their own, as individuals. Such prayer is voluntary and engaged in only by the individual. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled that students are allowed to orga- nize, voluntarily, religious clubs—which can include prayer and Bible study—at public schools, just as they might any other kind of club.

As we noted earlier, it is important to differentiate between allowing prayer and promot- ing it. The legal challenges that have been brought have often objected to a school offi- cially endorsing a prayer at recognized school-wide events. On some views, this moves from permitting individuals to pray—a protected right—to endorsing prayer by officially recognizing it, which may well violate a person’s rights.

Act Utilitarianism A utilitarian might well argue that in a given school or school district, or community, the majority (and even a vast majority) of its members belongs to a specific faith tradition. The greatest good for the greatest number, in this case, would seem to allow that majority to pray and participate in religious activities in the way they desire. This might include prayers at football games, school assemblies, and graduation ceremonies. To prevent the majority from expressing its religious views this way is to bend to the dictates of a minor- ity. But even if it could be shown that the minority may maximize its utility by eliminat- ing such prayers, it is clear that allowing those prayers produces the greatest good. Some might regard this as an application, specifically, of act utilitarianism: The act of allowing prayers for the majority of a given community creates the greatest good for the greatest number; therefore, prayer should be allowed.

Rule Utilitarianism A contrasting approach to utilitarianism, which might be regarded as rule utilitarian- ism, argues otherwise. Again applying the principle of the “greatest good for the greatest number,” the rule utilitarian will argue that allowing the majority’s religious views to be imposed on a minority does not create the greatest good for the greatest number. In addi- tion to the minority’s rights being ignored (which decreases the happiness of those in the minority), many in the majority may also recognize that ignoring legitimate rights of a minority is harmful, both to those suffering the harm and to those doing the harm. Partici- pating in something that causes harm (harm, here, to the rights of the minority) decreases

mos85880_02_c02.indd 49 10/28/13 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 2Section 2.2 The Issue: Prayer in Public Schools

the happiness of those who participate, even passively, in that harm. Therefore, in general, the rule utilitarian will see simply applying the “greatest good greatest number” principle in a situation that ignores or violates the legitimate rights of members of the community does not lead to allowing prayer in school in general. Rather, it leads to preventing school prayer in situations, such as school assemblies and graduation ceremonies, that cannot be regarded as voluntary in any genuine sense.

Here, then, we see two distinct applications of the utilitarian principle: one leading to the result that school prayer, in a very general way, should be allowed, and the other leading to the result that school prayer, in a very general way, should not be allowed. What this seems to tell us is that the rights of the individuals involved must be looked at very care- fully, to determine where one person’s rights begin to conflict with another person’s. It also seems to indicate that when we look at the happiness, or utility, of a given group, we need to be aware that how we specify the community makes a difference. Within a public school, is the community we are concerned with everyone who attends the school? Those who are religious who attend the school? Those members of the dominant religious tra- dition, if any, of those who attend the school? Do we include, for that matter, those who might end up attending this school, or who graduated from this school, and thus are part of its extended community? These questions aren’t always easy to answer, but the issues they raise need to be factored in when evaluating the overall set of questions involved.

Case Study

Prayer in Schools

It can be difficult, in a religiously diverse society, to make accommodations for everyone. In Ottawa, Canada, there has been a request for permanent prayer rooms to be set aside for Muslim students in the public schools.

You can see a video about the case here: http://bcove.me/y7obfdow

You can see the whole story (and the video) here: http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews /canada/archives/2012/09/20120922-152050.html

As you can tell, it can be a challenge to maintain a commitment to religious freedom, tolerate reli- gious tolerance, and not unfairly impose religious values on others.

• How would you resolve the issue confronting the Ottawa schools? • Would you say your resolution appeals to a specific ethical theory? • If so, which ethical theory do you think offers a good solution for this issue? • How might a different ethical theory approach this question? Would it come to a different

resolution than yours, or the same one?

Source: Used by permission of Canadian Sun News. © QMI Agency, Sun Media Corporation

Some Conclusions Religion is an extraordinarily personal experience for many people and is often funda- mental to a person’s understanding of who he or she is. Because religion is such a basic part of a person’s self-conception, someone may feel his or her right to the free expression of religious beliefs is restricted by not being allowed to state them when and where he or she wishes. At the same time, two people’s religious views may conflict, whether they are

mos85880_02_c02.indd 50 10/28/13 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 2Section 2.2 The Issue: Prayer in Public Schools

of distinct religious traditions or one is religious and the other is not. It is unlikely that any ethical result will satisfy everyone and that these conflicts will be resolved in a way that makes everyone happy. But ethics can provide valuable insight into clarifying these issues and offer very helpful ways of thinking about such conflicts in a way that can address them.

With respect to both the legal results and a more general way of regard- ing religion, increasing attention has been paid to the idea of prayer in public schools being voluntary. An individual cannot be prevented from praying in public school; religious student organizations are permitted the same opportunities as other stu- dent organizations. These activities are regarded as voluntary. In contrast, school-sanctioned events, whether football games or graduation exer- cises, tend to be recognized by the courts as the kinds of events where it is inappropriate to have prayer, in that a prayer at such an event auto- matically brings with it an official or

unofficial school endorsement. Of course, attendance at a high school football game isn’t something we regard as mandatory, but, as the courts recognized, such a game is an offi- cial school function and also may involve an element of peer pressure. Fundamentally, the argument is that one should be able to attend the football games of one’s public school without having to participate in a prayer that contradicts one’s beliefs, whether one fol- lows a different religious faith or is not religious at all. And, as many religious people have argued, to insist on a prayer that is so general that it doesn’t conflict with another’s beliefs (religious or otherwise) seems to make pointless the very notion of “prayer.”

Of course, exceptions to what an ethicist might argue, or what the courts have ruled, can be found; often these cases receive a great deal of publicity and seem to indicate either that a “war on religion” is being waged by public schools, or that minorities are having their own religious rights “violated and trampled.” It may be the case that the publicity these instances receive implies that these issues arise more frequently than they actually do. To be sure, a teacher who prevents a Christian student from carrying the Bible violates that student’s rights, just as a teacher violates the rights of a Jewish student by insisting that he write an essay on the topic “Why Jesus loves me.” (These are both actual cases.) The goal of ethics not only allows us to see that these actions violate an individual’s religious rights but also provides us with a way of arguing why they violate them.

What Role Does Conscience Play? People identify themselves in many different ways: through their ethnicity, race, coun- try of origin, class, gender, sexual orientation, and religion, among many others. Often people regard themselves as members of a relatively cohesive group because of one

Monkey Business/Thinkstock

Religion can be an important part of a person’s identity.

mos85880_02_c02.indd 51 10/28/13 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 2Section 2.2 The Issue: Prayer in Public Schools

or more of these factors: thus, a person might consider herself an African American Roman Catholic, while another may consider himself a member of a Spanish-speaking Protestant community. Belonging to such a community brings certain commitments: Perhaps one insists on a particular interpretation of “marriage” or “science”; perhaps one’s religious or cultural community requires that women and men act in specific and different ways, in terms of dress, occupation, worship, and so on. Clearly enough, the values of these communities may differ, and even sharply conflict. If the values of your culture or community conflict too much with that of the surrounding community, you are confronted with a difficult problem. As a simple example, if one’s commu- nity accepts polygyny (a husband having more than one wife), while the larger com- munity rejects it, how does one resolve this conflict?

