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 moralissues in specific, concrete situations. This approach has two practical advantages. First, by seeing how a specific ethical theory can be applied toan actual issue, we will see how the theory can better help us understand what the real problems are. Ultimately, we may not solve theseproblems in a way that will satisfy everyone, but we should have a much better grasp of the problems themselves. This will help us focus ourability to think about these questions more critically and eliminate some of the detours, side issues, and irrelevant parts of the debate that mayinterfere 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 onething to understand what a basic ethical position is, but it can be very helpful to see how that ethical position works in dealing with difficultethical 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'srights may infringe upon another person's rights. As examples, we will look specifically at school prayer and pornography. We will also look at ahistorical debate over a woman's right to vote. This historical discussion should help us realize that some ethical questions can be resolved, andthat 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 publicschools, and then look at the counterargument for why it should be restricted or prohibited. After presenting the debate, we will show howthese positions relate to the ethical theories in Chapter 1—in this case, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. On other occasions, we mayapply the same theory in two different ways, to demonstrate that a specific ethical theory may give quite different results in some cases. Thiswill help remind us that although ethics provides guidance and insight into moral issues, very rarely does it offer solutions that everyone willaccept. We will then look at some of the results of the debate and the theories involved, and some of the implications that may emerge fromthose results. After each specific issue is treated in this way, we will briefly discuss a different, but related, question that will make clear some ofthe larger issues involved. 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 thebasics 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 whetherwhat one chooses .

1. Now that we have discussed the basics of ethical theory, we can
apply them to actual situations, and see what they have to say a
bout moralissues in specific, concrete situations. This approach
has two practical advantages. First, by seeing how a specific eth
ical theory can be applied toan actual issue, we will see how the
theory can better help us understand what the real problems are
. Ultimately, we may not solve theseproblems in a way that will
satisfy everyone, but we should have a much better grasp of the
problems themselves. This will help us focus ourability to think
about these questions more critically and eliminate some of the
detours, side issues, and irrelevant parts of the debate that mayi
nterfere with our understanding of the questions.
Second, by applying the various theories to actual moral proble
ms, we will also come to better understand the theories themsel
ves. It is onething to understand what a basic ethical position is,
but it can be very helpful to see how that ethical position works
in dealing with difficultethical questions.
In this chapter, we will look at questions that arise when individ
ual rights are threatened or violated, as well as instances when o
ne person'srights may infringe upon another person's rights. As
examples, we will look specifically at school prayer and pornog
raphy. We will also look at ahistorical debate over a woman's ri
ght to vote. This historical discussion should help us realize tha
t some ethical questions can be resolved, andthat talking, and ar
guing, about them may lead to significant changes in people's li
ves.
Each discussion will present a debate on a specific topic. For ex
ample, we will give an argument for why prayer should be allow
ed in publicschools, and then look at the counterargument for w
hy it should be restricted or prohibited. After presenting the deb
ate, we will show howthese positions relate to the ethical theori
es in Chapter 1—
in this case, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. On other o
ccasions, we mayapply the same theory in two different ways, to

2. demonstrate that a specific ethical theory may give quite differ
ent results in some cases. Thiswill help remind us that although
ethics provides guidance and insight into moral issues, very rare
ly does it offer solutions that everyone willaccept. We will then
look at some of the results of the debate and the theories involv
ed, and some of the implications that may emerge fromthose res
ults. After each specific issue is treated in this way, we will brie
fly discuss a different, but related, question that will make clear
some ofthe larger issues involved.
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
thebasics of the three classical ethical theories:
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism evaluates the morality of an act in terms of its co
nsequences: Act utilitarianism emphasizes the act itself, and wh
etherwhat one chooses to do will produce, given any other alter
native, the greatest good for the greatest number of those affect
ed bythat choice. Rule utilitarianism focuses on whether the cho
ice conforms to a rule that, in general, produces the greatest ben
efit forthe greatest number of those affected. Because it focuses
on the results of an act in its evaluation, utilitarianism is aconse
quentialist theory of ethics.
Deontology
Deontological theories focus on duty, and the rules one is requir
ed to follow to be moral; this can be seen in the etymology of it
sroot word deon, a Greek work meaning "necessity" or "obligati
on." Deontology does not regard the results of an act as relevant
tothe moral evaluation of that act, and is thus a nonconsequenti
alist 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 theresults of the act (as in utilitarianism) or the necessary rul
es that constitute morality (as in deontology), virtue ethics turns
itsattention to the person carrying out the act, and whether that

3. act demonstrates, adds to, or subtracts from the virtue of thatper
son.
In addition, there are other approaches to ethics that were also d
iscussed. Particularly significant for the current discussion isrel
ativism:
Relativism
Relativism argues that there are no objective moral truths, but t
hat any moral evaluation is relative to someone, whether a singl
eperson or a larger group, such as one based on language, cultur
e, gender, ethnicity, ideology, or another type of community.
2.1 Can Ethical Principles Conflict With the Law?
Remy de la Mauviniere/Associated Press
Many French Muslims saw the ban on full-
face veils as a restrictionof their religious freedom.
Laws, for a given society, are designed to guarantee those rights
recognized in asociety, as well as guarantee the security of thos
e who live in it. Debate hasraged for thousands of years about w
hat specific rights and responsibilities areinvolved here. Some a
rgue for a minimal state that does little but guaranteecontracts a
nd protect the safety of citizens by providing secure borders and
such minimal services as police and fire departments. Others ar
gue for a muchbigger role for the state, insisting that the state f
unction to provide health care,education, parks, libraries, unemp
loyment support, and many other socialservices to support a wel
l-
functioning and productive society. Of course, thereare also ma
ny positions in between these two.
Often individual or group ethical principles conflict with the la
ws that governthe state in which the person or group lives. As w
e know from history, onemight be a member of a religious mino
rity in a society where virtually all theother members of the soci
ety follow a distinct religious tradition, or even in acountry that
has an official state religion. But even in a society that is diver
seand places a high value on tolerance, this issue can arise. Whe

4. never a societyenacts laws, there is the potential that those laws
will conflict with the views of some of the individuals in that s
ociety. For instance, a statemay outlaw a drug, or ritual, that a g
roup living in that state regards as sacred and fundamental to its
religious practice. In 2011, Franceoutlawed the wearing of full-
face veils (the niqab) (Erlanger, 2011); many French Muslims (a
nd others) objected to this as a restriction ofreligious practice,
while the French government saw the law as fundamental to pre
serving traditional French culture. Numerous such examplesof t
his kind of conflict—
between a state and the values of those who live in that state—
can be found throughout the world. The issue thisraises for ethic
s 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 d
oes that mean a person must either leave the state—
if that is even possible—
oraccept laws that are fundamentally at odds with his or her mos
t profound ethical (and possibly religious) views? Traditionally,
in a democraticsociety, citizens have the right to organize, expr
ess their opinions, and use the democratic process to change, eli
minate, or enact laws. But whilethat seems to be a theory with
many attractive features, it may be a daunting thing to accompli
sh. 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? Andcan i
t give us any guidance when there is a harsh contradiction betwe
en one's moral viewpoint and the laws of one's society? These a
re difficultquestions that arise within ethics, and particularly wh
en ethics is combined with an examination of the political proce
ss. They may be difficult toanswer, but they are good questions
to keep in mind when thinking about ethics and the moral values
one's state chooses to enforce as itsrules and its laws.
2.2 The Issue: Prayer in Public Schools
Prayer is a particularly personal topic, and thus the role of pray
er for an individual has led to some of the most divisive argume

5. nts over religiouspractice, such as prayer in public schools. Her
e, will we look at this debate, and then apply the theory of utilit
arianism in two different ways toclarify the issues involved.
Let's examine some of the arguments over whether organized pr
ayer should be allowed in public schools and try to clarify the is
sues involvedby distinguishing between "allowing" prayer and "
promoting" prayer, as well as noting the difference between an i
ndividual praying privately anda group participating in an organ
ized, coordinated prayer.The Argument for Prayer in Public Sch
ools
The relationship between a person and God is the most precious
relationship of all. Society must respect that relationship, and, r
ecognizing this,the First Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States prohibits any interference with religion. Because
prayer can be considered themost sacred right a religious person
possesses, the government absolutely cannot, and should not, in
terfere with that right by preventingsomeone from praying. As t
he First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respect
ing an establishment of religion, or prohibiting thefree exercise
thereof" (U.S. Const. amend. I). To prohibit school prayer is to
prohibit the free exercise of one's religion. Thus, not only iseli
minating prayer from public schools wrong, it is also unconstitu
tional. Moral and legal reasons demonstrate that prayer in publi
c schoolshould, therefore, be allowed.
Clearly, one's right to prayer is protected by the Constitution; h
owever, there are many other benefits to allowing prayer in publ
ic schools.Religious values, such as honesty, charity, and nonvi
olent problem solving are important to a well-
functioning society. Few places are moreimportant than public s
chools to emphasize these values; indeed, public schools provid
e a tragic example of how these values have beenneglected. Tee
nage pregnancy, STDs, gang violence, and drug and alcohol abu
se are common in many public schools. Reminding students that
these are wrong and that there are ways of avoiding them are va
luable moral lessons students need now more than ever.

