Chose one of the prompts to write about. Analysis Paper Guidelines 5 page double spaced paper (standard font). You should cite 2 outside sources. They can be from any type of source, but they should provide evidence that adds something to the content (don

Alcoholism and Rape

People often think of philosophy as dealing with abstract and theoretical questions like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Even a question like whether the death penalty is moral is probably not directly pertinent to most of our lives. Yet the question of the moral permissibility and possible criminal sanction for alcohol impaired sex is probably one that most college students do wonder about and deal with. It is the kind of question however where philosophical principles can very easily be overshadowed by feelings of guilt. One might feel guilty about drinking at all if one is not of legal drinking age. Moreover, one might feel guilty about having sex for a variety of reasons not associated with its impairment by alcohol. While this issue deals with some very personal concerns it does seem to be one that we can apply philosophical reasoning to shed some light on the grey areas. Alcohol lowers inhibitions but of course we know this when we drink it and in fact this often part of why we may be drinking. As such we should not be surprised that we would do things after we have been drinking that we would not do otherwise. However, it also seems clear that just because a women drinks she is not therefore consenting to sex. This then raises the difficult question the author begins to answer: when is impaired sex wrong and should it be illegal. (For reasons of consistency with the article, I’ll talk about this being an issue primarily of rape of women by men however it could also apply to rape of men as well).

Frequently asked questions

MS: I don’t see why the second limiting case is not a case of rape. I mean the woman drank more than normal for her and has sex that she would not have had otherwise. That does not sound like voluntary consent to me.

DS: The main reason that Dixon does not consider it rape, is that he believes that the man has a reasonable basis for thinking that the woman is consenting. As such he is does not meet the “guilty mind” condition for rape. Although her decision was affected by alcohol there is not good evidence that it was sufficiently clouded to the extent that the choice was not voluntary. The fact that someone regrets a sexual encounter is not sufficient evidence that the choice was not voluntary since we can regret sober choices as well.

MS: Dixon seems to ignore the fact that in many of these cases of sex, impaired sex especially, there is not a lot of conversation going on. Consequently, consent is quite often a matter of what one feels the other person wants more so than verbal consent.

DS: That’s true, but he thinks that the man still should have a reasonable basis for believing the woman does consent to sex. As Lois Pineau argues even having a verbal yes, should not be sufficient evidence of consent if the woman is too drunk to stand up.

MS: I don’t see how anyone could say that a woman who voluntarily drinks too much and goes to a frat party can later say she was raped. She should know that she is engaging in risky behavior.

DS: That’s similar to Paglia’s argument, however Dixon notes that view is open to some obvious and powerful objections. It’s good advice for a woman to not put herself in dangerous situations but why let someone who takes advantage of that situation off hook? While lots of people hook up at college parties lots more also just drink and dance or converse. Moreover even if a woman does intend to have sex that does not mean she intends to have sex with just anyone.

MS: I’m not all that clear on Dixon’s conclusion. Is he saying that impaired sex is wrong or not?

DS: He seems to conclude that it is wrong, but that it should not be illegal. That is, he thinks current rape laws are generally adequate and that we can sanction impaired sex with our social disapproval. We should pass scorn on people who engage in it but that if it is criminalized innocent men would go to jail.

Drug war

Michael Huemer argues that we ought to consider the prohibition of illegal drugs to be a serious moral impairment of our society. If you don’t use drugs why should you care whether it is immoral to prosecute the drug war? The reason concerns our basic rights which is presumably something we all care about. There are many things that we may not do ourselves which it may still be important to keep legal. I don’t have any desire to wear Nazi paraphernalia and parade through the streets, most of us would find such conduct reprehensible, but it is important that people be allowed to do this. We value freedom of expression. Michael Huemer makes a similar claim about the right to use drugs. Huemer argues that it is not the government’s business to prevent us from harming ourselves and there is no good evidence that drugs cause greater harm to others than a variety of other actions which we don’t think should be illegal. As such, he argues the imprisoning of people for drug crimes represents a serious injustice. Indeed when we consider his statistic that over a ½ million people are imprisoned who wouldn’t be (if drugs were legal) it is a very great injustice. For those who agree with Huemer’s point, the legalization of Marijuana in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska and D.C. represent significant civil rights victories.

Frequently asked questions:

MS: Whether the war on drugs is just or not isn’t the point. The people in jail or prison for drug offenses broke the law, so they deserve to be there.

DS: Huemer does not discuss the broader question of whether we have a moral obligation to obey unjust laws and there is a rich literature on this topic extending at least back to Plato. It is worth noting that many people do hold that we don’t have an obligation to obey unjust laws.

MS: Drug dealers and users are the scourge of society I think the punishments should be even stronger than they are.

