phil 210

No one disputes the point.

The disputes are about whether Oakland should want that, and whether it’s fair for the city to use taxes as a weapon.

· Tracy Salkowitz says yes to both. “Except for hunting rifles, the sole purpose of weapons is to kill people.” Getting rid of gun shops, the logic follows, is a public welfare concern. And about the taxes that brought the store down? She’s “delighted” by them.

· Mara Siegle’s opinion is that people who don’t hunt and shoot for recreation don’t understand that guns are a legitimate pastime. “They don’t see this side,” she says, “because they don’t try to.” Further, she asserts, over the years gun owners have told her that they own guns to defend themselves.

· Outside the store, mingling customers agreed with Siegle. They said closing gun stores was the wrong way to fight crime and then cursed the city for the unjust taxes. Amid the winners and losers, Mara Siegle certainly got the rottenest part of the deal. She has two sons, fifteen and seventeen, and she doesn’t know what she’ll do for income. “I need a job,” she said.

Across the country and in New York City–where handguns are directly illegal—Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s aspirations to protect the citizenry extend to the waistline. Affirming that obesity is a serious health risk, the Mayor proposed banning supersized sugary drinks. Anything over 16 ounces and high in sugar—that includes Big Gulps and Venti Frappuccinos from Starbucks—would no longer be sold in restaurants, movie theaters and similar spots.

Questions

1. With an eye on the concept of fairness, form an argument in favor of the drastically higher taxes imposed on gun shops.

2. How can fairness—as conceptualized by either Aristotle or Rawls—be used as an argument against Mayor Bloomberg’s plan to prohibit big sugary drinks?

3. Kant’s categorical imperative prohibits killing. Can it be transformed into an argument against a gun shop in Oakland? How about Big Gulps?

4. Would an ethics of duties or an ethics of rights work better for Siegle as she defends her business? Why? What might her argument look like?

5. Would an ethics of duties or an ethics of rights work better for the Starbucks store that wants to lobby against Mayor Bloomberg’s sugary drink proposal? Why? What might the argument look like?

6. With respect to basic rights, is there a difference between the right to buy a gun (at a reasonable price) and the right to buy a Big Gulp