6. Fuse/Thinkstock
Some would argue that since fewer people have objected to thec
ustom of saying the Pledge of Allegiance in schools, history and
practice support allowing prayer in school.
This is not an argument for a specific religion's view to be impo
sed on publicschool students; that would, indeed, violate the lan
guage of the FirstAmendment and what is known as the Establis
hment Clause. Rather, theargument here is for voluntary prayer
for students who wish to participate. Thisallows these students t
o exercise their religious rights and to promote importantmoral
values. Furthermore, most religions promote the same kinds of
moralvalues. The Golden Rule, for instance, can be found in ma
ny different religionsand in many different cultures. To remind
students to treat others as they wouldwant to be treated establis
hes no specific religion and reinforces a valuefundamental to a
well-ordered and moral society.
History and current practice also support allowing prayer in sch
ool. From thefounding of the United States, and for almost 200
years, public schools allowedvoluntary prayer. Thomas Jefferso
n refers to the unalienable rights of Americancitizens as having
been granted by their "Creator" in the Declaration ofIndependen
ce. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives maintain a
chaplain, who begins each legislative session with a prayer; leg
al 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 bothpolitical parties frequently end spe
eches by saying "God bless America." Few people have seen the
se practices as violations of the FirstAmendment.
To prevent students from the exercise of their religion is to requ
ire students to obey the dictates of a nonreligious minority. A sh
ort prayer at acommencement exercise, at a football game, or at
a school assembly not only reminds students of the importance o
f religious and moral valuesbut is generally regarded to reflect t
he wishes of a large part of the student body in most public scho
ols. Thus, to prevent it violates theConstitution and distorts the
wishes of the students themselves, as well as their parents. To d

7. eny one the right to have prayer in public schools,therefore, is i
mmoral and unconstitutional, prevents important moral lessons f
rom being made and reinforced for a large group of students wh
omay need those lessons, neglects the history of the United Stat
es, and conflicts with the desires of the majority of students and
their parents.Therefore, prayer should be allowed in public sch
ools.The Argument Against Prayer in Public Schools
The United States is a remarkably diverse country, particularly i
n terms of its citizens' religious affiliations. In addition to the n
umerous Christiandenominations, there are Jews, Muslims, Hind
us, Buddhists, Taoists, Zoroastrians, Wiccans, Sikhs, and Native
Americans with their variedspiritual practices. There are also m
any who do not identify with any religious affiliation, including
agnostics and atheists. All Americans have theright to religious
expression, or no expression, and to impose state-
sanctioned prayer on them is to violate their constitutional right
s. Parentshave 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 ofa school prayer may not only be offend
ed, but that student's constitutional rights are also being violate
d.
Mike Brinson/The Image Bank/Getty Images
Opponents of prayer in school argue that prayer at school events
could be seen as involuntary.
A prayer at a school assembly or football game may seem innoc
ent enough, butif one's religious views are fundamental to that p
erson, then a prayer thatspecifies a particular conception of God
, or a particular relationship between aperson and God, may wel
l make that student feel singled out. On the otherhand, if the pra
yer is so vague and general that it really offers very little specif
iccontent, it is not clear what purpose it serves; in addition, it w
ill still impose areligious viewpoint on those students who do n
ot share that viewpoint. Astudent can be required to attend certa
in school functions; if a prayer is part ofthat function, the stude
nt is not participating in that prayer voluntarily. Inaddition to h

8. aving his or her views possibly contradicted, the role of peerpre
ssure and embarrassment should not be underestimated. Many st
udentsmay prefer to stay in a setting where a prayer is being off
ered instead of leavingand thus identifying themselves even furt
her as, somehow, not "belonging."Combining a school-
sanctioned prayer with such peer pressure makes clear thatsuch
an activity is not in any genuine sense voluntary.
Furthermore, it is not the role of public schools to impose specif
ic religiousvalues on their students. Schools are quite free to tea
ch about religion, itshistory, and its role in society; schools are
not permitted to do anything thatcould be interpreted as endorsi
ng a particular religious viewpoint. Schools haveimportant oblig
ations to see that their students receive a quality education insu
ch subjects as English, mathematics, natural sciences, history, a
nd foreign languages. Given the relatively low achievements in
these areas,relative to other countries in the developed world, p
ublic 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 pa
rt of the mission of public schools,nor is it an efficient use of ti
me. Moreover, many parents prefer that specific religious and m
oral teachings not be part of the school curriculum.
For this last reason, even many religious parents demand that re
ligious material be excluded from school curricula. These parent
s argue thatreligious values are, indeed, extremely important. Fo
r 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: precisely those places where it is appropri
ate to focus on religious teachings.
The Constitution does not allow public schools to promote any s
pecific religion or religious viewpoint. Any school-
sanctioned prayer wouldeither violate this constitutional require
ment or be so vague as to be meaningless. Given a diverse stude
nt body, no prayer can respect all thereligious views of those st
udents, particularly if one considers that some of those students
may have no religious values or even reject religionentirely. Pu

9. blic schools have more important things to devote their time to
as part of their legitimate mission. Many parents do not want th
evalues they teach their children contradicted in the public scho
ols and prefer that the religious and moral teachings be provide
d by parents, notschools. School-
sanctioned prayer, due to its setting and to peer pressure, cannot
be regarded as voluntary. Therefore, due to bothconstitutional i
ssues and other compelling moral and social challenges, prayer i
n public schools should be prohibited.Morality and Civil Law
As we will see throughout this and later chapters, in a communit
y of any size, conflicts will arise between the laws that commun
ity adopts andthe personal morality of the individuals in that co
mmunity. Familiar controversies such as abortion, euthanasia, a
nd many others will display thisconflict. If one lives in a comm
unity that insists on a law that violates one's own moral principl
es, there are few options available: working tochange the law in
question, ignoring it, changing one's behavior, or leaving the c
ommunity. Each of these, of course, has its problems: to leaveo
ne's community is costly, and many wouldn't want to do so unle
ss 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 suffering the penalties involved (fines or e
ven prison);changing one's behavior may require a person to do
something that violates an important, even sacred, principle.
The tension between civil law and morality is clearly expressed
in the question of school prayer in public schools. An individual
has the right topray, but it has also been found by the courts th
at official school prayer violates the Establishment Clause of th
e First Amendment. In this case,a compromise has been sought,
allowing individuals to pray, and allowing groups to gather to p
ray voluntarily—before school, during lunch, orafter school—
on their own. This allows these individuals to express their own
religious views, and the school avoids seeming to endorse aspe
cific denomination, practice, or prayer by having prayers at offi
cial school functions. Many involved in this dispute are unhapp

10. y with thiscompromise: Some regard prohibiting prayers at asse
mblies and graduation ceremonies as an infringement upon their
rights, while others seepublic schools as religious-
free zones, and urge banning songs and holiday references that i
nclude specific religious terms.
In a society as large and as diverse as the United States, with m
embers of many different religions, ethnicities, races, languages
, and culturaltraditions, such compromises may be necessary. O
n the one hand, it may be argued that the laws of a country shou
ld reflect the values of themajority. On the other hand, if certain
freedoms are actually rights, presumably those rights should no
t be subject to the endorsement or vetoof the majority.Be the Et
hicist
Moral Decisions, Legal Responsibilities
Some scenarios may help bring out the tension between the law
and morality. After responding to the following from your ownp
ersonal perspective, consider how you might approach the issue
from the perspective of someone who has a different view thany
ou have. How are the responses different? How might you go ab
out helping developing laws that would both respect individualf
reedoms but also provide for a stable community that respects e
veryone's individual rights?
·
Your new neighbor appears to be living with several women; wh
en you meet him, he introduces himself and his wives. Afterseve
ral months, you have spent a good bit of time with the neighbor
and his wives, and get to know them well; you are all goodfrien
ds, and while you don't really approve of polygamy, they seem t
o be very happy with the arrangement. Another neighbor,howev
er, objects strongly, and tells you she is planning to call the poli
ce or other authorities to report them. What do you tellher?
·
You have known your best friend's daughter since she was an in
fant; 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 yo
u that only her parents and very best friends know. She comesto

11. your house one evening and asks to speak to you in private. Sh
e tells you that she was raped by her uncle, and is pregnant.She
needs $500 dollars to have an abortion. She cannot tell her pare
nts, and you are the only one who knows about hersituation. Wh
at do you tell her?
·
You have worked at the same company for 20 years, and one oth
er person has worked with you the entire time. She has had arou
gh go of it, with an abusive husband, problems with alcohol and
drugs, and a son in jail. She has divorced her husband, quitdrin
king, and entered a drug rehab program. She is a candidate for a
significant promotion at work, which will give her asubstantiall
y higher salary. You know that in the past couple of years she h
as occasionally smoked marijuana at home, on theweekends; it h
as not affected her work. The manager comes to ask you if you t
hink she should receive the promotion, making itclear that she
will not get it if she is still using drugs of any kind. What do yo
u tell the manager?Applying the Theories
One of the difficulties in studying ethics is determining the appr
opriate way to apply a given theory. The basic utilitarian princi
ple dictates to dothat which will produce the greatest good for t
he greatest number. But one of the difficulties with applying uti
litarianism is identifying the groupin question: in other words, "
the greatest number of whom?" We will demonstrate this proble
m by examining the arguments for and againstschool prayer fro
m the perspective of utilitarianism. As we will see, different co
nclusions follow from how we describe and apply our use of the
utilitarian principle. This doesn't mean the principle is wrong, h
owever. 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 wil
l be prayer in school." The idea here, of course, is that individu
al studentscannot be prevented from engaging in prayer on their
own, as individuals. Such prayer is voluntary and engaged in o
nly by the individual.Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled
that students are allowed to organize, voluntarily, religious club