These kinds of conflicts occur with some frequency, of course, but most people learn to adjust: Perhaps they aren’t entirely satisfied with the values of the larger community, but the advantages of participating in that community make it more practical to tolerate that dissatisfaction. For instance, a parent may be suspicious about the science behind climate change but otherwise be quite pleased with the education offered by the school; the par- ent accepts it, and perhaps offers an alternative view to that presented in the school. In the case of religion in public school, some parents find it a better solution to send their children to private, parochial, or religious schools, or to home school their children. These parents, of course, don’t withdraw from the community entirely; they simply leave part of it.

When more serious conflicts do arise, some find it impossible to remain within the com- munity. Although these cases are relatively rare, they provide a way of examining the role an individual’s conscience plays when evaluating one’s membership in a larger com- munity. If one’s values compel one to reject the values of that larger community, one has to confront the choice between somehow tolerating something consistently offensive, or withdrawing entirely from that community in order to live, in a different way, with people who share those values. There may also be serious ethical concerns relative to those shared values that conflict with those of the larger community. Some have chosen to form sepa- rate communities, in part, to avoid living among African Americans, or Roman Catholics, or Jews, or members of other groups defined as not sharing the values of that community. Other separate communities have been formed on the basis of economic complaints— specifically, tax laws—and on the basis of specific religious values. An ethical investiga- tion here might ask whether the dictates of conscience, in this case, should be respected, or critically scrutinized.

Most of us live between the two extremes of our values never being challenged by some- thing in society and our values being so consistently violated that we decide to leave the community entirely. But this raises a number of important ethical questions about living in a community with others who may not share one’s values. At what point should we object, when we find our values being violated? How can we make sure our rights are respected? Can our values be preserved without infringing on the rights of others? In our desire to protect our own moral values, do we forget to consider the moral values of others? Ethics offers some insight into these questions, although, again, without offering a solution that will be satisfactory to everyone. In a society that is increasingly pluralistic and diverse, it is very likely that conflicts among the values of the members of a society will persist (if not increase), and we will continue to need to address these questions.

mos85880_02_c02.indd 52 10/28/13 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 2Section 2.3 A Historical Debate: A Woman’s Right to Vote

Where Do We Go From Here? As noted earlier, the United States is a diverse society and is particularly diverse in terms of both the faith traditions followed by Americans as well as an increasing number of Americans who have no religion. Even though the diversity in the United States has increased dramatically, Christianity has been and continues to be the dominant faith tra- dition in the United States.

The implication of these characteristics seems to indicate that we recognize how impor- tant religious values are to many people. But that importance also makes it compelling to recognize others’ religious beliefs, as well as the beliefs of those who have no religion. It seems likely that one result is that there will continue to be a good bit of give and take over this issue, with some substantial conflicts arising between those who don’t think religion in public schools is given sufficient recognition and those who think otherwise. Some will think a certain religious tradition is too specifically identified, which may be unconstitutional; others may think any mention of religion should be omitted entirely from the public schools; still others may think that religion is too important to allow the public schools to interfere with it at all.

So perhaps the implications of this debate are to recognize that diversity can lead to such conflicts, and that those in the majority may need to be particularly sensitive to the beliefs of others, religious or otherwise. Such sensitivity is, of course, a two-way street, and so this sensitivity may also increase the need for tolerance. No solution will satisfy everyone, but insisting that prayer in public school always be voluntary, and that religion be treated in public schools in a way that recognizes a diversity of beliefs and tolerance for those beliefs, may go a long way toward minimizing these conflicts, although it may be too much to ask for these conflicts to be eliminated entirely.

2.3 A Historical Debate: A Woman’s Right to Vote

It is a good thing to remember that ethics can make a difference; not all ethical argu-ments are abstract discussions of hypothetical cases, but we can see that they have brought about significant change. In this case, we will look at the arguments over giv- ing women the right to vote in the United States, known as the question of “women’s suffrage.” As we will see, something we may now take as obvious and “common sense” wasn’t always regarded that way, and ethical considerations were important in making it possible for women to vote. It is probably worth noting that some of the arguments may sound pretty dubious as this point, but when made they were found by many to be extremely persuasive. Here we will look at the issue from the perspective of virtue eth- ics and from the perspective of deontology, as they might have been presented when this issue was still a volatile topic of discussion.

This issue of women’s voting rights is a good example of how moral and ethical argu- ments can both provide clarity to our understanding of the issues and produce a genuine difference.

mos85880_02_c02.indd 53 10/28/13 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 2Section 2.3 A Historical Debate: A Woman’s Right to Vote

The Argument Against Women’s Suffrage It is unquestionable that men and women are fundamentally distinct. This is obviously the case in terms of biology; the very differences can be immediately observed, and they are even more obvious in reproduction, where men and women play radically distinct roles. Because of the role women play in carrying, delivering, and raising children, they have a specific approach to things, in terms of their compassion, their abilities to nurture, and their willingness to compromise and avoid conflict. These differences, both physi- ological and psychological, have long been noted. Aristotle, 400 years before the birth of Christ, noted that

The female is softer in disposition than the male, is more mischievous, less simple, more impulsive, and more attentive to the nurture of the young; the male, on the other hand, is more spirited than the female, more savage, more simple and less cunning. The traces of these differentiated character- istics are more or less visible everywhere, but they are especially visible where character is the more developed, and most of all in man. (Aristotle, 2005)

This is also reflected in our very language: The word “hysterical” comes from the Latin term referring to the womb, and gives us the English word “uterus.” Perhaps less well known is that the term “lady” originally comes from the Old English term for “one who kneads, or makes, bread” and that the very term “feminine” originates from a term for breast feeding. Terms associated with women have, in English and in other languages, always emphasized softness and delicacy, and their importance as wives and mothers— the Bible reinforces this; Delilah, Jezebel, and Salome represent women who behave immorally (that is, in a treacherous or adulterous manner), whereas Mary, whose humility and maternal aspects are emphasized, represents the virtuous woman.

It is clear from the way the term “woman” devel- oped in English that the virtues of a woman are to be praised; for a well-functioning society, women are indispensable to keep the home running well, to ensure that children are raised appropriately, and to take care of, efficiently and effectively, all those things that fall within a woman’s many areas of expertise. But politics is an entirely dis- tinct realm, where women lack the temperament, the attitude, the understanding, and the experi- ence to function effectively. Thus, women are not suited to participate in politics, either as elected officials or as voters.

In addition to these somewhat abstract and philo- sophical reasons, we can add a few specific points and summarize the position as follows. Women have a crucial role in society—to take care of the home; politics is a separate sphere and is really only suitable for men. Only by keeping these spheres separate can women play their important

Courtesy Everett Collection

Opponents of women’s suffrage believed that a woman’s place was in the home.

mos85880_02_c02.indd 54 10/28/13 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 2Section 2.3 A Historical Debate: A Woman’s Right to Vote

role in maintaining the values and civility of society. The need for this separation is clearly seen in the distinct physiological and psychological makeup of women, as opposed to men. Women, by their very temperament, are not suited to the unpleasant and sometimes violent confrontations required by politics. In any case, many women do not want the vote, believing it will dilute the very real power they in fact have over their husbands already. Furthermore, it will give the vote to an enormous number of people who have neither the background nor the understanding to make good political decisions. For all of these reasons, women neither need, nor should they be given, the right to vote.

