Course Description: The course will analyze and discuss a number of moral problems which are quite controversial in contemporary American society, including environmental ethics and animal rights, sexual morality, pornography and censorship, hate speech, abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, war and torture terrorism, global redistribution of wealth and welfare, racial and sexual equality and affirmative action,. The emphasis will be on weighing the arguments pro and con, and deciding which side has the best supporting grounds for its point of view. It is hoped that a more balanced and objective evaluation of the arguments on these moral issues will result from standing back and gaining some critical distance upon things upon which we might already have formed fixed positions and about which we might have strong feelings. The objective of the course will be to come to a deeper and broader understanding of these moral problems and to engage in critical reflection upon them through reading pertinent articles and through open discussion. In addition, the themes of diversity and inclusiveness will be critically and discussed with the aim of broadening the student’s horizon and encouraging respect for diverse points of view and backgrounds. The student will be expected to think for her/himself, developing her/his own position, and formulating arguments to support it on the basis of the ongoing debate. There will be three 6-7 page term papers upon any of the moral issues discussed in class. These paper assignments will be designed to teach the student how to write an argumentative type paper in keeping with the course designation as a core course. Each paper will count for 30% of the final grade and the final 10% will be awarded for attendance and class participation. Attendance will be taken by means of an iPad App in each class meeting Required text: Doing Ethics, 2nd Edition Ed. Lewis Vaughn, (Norton and Co., Inc., 2010). Course Schedule: Meeting Reading Topic 1 pp. 1-64 Introduction to Ethics, Relativism and Moral Arguments 2 pp. 65-160 Moral Theories, Utilitarianism, Kantian Deontology, Virtue 3 pp, 161-227 Abortion 4 pp. 228-290 Euthanasia, Doctor-assisted Suicide, Hospice 5 pp. 291-347 Capital Punishment 6 pp. 348-404 Pornography and Censorship 7 pp. 405-450 Sexuality, Marriage, Gay Rights 8 pp. 451-497 Equality and Affirmative Action 9 pp. 498-554 Environmental Ethics 10 pp. 555-607 Animal Rights 11 pp. 608-756 Warfare, Terrorism, Torture 12 pp. 757-820 Global Economic Justice Paper Assignments: The course assignments will be to write three papers of 6-7 pages on three ethical problems we have disc.

1. Course Description:
The course will analyze and discuss a number of moral
problems which are quite controversial in contemporary
American society, including environmental ethics and animal
rights, sexual morality, pornography and censorship, hate
speech, abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, war and
torture terrorism, global redistribution of wealth and welfare,
racial and sexual equality and affirmative action,. The emphasis
will be on weighing the arguments pro and con, and deciding
which side has the best supporting grounds for its point of view.
It is hoped that a more balanced and objective evaluation of the
arguments on these moral issues will result from standing back
and gaining some critical distance upon things upon which we
might already have formed fixed positions and about which we
might have strong feelings. The objective of the course will be
to come to a deeper and broader understanding of these moral
problems and to engage in critical reflection upon them through
reading pertinent articles and through open discussion. In
addition, the themes of diversity and inclusiveness will be
critically and discussed with the aim of broadening the student’s
horizon and encouraging respect for diverse points of view and
backgrounds. The student will be expected to think for
her/himself, developing her/his own position, and formulating
arguments to support it on the basis of the ongoing debate.
There will be three 6-7 page term papers upon any of the moral
issues discussed in class. These paper assignments will be
designed to teach the student how to write an argumentative
type paper in keeping with the course designation as a core
course. Each paper will count for 30% of the final grade and the
final 10% will be awarded for attendance and class
participation. Attendance will be taken by means of an iPad App
in each class meeting
Required text:

2. Doing Ethics, 2nd Edition Ed. Lewis Vaughn, (Norton and Co.,
Inc., 2010).
Course Schedule:
Meeting Reading Topic
1 pp. 1-64 Introduction to Ethics, Relativism
and Moral Arguments
2 pp. 65-160 Moral Theories, Utilitarianism,
Kantian Deontology, Virtue
3 pp, 161-227 Abortion
4 pp. 228-290 Euthanasia, Doctor-assisted
Suicide, Hospice
5 pp. 291-347 Capital Punishment
6 pp. 348-404 Pornography and Censorship
7 pp. 405-450 Sexuality, Marriage, Gay Rights
8 pp. 451-497 Equality and Affirmative Action
9 pp. 498-554 Environmental Ethics
10 pp. 555-607 Animal Rights
11 pp. 608-756 Warfare, Terrorism, Torture
12 pp. 757-820 Global Economic Justice
Paper Assignments:
The course assignments will be to write three papers of 6-7

3. pages on three ethical problems we have discussed in class, due
March 7th,April 16th and May 16th respectively. The aim is to
teach the student how to write a cogently reasoned
argumentative type paper which might have a chance of
persuading someone reading it that the writer has weighed the
pros and cons on the issue in an even-handed way, and that the
conclusions reached are sound and convincing. The student is
expected to research the topic using the assigned text, but also
to think about the issue by actually evaluating the arguments on
the various sides in his/her own mind. Very often one has
already made up one’s mind on such controversial issues, and
thus already has a fixed opinion about which one might have
strong feelings. We might not feel that we have to justify or
give reasons why one holds these opinions or feels the way one
does. But the assumption guiding this assignment is that we
ought to be able to justify it, for this is demanded of anyone
who enters into a rational dialogue with others to search for a
common truth.
We don’t do this in a vacuum, but rather within a social and
historical context where positions have already been staked out
and expressed and the debate is already in progress. The first
part of the paper is therefore 1) an introduction, which contains
some acknowledgement of the history of the debate and
identifies the basic issue being addressed and states the
problem. The second part should be 2) to give an account of the
main arguments both pro and con. This should not be a mere list
but also contain some analyses and evaluation of each one. It
can also include identifying which side appears to have the
burden of proof in general or on one of the points on which the
arguments on the various sides conflict. The next part is 3) to
state one’s own considered point of view and then, 4) the
reasons why one holds it to be correct.
But what counts as a good reason? First it should be the kind of
reason which has a good chance of persuading a reader, who

4. doesn’t necessarily share one’s own background or prejudices,
to accept your view. That means that one should seek a common
ground and give arguments, which potentially have universal
appeal. One should thus avoid appeals to authority, which aren’t
respected by everyone. ( eg. “the Bible says so”or “the
founding fathers held”) and one should avoid personal
experiences or biographical details ( eg. “I was raised Catholic,
so...” or “in my experience such and such is the case”) which
explain perhaps why one personally holds a view, but fails to
justify it, unless one goes on to make the point that this
exemplifies the typical or universal. Otherwise, these appeals to
authority or the particular case will have no good chance of
persuading someone, who already doesn’t share your
background, experiences, or prejudices, to change their mind.
Ethical dialogue should ideally take place on the plane of the
universal where in principle a good reason should be able to
gain universal assent because people can think for themselves
by rising above their prejudices or narrow background or
particular experiences. They can transcend their particularity
because they are being addressed as rational beings, who have
the capacity to evaluate things on the basis of universal
considerations such as correct generalizations or general moral
principles based upon mutual respect for each other as persons
with rights.
These last two steps are an open admission that one’s own
position is not unassailable and that one is open to further
debate. There is no claim to being in the possession of the
absolute truth, but rather a willingness to keep on testing one’s
own best insights against the best arguments your opponents can
muster. The process here is more important than the tentative
result, in that the rational discussion is an on-going invitation to
oneself and others to broaden and deepen mutual understanding
and to approach the truth without ever claiming that one is
already in possession of it. Rational assent is the
acknowledgement of what one’s own reason must accept in the

