Read more
Klappentext Taking Sides volumes present current controversial issues in a debate-style format designed to stimulate student interest and develop critical thinking skills. Each issue is thoughtfully framed with an issue summary, an issue introduction, and a postscript or challenge questions. Taking Sides readers feature an annotated listing of selected World Wide Web sites. An online Instructor's Resource Guide with testing material is available for each volume. Using Taking Sides in the Classroom is also an excellent instructor resource. Visit www.mhhe.com/takingsides for more details. Inhaltsverzeichnis TAKING SIDES: Clashing Views on Moral Issues, Thirteenth EditionUnit 1 Fundamental Issues In MoralityIssue 1. Is Moral Relativism Correct?YES: Gilbert Harman, from "Moral Relativism," in Gilbert Harman and Judith Jarvis Thomson, eds., Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity (Blackwell, 1996)NO: Louis P. Pojman, from "The Case Against Moral Relativism," in Louis P. Pojman and Lewis Vaughn, eds., The Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature (Oxford University Press, 2007)Philosopher Gilbert Harman argues that relativism is true for morality-much as Einstein proved it was true for motion. Just as motion always presupposes some framework in which it occurs (and something can be in motion relative to one person but not to another), morality too always presupposes some framework. Louis Pojman carefully distinguishes what he calls the diversity thesis-that moral rules differ from society to society-from ethical relativism. The diversity thesis is a straightforward description of what are acknowledged differences in the moral beliefs and practices of various human groups. But he argues that moral relativism does not follow from this diversity.Issue 2. Does Morality Need Religion?YES: C. Stephen Layman, from The Shape of the Good: Christian Reflections on the Foundations of Ethics (University of Notre Dame Press, 1991)NO: John Arthur, from "Religion, Morality, and Conscience," in John Arthur, ed., Morality and Moral Controversies, 4th ed. (Prentice Hall, 1996)Philosopher C. Stephen Layman argues that morality makes the most sense from a theistic perspective and that a purely secular perspective is insufficient. The secular perspective, Layman asserts, does not adequately deal with secret violations, and it does not allow for the possibility of fulfillment of people's deepest needs in an afterlife. Philosopher John Arthur counters that morality is logically independent of religion, although there are historical connections. Religion, he believes, is not necessary for moral guidance or moral answers; morality is social.Unit 2 Gender, Sex, and ReproductionIssue 3. Must Sex Involve Commitment? YES: Vincent C. Punzo, from Reflective Naturalism (Macmillan, 1969)NO: Alan H. Goldman, from "Plain Sex," Philosophy and Public Affairs (Spring 1977)Philosopher Vincent C. Punzo maintains that the special intimacy of sex requires a serious commitment that is for the most part not required in other human activities. Philosopher Alan H. Goldman argues for a view of sex that is completely separate from any cultural or moral ideology that might be attached to it.Issue 4. Is Abortion Immoral?YES: Don Marquis, from "Why Abortion Is Immoral," The Journal of Philosophy (April 1989)NO: Margaret Olivia Little, from "The Moral Permissibility of Abortion," in Andrew I. Cohen and Christopher Heath Wellman, eds., Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics (Blackwell Publishing, 2005)Professor of philosophy Don Marquis argues that abortion is generally wrong for the same reason that killing an innocent adult human being is generally wrong: it deprives the individual of a future that he or she would otherwise have. Margaret Little finds several serious problems with the way debates are structured concerning abortion. She stresses three things: first, the continuous development of the earliest stage of the ...