12. s—which can include prayer and Biblestudy—
at public schools, just as they might any other kind of club.
As we noted earlier, it is important to differentiate between allo
wing prayer and promoting it. The legal challenges that have be
en brought haveoften objected to a school officially endorsing a
prayer at recognized school-
wide events. On some views, this moves from permitting individ
ualsto 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 di
strict, or community, the majority (and even a vast majority) of
its membersbelongs to a specific faith tradition. The greatest go
od for the greatest number, in this case, would seem to allow th
at majority to pray andparticipate in religious activities in the w
ay they desire. This might include prayers at football games, sc
hool assemblies, and graduationceremonies. To prevent the maj
ority from expressing its religious views this way is to bend to t
he dictates of a minority. But even if it could beshown that the
minority may maximize its utility by eliminating such prayers, i
t is clear that allowing those prayers produces the greatest good.
Some might regard this as an application, specifically, of act uti
litarianism: The act of allowing prayers for the majority of a giv
en communitycreates the greatest good for the greatest number;
therefore, prayer should be allowed.
Rule Utilitarianism
A contrasting approach to utilitarianism, which might be regard
ed as rule utilitarianism, argues otherwise. Again applying the p
rinciple of the"greatest good for the greatest number," the rule u
tilitarian will argue that allowing the majority's religious views
to be imposed on a minoritydoes not create the greatest good for
the greatest number. In addition to the minority's rights being i
gnored (which decreases the happiness ofthose in the minority),

13. many in the majority may also recognize that ignoring legitimat
e rights of a minority is harmful, both to those sufferingthe har
m and to those doing the harm. Participating in something that c
auses harm (harm, here, to the rights of the minority) decreases
thehappiness of those who participate, even passively, in that ha
rm. Therefore, in general, the rule utilitarian will see simply ap
plying the "greatestgood greatest number" principle in a situatio
n that ignores or violates the legitimate rights of members of th
e community does not lead toallowing prayer in school in gener
al. Rather, it leads to preventing school prayer in situations, suc
h as school assemblies and graduationceremonies, that cannot b
e regarded as voluntary in any genuine sense.
Here, then, we see two distinct applications of the utilitarian pri
nciple: one leading to the result that school prayer, in a very ge
neral 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 tellus is that the rights of the individuals in
volved must be looked at very carefully, to determine where one
person's rights begin to conflict withanother person's. It also se
ems to indicate that when we look at the happiness, or utility, of
a given group, we need to be aware that how wespecify the com
munity makes a difference. Within a public school, is the comm
unity we are concerned with everyone who attends the school?T
hose who are religious who attend the school? Those members o
f the dominant religious tradition, if any, of those who attend th
e school? Dowe include, for that matter, those who might end u
p attending this school, or who graduated from this school, and t
hus are part of its extendedcommunity? These questions aren't a
lways easy to answer, but the issues they raise need to be factor
ed in when evaluating the overall set ofquestions involved.Case
Study
Prayer in Schools
It can be difficult, in a religiously diverse society, to make acco
mmodations for everyone. In Ottawa, Canada, there has been are
quest for permanent prayer rooms to be set aside for Muslim stu
dents in the public schools.

14. You can see a video about the case here: http://bcove.me/y7obfd
ow
You can see the whole story (and the video) here: http://www.su
nnewsnetwork.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 religious tolerance, and not unfair
lyimpose religious values on others.
·
How would you resolve the issue confronting the Ottawa school
s?
·
Would you say your resolution appeals to a specific ethical theo
ry?
·
If so, which ethical theory do you think offers a good solution f
or this issue?
·
How might a different ethical theory approach this question? W
ould it come to a different resolution than yours, or the sameone
?
Source: Used by permission of Canadian Sun News. (c)QMI Ag
ency, Sun Media CorporationSome Conclusions
Religion is an extraordinarily personal experience for many peo
ple and is often fundamental to a person's understanding of who
he or she is.Because religion is such a basic part of a person's se
lf-
conception, someone may feel his or her right to the free expres
sion of religious beliefs isrestricted by not being allowed to stat
e them when and where he or she wishes. At the same time, two
people's religious views may conflict,whether they are of distin
ct religious traditions or one is religious and the other is not. It
is unlikely that any ethical result will satisfy everyoneand that t
hese conflicts will be resolved in a way that makes everyone ha
ppy. But ethics can provide valuable insight into clarifying thes
e issuesand offer very helpful ways of thinking about such confl

15. icts in a way that can address them.
Monkey Business/Thinkstock
Religion can be an important part of a person's identity.
With respect to both the legal results and a more general way of
regardingreligion, increasing attention has been paid to the idea
of prayer in publicschools being voluntary. An individual cann
ot be prevented from praying inpublic school; religious student
organizations are permitted the sameopportunities as other stude
nt organizations. These activities are regarded asvoluntary. In c
ontrast, school-
sanctioned events, whether football games orgraduation exercise
s, tend to be recognized by the courts as the kinds of eventswher
e it is inappropriate to have prayer, in that a prayer at such an e
ventautomatically brings with it an official or unofficial school
endorsement. Ofcourse, attendance at a high school football ga
me isn't something we regard asmandatory, but, as the courts re
cognized, such a game is an official schoolfunction and also ma
y involve an element of peer pressure. Fundamentally, theargum
ent is that one should be able to attend the football games of on
e'spublic school without having to participate in a prayer that co
ntradicts one'sbeliefs, whether one follows a different religious
faith or is not religious at all.And, as many religious people hav
e argued, to insist on a prayer that is so general that it doesn't c
onflict with another's beliefs (religious orotherwise) seems to m
ake pointless the very notion of "prayer."
Of course, exceptions to what an ethicist might argue, or what t
he courts have ruled, can be found; often these cases receive a g
reat deal ofpublicity and seem to indicate either that a "war on r
eligion" is being waged by public schools, or that minorities are
having their own religiousrights "violated and trampled." It ma
y be the case that the publicity these instances receive implies t
hat these issues arise more frequently thanthey actually do. To b
e sure, a teacher who prevents a Christian student from carrying
the Bible violates that student's rights, just as a teacherviolates
the rights of a Jewish student by insisting that he write an essay

16. on the topic "Why Jesus loves me." (These are both actual case
s.) Thegoal 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 whythey violate them.What Role Does Consci
ence Play?
People identify themselves in many different ways: through thei
r ethnicity, race, country of origin, class, gender, sexual orientat
ion, and religion,among many others. Often people regard thems
elves as members of a relatively cohesive group because of one
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-
speakingProtestant 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 spec
ific and different ways, in termsof dress, occupation, worship, a
nd so on. Clearly enough, the values of these communities may
differ, and even sharply conflict. If the values ofyour culture or
community conflict too much with that of the surrounding com
munity, you are confronted with a difficult problem. As a simpl
eexample, if one's community accepts polygyny (a husband havi
ng more than one wife), while the larger community rejects it, h
ow does oneresolve this conflict?
These kinds of conflicts occur with some frequency, of course,
but most people learn to adjust: Perhaps they aren't entirely sati
sfied with thevalues of the larger community, but the advantage
s of participating in that community make it more practical to to
lerate that dissatisfaction. Forinstance, a parent may be suspicio
us about the science behind climate change but otherwise be qui
te pleased with the education offered by theschool; the parent ac
cepts it, and perhaps offers an alternative view to that presented
in the school. In the case of religion in public school,some pare
nts find it a better solution to send their children to private, par
ochial, or religious schools, or to home school their children. T
heseparents, of course, don't withdraw from the community enti

17. rely; they simply leave part of it.
When more serious conflicts do arise, some find it impossible to
remain within the community. Although these cases are relative
ly rare, theyprovide a way of examining the role an individual's
conscience plays when evaluating one's membership in a larger
community. If one's valuescompel one to reject the values of tha
t larger community, one has to confront the choice between som
ehow tolerating something consistentlyoffensive, or withdrawin
g entirely from that community in order to live, in a different w
ay, with people who share those values. There may alsobe serio
us ethical concerns relative to those shared values that conflict
with those of the larger community. Some have chosen to form s
eparatecommunities, in part, to avoid living among African Ame
ricans, or Roman Catholics, or Jews, or members of other group
s defined as not sharingthe values of that community. Other sep
arate communities have been formed on the basis of economic c
omplaints— specifically, tax laws—
andon the basis of specific religious values. An ethical investiga
tion here might ask whether the dictates of conscience, in this c
ase, should berespected, or critically scrutinized.
Most of us live between the two extremes of our values never be
ing challenged by something in society and our values being so
consistentlyviolated that we decide to leave the community entir
ely. But this raises a number of important ethical questions abou
t living in a communitywith others who may not share one's val
ues. At what point should we object, when we find our values be
ing violated? How can we make sureour rights are respected? Ca
n our values be preserved without infringing on the rights of oth
ers? In our desire to protect our own moral values,do we forget t
o consider the moral values of others? Ethics offers some insigh
t into these questions, although, again, without offering a soluti
onthat will be satisfactory to everyone. In a society that is incre
asingly pluralistic and diverse, it is very likely that conflicts am
ong the values of themembers of a society will persist (if not in
crease), and we will continue to need to address these questions.
Where Do We Go From Here?