The Argument for Women’s Suffrage Women are human beings. They are expected to care for themselves, their families, their hus- bands, their children, and their homes. As such, they have some of the most significant responsi- bilities that can be entrusted to anyone. Yet, while shouldering these responsibilities and others, a woman is deprived of the fundamental right of political representation. She works hard, often for no salary, and often harder than any man, and helps make the society in which she lives func- tion; indeed, women make that society possible. Yet that same society prevents her from the right any man has, simply by accident of his being born a man: the right to vote. A woman’s contributions to society are absolutely indispensable. In addi- tion to being a human being, with certain rights that cannot morally be violated—such as the right to vote—women deserve to have an equal say in how that society is organized and how its poli- tics should be structured. As Susan B. Anthony stated, “There never will be complete equality until women themselves help to make laws and elect lawmakers.”(Anthony, 1987, p. 901–908)

If the Declaration of Independence indicates that all people are created equal, this has clearly not been the case for women. They are expected to fulfill all their responsibilities while being denied one of their fundamental rights. If “no taxation without representa- tion” was justification for the American Revolution, what does that tell women, who toil as hard as men, have responsibilities equal or greater than those of men, live with men under the same rules and laws of society, yet have no representation? Depriving women of the right to vote is both immoral, in that it denies women a fundamental right, and unjust, by not allowing them what is due them: the rights that coexist with responsibili- ties. If a woman is expected to take on those responsibilities, then she must be accorded the rights due her, and one of those rights is the right to vote.

Perhaps someone will suggest that husbands or fathers represent women. Would any man be willing to switch positions in this and regard it as fair were wives and daughters taken to represent their views accruately? Is it sensible, or fair, for half the population to hope

Mary Evans Picture Library/ The Womens Library/Everett Collection

Supporters of women’s suffrage argued that as contributing members of society, women were entitled to vote.

mos85880_02_c02.indd 55 10/28/13 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 2Section 2.3 A Historical Debate: A Woman’s Right to Vote

that their views are represented by the other half? Might there not be a perspective on important political issues that women bring into consideration that would be otherwise ignored? Wouldn’t political decisions be better informed, and thus be better decisions, if such an important perspective were taken into account? And who better to present the political perspectives women have than women?

The argument, then, is simple. Women are human beings, with rights and responsibilities. One of those rights, perhaps as fundamental as any, is the right to vote. Having deprived women of this right for so long doesn’t mean it is fair, or just; it means that something unfair and unjust has gone on for far too long. One of the fundamental principles of a free and fair society is that its members deserve representation, and deserve to represent themselves. The only correct result, therefore, as a matter of the moral law and as a matter of justice, is to provide women with what they are due: their right to vote.

Applying the Theories Women’s suffrage may be firmly resolved in the United States, but as we have seen, the issue still offers some insights into how social questions are deliberated and finally estab- lished in law. Now that we have considered two sides of the issue, we will discuss the ways a virtue ethicist and a deontologist might approach this debate.

Virtue Ethics The extraordinary thing about women is their virtue: their remarkable abilities to handle so many different things and to handle them well. They are caring, generous, nurturing, and practical; they are good friends, and, when their virtues are present in the appropriate way, they make good sisters, daughters, wives, and mothers.

Virtue ethics sees these virtues as precisely the things to emphasize for a virtuous woman: never in their extremes, but always aiming at an appropriate and moderate degree, a Golden Mean. The virtue ethicist might then argue as follows: The virtues of a woman are best seen when displayed in the proper place and in the proper and appropriate way—in the home as a wife and mother, in the elementary school as a teacher, in the hospital as a nurse. These are roles women have excelled in for centuries, and society functions most efficiently and most productively when they continue to do so.

On this same view, politics can often be contentious, ugly, confrontational, and even vio- lent. Women do not do well in this kind of environment, and the virtues that women possess cannot be developed and improved, therefore, by engaging in politics. Women also lack the educational background and the general temperament for participating in politics. Giving women the vote will force them into an arena where their skills are inade- quate, and will simultaneously prevent them from spending their time where they should be, and where their virtues are most evident. Any decision that has such disastrous moral results cannot be a good one, and thus the virtue ethicist would have to conclude that giv- ing a woman the right to vote would be wrong, both for her and for her society.

mos85880_02_c02.indd 56 10/28/13 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 2Section 2.3 A Historical Debate: A Woman’s Right to Vote

Deontology The deontologist, of course, disputes much of this characterization of women, and may well reject the idea that women have some set of “virtues” that are fundamentally dis- tinct from those of men. Men aren’t defined in terms of being a husband, a brother, a father. Why are women characterized solely in terms of their roles, rather than as free, independent, and creative human beings? Women may well be good wives and moth- ers, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be more than (or something other than) wives and mothers. Women may well be good teachers, but can’t they also be good college profes- sors? Women may well be good nurses, but can’t they also be good doctors? Restricting a woman’s educational opportunities, then criticizing her for a lack of education, is about as fair as putting a person in prison and criticizing her for not doing much traveling.

The deontologist also has a traditional method to identify something as fundamentally unfair. If Bob is doing something unfair to Carolyn, Carolyn can simply ask Bob if he would be happy if that same unfair thing were done to him. Thus, more generally, women can ask men the same thing: If men had the responsibilities that women do, would they object if they didn’t possess the right to vote? The Golden Rule seems to provide a much stronger argument than the appeal to the Golden Mean.

In any case, the right to vote doesn’t seem to the deontologist to be a right for men to possess, but a right for human beings to possess. As such, any woman who qualifies as a human being should possess the right to vote. To deny her that right is to treat her as less than a human being, to treat her as a means to an end, and thus to act unethically.

Case Study

Augusta National Golf Club

Since it began in 1933, the Augusta National Golf Club has been famous for hosting the Masters, one of the four “majors” that help determine who is the best golfer in the world. More recently, Augusta National was famous for not allowing African Americans and women to join.*

The former Chairman of Augusta National argued that, as a private club, it was only the member- ship of the club who determined who should and who should not be admitted. Thus, if that mem- bership wished to stay all White and all male, it was a matter that should be determined only by the membership.

His argument is presented here: http://www.golftoday.co.uk/news/yeartodate/news02/augusta5 .html.

Unsurprisingly, others saw things differently. Some saw the club’s policies as simply discriminatory and immoral; others argued that, as the most widely viewed tournament on television, with well- known sponsors, its policies went beyond an internal, private decision.

Some of these views are provided here:

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/08/20/augusta-national-admits-first-2-female-members/.

(continued)

mos85880_02_c02.indd 57 10/28/13 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 2Section 2.3 A Historical Debate: A Woman’s Right to Vote

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

Today, the right of women to vote requires little to no justification.

