Read more
Klappentext The Taking Sides Collection on McGraw-Hill Create(TM) includes current controversial issues in a debate-style format designed to stimulate student interest and develop critical thinking skills. This Collection contains a multitude of current and classic issues to enhance and customize your course. You can browse the entire Taking Sides Collection on Create, or you can search by topic, author, or keywords. Each Taking Sides issues is thoughtfully framed with Learning Outcomes, an Issue Summary, an Introduction, and an Exploring the Issue section featuring Critical Thinking and Reflection, Is There Common Ground?, and Additional Resources and Internet References. Go to McGraw-Hill Create(TM) at www.mcgrawhillcreate.com, click on the "Collections" tab, and select The Taking Sides Collection to browse the entire Collection. Select individual Taking Sides issues to enhance your course, or access and select the entire Smith/Smith: Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Moral Issues, 14/e ExpressBook for an easy, pre-built teaching resource by clicking here. Inhaltsverzeichnis UNIT: Is Moral Relativism Correct? Issue: Is Moral Relativism Correct? YES: Torbjörn Tännsjö, from "Moral Relativism," Philosophical Studies, 2007NO: Louis P. Pojman, from "The Case Against Moral Relativism," The Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature, 2007 Torbjörn Tännsjö distinguishes among several types of relativism and argues in favor of one of them, which he calls "ontological relativism." According to this view, two people may disagree radically on a moral question, and yet both may be right, because each of them inhabits a different socially-constructed moral universe. 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: Does Morality Need Religion? YES: C. Stephen Layman, from "Ethics and the Kingdom of God," The Shape of the Good: Christian Reflections on the Foundations of Ethics, 1991NO: John Arthur, from "Religion, Morality, and Conscience," Morality and Moral Controversies, 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: Sex, Marriage, and Reproduction Issue: Must Sex Involve Commitment? YES: Steven E. Rhoads, from "Hookup Culture: The High Costs of a Low 'Price' for Sex," Society, 2012NO: Raja Halwani, from "Casual Sex," Sex From Plato to Paglia: A Philosophical Encyclopedia, 2005 Steven Rhoads offers evidence drawn from a variety of sources, including surveys of sexually active college students as well as research in evolutionary anthropology, to support his two main contentions: (a) casual sex is bad for society in general, and (b) casual sex is especially emotionally damaging for women. Raja Halwani first discusses the difficulties involved in defining casual sex precisely. He next examines a number of objections to casual sex, and concludes that casual sex need not be morally wrong because each of these objections involves factors that are not, for the most part, specifically intrinsic to casual sex. Issue: Is Abortion Immoral? YES: Mary Meehan, from "Why Liberals Should Defend the Unborn," Human Life Review, 2011NO: Amy Bo...