18. As noted earlier, the United States is a diverse society and is pa
rticularly diverse in terms of both the faith traditions followed b
y Americans aswell 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 t
o be the dominant faith tradition in the United States.
Defining Ethics
A sociologist considers whether ideology gets in theway of a pr
oductive ethical conversation.
The implication of these characteristics seems to indicate that w
e recognize howimportant religious values are to many people.
But that importance also makes itcompelling to recognize others
' religious beliefs, as well as the beliefs of those whohave no rel
igion. It seems likely that one result is that there will continue t
o be agood bit of give and take over this issue, with some substa
ntial conflicts arisingbetween those who don't think religion in
public schools is given sufficientrecognition and those who thin
k otherwise. Some will think a certain religioustradition is too s
pecifically identified, which may be unconstitutional; others ma
ythink any mention of religion should be omitted entirely from t
he public schools; stillothers may think that religion is too impo
rtant to allow the public schools tointerfere with it at all.
So perhaps the implications of this debate are to recognize that
diversity can lead tosuch conflicts, and that those in the majorit
y may need to be particularly sensitive tothe beliefs of others, r
eligious or otherwise. Such sensitivity is, of course, a two-
waystreet, and so this sensitivity may also increase the need for
tolerance. No solutionwill satisfy everyone, but insisting that pr
ayer in public school always be voluntary,and that religion be tr
eated in public schools in a way that recognizes a diversity ofbe
liefs and tolerance for those beliefs, may go a long way toward
minimizing these conflicts, although it may be too much to ask f
or theseconflicts 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 arguments are abstract discussions of hypothetic

19. al cases, butwe can see that they have brought about significant
change. In this case, we will look at the arguments over giving
women the right to vote inthe United States, known as the quest
ion of "women's suffrage." As we will see, something we may n
ow 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 notingthat som
e 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 et
hics and from the perspective of deontology, as they might have
been presentedwhen this issue was still a volatile topic of discu
ssion.
This issue of women's voting rights is a good example of how m
oral and ethical arguments can both provide clarity to our under
standing of theissues and produce a genuine difference.The Arg
ument Against Women's Suffrage
It is unquestionable that men and women are fundamentally dist
inct. This is obviously the case in terms of biology; the very dif
ferences can beimmediately observed, and they are even more o
bvious in reproduction, where men and women play radically di
stinct roles. Because of the rolewomen play in carrying, deliveri
ng, and raising children, they have a specific approach to things
, in terms of their compassion, their abilities tonurture, and thei
r willingness to compromise and avoid conflict. These differenc
es, both physiological 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 mischi
evous, less simple, more impulsive, and more attentive to thenur
ture of the young; the male, on the other hand, is more spirited t
han the female, more savage, more simple and less cunning.The
traces of these differentiated characteristics are more or less vis
ible everywhere, but they are especially visible wherecharacter i
s the more developed, and most of all in man. (Aristotle, 2005)
Courtesy Everett Collection

20. Opponents of women's suffrage believed that awoman's place w
as in the home.
This is also reflected in our very language: The word "hysterical
" comes from the Latin termreferring to the womb, and gives us
the English word "uterus." Perhaps less well known is thatthe te
rm "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. Termsassociated with
women have, in English and in other languages, always emphasi
zed softnessand delicacy, and their importance as wives and mot
hers—
the Bible reinforces this; Delilah,Jezebel, and Salome represent
women who behave immorally (that is, in a treacherous oradulte
rous manner), whereas Mary, whose humility and maternal aspe
cts are emphasized,represents the virtuous woman.
It is clear from the way the term "woman" developed in English
that the virtues of a womanare to be praised; for a well-
functioning society, women are indispensable to keep the homer
unning well, to ensure that children are raised appropriately, an
d to take care of, efficiently andeffectively, all those things that
fall within a woman's many areas of expertise. But politics is a
nentirely distinct realm, where women lack the temperament, th
e attitude, the understanding,and the experience to function effe
ctively. Thus, women are not suited to participate in politics,eit
her as elected officials or as voters.
In addition to these somewhat abstract and philosophical reason
s, we can add a few specificpoints and summarize the position a
s follows. Women have a crucial role in society—
to takecare of the home; politics is a separate sphere and is reall
y only suitable for men. Only bykeeping these spheres separate
can women play their important role in maintaining the valuesan
d civility of society. The need for this separation is clearly seen
in the distinct physiological and psychological makeup of wom
en, as opposedto men. Women, by their very temperament, are n
ot suited to the unpleasant and sometimes violent confrontations
required by politics. In anycase, many women do not want the v

21. ote, believing it will dilute the very real power they in fact have
over their husbands already. Furthermore,it will give the vote t
o an enormous number of people who have neither the backgrou
nd nor the understanding to make good politicaldecisions. For al
l of these reasons, women neither need, nor should they be give
n, the right to vote.
Mary Evans Picture Library/The Womens Library/Everett Colle
ction
Supporters of women's suffrage argued that ascontributing mem
bers of society, women wereentitled to vote.The Argument for
Women's Suffrage
Women are human beings. They are expected to care for themsel
ves, their families, theirhusbands, their children, and their home
s. As such, they have some of the most significantresponsibilitie
s that can be entrusted to anyone. Yet, while shouldering these r
esponsibilitiesand others, a woman is deprived of the fundament
al right of political representation. She workshard, often for no
salary, and often harder than any man, and helps make the socie
ty in whichshe lives function; indeed, women make that society
possible. Yet that same society preventsher from the right any m
an has, simply by accident of his being born a man: the right to
vote. Awoman's contributions to society are absolutely indispen
sable. In addition to being a humanbeing, with certain rights tha
t cannot morally be violated—such as the right to vote—
womendeserve to have an equal say in how that society is organ
ized and how its politics should bestructured. As Susan B. Anth
ony stated, "There never will be complete equality until woment
hemselves help to make laws and elect lawmakers."(Anthony, 1
987, p. 901–908)
If the Declaration of Independence indicates that all people are
created equal, this has clearlynot been the case for women. The
y are expected to fulfill all their responsibilities while beingden
ied one of their fundamental rights. If "no taxation without repr
esentation" was justificationfor the American Revolution, what
does that tell women, who toil as hard as men, haveresponsibilit

22. ies equal or greater than those of men, live with men under the s
ame rules andlaws of society, yet have no representation? Depri
ving women of the right to vote is bothimmoral, in that it denies
women a fundamental right, and unjust, by not allowing them w
hat isdue them: the rights that coexist with responsibilities. If a
woman is expected to take on thoseresponsibilities, then she mu
st be accorded the rights due her, and one of those rights is theri
ght to vote.
Perhaps someone will suggest that husbands or fathers represent
women. Would any man be willing to switch positions in this a
nd regard it asfair were wives and daughters taken to represent t
heir views accruately? Is it sensible, or fair, for half the populat
ion to hope that their viewsare represented by the other half? Mi
ght there not be a perspective on important political issues that
women bring into consideration thatwould be otherwise ignored
? Wouldn't political decisions be better informed, and thus be b
etter decisions, if such an important perspectivewere taken into
account? And who better to present the political perspectives w
omen have than women?
The argument, then, is simple. Women are human beings, with r
ights and responsibilities. One of those rights, perhaps as funda
mental as any, isthe right to vote. Having deprived women of thi
s right for so long doesn't mean it is fair, or just; it means that s
omething unfair and unjust hasgone on for far too long. One of t
he fundamental principles of a free and fair society is that its m
embers deserve representation, and deserveto represent themsel
ves. The only correct result, therefore, as a matter of the moral l
aw and as a matter of justice, is to provide women withwhat the
y 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 ho
w social questionsare deliberated and finally established in law.
Now that we have considered two sides of the issue, we will dis
cuss the ways a virtue ethicist anda deontologist might approach
this debate.

23. Virtue Ethics
The extraordinary thing about women is their virtue: their remar
kable abilities to handle so many different things and to handle
them well. Theyare caring, generous, nurturing, and practical; t
hey are good friends, and, when their virtues are present in the a
ppropriate way, they makegood sisters, daughters, wives, and m
others.
Virtue ethics sees these virtues as precisely the things to empha
size for a virtuous woman: never in their extremes, but always a
iming at anappropriate and moderate degree, a Golden Mean. Th
e virtue ethicist might then argue as follows: The virtues of a w
oman are best seen whendisplayed 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 e
xcelled in for centuries, and society functions most efficiently a
nd most productivelywhen they continue to do so.
On this same view, politics can often be contentious, ugly, confr
ontational, and even violent. Women do not do well in this kind
of environment,and the virtues that women possess cannot be de
veloped and improved, therefore, by engaging in politics. Wome
n also lack the educationalbackground and the general temperam
ent for participating in politics. Giving women the vote will for
ce them into an arena where their skillsare inadequate, and will
simultaneously prevent them from spending their time where the
y should be, and where their virtues are mostevident. Any decisi
on that has such disastrous moral results cannot be a good one,
and thus the virtue ethicist would have to conclude thatgiving a
woman the right to vote would be wrong, both for her and for he
r society.
Deontology
The deontologist, of course, disputes much of this characterizati
on of women, and may well reject the idea that women have som
e set of"virtues" that are fundamentally distinct from those of m
en. Men aren't defined in terms of being a husband, a brother, a