Some Conclusions It is rather hard to imagine a politi- cian today proposing that women not be allowed to vote: Such a sug- gestion would be generally regarded as ridiculous. But it was a long, hard struggle; the 19th Amendment was passed 144 years after the Declara- tion of Independence, finally giving women a right we now take as one that requires little or no justification.

With the benefit of hindsight, we see that many of the arguments proposed were based on a conception of women (and men) that had a very long history, a conception that restricted women to specific roles in society. Critical scru- tiny of this conception led to the real- ization that it functioned to prevent women from being full participants in their society. Even though women were regarded as sufficiently responsible to do many of the things society deemed extremely important, they were denied the rights that accompanied those responsibilities. From many ethical perspectives, denying women the right to vote was wrong for two reasons. First, it denied the rights that one acquires with responsibilities, such as the case of the right to possess a firearm, which brings with it an unspoken responsibility to handle that firearm safely and

Case Study (continued)

Imagine you are a White male—which, of course, you may in fact be—and you are asked to join your local country club. Most of the important business and political leaders in your community belong to this club, and joining will greatly increase your ability to meet and talk with them. You realize that this could do a great deal to help you expand your own business interests.

However, the club you are asked to join is restricted: it does not allow women or African Americans as members (although they can come as guests).

• Assume you follow virtue ethics: Explain how, on that theory, you might try to justify your decision to join the club.

• Assume you follow utilitarianism: Explain how, on that theory, you might try to justify your decision not to join the club.

• Assume you are a relativist: What might you say to a co-worker (who happens to be both female and African American) in explaining to her why you decided to go ahead and join the club.

*Augusta National did change its policies; it permitted African Americans to become members in 1990 and women to become members in 2012.

mos85880_02_c02.indd 58 10/28/13 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 2Section 2.3 A Historical Debate: A Woman’s Right to Vote

appropriately. Second, and more fundamental, denying women the right to vote was to deny them a right they presumably possess as human beings, although a right that was only won after many decades of struggle. Thus, one is forced either to recognize their right to vote, or to argue, somehow, that they are not human beings.

We also see from this discussion that ethical values and political values can frequently be in tension with each other, as well as how one applies a specific theory in ethics may well determine the results of that application. For instance, imagine that we adopt a simple utilitarian perspective, and assume (safely enough) that allowing citizens to vote increases the happiness, or maximizes the utility, of those citizens. The clear result is that the great- est good for the greatest number is achieved by giving all eligible citizens the right to vote. But who is an “eligible citizen”? Is it all adults 18 and older? All adults 21 and older? Or should more restrictions be placed on who is eligible to vote, as has often been done in the past? Obviously enough, some people were not allowed to vote on the basis of race and sex (or gender); but other conditions have been imposed, such as being able to read and write, or owning property, to restrict the right to vote. Ethics provides us with one way to examine such restrictions to see if they are justified on the basis of good, moral reasons, or, as seems often to have been the case, to allow those already in power to maintain their advantages. If we apply our utilitarian principle to a group, such as males, or Whites, the greatest good for the greatest number of that group may well result in a situation that is quite unfair, were a larger group considered. So even taking a very basic utilitarian approach to a question may require us to think long and hard about what we mean by “the greatest number.” In other words, when we consider the greatest good for the great- est number, we also have to ask: the greatest number of whom? And determining who belongs, and who doesn’t belong, in the group in question may not always be that easy.

Do Ethical Principles Change Over Time? Communities often define themselves as much by whom they exclude as whom they include; that is, to be a member of a community, or society, is often determined by establish- ing who does not belong. For centuries, the long history of racial exclusion in the United States prohibited African Americans from genuinely participating in society, obviously enough through the institution of slavery, but also through other means, such as requir- ing them to use separate facilities (waiting rooms, movie theatres, bathrooms, drinking fountains, etc.), preventing them from even registering to vote (let alone actually voting), forcing them to attend segregated schools from kindergarten through universities, and many other formal and informal ways of sending the message, “You don’t really belong.” Women were also prevented from voting, owning property, and being given credit in their own names, along with other more informal ways of excluding them from society. Native Americans, Jews, and others were similarly prevented from being full participants within what we now regard as their own society.

Does this indicate that the fundamental principles of morality changed? If so, that would seem to show that rather than being principles, they are the kinds of things that are not eter- nal and permanent, but simply ideas that gain sufficient support to be adopted in a given society. Many ethicists would argue, instead, that moral principles do not change; rather, society changes—often by expanding—those to whom those principles apply. Less than 50 years ago, it was illegal in a number of places in the United States for people of different races to marry; we generally now regard such “miscegenation laws” as discriminatory and

mos85880_02_c02.indd 59 10/28/13 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 2Section 2.3 A Historical Debate: A Woman’s Right to Vote

ignorant. The principle of “rights” didn’t change, in this case; rather, the idea of the right to marry was extended to be more inclusive. The Supreme Court, in 1967, declared it unconstitutional to prohibit people of different races to marry; since then, geneticists and other biologists have seemed to conclude that the very notion of “race” isn’t a useful biological term at all. Thus, both the ethi- cal principles and the law reflected the fact that it was wrong to exclude certain groups of people from exercising their rights, and thus the commu- nity expanded its conception of who belonged to that community.

These changes often don’t come very easily; there can be a great deal of resistance to them, and even when laws are in place to prevent excluding groups from voting, buying a house, or marrying someone, those laws will often continue to be vio- lated. A community, that is, may simply adopt an informal practice to prevent someone from doing something; in spite of a law prohibiting that practice, the majority of a given community may enforce it through peer pressure and other means. As the point may be put in legal terms, a law that is in force practically is a de facto law, in spite of it being illegal de jure, or against the official laws

under which a community lives. If someone can successfully exclude African Americans from eating in his restaurant, that exclusion is in place as a de facto rule, even though illegal de jure.

Thus, even though ethical principles themselves may not change over time, we can see how they do change in application. In the United States, for instance, views about extend- ing certain rights—to serve openly in the military, to marry—to homosexuals have rap- idly changed. The question here is not whether one’s rights should be respected, but who should, and who should not, be included as part of the group that has such rights. Again, we see that ethics doesn’t resolve such an issue, but it helps clarify what is at stake in the various resolutions that have been proposed. In any diverse community, the restrictions and expansions of rights, and the question of what kinds of things really are “rights,” will continue to arise and be the source of debate. It should be clear, in any case, that ethics has a good deal to offer in identifying the terms of the debate, as well as determining what is at stake in these arguments.

Where Do We Go From Here? Ethics can often seem like a sterile exercise, with little relevance for everyday life and the kinds of decisions we actually have to confront. Should I steal food to feed my starving family? I find the wallet of a person I know to be a drug dealer, and it has $1,000 in it; what

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

Less than 50 years ago, it was illegal in the United States for people of different races to marry. Ethicists would argue that it was not moral principles that changed, but society. Do you agree? What other examples can you think of in which this has been the case?

mos85880_02_c02.indd 60 10/28/13 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 2Section 2.4 The Issue: Pornography—To Regulate or Not?

should I do with it? One very standard example in ethics asks this: If you were able to divert a train to kill one person, in order that the train did not kill five people, what would you do? It seems pretty clear that these kinds of examples are good to help us see what is at stake in applying and understanding ethical theory, even though we don’t expect to be in the positions described here. Some might suggest that ethics, and philosophy in gen- eral, don’t have a lot to say that is relevant. But, as we’ve seen in the preceding historical example, ethical questions and scrutiny of the moral values of a society can, in fact, have a significant effect in changing a society.

