CFP: Undergraduate Ethics Conference - University of Evansville
Anthony Beavers
The University of Evansville Philosophy Club and Department of
Philosophy and Religion with the generous support of The GAGE Corporation
are hosting our First Annual Undergraduate Ethics Conference, *Pro and
Contra, * on Saturday, April 4th, 2009. The Conference will be held on the
University of Evansville campus in Evansville, Indiana. The purpose of the
conference is to discuss and debate ethical issues in contemporary culture.
We would like to extend an invitation to any of your undergraduate
students to participate and to submit papers. Submissions are not limited to
philosophy students. Students in other areas such as environmental studies,
business, religious studies, and healthcare sciences are encouraged to make
submissions.
Below please find a brief description of the ethical issues that will
be explored at the Conference. Interested students, in teams of two, should
submit a one page summary statement of each of two conflicting positions on
the topic of their choosing. The Conference will be set up as a debate with
sides being determined by lot. Each team of students will make a 20 minute
presentation of their position, a ten minute rebuttal followed by questions
from a panel of judges as well as open questions from the audience. The
debate will be scored by a panel of academic and community professionals.
Submissions should be sent to Dr. William R. Connolly at *
dc...@evansville.edu* <dc...@evansville.edu>. Please include a title page
which identifies the team members and their university or college
affiliation. Be sure that no such information is included in the body of the
statement as they will be blind reviewed. Submissions are due by Feb. 15.
Selections for presentation will be announced by March 1.
If you have any questions, please contact me at the address or email
listed below. We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Dr. William R. Connolly
Professor of Philosophy
University of Evansville
1800 Lincoln Ave.
Evansville, IN 47722
*dc...@evansville.edu*<dc...@evansville.edu>
Problems to be discussed:
Business: Responsibilities for Safety Overseas
You are the CEO of a modest business, ACME Furniture and Appliance Company,
that contracts with a firm in Eastern Kaskasia. This country is an emerging
industrial nation known for its inexpensive production costs. The per capita
income level is low enough and the quality of workmanship high enough that
it is an attractive choice for you to feel comfortable working with. This is
a good deal for ACME Furniture and Appliances. So, your company has entered
into an agreement with this Eastern Kaskasian firm to build wooden cabinets
for your furniture line.
Unfortunately, you learn that the legal standards for safety in the
workplace in Eastern Kaskasia are not up to US standards. There have been
reports that workers have lost limbs, fingers, eyes and hands working with
saws without, by US standards, proper guards and without proper eye
protection. While the conditions under which they work would not be allowed
in the US, they do not violate any Eastern Kaskasian law.
Should you continue this relationship? Would it be right for you to insist
that standards of worker safety be up to US standards? Suppose doing so
would make contracting with this firm no longer financially feasible? Were
you to fail to renew the contract, there would be considerable loss of
employment in this Eastern Kaskasian community. What should you do? Do you
have a right to try to impose our standards of safety on them? Should your
or the Eastern Kaskasian community's economic benefit be the deciding factor
in your decision?
Religion in the Workplace
John is a member of a non-denominational Christian Church that encourages
its members to evangelize. John works in the local J-Mart store. Aside from
the complaints noted below, John has an excellent work record. However,
recently management has received several complaints about John's
evangelizing on the job, complaints originating from his co-workers and the
store's customers. He frequently engages in conversations with his fellow
workers whom he encourages to "get right with the Lord" and invites them to
attend his church. In addition to initiating such conversations with
customers, he also passes out church literature as well. J-Mart supervisors
asked him to stop such activities, but John refused, claiming that not to
evangelize was to betray his faith. As long as he continued to do his job
well (which by all accounts he did), John claimed that to require him to
stop evangelizing was an unjustified intrusion on his freedom of religious
expression. Should John be terminated if he persists in his evangelizing? If
he were terminated, would you consider this termination for cause, making
him ineligible for unemployment benefits?
Environmental Ethics
In a state forest in the State of Confusion there are numerous trails for
hiking, bird watching and general nature watching. ACME Entertainment
Company has approached the state, a state sorely pressed for revenue, with a
proposal to purchase the area. It plans to develop the area as a ski resort
and entertainment community, complete with musical entertainment and
gambling, legal in Confusion. Their offer is contingent on their being able
to develop the area.