24. father. Why arewomen characterized solely in terms of their rol
es, rather than as free, independent, and creative human beings?
Women may well be goodwives and mothers, but that doesn't m
ean they can't be more than (or something other than) wives and
mothers. Women may well be goodteachers, but can't they also
be good college professors? Women may well be good nurses, b
ut can't they also be good doctors? Restricting awoman's educati
onal opportunities, then criticizing her for a lack of education, i
s about as fair as putting a person in prison and criticizing herfo
r not doing much traveling.
The deontologist also has a traditional method to identify somet
hing as fundamentally unfair. If Bob is doing something unfair t
o Carolyn,Carolyn can simply ask Bob if he would be happy if t
hat same unfair thing were done to him. Thus, more generally,
women can ask men thesame thing: If men had the responsibiliti
es that women do, would they object if they didn't possess the ri
ght to vote? The Golden Rule seemsto 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 p
ossess. Assuch, any woman who qualifies as a human being sho
uld possess the right to vote. To deny her that right is to treat he
r as less than a humanbeing, to treat her as a means to an end, a
nd thus to act unethically.Some Conclusions
iStockphoto/Thinkstock
Today, the right of women to vote requires little to no justificati
on.
It is rather hard to imagine a politician today proposing that wo
men not beallowed to vote: Such a suggestion would be generall
y regarded as ridiculous.But it was a long, hard struggle; the 19t
h Amendment was passed 144 yearsafter the Declaration of Inde
pendence, finally giving women a right we now takeas one that r
equires little or no justification.
With the benefit of hindsight, we see that many of the argument
s proposedwere based on a conception of women (and men) that

25. had a very long history,a conception that restricted women to sp
ecific roles in society. Critical scrutinyof this conception led to
the realization that it functioned to prevent womenfrom being fu
ll participants in their society. Even though women were regard
edas sufficiently responsible to do many of the things society de
emed extremelyimportant, they were denied the rights that acco
mpanied those responsibilities.From many ethical perspectives,
denying women the right to vote was wrongfor two reasons. Firs
t, it denied the rights that one acquires withresponsibilities, suc
h as the case of the right to possess a firearm, which bringswith
it an unspoken responsibility to handle that firearm safely and a
ppropriately. Second, and more fundamental, denying women th
e right tovote 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 bei
ngs.
We also see from this discussion that ethical values and politica
l values can frequently be in tension with each other, as well as
how one appliesa specific theory in ethics may well determine t
he results of that application. For instance, imagine that we ado
pt a simple utilitarianperspective, and assume (safely enough) th
at allowing citizens to vote increases the happiness, or maximiz
es the utility, of those citizens. Theclear result is that the greate
st good for the greatest number is achieved by giving all eligibl
e citizens the right to vote. But who is an "eligiblecitizen"? Is it
all adults 18 and older? All adults 21 and older? Or should mor
e restrictions be placed on who is eligible to vote, as has oftenb
een done in the past? Obviously enough, some people were not a
llowed to vote on the basis of race and sex (or gender); but othe
r conditionshave been imposed, such as being able to read and w
rite, or owning property, to restrict the right to vote. Ethics prov
ides us with one way toexamine such restrictions to see if they a
re justified on the basis of good, moral reasons, or, as seems oft
en to have been the case, to allowthose already in power to main
tain their advantages. If we apply our utilitarian principle to a g

26. roup, such as males, or Whites, the greatest goodfor 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 veryba
sic utilitarian approach to a question may require us to think lon
g and hard about what we mean by "the greatest number." In oth
er words,when we consider the greatest good for the greatest nu
mber, we also have to ask: the greatest number of whom? And d
etermining whobelongs, and who doesn't belong, in the group in
question may not always be that easy.Do Ethical Principles Cha
nge Over Time?
Communities often define themselves as much by whom they ex
clude as whom they include; that is, to be a member of a commu
nity, orsociety, is often determined by establishing who does no
t belong. For centuries, the long history of racial exclusion in th
e United Statesprohibited African Americans from genuinely pa
rticipating in society, obviously enough through the institution
of slavery, but also through othermeans, such as requiring them
to use separate facilities (waiting rooms, movie theatres, bathro
oms, drinking fountains, etc.), preventing themfrom even registe
ring to vote (let alone actually voting), forcing them to attend se
gregated schools from kindergarten through universities, andma
ny other formal and informal ways of sending the message, "Yo
u don't really belong." Women were also prevented from voting,
owningproperty, and being given credit in their own names, alo
ng with other more informal ways of excluding them from societ
y. Native Americans,Jews, and others were similarly prevented f
rom being full participants within what we now regard as their o
wn society.
iStockphoto/Thinkstock
Less than 50 years ago, it was illegal in the UnitedStates for pe
ople of different races to marry.Ethicists would argue that it wa
s not moralprinciples that changed, but society. Do you agree?
What other examples can you think of in which thishas been the
case?
Does this indicate that the fundamental principles of morality ch

27. anged? If so, that would seemto show that rather than being prin
ciples, they are the kinds of things that are not eternal andperma
nent, but simply ideas that gain sufficient support to be adopted
in a given society. Manyethicists would argue, instead, that mor
al principles do not change; rather, society changes—
often by expanding—
those to whom those principles apply. Less than 50 years ago, it
was illegalin a number of places in the United States for people
of different races to marry; we generallynow regard such "misc
egenation laws" as discriminatory and ignorant. The principle of
"rights"didn't change, in this case; rather, the idea of the right t
o marry was extended to be moreinclusive. The Supreme Court,
in 1967, declared it unconstitutional to prohibit people ofdiffere
nt races to marry; since then, geneticists and other biologists ha
ve seemed to concludethat the very notion of "race" isn't a usefu
l biological term at all. Thus, both the ethicalprinciples and the
law reflected the fact that it was wrong to exclude certain group
s of peoplefrom exercising their rights, and thus the community
expanded its conception of who belongedto 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 p
revent excluding groups from voting, buying a house, ormarryin
g someone, those laws will often continue to be violated. A com
munity, that is, maysimply adopt an informal practice to prevent
someone from doing something; in spite of a lawprohibiting tha
t practice, the majority of a given community may enforce it thr
ough peerpressure and other means. As the point may be put in l
egal terms, a law that is in forcepractically is a de facto law, in
spite of it being illegal de jure, or against the official laws unde
rwhich a community lives. If someone can successfully exclude
African Americans from eating inhis restaurant, that exclusion i
s 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 howthey do change in application. In the
United States, for instance, views about extending certainrights
—to serve openly in the military, to marry—

28. to homosexuals have rapidly changed. The question here is not
whether one's rights should berespected, but who should, and w
ho should not, be included as part of the group that has such rig
hts. Again, we see that ethics doesn't resolvesuch an issue, but i
t helps clarify what is at stake in the various resolutions that ha
ve been proposed. In any diverse community, the restrictionsand
expansions of rights, and the question of what kinds of things r
eally are "rights," will continue to arise and be the source of de
bate. Itshould be clear, in any case, that ethics has a good deal t
o offer in identifying the terms of the debate, as well as determi
ning what is at stakein these arguments.Where Do We Go From
Here?
Ethics can often seem like a sterile exercise, with little relevanc
e for everyday life and the kinds of decisions we actually have t
o 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 should I dowith it? One very standard example i
n ethics asks this: If you were able to divert a train to kill one p
erson, in order that the train did not killfive people, what would
you do? It seems pretty clear that these kinds of examples are g
ood to help us see what is at stake in applying andunderstanding
ethical theory, even though we don't expect to be in the positio
ns described here. Some might suggest that ethics, andphilosoph
y in general, don't have a lot to say that is relevant. But, as we'v
e seen in the preceding historical example, ethical questions and
scrutiny of the moral values of a society can, in fact, have a sig
nificant effect in changing a society.
This is not to say that all we need to do to address an unfair or i
mmoral situation in our society is to pass out ethics textbooks a
nd convincepeople to read the relevant pages. But familiarity wi
th ethical theories, and familiarity with various ways of identify
ing things that are unfair, canat least help move the discussion a
long. Our values do not exist in some kind of vacuum, of course
; they exist in a large, complex context ofcompeting values, poli
tics, and social structures such as educational institutions and re
ligious viewpoints. Many other factors, no doubt, alsoplay a rol

29. e in understanding the ethical challenges we confront. But the m
ore familiar we are with techniques in explaining and understan
dingthose challenges, the better prepared we are to deal with the
m. This is, of course, not to guarantee that we will solve them, a
nd we almostcertainly won't solve them in a way that everyone f
inds satisfactory. But the better prepared we are to clarify the et
hical problems we do haveto deal with, the better prepared we a
re to address them and, in some cases, fix them.
Of course, fixing—or at least improving—
a specific case of injustice hardly means the matter is settled. O
ne might think that giving women theright to vote accomplished
political equality, but it was only a step in that direction. Many
other factors can still function as obstacles to thatequality. Phil
osophers might suggest that the right to vote is a necessary cond
ition for political equality, even though it is not at all a sufficie
ntcondition. In other words, without the right to vote, one canno
t hope to gain that kind of equal participation in the political str
uctures of one'ssociety, but the right to vote doesn't, by itself, e
stablish this participation. Many obstacles may still need to be o
vercome, and, presumably, thisis an ongoing competition to dete
rmine the scope and limits of one's rights. But at least we can se
e that ethics can, in fact, contributeimportant things to the debat
e 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 quest
ion, let's return to one of contemporary relevance: the charged i
ssue ofpornography and whether it should or should not be regul
ated.
2.4 The Issue: Pornography—To Regulate or Not?
Arguments over pornography raise a number of ethical issues. P
ornography 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 con
trast, regard theconsumption of pornography as a "victimless cri
me," and believe that, because it does not harm others, it should
not be restricted extensively.