This is not to say that all we need to do to address an unfair or immoral situation in our society is to pass out ethics textbooks and convince people to read the relevant pages. But familiarity with ethical theories, and familiarity with various ways of identifying things that are unfair, can at least help move the discussion along. Our values do not exist in some kind of vacuum, of course; they exist in a large, complex context of competing values, politics, and social structures such as educational institutions and religious viewpoints. Many other factors, no doubt, also play a role in understanding the ethical challenges we confront. But the more familiar we are with techniques in explaining and understanding those challenges, the better prepared we are to deal with them. This is, of course, not to guarantee that we will solve them, and we almost certainly won’t solve them in a way that everyone finds satisfactory. But the better prepared we are to clarify the ethical problems we do have to deal with, the better prepared we are to address them and, in some cases, fix them.

Of course, fixing—or at least improving—a specific case of injustice hardly means the mat- ter is settled. One might think that giving women the right to vote accomplished political equality, but it was only a step in that direction. Many other factors can still function as obstacles to that equality. Philosophers might suggest that the right to vote is a necessary condition for political equality, even though it is not at all a sufficient condition. In other words, without the right to vote, one cannot hope to gain that kind of equal participation in the political structures of one’s society, but the right to vote doesn’t, by itself, establish this participation. Many obstacles may still need to be overcome, and, presumably, this is an ongoing competition to determine the scope and limits of one’s rights. But at least we can see that ethics can, in fact, contribute important things to the debate over such issues and can play a significant and productive role in how society addresses such questions.

Now that we have thoroughly examined a historical social question, let’s return to one of contemporary relevance: the charged issue of pornography and whether it should or should not be regulated.

2.4 The Issue: Pornography—To Regulate or Not?

A rguments over pornography raise a number of ethical issues. Pornography is often regarded as a question of freedom of speech; however, more recently it has been harshly criticized for how it is produced and the images of women it endorses. Some, in contrast, regard the consumption of pornography as a “victimless crime,” and believe that, because it does not harm others, it should not be restricted extensively.

mos85880_02_c02.indd 61 10/28/13 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 2Section 2.4 The Issue: Pornography—To Regulate or Not?

Neil Setchfield/Lonely Planet Images/Getty Images

Those who oppose extensive regulation of pornography note that adults in the United States are allowed to engage in many activities that some may not approve of, so long as those activities do not harm others.

Here we will examine the two sides of the debate, looking at both the consumption and the production of pornography. We will utilize utilitarianism and emotivism to provide some theoretical analysis of the issue.

The Argument Against Extensive Regulation Adults in the United States are allowed to do many things that oth- ers may condemn. They may smoke, drink to excess, fail to exercise, watch too much television, eat too much junk food, and do many other things that aren’t “good” for them. Yet they are free to do so: As adults, they are allowed to do those things that the state cannot demonstrate pose a gen- uine threat to others. I cannot change the oil in my car and legally pour the old oil down the storm drain: That poses a threat to the environment and can harm others. I can, however, if I wish, have root beer, pickles, and pizza for breakfast every morning; it may not be a good or nutritious choice, but it is a choice I am free to make.

In the same way, adults are allowed to read and watch whatever they choose, unless the state can show a compelling reason to prevent them from doing so. For instance, in the United States, one can read books about bomb making and terrorism; one can see websites where overthrowing the government is advocated. One can find material that supports various kinds of hatreds against ethnic and religious minorities, as well as conspiracy theories blaming different groups for a remarkably wide range of things, including the U.S. government being responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center on Septem- ber 11, 2001. These materials are available because the First Amendment to the Constitu- tion insists on freedom of speech; unless one can show a genuine threat, restrictions on speech are prohibited. Even though many people find such things distasteful—and much worse—the freedom to read and watch this material is guaranteed as a fundamental free- dom in the United States.

Pornography, which is very difficult to define, is precisely this kind of material. Many find it extremely offensive. However, they have no right to dictate to those who wish to con- sume pornography that they cannot. Adults in the United States are free to read and view pornography; they can be prevented from doing so only if the state can show a compelling reason to restrict it.

Some restrictions have been imposed; producing child pornography is illegal because it harms children. Thus, the possession of child pornography is also illegal, in that its pur- chase supports an illegal activity. Access to pornography is limited to adults, just as are

mos85880_02_c02.indd 62 10/28/13 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 2Section 2.4 The Issue: Pornography—To Regulate or Not?

various other products, such as alcohol and tobacco; various other restrictions prevent those who do not wish to see it from being exposed to it. Thus, certain controls are imposed on bookstores; network television does not show material that is regarded as too indecent by those who run it, and cable television has various controls in place, such as parental controls and various payment requirements. These and other restrictions have been put in place to do two things: to prevent the involuntary exposure of pornography to those who wish to avoid it, and to allow those who wish to consume pornography to access it.

Some have argued that the production of pornography involves the exploitation and mis- treatment of women; thus, consumers of pornography support an industry that harms women. This may be true, but it has little bearing on restricting the rights of adult access to pornography. Many people work in industries that involve serious threats in hazardous situations: coal miners, electricians, and farmers, among others. To argue that pornogra- phy should be highly regulated, or censored, because some people have been mistreated in its production is the same as arguing that restaurants should be closed because some restaurants have had health code violations.

Finally, if pornography is highly regulated, there is a genuine danger of a slippery slope appearing. Historically, some things now regarded as great literature, and great art, were characterized as pornography and banned. This isn’t to say all pornography is great art; it is to say that when one group of people is allowed to determine what other adults may read and watch, there is always the risk that they will be willing to regulate or ban material that should not be regulated or banned. Furthermore, how does society choose who does the regulating, and whose standards should be followed? For good reason, the courts have consistently decided that when in doubt, free speech must be tolerated, and that any regulations on pornography must be minimal and shown to respond to what would otherwise be a substantial danger to the public.

The Argument for Extensive Regulation Love between two people, including its sexual expression, is one of the most cherished values human beings possess. Pornography damages this value by dehumanizing those who appear in it and reducing them to objects that become simply a means to satisfy some other person’s crude desires. This coarsens relationships between people and reduces the dignity each human being deserves. Pornography thus makes it more difficult to treat others with respect, and thus should be strictly regulated; it may even, in some cases, be censored or banned.

There is a well-known and traditional way of arguing for the strict regulation of por- nography. On this argument, we can state that pornography is sexually explicit material designed to generate a specific kind of response in the viewer. It is obscene, degrades its subjects, and harms the values of society. If most people in a society regard pornography as violating its standards, then the society is well within its rights to restrict or even ban pornography. Otherwise, the moral standards of the society are attacked and undermined by a minority, which has no legitimate right to reject the moral standards of the majority. Furthermore, it corrupts not just society as a whole but also the individual who consumes it. Adults are allowed to engage in some risky activities, but the state has a legitimate role in preventing them from harming others and harming themselves. Even though the state may allow people to make unhealthy choices, it strictly regulates them: Alcohol and

mos85880_02_c02.indd 63 10/28/13 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 2Section 2.4 The Issue: Pornography—To Regulate or Not?

tobacco are highly regulated, for instance. The state can require people to wear seat belts and motorcycle helmets. These regulations prevent, or at least limit, the things adults can do; because pornography is harmful to the individual, the state has a legitimate right to regulate it just as it does any activity that may harm an individual, society as a whole, or—as in this case—both.