5. light of what one currently understands after weighing the
arguments pro and con and attempting to overcome bias through
being open to universal considerations. But there is still always
the possibility that upon further reflection and discussion, one
might be forced by the better argument to change one’s mind. It
is this possibility, which keeps rational debate from ending in a
new absolutism. And it is the willingness to debate seriously
with others to get at the truth, which distinguishes the process
of rational debate from a relativism , which would make such a
process seem nonsensical.
This might seem to some students to be a new kind of
intolerance, particularly if they lean toward relativism. But the
debate is in principle open-ended with the proviso that one
should be willing to change one’s mind if the other side in the
debate comes up with a better argument, which has more
universal appeal. The aim in such an ethical debate is not to win
the argument by hook of by crook, but rather to allow the truth
to emerge through the give and take of the argument and to be
willing to test one’s own arguments against the best counter-
arguments that the opponents have developed - not in order to
triumph over them, but rather because this is the best means we
have to ascertain the truth on controversial moral issues.
Therefore the last two steps in the paper should be 5) to
consider counter-arguments or objections to one’s own view,
and 6) try to respond adequately to them by saying why they
don’t convince you to change your mind or why one is forced to
revise it in some way. These last two steps require one to be
self-critical, which is easier said than done. But don’t forget
these last two steps, as that is the typical mistake students tend
to make on their first try.
To reiterate:
1 Lead-in with a historical introduction

6. 2. Give an account of the arguments pro and con.
3. State one’s own view,
4. Give reasons for holding which have universal appeal.
5. Consider likely objections or counter-arguments to one’s own
position and the reasons you have given for holding it.
6. Respond adequately to these objections or counter-arguments
either by trying to argue against them or by revising one’s own
position in the light of them.
P.S. Avoid plagiarism! When giving an account of another’s
argument or point of view use quotation marks or paraphrase in
your own words and give due credit to your source.
Reflection Survey: Electronic WRiting Assessment Portfolio (E-
WRAP)
Name:
Major:
Responses to these reflection questions are a requirement of the
E-WRAP. Your reflections can provide valuable evidence of
your development and self-awareness as a college-level writer
that might not be demonstrated in your portfolio papers. Please
provide complete and thoughtful responses to each reflection
question, as careful responses can potentially raise your
assessment score. You can use as much space on the document
as needed.
Select ONE paper from your portfolio and use evidence from

7. that paper to answer the questions below. Please be as specific
as possible in your responses.
a. What was the question or problem that you were asked to
respond to with this paper? (If you have the assignment
information, feel free to copy the prompt question here.
Otherwise, please paraphrase the assignment’s main question to
the best of your ability.) [minimum of 75 words]
b. Summarize the position—such as an argument, thesis,
response, proposal, or main idea—that you present in this paper.
(Tip: Don’t summarize what your sources or readings say;
instead, tell us what stance you took, as the author of this
paper.) [minimum of 75 words]
c. Explain what evidence you used to support that position, and
why that evidence was appropriate and sufficient to supporting
your point. Please provide at least one specific example from
your paper to illustrate how you used evidence to support your
position. (In other words, you should feel free to quote yourself,
and then explain what the quoted passage demonstrates about
your ability to select and use evidence.) [minimum of 75 words]
Please review the Writing Proficiency Criteria, which describes

8. five capabilities for academic writing. During your time as a
college student (at UMass Boston and at any other colleges or
universities you may have attended), in which of the five areas
do you feel you have grown or improved the most? What
learning experiences (specific course assignments; specific
feedback from an instructor, tutor, or peer; etc.) do you think
contributed to your improvement? [minimum of 200 words]
6
Euthanasia
Historical introduction
Euthanasia is a very controversial topic of discussion with a
number of developed countries such as the United Kingdom
outlawing the practice in its entirety. Euthanasia refers to
actions that are taken to end the life of a terminally ill patient
as a means of relieving their suffering. This is a practice that
can be carried out at the request of the patient, their family or
the courts. The genesis of the issue dates back over 2500 years
to the Hippocratic Oath which is usually taken by all doctors.
The oath is to the effect that doctors vow never to give any
deadly drugs or make any suggestions alluding to deadly drugs
to any parties (Pappas, 2012).
Modern discussions on the issue of euthanasia in the United
States date as far back as the 1800s. In the year 1828 the very
first anti-euthanasia law was conceived and passed in the state
of New York (Pappas, 2012). In the year 1938 the United States
saw the establishment of a euthanasia society to lobby for the