30. Here we will examine the two sides of the debate, looking at bot
h the consumption and the production of pornography. We will
utilizeutilitarianism and emotivism to provide some theoretical
analysis of the issue.The Argument Against Extensive Regulatio
n
Neil Setchfield/Lonely Planet Images/Getty Images
Those who oppose extensive regulation of pornography note tha
tadults in the United States are allowed to engage in many activi
tiesthat some may not approve of, so long as those activities do
notharm others.
Adults in the United States are allowed to do many things that o
thers maycondemn. They may smoke, drink to excess, fail to ex
ercise, watch too muchtelevision, eat too much junk food, and d
o many other things that aren't "good"for them. Yet they are fre
e to do so: As adults, they are allowed to do thosethings that the
state cannot demonstrate pose a genuine threat to others. Icann
ot change the oil in my car and legally pour the old oil down the
stormdrain: That poses a threat to the environment and can har
m others. I can,however, if I wish, have root beer, pickles, and
pizza for breakfast everymorning; it may not be a good or nutrit
ious choice, but it is a choice I am freeto make.
In the same way, adults are allowed to read and watch whatever
they choose,unless the state can show a compelling reason to pr
event them from doing so.For instance, in the United States, one
can read books about bomb making andterrorism; one can see w
ebsites where overthrowing the government isadvocated. One ca
n find material that supports various kinds of hatreds againsteth
nic and religious minorities, as well as conspiracy theories blam
ing differentgroups for a remarkably wide range of things, inclu
ding the U.S. governmentbeing responsible for the attacks on th
e World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. These materials a
re available because the First Amendmentto the Constitution ins
ists on freedom of speech; unless one can show a genuine threat
, restrictions on speech are prohibited. Even thoughmany people
find such things distasteful—and much worse—

31. the freedom to read and watch this material is guaranteed as a f
undamentalfreedom in the United States.
Pornography, which is very difficult to define, is precisely this
kind of material. Many find it extremely offensive. However, th
ey have no right todictate to those who wish to consume pornog
raphy that they cannot. Adults in the United States are free to re
ad and view pornography; theycan be prevented from doing so o
nly if the state can show a compelling reason to restrict it.
Some restrictions have been imposed; producing child pornogra
phy is illegal because it harms children. Thus, the possession of
childpornography is also illegal, in that its purchase supports a
n illegal activity. Access to pornography is limited to adults, jus
t as are various otherproducts, such as alcohol and tobacco; vari
ous other restrictions prevent those who do not wish to see it fro
m being exposed to it. Thus, certaincontrols are imposed on boo
kstores; network television does not show material that is regard
ed as too indecent by those who run it, and cabletelevision has v
arious controls in place, such as parental controls and various p
ayment 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 toconsume pornography to access it.
Some have argued that the production of pornography involves t
he exploitation and mistreatment of women; thus, consumers of
pornographysupport an industry that harms women. This may be
true, but it has little bearing on restricting the rights of adult ac
cess to pornography. Manypeople work in industries that involv
e serious threats in hazardous situations: coal miners, electricia
ns, and farmers, among others. To arguethat pornography should
be highly regulated, or censored, because some people have bee
n mistreated in its production is the same as arguingthat restaur
ants should be closed because some restaurants have had health
code violations.
Finally, if pornography is highly regulated, there is a genuine d
anger of a slippery slope appearing. Historically, some things n
ow regarded asgreat literature, and great art, were characterized

32. as pornography and banned. This isn't to say all pornography is
great art; it is to say thatwhen one group of people is allowed to
determine what other adults may read and watch, there is alway
s the risk that they will be willing toregulate or ban material tha
t should not be regulated or banned. Furthermore, how does soci
ety choose who does the regulating, and whosestandards should
be followed? For good reason, the courts have consistently deci
ded that when in doubt, free speech must be tolerated, andthat a
ny regulations on pornography must be minimal and shown to re
spond to what would otherwise be a substantial danger to the pu
blic.The Argument for Extensive Regulation
Love between two people, including its sexual expression, is on
e of the most cherished values human beings possess. Pornograp
hy damages thisvalue by dehumanizing those who appear in it a
nd reducing them to objects that become simply a means to satis
fy some other person's crudedesires. This coarsens relationships
between people and reduces the dignity each human being deser
ves. Pornography thus makes it moredifficult to treat others wit
h 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
pornography. On this argument, we can state that pornographyi
s sexually explicit material designed to generate a specific kind
of response in the viewer. It is obscene, degrades its subjects, a
nd harms thevalues of society. If most people in a society regar
d pornography as violating its standards, then the society is well
within its rights to restrict oreven ban pornography. Otherwise,
the moral standards of the society are attacked and undermined
by a minority, which has no legitimate rightto reject the moral s
tandards of the majority. Furthermore, it corrupts not just societ
y as a whole but also the individual who consumes it.Adults are
allowed to engage in some risky activities, but the state has a le
gitimate role in preventing them from harming others and harmi
ngthemselves. Even though the state may allow people to make
unhealthy choices, it strictly regulates them: Alcohol and tobacc

33. o are highlyregulated, for instance. The state can require people
to wear seat belts and motorcycle helmets. These regulations pr
event, or at least limit, thethings adults can do; because pornogr
aphy is harmful to the individual, the state has a legitimate right
to regulate it just as it does any activitythat may harm an indivi
dual, society as a whole, or—as in this case—both.
A second, more recent argument, against pornography distinguis
hes it from "erotica." Erotica is the artistic presentation of huma
n love,including its sexual expression. In contrast, pornography
involves the degradation of people, particularly women, and oft
en employs violence—including rape—
in its depiction. It may also include other acts designed to humil
iate and dehumanize women by presenting them as submissivevi
ctims who enjoy being mistreated. Adopting this conception of
pornography, it is seen as doing substantial harm: not just to the
womendepicted but also to the more general way women are re
garded in society as a whole. In this way, the dehumanizing of
women is seen to be ageneral harm to women that makes legitim
ate the state's ability to regulate, restrict, and even ban pornogra
phy. In addition, the production ofpornography also causes harm
to those women involved in that production. These women are c
oerced, threatened, humiliated, and exploited inmaking pornogr
aphy; since the industry poses a genuine harm to these women, t
he state has not just the right but the obligation to preventthat h
arm.
Pornography coarsens and degrades the moral values of a societ
y and harms the person consuming it. Pornography harms wome
n, both byexploiting them in its production and in providing a c
onsistently demeaning image of women for the consumer of por
nography that also affectsthe way women are regarded more gen
erally in society. The state has a legitimate role in preventing ha
rm from coming to its citizens, andbecause pornography harms
people in the various ways described, the state has a legitimate r
ole—in fact, an obligation—
to restrict and regulatepornography.Applying the Theories
As we can see, whether or not to regulate pornographic material

34. is a more complicated question than it might seem at first glanc
e. Ethics canhelp us to approach and analyze the challenging arg
uments on both sides.
Utilitarianism
The most prominent and influential utilitarian theorist was John
Stuart Mill. In Mill's classic text On Liberty, he puts forth what
is now known asthe "harm principle":
[T]he only purpose for which power may be rightfully exercised
over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is
toprevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or mora
l, is not sufficient warrant. (Mill, 1977/1859, Chapter 1:Introdu
ctory, para. 9)
Photos.com/Thinkstock
Utilitarian John Stuart Mill's harm principle arguesthat restricti
ons are justified only if the activityharms others.
In other words, Mill is saying that the state must not be allowed
to prevent someone fromdoing something, even if it is harmful
to that person. The only legitimate way the governmentcan step
in to prevent some activity is if it can be shown to harm others.
Among socialscientists, there are passionate debates and a great
deal of controversy over pornography. Manyhave insisted that i
ts harms are obvious; others have responded that those harms ha
ve beenexaggerated. Mill's point, however, is that even if one gr
ants that pornography harms those whoconsume it, one can only
restrict it if it can be definitively demonstrated that it also har
msothers. From the perspective argued here, that harm to others
has not been sufficientlydemonstrated.
How does Mill's harm principle relate to the traditional slogan o
f utilitarianism, that one shoulddo what produces the greatest go
od for the greatest number? The connection isn't made asexplicit
as one might like by Mill, but it seems fairly clear how it is ma
de. Society is better off ifits members are freer, and best off if t
hey have the greatest amount of freedom possible—
aslong as one person's freedom doesn't interfere with that of ano

35. ther person. Thus, whatgenerates the greatest freedom for the cit
izens of a state, or society, is the moral thing to do,which also
means that the fewer restrictions, the greater the freedom. The g
reatest good forthe greatest number is thus produced by a state
with the fewest restrictions on its citizens, astate with the greate
st amount of freedom. The greatest amount of freedom, in Mill's
view, isachieved by following the harm principle. Therefore, th
e harm principle is essential to a state that produces the greatest
good for the greatestnumber.
Clearly enough, applying the harm principle and utilitarianism s
upports the idea that restrictions and regulations of pornography
must beimposed only if they can be shown to prevent harm fro
m being done to others. The presumption, then, is that only the
kind of restrictionsmentioned earlier—
such as the prohibitions against child pornography—
are legitimate interventions by the state. One might argue that i
n agiven society, if a majority wishes to ban pornography, then t
hat would presumably produce the greatest good for the greatest
number. Thus, itwould be both moral and just to ban it. Mill mi
ght 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 genera
te the greatest good for the greatest number. Therefore, in gener
al,one should always use the greatest caution in imposing any re
strictions, even though, in some cases, this may conflict with th
e views of theoverwhelming majority of the community. In short
, using the utilitarian principle in this general way, in combinati
on with the harm principle,indicates that pornography should no
t be extensively regulated, banned, or censored.
Emotivism
Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once famously said that h
e had given up trying to define obscenity; rather, he observed, "
I know it when Isee it." This is analogous to some treatments of
obscenity—
and because it can be regarded as obscene, to some treatments o