A second, more recent argument, against pornography distinguishes it from “erotica.” Erotica is the artistic presentation of human love, including its sexual expression. In contrast, pornography involves the degradation of people, particularly women, and often employs violence—including rape—in its depiction. It may also include other acts designed to humiliate and dehumanize women by presenting them as submissive victims who enjoy being mistreated. Adopting this conception of pornography, it is seen as doing substantial harm: not just to the women depicted but also to the more general way women are regarded in society as a whole. In this way, the dehumanizing of women is seen to be a general harm to women that makes legitimate the state’s ability to regulate, restrict, and even ban pornography. In addition, the production of pornography also causes harm to those women involved in that production. These women are coerced, threatened, humili- ated, and exploited in making pornography; since the industry poses a genuine harm to these women, the state has not just the right but the obligation to prevent that harm.

Pornography coarsens and degrades the moral values of a society and harms the person consuming it. Pornography harms women, both by exploiting them in its production and in providing a consistently demeaning image of women for the consumer of pornography that also affects the way women are regarded more generally in society. The state has a legitimate role in preventing harm from coming to its citizens, and because pornography harms people in the various ways described, the state has a legitimate role—in fact, an obligation—to restrict and regulate pornography.

Applying the Theories As we can see, whether or not to regulate pornographic material is a more complicated question than it might seem at first glance. Ethics can help us to approach and analyze the challenging arguments on both sides.

Utilitarianism The most prominent and influential utilitarian theorist was John Stuart Mill. In Mill’s clas- sic text On Liberty, he puts forth what is now known as the “harm principle”:

[T]he only purpose for which power may be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. (Mill, 1977/1859, Chapter 1: Introductory, para. 9)

In other words, Mill is saying that the state must not be allowed to prevent someone from doing something, even if it is harmful to that person. The only legitimate way the gov- ernment can step in to prevent some activity is if it can be shown to harm others. Among social scientists, there are passionate debates and a great deal of controversy over pornog- raphy. Many have insisted that its harms are obvious; others have responded that those

mos85880_02_c02.indd 64 10/28/13 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 2Section 2.4 The Issue: Pornography—To Regulate or Not?

Photos.com/Thinkstock

Utilitarian John Stuart Mill’s harm principle argues that restrictions are justified only if the activity harms others.

harms have been exaggerated. Mill’s point, how- ever, is that even if one grants that pornography harms those who consume it, one can only restrict it if it can be definitively demonstrated that it also harms others. From the perspective argued here, that harm to others has not been sufficiently demonstrated.

How does Mill’s harm principle relate to the tra- ditional slogan of utilitarianism, that one should do what produces the greatest good for the great- est number? The connection isn’t made as explicit as one might like by Mill, but it seems fairly clear how it is made. Society is better off if its mem- bers are freer, and best off if they have the great- est amount of freedom possible—as long as one person’s freedom doesn’t interfere with that of another person. Thus, what generates the great- est freedom for the citizens of a state, or society, is the moral thing to do, which also means that the fewer restrictions, the greater the freedom. The greatest good for the greatest number is thus pro- duced by a state with the fewest restrictions on its

citizens, a state with the greatest amount of freedom. The greatest amount of freedom, in Mill’s view, is achieved by following the harm principle. Therefore, the harm principle is essential to a state that produces the greatest good for the greatest number.

Clearly enough, applying the harm principle and utilitarianism supports the idea that restrictions and regulations of pornography must be imposed only if they can be shown to prevent harm from being done to others. The presumption, then, is that only the kind of restrictions mentioned earlier—such as the prohibitions against child pornography—are legitimate interventions by the state. One might argue that in a given society, if a majority wishes to ban pornography, then that would presumably produce the greatest good for the greatest number. Thus, it would be both moral and just to ban it. Mill might respond to this by arguing that it is short-sighted to apply the utilitarian principle in this way. Rather, one should see that, in general, fewer restrictions on freedom generate the greatest good for the greatest number. Therefore, in general, one should always use the greatest caution in imposing any restrictions, even though, in some cases, this may conflict with the views of the overwhelming majority of the community. In short, using the utilitarian principle in this general way, in combination with the harm principle, indicates that pornography should not be extensively regulated, banned, or censored.

Emotivism Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once famously said that he had given up trying to define obscenity; rather, he observed, “I know it when I see it.” This is analogous to some treatments of obscenity—and because it can be regarded as obscene, to some treatments of pornography—offered by the ethical view of emotivism. We may not be able to define “obscenity” and “pornography” to everyone’s satisfaction, and we may not be able to

mos85880_02_c02.indd 65 10/28/13 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 2Section 2.4 The Issue: Pornography—To Regulate or Not?

explain why it is wrong. But we are confident in our view that it is obscene, and that it is wrong, when we see it. The emotivist gives us an ethical theory supporting that response.

The emotivist does not try to give reasons, or facts, or evidence, or even arguments for a given evaluation, including moral evaluations. To say something is “bad” or “wrong” is really just an indication of one’s attitude or response to it. For this reason, emotivism is known as a “noncognitivist” position in ethics. Noncognitivism denies that there are moral properties, or moral facts; in fact, it denies that certain kinds of claims are the kinds of things that can be true or false. You may like ice cream, want to listen to jazz, or hope to attend a football game. You express those attitudes by saying and doing things that express your approval of them. In the same way, you may not like artichokes, don’t want to listen to bluegrass music, and hope to avoid going shoe shopping. Here you express those attitudes by saying and doing things that express your disapproval of them.

Those who object to pornography may respond in the same way, agreeing with Pot- ter Stewart that, insofar as it is obscene, they know it when they see it. One can express this attitude—this disapproval—in a number of ways. Importantly, though, the various expressions of this attitude in a social context can be designed to convince others that it is a reasonable, and even correct, attitude, and that they should also express their own disapproval. In a community, if a sufficient number of people share a common emotivist response to something, that reaction can provide the basis for designing policy for the community. In other words, the emotivist not only may indicate his or her own attitude but is free to persuade others to adopt that same attitude. Ultimately, then, the emotivist may insist that in a given community, there is sufficient disapproval of pornography that the preferences of the members of that community should be respected, and thus pornog- raphy should be strictly regulated and, perhaps, censored or even banned.

Be the Ethicist

At the Movies

Alice and Kate live next door to each other, and have for years. They consider themselves very good friends. Alice’s 11 year-old daughter Naomi and Kate’s 11-year-old daughter Amy are the best of friends. Naomi and Amy spend a lot of time together, and on weekends frequently spend the night at each other’s homes.

One morning, Naomi comes home from having spent the night at Amy’s and tells her mother that she watched a movie; her mother quickly realizes that the movie was extremely violent and had a substantial amount of nudity. She would never allow Naomi to watch such a movie, and she is out- raged that her friend Kate allowed Naomi to do so.