9. topic of assisted suicide. There are other countries which have
gone as far as legalizing the entire concept of euthanasia.
However, this legalization is based on certain conditions that
have to be met. An example of this is Switzerland which
legalized the practice back in 1937 basing the legality of the
practice on the doctor having nothing to gain from the death of
the patient (Pappas, 2012).
In the 1960s the argument about euthanasia took an entirely
different paradigm. The approach taken was in line with the
right of the patient to die. In the year 1977 the concept of a
living willing was legalized in California with the other states
following suit. The concept behind a living will is that an
individual is allowed to express their wishes when it comes to
medical care in the event that they are rendered unable to make
active decisions. In the year 1994 the Death with Dignity Act
was passed in the state of Oregon and allowed physicians to
assist in the deaths of terminal patients whose survival window
was projected to be less than six months (Pappas, 2012).
The arguments pros and cons
The argument about euthanasia has pros as well as cons. First of
all the very discussion is a healthy one and points to a society
that is willing to discuss integral elements of everyday
existence and death. A pro of the argument is that it takes into
account the experience of the patient. In fact, the experience of
the patient makes up the bulk of the argument when it comes to
euthanasia. This is a very good thing since it is the patients who
have their lives on the line (Jussim, 2012). They should not be
sidelined by any other emerging element of discussion on the
subject matter.
A con of the argument is that it is multi-faceted meaning that
making an outright decision on the subject matter is quite
difficult. This is especially so when one considers the factors
that can be considered as being constituent of suffering in
patients. There is no universal threshold of suffering for
patients beyond which the request of assisted suicide can be
deemed as being appropriate. People also have a different

10. tolerance for suffering (Keown, 2002). This means that an
individual might suffer an illness to a given degree and consider
the idea of euthanasia. However, another individual might
suffer to the same degree and still not consider the idea. The
implication here is that suffering and the quality of life are
relative terms. This makes it a lot harder for either side of the
argument to conclusively make a claim of having the higher
moral ground.
There are also instances where there are conflicts in the
arguments presented by either side of the discussion. Among the
main arguments for the idea of euthanasia is freedom of choice.
Modern day society is founded on the idea that people have the
option of choosing all elements of their life. In this event an
argument has been made that the element of freedom of choice
should be extended to patients and cover whether or not they
actually want to continue living. Another argument is the
subject of quality of life. The argument here is that the patients
in question have a true picture of how they really feel. The
emotional and physical pain associated with illness takes a toll
on their quality of life as a whole. This argument is directly in
conflict with that of the competence of the patients presented by
the opposing side. The argument is that the patients should have
a lucid understanding of all the options that are available to
them and they should have a standard degree of mental
competence. However, the criteria for determining the level of
competence of a patient are not necessarily straight forward.
Proponents of the idea of euthanasia have argued that it gives
people an element of dignity when it comes to death (Jussim,
2012). This element also has to do with ideas of the human
nature of the practice. The humane argument notes that it is a
humane practice to allow people with intractable suffering to
choose if they want to end that suffering. However, forcing
them to continue to suffer is an inhumane act that fails to take
into account the suffering that they are going through and their
threshold to withstand this level of suffering. This argument is
countered by that of a possible recovery from the opposing side.