DS: Many people strongly condemn drug use, but Huemer asks why this is the case. He cites evidence that supports his claim that illegal drugs are less harmful than a variety of other things which are legal. It is also worth pointing out and this is a point that Huemer does not spend much time on, that the trade in drugs is violent because it is illegal. If one was able to purchase cocaine in a soft drink (as used to be the case with Coca-Cola) drug sales would be uneventful. In Colorado, Marijuana shops now occupy retail space that was previously held by donuts shops and coffee houses and purchasing these drugs is much better regulated and safer than trying to buy weed from some sketchy guy in a park. As such, the violence of the drug trade is perhaps one of the best arguments for legalizing drugs. For that reason Huemer might agree that drug dealers are bad people, but not because they are dealing drugs, but because they are criminals.

MS: I can see Huemer’s point when it comes to marijuana, but does he really think we should legalize cocaine and heroin? After all, addiction to coffee and tobacco is problematic but no one stops paying their mortgage in order to get more lattes.

DS: That’s a good point and one that would probably need to be investigated further. Although some illegal drugs may be just as addictive as tobacco or caffeine if the consequences of those addictions were much greater that might give a reason to prohibit them. Of course we would also have to consider whether prohibition made addiction less likely and less harmful. Moreover, although it is common to believe that any use of a drug like heroin or cocaine results in addiction that is not the case. Many people experiment with it and use these drugs and maintain their everyday functions and relationships. Finally, as Huemer argues if people are not free in their choice to take the drugs (or not take them) it seems unfair to punish them for doing so. Typically we are only responsible for actions where we were capable of doing otherwise.

All animal equal

This reading includes a contentious selection from Peter Singer.  As I mentioned in the theory chapters, the two topics that get people the most riled up are feminism and animal welfare.  Although Singer wrote this article over 30 years ago, the issue of extending moral consideration to animals is still highly controversial.  Vegetarians are often made to defend their views, but Singer puts the burden of proof on those who would give animals lesser consideration.  As such, it will not suffice to defend giving preference to humans by saying that others are acting this way or that it’s the way things have been done in the past.  By analogy, Singer could point to a time when racial or sexual discrimination was the norm.  Singer’s argument is actually pretty simple.  First he argues that suffering is necessary and sufficient for having an interest.  In other words you have to be able to experience suffering to be interested in it stopping and if you can experience suffering we should care about it.  Secondly, he thinks we plenty of credible evidence that animals other than humans do experience suffering.  Lastly, it shouldn’t matter what size an animal is, or what it looks like, or how smart it is in determining whether we give consideration to its suffering.  All that matters is the extent of the suffering itself.

With that in mind let’s turn to some questions.

MS:  Singer’s argument is ridiculous, racism or sexism is nothing like this made up word “speciesism”.  Humans are radically different from other animals.

DS:  That may be true, but for Singer the question is whether the difference is one that justifies ignoring another creature’s suffering.  Suffering is bad and just because a creature is stupid that should not permit us to cause it unnecessary suffering.  Similarly, less intelligent people do not deserve to be tested on for experiments.

MS:  But humans are rational and animals are not.

DS:  Singer has two basic replies to this; first, not all humans are rational –some disabled persons and infants for example.  Indeed some animals are more rational than some people.  As such to only consider the suffering of humans is unjustified discrimination.  Second, what’s so great about rationality?  Rationality may enable us to act as moral agents, those who should be responsible for their actions, but that is different from whether we deserve to be treated morally.  Some people do not have the rationality to defend themselves, yet we still say it would be wrong to exploit them.

MS:  But eating animals is natural.

DS:  In nature, some parents eat their young.  It would be wrong for humans to behave in this way.  What’s natural is not a sufficient determination of what’s right.

MS:  But treating animals as equal is stupid.  They are not equal.

DS:  Singer is not saying that they are equal in capacities only equal in deserving consideration.  That may still sound absurd to many.  In that case, it is probably worth reviewing the arguments that people gave against extending the right to vote to women and minorities.  Many people argued that it was absurd that people of different races should be treated equally.  Can you imagine that in the future people might look back at the way we raised and treated animals with equal disgust?

MS:  I’ve read that plants suffer.  Does that mean we cannot eat them either?

DS:  Well the best evidence of today day does not support that view.  In other words, we know that cows and pigs and chickens have the neurophysiology to suffer, so at the very least we ought to stop causing them unnecessary suffering.

MS:  How far down does sentience go?  Can scallops feel pain?

DS:  That’s a good question.  That’s probably why Singer errs on the side of caution and is a vegan.  However, the difficulty of answering that question should not prevent us from acting on those cases that don’t seem controversial.  In other words, if we know that a cow suffers we shouldn’t eat fast food burgers.

MS:  Singer’s argument does not actually seem to say that I should be a vegetarian.  I mean meat is dead it does not suffer.  Even Jeremy Bentham who Singer cites as giving credence to his argument was an omnivore.

DS:   That’s true (about Bentham).  Keep in mind though that in Bentham’s time (late 1800’s) there was no factory farming.  Singer’s argument really says that we have an obligation to treat animals humanely (or not raise them at all).  If you are hunting your own food and you don’t cause animals any more suffering than they would if they were killed by a predator then you may meet the conditions that Singer prescribes.  As for so-called free range animals, Singer is skeptical about their quality of life.  However, we’d need another course to go into detail about those issues.