Alice is so angry with Kate that she realizes that she needs to cool off before talking to her in per- son, or even on the phone. So she decides to write Kate an old-fashioned letter, explaining her anger and her disappointment that Kate allowed her daughter (and Kate’s daughter, for that mat- ter) to watch such a film.

If Alice is, generally, a deontologist, how might she write her letter to explain to Kate why what she did was unethical, or immoral? Identify two distinct reasons Alice might point to in order to con- vince Kate that what she did was wrong.

(continued)

mos85880_02_c02.indd 66 10/28/13 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 2Section 2.4 The Issue: Pornography—To Regulate or Not?

Some Conclusions In the case of pornography, we see a sharp conflict between those who argue for mini- mal restrictions on adults—including restrictions on access to pornography—and those who argue that substantial restrictions are legitimate. On the one hand, we see those who advocate minimal restrictions adopting a position that one might call libertarian: that the state has no right to interfere with adult behavior that cannot be shown to harm others. On the other hand, those who advocate greater restrictions see pornography as harming the values of society, coarsening interpersonal relationships, and flooding society—through books, magazines, TV, films, and the Internet—with degrading and obscene images. The issue seems to revolve around the notion of what, if any, harms are involved, and what the legitimate role of the state is in addressing any such harms.

Two other results can be identified as emerging from this debate. One is a causal claim that those who consume pornography—especially pornography that is particularly degrading to women and that includes violence—are more likely to carry out the kinds of things they see. A standard pornographic fantasy involves a woman who is forced to do something against her will, only to see her come to enjoy it. Is it more likely that one who repeat- edly reads about or sees such images will act on those ideas? The argument is that seeing violence, for instance, in a film will cause one to act more violently; thus, it is legitimate to minimize exposure to those things that will tend to cause that violence. If pornogra- phy contains the violent treatment of women and can be shown to cause actual violence against women, doesn’t the state have a legitimate right to restrict it? Others respond, of course, that no such causal connections have been shown, and that, in any case, there are plenty of other examples of violence of all kinds available to people. If such exposure to violence in, for instance, films is said to cause actual violence, then wouldn’t that exposure also need to be highly regulated? On this view, basing an argument on an unsubstanti- ated causal claim may well lead to a slippery slope where any number of things could be restricted, banned, or censored, limiting the legitimate rights of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. This response has been criticized by some who see this not as a restriction on speech, but on action, in that the speech in question causes real behavior that does genuine harm to others.

The second result that has emerged in recent years is the emphasis on those who produce pornography. On this argument, pornographic films almost invariably involve coercing, threatening, and exploiting women (and perhaps men) in their production. Often such women do not really “choose” to work in this industry, but find themselves there due to financial need and the financial opportunities involved. Those who have focused on

Be the Ethicist (continued)

Imagine, now, that Kate is a relativist. She decides to respond to Alice from that perspective. Identify two distinct things Kate might appeal to in order to justify showing that movie to two 11-year-olds.

Finally: Alice and Kate realize that they are too good of friends (as are their daughters) to lose their friendship over this incident. How might they resolve their dispute? Is it possible for a relativist and a deontologist to do so? If they both adopted a third ethical theory, would they have a better chance of resolving this dispute?

mos85880_02_c02.indd 67 10/28/13 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 2Section 2.4 The Issue: Pornography—To Regulate or Not?

this aspect of pornography have argued that both physical and psychological intimida- tion is frequently involved in the production of pornography, and that it takes advantage of women who may be financially or psychologically vulnerable; thus, it does not really involve the kind of “free” or “autonomous” choice that should be respected. Those who have put forth this perspective also insist that the images of women found in pornogra- phy continue to reinforce very negative and oppressive conceptions of women, leading to that conception of women being pervasive in society. Given the size of the pornography industry in the United States, this argument insists that the kind of images of women found in pornography must have an effect on how women are perceived in other contexts, a result that is clearly harmful to women and to society in general.

Where Do We Go From Here? Many important issues arise in this discussion; however, the one that has gotten a great deal of attention is the causal claim regarding violence in por- nography. Does seeing violence com- mitted against women cause actual violence against women? More impor- tantly, does a person who sees this kind of violence, on a regular basis, become more likely to commit that violence? Social scientists continue to gather data on this issue, interpret that data, and debate the implications. But this is, of course, not limited simply to pornography.

A standard claim in the literature on television violence is that the average child will have seen 8,000 murders on TV by the end of elementary school, and 200,000 acts of violence on TV by age 18. Many have argued that these kinds of numbers indicate a considerable worry about exposure to violence. Some argue that such exposure to violence causes those so exposed to be more violent. Others argue that even if such a causal claim cannot be estab- lished, such extensive exposure to violence makes it appear to be a common feature of life, futile to try to prevent, and even an acceptable solution to problems.

The availability of information—of all kinds—has dramatically increased, and access to that information is also widely available. Books, magazines, newspapers, films, television, and especially the Internet offer an almost unlimited amount of content. Those whose arguments are based on Mill’s harm principle and the First Amendment insist that wide latitude be given to this content and people’s access to it; to restrict it without show- ing conclusively that otherwise people will be harmed is not only a violation of the First Amendment, but is, more generally, an illegitimate extension of the government’s power over its citizens. In contrast, those who advocate more extensive regulation simply point

Ryan McVay/Photodisc/Thinkstock

The debate over pornography can be broadened to include exposure to violence on television and other media. Should media be regulated more stringently, or should First Amendment rights and Mill’s harm principle take precedent?

mos85880_02_c02.indd 68 10/28/13 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 2Chapter Summary

to the levels of violence, the degradation of culture, and the negative images and values that seem to pervade society. Surely something should be done to indicate our disap- proval of that situation? Furthermore, from this perspective, even though some controls may have been imposed on certain content, including pornography, to allow those who wish to avoid it from being so exposed, the pervasive nature of objectionable material makes it impossible to avoid. Thus, one must take extraordinary steps to avoid it, and this also requires more effort on the part of some parents to keep their children from being exposed to things that they regard as obscene, immoral, and wrong. On this view, one shouldn’t be forced to make extraordinary efforts to avoid being confronted with indecent and objectionable material. Rather, one should have the legitimate expectation not to be so confronted; those who wish to consume pornography and similar material should have, minimally, the obligation to make an extra effort to do so.

Chapter Summary

This chapter has explored some of the ethical concepts we’ll look at in more detail throughout the text. It has also considered how these ethical questions play out in a society founded on a set of ideals and governed by a particular set of principles yet populated by highly diverse cultures, which sometimes clash with each other. The chal- lenge of applying ethical theory in a democratic society is one with which many philoso- phers have grappled over the centuries.

Democracy is a pretty old idea, going back at least to ancient Athens. The idea, of course, is that people know best what they want and need, and democracies allow their views to be expressed in the fairest way. Whether a democracy is direct (where people vote directly on all issues) or representative (where people elect others to represent their views), the majority view will prevail; if more voters want a particular law passed, for instance, it will pass. Majority rule is at the heart of democratic theory; however, a worry also arises. The point was made by Socrates and Plato about the Athenian democracy and has ever since been an issue for the idea of democracy: What if the majority chooses in such a way that the rights of the minority are infringed? Is that fair? And are there ways of preventing it? This can, naturally, be a substantial issue when a group is evenly divided. Imagine a com- munity voting on a specific law; 51% are in favor, and 49% oppose it. The minority, in this case, may find the law deeply offensive, but just over half of the people support the law and thus are able to impose it on almost half the community. Such circumstances have led to the common concern that in democracies, there may be a temptation for this kind of thing to happen, an objection commonly known as the tyranny of the majority.