36. f pornography—
offered by the ethical view of emotivism. We may not be able to
define "obscenity" and "pornography" to everyone's satisfactio
n, and we maynot be able to explain why it is wrong. But we are
confident in our view that it is obscene, and that it is wrong, w
hen we see it. The emotivistgives us an ethical theory supportin
g that response.
The emotivist does not try to give reasons, or facts, or evidence,
or even arguments for a given evaluation, including moral eval
uations. To saysomething is "bad" or "wrong" is really just an in
dication of one's attitude or response to it. For this reason, emot
ivism is known as a"noncognitivist" position in ethics. Noncogn
itivism denies that there are moral properties, or moral facts; in
fact, it denies that certain kinds ofclaims 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. Youexpress those att
itudes by saying and doing things that express your approval of
them. In the same way, you may not like artichokes, don't wantt
o listen to bluegrass music, and hope to avoid going shoe shoppi
ng. Here you express those attitudes by saying and doing things
that expressyour disapproval of them.
Those who object to pornography may respond in the same way,
agreeing with Potter Stewart that, insofar as it is obscene, they
know it whenthey see it. One can express this attitude—
this disapproval—
in a number of ways. Importantly, though, the various expressio
ns of this attitudein a social context can be designed to convinc
e others that it is a reasonable, and even correct, attitude, and th
at they should also express theirown disapproval. In a communit
y, if a sufficient number of people share a common emotivist re
sponse to something, that reaction can providethe basis for desi
gning policy for the community. In other words, the emotivist n
ot only may indicate his or her own attitude but is free topersua
de others to adopt that same attitude. Ultimately, then, the emot
ivist may insist that in a given community, there is sufficient di
sapprovalof pornography that the preferences of the members of

37. that community should be respected, and thus pornography sho
uld be strictly regulatedand, 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-
olddaughter Naomi and Kate's 11-year-
old daughter Amy are the best of friends. Naomi and Amy spend
a lot of time together, and onweekends frequently spend the nig
ht 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 moth
erquickly 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 outraged that her friend Kate all
owed Naomi to do so.
Alice is so angry with Kate that she realizes that she needs to co
ol off before talking to her in person, or even on the phone. So s
hedecides to write Kate an old-
fashioned letter, explaining her anger and her disappointment th
at Kate allowed her daughter (andKate's daughter, for that matte
r) to watch such a film.
If Alice is, generally, a deontologist, how might she write her le
tter to explain to Kate why what she did was unethical, or immo
ral?Identify two distinct reasons Alice might point to in order to
convince Kate that what she did was wrong.
Imagine, now, that Kate is a relativist. She decides to respond t
o Alice from that perspective. Identify two distinct things Kate
mightappeal 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 inciden
t.How might they resolve their dispute? Is it possible for a relati
vist and a deontologist to do so? If they both adopted a third eth
icaltheory, would they have a better chance of resolving this dis
pute?Some Conclusions

38. In the case of pornography, we see a sharp conflict between tho
se who argue for minimal restrictions on adults—
including restrictions on accessto pornography—
and those who argue that substantial restrictions are legitimate.
On the one hand, we see those who advocate minimalrestrictions
adopting a position that one might call libertarian: that the stat
e has no right to interfere with adult behavior that cannot be sho
wnto harm others. On the other hand, those who advocate greate
r restrictions see pornography as harming the values of society,
coarseninginterpersonal 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 anysuch harms.
Two other results can be identified as emerging from this debate
. One is a causal claim that those who consume pornography—
especiallypornography that is particularly degrading to women a
nd that includes violence—
are more likely to carry out the kinds of things they see. Astand
ard pornographic fantasy involves a woman who is forced to do
something against her will, only to see her come to enjoy it. Is i
t morelikely that one who repeatedly reads about or sees such i
mages will act on those ideas? The argument is that seeing viole
nce, for instance, in afilm will cause one to act more violently; t
hus, it is legitimate to minimize exposure to those things that wi
ll tend to cause that violence. Ifpornography contains the violen
t treatment of women and can be shown to cause actual violence
against women, doesn't the state have alegitimate right to restri
ct it? Others respond, of course, that no such causal connections
have been shown, and that, in any case, there areplenty of other
examples of violence of all kinds available to people. If such e
xposure to violence in, for instance, films is said to cause actual
violence, then wouldn't that exposure also need to be highly reg
ulated? On this view, basing an argument on an unsubstantiated
causal claimmay well lead to a slippery slope where any number
of things could be restricted, banned, or censored, limiting the l

39. egitimate rights of freespeech guaranteed by the First Amendme
nt. This response has been criticized by some who see this not a
s a restriction on speech, but onaction, in that the speech in que
stion causes real behavior that does genuine harm to others.
The second result that has emerged in recent years is the empha
sis on those who produce pornography. On this argument, porno
graphic filmsalmost invariably involve coercing, threatening, an
d exploiting women (and perhaps men) in their production. Ofte
n such women do not really"choose" to work in this industry, bu
t find themselves there due to financial need and the financial o
pportunities involved. Those who havefocused on this aspect of
pornography have argued that both physical and psychological i
ntimidation is frequently involved in the production ofpornogra
phy, and that it takes advantage of women who may be financial
ly or psychologically vulnerable; thus, it does not really involve
thekind of "free" or "autonomous" choice that should be respect
ed. Those who have put forth this perspective also insist that the
images ofwomen found in pornography continue to reinforce ve
ry negative and oppressive conceptions of women, leading to th
at conception of womenbeing pervasive in society. Given the siz
e of the pornography industry in the United States, this argumen
t insists that the kind of images ofwomen found in pornography
must have an effect on how women are perceived in other conte
xts, a result that is clearly harmful to womenand to society in ge
neral.Where Do We Go From Here?
Ryan McVay/Photodisc/Thinkstock
The debate over pornography can be broadened to include expos
ureto violence on television and other media. Should media bere
gulated more stringently, or should First Amendment rights and
Mill's harm principle take precedent?
Many important issues arise in this discussion; however, the one
that has gottena great deal of attention is the causal claim regar
ding violence in pornography.Does seeing violence committed a
gainst women cause actual violence againstwomen? More impor
tantly, does a person who sees this kind of violence, on aregular

40. basis, become more likely to commit that violence? Social scie
ntistscontinue to gather data on this issue, interpret that data, an
d debate theimplications. But this is, of course, not limited simp
ly to pornography.
A standard claim in the literature on television violence is that t
he average childwill have seen 8,000 murders on TV by the end
of elementary school, and200,000 acts of violence on TV by age
18. Many have argued that these kinds ofnumbers indicate a co
nsiderable worry about exposure to violence. Some arguethat su
ch exposure to violence causes those so exposed to be more viol
ent.Others argue that even if such a causal claim cannot be esta
blished, suchextensive 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, andaccess to that information is also
widely available. Books, magazines,newspapers, films, televisi
on, and especially the Internet offer an almost unlimited amount
of content. Those whose arguments are based onMill's harm pri
nciple and the First Amendment insist that wide latitude be give
n to this content and people's access to it; to restrict it withouts
howing conclusively that otherwise people will be harmed is not
only a violation of the First Amendment, but is, more generally
, an illegitimateextension of the government's power over its cit
izens. In contrast, those who advocate more extensive regulatio
n simply point to the levels ofviolence, the degradation of cultu
re, and the negative images and values that seem to pervade soci
ety. Surely something should be done toindicate our disapproval
of that situation? Furthermore, from this perspective, even thou
gh some controls may have been imposed on certaincontent, incl
uding pornography, to allow those who wish to avoid it from bei
ng so exposed, the pervasive nature of objectionable materialma
kes it impossible to avoid. Thus, one must take extraordinary st
eps to avoid it, and this also requires more effort on the part of
some parentsto keep their children from being exposed to things
that they regard as obscene, immoral, and wrong. On this view,

41. one shouldn't be forced tomake extraordinary efforts to avoid b
eing confronted with indecent and objectionable material. Rathe
r, one should have the legitimateexpectation not to be so confro
nted; those who wish to consume pornography and similar mater
ial should have, minimally, the obligation tomake an extra effor
t to do so.
Chapter Summary
This chapter has explored some of the ethical concepts we'll loo
k at in more detail throughout the text. It has also considered ho
w these ethicalquestions play out in a society founded on a set o
f ideals and governed by a particular set of principles yet popula
ted by highly diverse cultures,which sometimes clash with each
other. The challenge of applying ethical theory in a democratic
society is one with which many philosophershave grappled over
the centuries.
Democracy is a pretty old idea, going back at least to ancient At
hens. The idea, of course, is that people know best what they wa
nt and need,and democracies allow their views to be expressed i
n 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; i
f more voters want a particular lawpassed, for instance, it will p
ass. Majority rule is at the heart of democratic theory; however,
a worry also arises. The point was made bySocrates and Plato ab
out the Athenian democracy and has ever since been an issue for
the idea of democracy: What if the majority chooses insuch a w
ay that the rights of the minority are infringed? Is that fair? And
are there ways of preventing it? This can, naturally, be a substa
ntialissue when a group is evenly divided. Imagine a community
voting on a specific law; 51% are in favor, and 49% oppose it.
The minority, in thiscase, may find the law deeply offensive, bu
t just over half of the people support the law and thus are able t
o impose it on almost half thecommunity. Such circumstances h
ave led to the common concern that in democracies, there may b
e a temptation for this kind of thing tohappen, an objection com
monly known as the tyranny of the majority.