11. It is not an entirely strange occurrence for patients to recover
against all odds. This means that the idea of euthanasia is a
premature one since there is still a possibility, however slim,
that the patient will ultimately recover (Keown, 2002).
Another argument for euthanasia has to do with the loved ones
of the patient. The argument here is that the illness of the
patient takes a toll on the lives of the loved ones as well. They
suffer a lot of emotional and psychological anguish as they
watch their loved one deal with the illness. However, euthanasia
helps to shorten the suffering period for the loved ones. This is
especially so if the loved ones are relatively young and are
likely to be very emotionally invested in the patient.
The argument for the suffering of the loved ones as well as the
patient is countered by that of palliative care. Good palliative
care has been known to provide a sense of relief for patients
who were suffering. It also serves to place the minds of their
loved ones at a greater realm of ease. To this effect it has been
presented numerously as an alternative to euthanasia (Keown,
2002).
Personal view
In my opinion the concept of euthanasia should be legalized.
People who are terminally ill should be allowed to make a
decision on whether or not to have their lives ended by medical
practitioners. If the condition that the patient has is incurable
then they should be allowed to, at the very least, choose the
terms under which they die. They should also be given an
opportunity to die with dignity as opposed to being forced to
live a life that is full of physical, emotional and mental
suffering.
Reasons
The idea of euthanasia is already present especially in the
western society. This is a society where people love their pets a
lot. However, when the pet has an illness that is termed as being
incurable then the owners of the pet consider it an act of mercy
to put the pet down. They do this for ill pets as well as aging
pets. The practice is meant to save the pet from suffering. It is

12. also meant to save the owner of the pet from having to witness
the pet suffer and in turn suffer as well.
The fact that euthanasia is widely accepted for pets but is not
for human beings is baffling to say the least. People are willing
to acknowledge the suffering of their pets and that putting the
pets in the ground is an act of mercy. However, they are
unwilling to acknowledge the suffering of other human beings.
They are also unwilling to take note when these other human
beings note that their suffering is too much and that they would
prefer to actually die with dignity than continue to suffer.
The idea of allowing people to die with dignity, while at the
same time alleviating their level of suffering, is also a strong
argument for euthanasia. The idea of lack of a universal
threshold for suffering does not hold water. This is due to the
fact that people experience different things in different ways
including pain. To this effect individuals should be allowed to
determine what level of pain is too much for them to bear
(Dowbiggin, 2003). Society has no right to determine which
level of pain individuals can and should bear and which level is
too much.
Likely objections
The objection to the given point of view is that euthanasia is a
very slippery slope and cannot be out rightly regulated. This
means that the practice can start with people who are terminally
ill. However, as time moves on it can be extended to include
other individuals. This means that people who are not
necessarily terminally ill can seek the services of unscrupulous
medical practitioners in the field and gain access to physician
assisted suicide services at a fee (Keown, 2002).
Another argument that can be presented is that of mental illness
and how it affects the level of judgment of patients. The idea
here is that patients suffering from conditions such as
depression are likely to ask for physician assisted suicide. The
fact that they have a mental illness is likely to complicate the
entire situation. It can affect their perception on the suffering
that they are going through.

13. Response to counter arguments
It is not true that euthanasia is hard to regulate. There are
usually comprehensive records on a patient that show the exact
condition of the patient. This means that if a doctor participates
in the assisted suicide of a patient who is not terminally ill then
it can be determined from the records. There is also an element
of consent from either the patient, their family or a court of law.
This has to be backed up by the actual condition of the patient
and the projections that have been made. The idea of people
seeking physician assisted suicide services has to do with the
ethics of the physicians and not necessarily the legalization of
euthanasia. If the physicians have a low degree of ethical
conduction then the illegalization of euthanasia will not stop
them from engaging in the practice for profit. The reverse is
also true.
It is true that people with mental health conditions such as
depression are likely to ask for physician assisted suicide
services. However, these conditions do not qualify as terminal
conditions where the lifespan of the patient is limited. The fact
that a patient requests these services does not necessarily mean
that they meet the threshold for the services. The threshold
should be determined by the request of the patient backed by
analysis from the physician on the condition of the patient and
projections that have been made on their condition heading into
the future.
References
Dowbiggin, I. R. (2003). A Merciful End: The Euthanasia
Movement in Modern America. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press on Demand.
Jussim, D. (2012). Euthanasia: the "Right to die" issue.
Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow Pub.
Keown, J. (2002). Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy: An
Argument Against Legalisation. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Pappas, D. M. (2012). The Euthanasia/Assisted-Suicide Debate.

14. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.