B. Mackinnon’s ‘Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues’

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Homosexuality: Ethical or Not?
Fullwinder, Newton and Rawls: Equal Opportunity or Reverse Discrimination?
The Issue of Death Penalty: Right or Wrong?
Man or Ecology? People or Penguins?
Works Cited

Introduction

In this assignment, I would write essays based on ethical constraints from Barbara Mackinnon’s book, Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues when applied to four real-life situations. The objective is to test the practical validity of various ethical theories when seen from the point of view of conflicting moral situations, and how these theories can act as a guiding force to ensure good decisions in the well-being of the majority.

Homosexuality: Ethical or Not?

Throughout the annals of history (except for the modern era), homosexuality has been seen as an aberration from a socio-religious point of view. Leaders of various religious denominations such as churches and synagogues have traditionally viewed these acts as objectionable, not limiting themselves to giving them pejorative labels. “Sodomy”, “Acts against nature” and other disparaging terms have been used to describe the homosexual phenomenon (Mackinnon, p. 231).

However, if one goes through D.P. Verene’s Sexual Love and Moral Experience essay, some facts would contradict the assumption of homosexuality being against nature in any way. Verene believes that one has to “recover the experience of Eros in order to feel a complete person because it is through the erotic alone that human beings can be connected to creativity” (Mackinnon, p. 234). One of the ethical theories regarding moral psychology suggests that it is not possible to divorce ethics from creation as the latter is responsible for any action that can be held as just (Mackinnon, p. 21). Going by that logic, Verene’s assumption that achieving an orgasm is necessary to sustain the process of creativity may be viewed in a complimentary light.

However, Verene’s claims could be a bit too vague and unsubstantiated because the “creativity-ethics” theory operates on the premise that human society is somehow opposed to pleasurable sex. In this context, it is safe to assume that Verene’s claim for an ethical ideal through orgasm cannot be applied to the subject of homosexuality.

It is much more pertinent to refer to other authors including Richard D. Mohr’s Prejudice and Homosexuality which brings a real moral angle to the question of ethics when applied to same-sex relations. Mohr mentions the discrimination and prejudice homosexuals face because of their lifestyle choice. The fact that such discrimination cannot be tolerated under an ethical framework, would help our title argument in a better way.

Another angle that may work in favor of seeing nothing wrong with homosexuality is observations of behavior in the animal kingdom. It has been documented that many animal and bird species (such as the Cygnus Swan) have confirmed homosexual behavior. The fact that the same condition may exist in select humans makes this lifestyle choice valid.

Fullwinder, Newton and Rawls: Equal Opportunity or Reverse Discrimination?

The subject of reverse discrimination has cropped up in recent times due to the simultaneous issue of providing equal opportunity of access in education, employment and more to minorities, women and other segments that are under-represented. Fullwinder, Newton and Rawls have extensively tackled this subject in order to come to a conclusion whether the concept of reverse discrimination should serve as a wake-up call to end preferred hiring of people based on their quota status, rather than talent and ability. The authors haven’t come to a decisive conclusion because of the complexity of this issue.

In my opinion, this issue can be treated significantly only when one understands the huge complexity that unfolds in relation to issues of prejudice. It cannot be denied that ethnic minorities face a lot of hurdles in their career advancements because of institutional racist practices in hiring, as well as social isolation which arrests their growth in a lucrative career path. That alone should serve as a reminder that affirmative action is one of the ways to offset the imbalance that is endemic to most real work environments. The affirmative action practice should be retained for maintaining a diversity of the workforce, as well as helping in the career advancement of disadvantaged groups.

However, at the same time, it is important to ensure that genuinely deserving candidates belonging to the demographic majority do not suffer a dip in opportunities because no vacancy could be found for them. While it is understandable to apply a somewhat higher threshold for them when it comes to the qualifying criteria for a job, it’s totally non-ethical to bar someone from a job just because he/she does not belong to a minority community that would have benefited from affirmative action.