A number of the individual rights we have looked at—if, of course, they are “rights”—can be seen as raising this issue. Certain constitutional protections exist; however, what if the majority of a community decides to ban certain reading material or certain expressions of religious belief? We are also familiar with instances of this from American history; often African Americans were subject to various forms of abuse and injustice simply because they were in a minority and had little or no access to the machinery of political power.

In a famous case in the 1940s, some schoolchildren in West Virginia refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. As Jehovah’s Witnesses, they were forbidden to act in a way

mos85880_02_c02.indd 69 10/28/13 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 2Key Terms

that, as they saw it, treated the American flag as a sacred object and thus, refused to say the Pledge. As is easy to imagine, this was a very unpopular view, particularly during the height of World War II. The Supreme Court found that these students were protected by the Constitution. Here, the legal protections were provided, but it is fairly easy to see how such a view would have been regarded by the majority and to picture the various informal ways members of that community might have expressed their displeasure.

Socrates and Plato were particularly concerned that democracy—in this case, specifically, direct democracy—left decisions up to a majority that might well lack sufficient under- standing to make those decisions correctly. As Socrates might put it, one goes to a doctor for medical care because the doctor is trained to be an expert in medicine. One goes to a car mechanic for repairs because the mechanic is trained to be an expert in automobile repair. Yet direct democracies allow the majority to decide issues that are considerably more important for society than auto repair: whether to go to war; what taxes should be in place and what tax revenue should be used for; what the standards should be for water, air, and food; and many other crucial issues. Do the majority of citizens have the expertise and knowledge to make these kinds of decisions?

Defenders of democracy have a variety of responses. One, generally attributed to a 1947 speech by Winston Churchill, is to acknowledge the flaws of democracy: “Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” That is, democracy has many flaws, just not as many as any other form of government. Others have argued for such things as “proportional representation”; coun- tries such as the Netherlands, Japan, and Israel have adopted a parliamentary system with many different parties. In this situation, if 5% of the voters find a particular party most suitable, they will, at least in theory, be able to elect someone to represent their view. The representation, that is, is proportional to the various views within the society. Many democracies have taken this path, in contrast to the United States, where generally a two- party system is in place; one chooses whichever party is closer to one’s own views. (The drawback of this approach is often expressed as one voting for “the lesser of two evils.”) Some political theorists have advocated proportional representation and alternative ways of voting methods in the United States to address the problem of minority rights being represented. In any case, we see that in spite of certain constitutional protections, the question of individual rights, and particularly the threat to the rights of minorities within a system that gives political power to the majority, will continue to generate discussion and debate about the extent and limits of those individual rights.

Key Terms

act utilitarianism A consequentialist ethi- cal theory that claims an action is right if it is the act that generates the greatest good for the greatest number.

deontology A nonconsequentialist ethical theory that claims an act is to be evaluated in terms of its accordance with a specified set of rules.

emotivism A meta-ethical view that claims ethical statements are merely expressions of one’s emotion toward a given act, not based on facts or moral realities.

relativism The view that moral claims are relative to an individual or community, and do not have objective value or truth.

mos85880_02_c02.indd 70 10/28/13 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 2Exercises

rule utilitarianism A consequentialist ethical theory that claims an action is right if it is in accordance with a rule that gen- erates the greatest good for the greatest number.

utilitarianism A consequentialist ethical theory that evaluates moral claims in terms of their outcomes, and to the extent these outcomes generate the greatest benefit for the greatest number.

virtue ethics An ethical theory that focuses on the character of the agent in evaluating moral behavior, in contrast to deontology or deontology; often associated with Aristotle.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. In a society that decides things on the basis of majority rule, is there a danger that the majority might ignore the legitimate concerns of minorities? What steps can be taken to protect minority rights?

2. Granting women the right to vote was, no doubt, long overdue. What other rights, in looking back at U.S. history, took too long to grant? Can you suggest a reason why it was so difficult to achieve those rights?

3. One often hears the phrase, “You can’t legislate morality.” What do you think that means? Do you think it is true? What kind of moral issues require us to make laws prohibiting certain kinds of behavior?

Exercises

1. The famous sociologist Max Weber once observed that politics is the “art of com- promise.” Without abandoning our most cherished principles, that is, we must be willing to sacrifice some of what we want to reach political agreement with others. The basic idea is that no one ever gets everything he or she wants: Getting some of what you want is the best you can hope for, and certainly better than getting nothing. This sounds good in theory, of course, but has proved to be more difficult in practice. Some questions arise: • At what point does compromise become abandoning one’s principles? • If I offer to compromise with a person with whom I disagree, why should I

expect that person to be willing to compromise with me? • Why is it so difficult to reach compromises in today’s politics? • Can democracy function without compromise? • Do some politicians regard “compromise” as a dirty word? • Is “compromise” a dirty word?

After considering these questions, identify a topic that is something that receives a great deal of attention in contemporary politics—anything that generates some kind of controversy or debate will work.

State briefly what the debate is over. Is a compromise on this issue possible? If so, suggest what such a compromise would look like. If not, suggest why it is not possible.

mos85880_02_c02.indd 71 10/28/13 1:16 PM

CHAPTER 2Suggested Resources

Finally, if a utilitarian and a relativist wanted to reach an agreement on this issue, how might they go about trying to do so?

2. You are a high school principal, and some students want to organize a school club devoted to studying and discussing atheism. You are concerned that they may spend some of their time mocking the beliefs of other students. Some of the students in your school have already expressed to you their concern that such an officially recognized student group represents a view that many find offensive. • Do you allow the students to organize the atheist club? • What restrictions, if any, do you impose on what they can do and say? • What do you say to parents who call to protest the existence of such a club?

3. You have a 16-year-old daughter, who has an after-school job. With the money she has earned, she has purchased a computer and online access. You are proud of her work ethic and the responsibility she has shown in working hard and sav- ing her money to buy this, but you aren’t entirely sure about what she is looking at when she goes online. • Do you have the right to access her computer and ask her for her

password(s)? • Should you restrict her access to sites you regard as inappropriate? • If you do control her access, how do you respond when she asks you why

you don’t trust her? • How do you and your daughter determine the fairest way to deal with this

issue?

Suggested Resources

The Bill Of Rights

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

France Outlaws Niqab

Erlanger, S. (2011, April 11). France enforces ban on full-face veils in public. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/world /europe/12france.html?

The Masters

Golf Today. (n.d.). Augusta defends male only members policy. Retrieved from http://www.golftoday.co.uk/news/yeartodate/news02/augusta5.html

Fox News. (2012, August 20). Augusta National admits first 2 female members. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/08/20 /augusta-national-admits-first-2-female-members/

mos85880_02_c02.indd 72 10/28/13 1:16 PM