The issue for you to consider is not whether to approve this sale, but what
should be considered in your deliberations. On the one hand, one might argue
that while the forest itself has no moral or legal standing, people's
interests are affected and the decision should be made to further the
interests of the affected people in the community. Will their interest be
furthered by the sale or not? On the other hand, some might argue that, in
addition to the interests of the people affected, the forest itself has
interests that should be taken into account as well. Who should represent
its interests? Which approach do you think is best?
Is Health Care a Right?
While there is much disagreement about *how* to "fix it", there is wide
agreement *that* the US health care system needs work. It seems to be in
crisis. It is expensive. We spend roughly 16% of GDP on health care twice
that of any other industrialized nation. Nearly 50 million people are
without health insurance and many more are underinsured. It is a significant
expense for businesses which provide health insurance for their employees,
threatening their competitiveness. Hundreds of thousands of Americans go
bankrupt each year due to health care expenses.
Yet, for all that financial outlay, our health outcomes, measured by things
like longevity and infant mortality rank near the bottom among
industrialized countries. Clearly, something needs to be done.
Before this is tackled, however, we need to ask some fundamental ethical
questions. Do we have a right to health care? Is it a positive or negative
right? (A negative right is a right that others have an obligation not to
interfere with, like the right to free speech. If I have a right to free
speech, you may not interfere with my exercise of that right, but you are
not obligated to provide me the means to exercise that right. A positive
right is a right that others have a duty to provide me the means to
exercise. The right to basic education is, in the US, a positive right.
Others, through taxes, are obligated to provide that basic education to all
citizens.) If we have a right to health care, is it a positive right? Does
the state have a duty to provide, through taxes, a basic level of health
care?
Physician Assisted Suicide
Modern medicine, with its technological and pharmaceutical miracles, has
provided the means to extend human life well beyond that possible in past
ages. We live longer and healthier lives than ever before. However, this
often turns out to be a mixed blessing. With devices that can breathe for us
and nourish us and with drugs that can prevent disease from taking its final
payment, we are often left to live under circumstances that few of us would
choose.
In the light of these developments, there is interest in legalizing
physician assisted suicide. Would you support such a move? What restrictions
and regulations should such a provision for assisted suicide include?
Access to Genetic Information
With the exponential growth in information about the human genome, we are
learning more and more about the genetic bases of many diseases, such as
cystic fibrosis and Huntington's disease. Thanks to the advances of genetic
science, we are learning about the genetic predisposition people have to
various forms of cancer as well as cardiovascular disease and Alzheimer's
disease. The future promises even more information.
Such information would be especially valuable to employers and insurers. It
might implicate both the costs of health insurance and the prospects of a
person's being able to be an effective and economically efficient employee.
The health of their workers is of grave concern to employers. On the other
hand, we have a long tradition of respecting peoples' right to protect the
privacy of their medical information. Should employers and insurers have
access to genetic profiles of its prospective employees and clients? If so,
what information do they have a right to?
Almost, But Not Quite, Genetic Matches
Every state in the US collects a DNA sample from convicted felons and
forwards the sample to the FBI which loads the results into a national
database. When crime detectives later investigate a crime scene and obtain a
DNA sample, the sample if forwarded to the FBI to check for matches. If
there is a match, the FBI informs the police and this piece of information
becomes a valuable piece of evidence.
However, sometimes the match isn't perfect, but is so close that the DNA is
almost certainly that of a close family member. Should the FBI inform the
police of this? With this information, should the police investigate close
family members of the convicted felon on the basis of this genetic
information?
This is a two edged sword. On the one hand, it seems to threaten the privacy
of innocent people. Should you become a suspect in a crime simply because
your brother or sister is a convicted felon? Isn't that an important civil
liberties issue? On the other hand, such information has been used to solve
serious crimes. In England, for example, a serial killer was arrested and
convicted based on a close match with his sister who had been convicted of
drunk driving and whose DNA was in the British database. There is no way the
police would have known to investigate this person but for the DNA evidence.
In the US this information has also been used to free innocently convicted
people upon learning that the crime had been committed by another person,
based on a close match with a convicted felon.
Should this information be used in criminal investigations or is the danger
for the abuse and harassment of innocent relatives of felons a sufficient
reason not to provide such information?
Messages to the list are archived at http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/archives/philos-l.html.
Prolonged discussions should be moved to chora: enrol via
http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/archives/chora.html.
Other philosophical resources on the Web can be found at http://www.liv.ac.uk/pal.