In other words, affirmative action may be applied freely in order to advance the career interests of select groups, while ensuring no member of an ethnic majority group suffers a major disadvantage. The foundation of success for corporations lies in their ability to hire the best talent for the best job. However, in conclusion, it must be added enough opportunities should be created for members of ethnic minority groups to ensure they don’t lag behind in their career paths.

The Issue of Death Penalty: Right or Wrong?

The issue of the death penalty has traditionally divided ethical opinion right from the times of ancient Greek philosophers like Socrates who disagreed with state-sponsored retribution for a crime. For, the common man, it is easy to bay for the blood of someone like Timothy McVeigh who killed 168 people in Oklahoma City during one of the most gruesome episodes of terrorism in the United States. The State, however, should look up to much higher standards than the “an eye for an eye” concept (Mackinnon, p. 321).

Anthony Amsterdam, a human rights advocate, sees the death penalty as a crime against the individual committed by the State, a barbarity that has no place in the civilized society of today. However, Ernest Van der Haag, a neo-conservative, supports the death penalty on the principle that it deters violent crime. Both sides have their own plus points but on the whole, I will side with Amsterdam and advocate for a repeal of the death penalty in certain US states on ethical grounds.

First, while the State’s legal system has the right and authority to prescribe just and fair punishment on the accused after a properly evidenced legal affair, it is incorrect to assume the same right can be extended to take away a man’s life. This is what we call logical fallacy in ethical theories. Even though the State is merely an instrument in carrying out the death penalty, it is in effect, condoning the murder of a human being by another, the executioner. It may well be argued that the executioner is merely someone in the pay of the Government who is simply doing his job. But, it’s difficult to condone this practice in the present stage of civilization where the highest value is attached to human life, not seen unlike in any other era of history (Mackinnon, p. 320). Whether one leans to the Left or Right of politics, it is possible to find common ethical ground on seeing the barbarity of state-sponsored murder of human beings. It is for good reason many European countries, Canada, Australia and several states in the USA have banned this relic from the past.

Man or Ecology? People or Penguins?

The subject of environment brings the most emotional responses from most participants. William F. Baxster’s treatise People or Penguins: The Case for Optimal Pollution raises an interesting issue; whether it is worth mulling over the harmful ecological impact caused to various animal species in our efforts to maximize industrial output. Baxter speaks in the context of the penguin population of the Southern Hemisphere which gets rapidly affected due to man-made intervention in their living environments.

What Baxter essentially tries to suggest is that “these are just some penguins” and our concerns for ecology should be primarily driven by whether or not they have an impact on people. If some animals die in our selfish pursuit, it’s not a big deal at all. Apart from the innate cruelty of such a position, it isn’t difficult to see that it poses a lousy ethical argument.

According to Fill Devall and George Sessions, if one wants to have a full people-oriented discussion on any environmental topic, while denying the importance of self-preservation to other stakeholders in this debate, namely the penguins, then by that extension it is possible to just go ahead and cut funds for national parks programs and World Wildlife Fund (WWF) initiatives which help other endangered species such as lions, tigers, bird species and more. After all, in real terms, no human being should miss them for our own survival. Does that mean we happily toy with their existence and pursue our selfish interests which would lead to their eventual depletion? Can we pollute their environments with impunity? Somehow, such an argument does not wash.

As human beings, we are responsible for the welfare of most fauna on Earth including penguins. While it is conceivable that if there is a snowstorm in Antarctica, the impulse would be to save human lives first before rescuing penguins, it does not automatically warrant that we go ahead and cause so much pollution due to our appetite for mass consumption that penguin populations start rapidly depleting.

There should be no ethical compromise on the value so many human beings place on the sanctity of animal life. Our fragile ecology on the Earth is among things that should not be evaluated on a pure profit-and-loss basis.

Works Cited

Mackinnon, Barbara. Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues. New York, NY: Wadsworth Publishing, 2008. Print.

Click Here To Order Now!