42. A number of the individual rights we have looked at—
if, of course, they are "rights"—
can be seen as raising this issue. Certain constitutionalprotectio
ns exist; however, what if the majority of a community decides t
o ban certain reading material or certain expressions of religiou
sbelief? We are also familiar with instances of this from Americ
an history; often African Americans were subject to various for
ms of abuse andinjustice 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 Vir
ginia refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. As Jehovah'
s Witnesses, theywere forbidden to act in a way that, as they sa
w it, treated the American flag as a sacred object and thus, refus
ed to say the Pledge. As is easyto imagine, this was a very unpo
pular view, particularly during the height of World War II. The
Supreme Court found that these students wereprotected by the C
onstitution. Here, the legal protections were provided, but it is f
airly easy to see how such a view would have been regardedby t
he majority and to picture the various informal ways members o
f 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 thatmight well lack sufficient und
erstanding to make those decisions correctly. As Socrates might
put it, one goes to a doctor for medical carebecause the doctor i
s trained to be an expert in medicine. One goes to a car mechani
c for repairs because the mechanic is trained to be anexpert in a
utomobile repair. Yet direct democracies allow the majority to d
ecide issues that are considerably more important for society tha
nauto repair: whether to go to war; what taxes should be in plac
e and what tax revenue should be used for; what the standards s
hould be forwater, air, and food; and many other crucial issues.
Do the majority of citizens have the expertise and knowledge to
make these kinds ofdecisions?
Defenders of democracy have a variety of responses. One, gener
ally attributed to a 1947 speech by Winston Churchill, is to ack

43. nowledge theflaws 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 f
or such things as "proportionalrepresentation"; countries such as
the Netherlands, Japan, and Israel have adopted a parliamentary
system with many different parties. In thissituation, if 5% of th
e voters find a particular party most suitable, they will, at least
in theory, be able to elect someone to represent their view.The r
epresentation, that is, is proportional to the various views withi
n the society. Many democracies have taken this path, in contras
t to theUnited States, where generally a two-
party system is in place; one chooses whichever party is closer t
o one's own views. (The drawback of thisapproach is often expr
essed as one voting for "the lesser of two evils.") Some political
theorists have advocated proportional representation andalterna
tive ways of voting methods in the United States to address the
problem of minority rights being represented. In any case, we se
e that inspite of certain constitutional protections, the question
of individual rights, and particularly the threat to the rights of
minorities within a systemthat gives political power to the majo
rity, will continue to generate discussion and debate about the e
xtent and limits of those individual rights.
Critical Thinking Questions
1.
In a society that decides things on the basis of majority rule, is t
here a danger that the majority might ignore the legitimate conc
erns ofminorities? What steps can be taken to protect minority r
ights?
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? Canyou suggest a reason why it was so difficult to ac
hieve those rights?
3.
One often hears the phrase, "You can't legislate morality." What

44. do you think that means? Do you think it is true? What kind of
moral issuesrequire us to make laws prohibiting certain kinds of
behavior?
Exercises
1.
The famous sociologist Max Weber once observed that politics i
s the "art of compromise." Without abandoning our most cherish
ed principles,that is, we must be willing to sacrifice some of wh
at we want to reach political agreement with others. The basic i
dea is that no one ever getseverything he or she wants: Getting s
ome of what you want is the best you can hope for, and certainl
y better than getting nothing. This soundsgood in theory, of cou
rse, but has proved to be more difficult in practice. Some questi
ons arise:
·
At what point does compromise become abandoning one's princi
ples?
·
If I offer to compromise with a person with whom I disagree, w
hy 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 somet
hing that receives a great deal of attention in contemporarypoliti
cs—
anything that generates some kind of controversy or debate will
work.
State briefly what the debate is over. Is a compromise on this is
sue possible? If so, suggest what such a compromise would look
like. If not, suggest why it is not possible.
Finally, if a utilitarian and a relativist wanted to reach an agree
ment on this issue, how might they go about trying to do so?
2.

45. You are a high school principal, and some students want to orga
nize a school club devoted to studying and discussing atheism.
You areconcerned that they may spend some of their time mocki
ng the beliefs of other students. Some of the students in your sc
hool have alreadyexpressed to you their concern that such an off
icially recognized student group represents a view that many fin
d offensive.
· Do you allow the students to organize the atheist club?
·
What restrictions, if any, do you impose on what they can do an
d say?
·
What do you say to parents who call to protest the existence of s
uch 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 onlineaccess. You are proud of her work ethic and
the responsibility she has shown in working hard and saving he
r money to buy this, but you aren'tentirely sure about what she i
s looking at when she goes online.
·
Do you have the right to access her computer and ask her for he
r password(s)?
·
Should you restrict her access to sites you regard as inappropria
te?
·
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 Rightshttp://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bil
l_of_rights_transcript.html
France Outlaws Niqab

46. Erlanger, S. (2011, April 11). France enforces ban on full-
face veils in public. The New York Times. Retrieved fromhttp://
www.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/world/europe/12france.html?
The MastersGolf Today. (n.d.). Augusta defends male only mem
bers policy. Retrieved fromhttp://www.golftoday.co.uk/news/ye
artodate/news02/augusta5.html
Fox News. (2012, August 20). Augusta National admits first 2 f
emale members. Retrieved fromhttp://www.foxnews.com/sports/
2012/08/20/augusta-national-admits-first-2-female-members/
Key Terms
Click on each key term to see the definition.
act utilitarianism
deontology
emotivism
relativism
rule utilitarianism
utilitarianism
virtue ethics
Grading for this assignment will be based on answer quality,
logic / organization of the paper,
and language and writing skills, using the following rubric.
Points: 300
Assignment 1: Strategic Management and Strategic
Competitiveness
Criteria
Unacceptable
Below 60% F

47. Meets
Minimum
Expectations
60-69% D
Fair
70-79% C
Proficient
80-89% B
Exemplary
90-100% A
1. Assess how
globalization and
technology changes
have impacted the
corporation you
researched.
Weight: 20%
Did not submit

48. or incompletely
assessed how
globalization
and technology
changes have
impacted the
corporation you
researched.
Insufficiently
assessed how
globalization
and
technology
changes have
impacted the
corporation
you
researched.

49. Partially
assessed how
globalization
and
technology
changes have
impacted the
corporation
you
researched.
Satisfactorily
assessed how
globalization
and
technology
changes have
impacted the
corporation

50. you
researched.
Thoroughly
assessed how
globalization
and
technology
changes have
impacted the
corporation
you
researched.
2. Apply the
industrial
organization model
and the resource-
based model to
determine how your

51. corporation could
earn above-average
returns.
Weight: 25%
Did not submit
or incompletely
applied the
industrial
organization
model and the
resource-based
model to
determine how
your corporation
could earn
above-average
returns.
Insufficiently

52. applied the
industrial
organization
model and the
resource-
based model
to determine
how your
corporation
could earn
above-average
returns.
Partially
applied the
industrial
organization
model and the
resource-based

53. model to
determine how
your
corporation
could earn
above-average
returns.
Satisfactorily
applied the
industrial
organization
model and the
resource-
based model
to determine
how your
corporation
could earn

54. above-
average
returns.
Thoroughly
applied the
industrial
organization
model and the
resource-
based model
to determine
how your
corporation
could earn
above-average
returns.
3. Assess how the
vision statement and

55. mission statement of
the corporation
influence its overall
success.
Weight: 20%
Did not submit
or incompletely
assessed how
the vision
statement and
mission
statement of the
corporation
influence its
overall success.
Insufficiently
assessed how
the vision

56. statement and
mission
statement of
the
corporation
influence its
overall
success.
Partially
assessed how
the vision
statement and
mission
statement of
the corporation
influence its
overall
success.

57. Satisfactorily
assessed how
the vision
statement and
mission
statement of
the
corporation
influence its
overall
success.
Thoroughly
assessed how
the vision
statement and
mission
statement of
the

58. corporation
influence its
overall
success.
4. Evaluate how each
category of
Did not submit
or incompletely
Insufficiently
evaluated how
Partially
evaluated how
Satisfactorily
evaluated how
Thoroughly
evaluated how
stakeholder impacts

59. the overall success
of this corporation.
Weight: 20%
evaluated how
each category of
stakeholder
impacts the
overall success
of this
corporation.
each category
of stakeholder
impacts the
overall
success of this
corporation.
each category
of stakeholder

60. impacts the
overall success
of this
corporation.
each category
of stakeholder
impacts the
overall
success of this
corporation.
each category
of stakeholder
impacts the
overall
success of this
corporation.
5. 2 references
Weight: 5%

61. No references
provided
Does not meet
the required
number of
references; all
references
poor quality
choices.
Does not meet
the required
number of
references;
some
references
poor quality
choices.
Meets number

62. of required
references; all
references
high quality
choices.
Exceeds
number of
required
references; all
references
high quality
choices.
6. Clarity, writing
mechanics, and
formatting
requirements
Weight: 10%
More than 8