Chat with us, powered by LiveChat Alcohol And Rape College Men's Sexual Assault Perpetration Analysis Paper | All Paper
+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com
  

Analysis Paper Guidelines5 page double spaced paper (standard font).You should cite 2 outside sources. They can be from any type of source, but they should provide evidence that adds something to the content (don’t cite something we already know)Choose one of the readings for Unit 4 from the Right Thing to Do Book and then write on the related series of prompts.Rachels, James and Stuart, The Right Thing to Do, 6th or 7th edition (abbreviated RTD)”Alcohol and Rape,” Nicholas Dixon.Does the consumption of alcohol affect the morality of sex? Should someone be legally responsible for the consumption of alcohol of their sexual partner? If so, in which cases should a person be prosecuted for rape because of the consumption of alcohol of their partner? If not, how would you excuse a case where someone fixes another strong drinks with the intention of getting that personer too drunk to resist? In either case address the morality of sex where both parties have consumed alcohol.”America’s Unjust Drug War,” Michael Huemer. Does Huemer offer a compelling argument that we have a right to use drugs? If so, how far does this right extend? Are there other rights that it balances against? If Huemer does not give a compelling argument for the right to use drugs why not? In this case respond to Huemer’s claim that it would be wrong to prosecute us for all sorts of things that are bad for ourselves and for others (e.g. like being a jerk).”All Animals are Equal,” Peter SingerIs there any moral justification for eating a factory farmed steak? If so, how would you respond to Singer’s claims about the moral relevance of suffering and the argument from marginal cases? If not, does Singer’s argument for humane treatment of animals create a compelling argument for vegetarianism? In other words if we treat them nicely during their lives and slaughter them humanely, can we still eat them?”The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter SingerDoes Singer make a convincing case that you have an obligation to give famine relief? Why doesn’t Singer care whether anyone else recognizes this obligation? How would Singer reply to the claim that “it’s my money, I should get to do with it whatever I want”? Do you think that people 100 years from now will judge us negatively for how little is done to help people in poverty?
helpful_resources.docx

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Alcoholism and Rape
People often think of philosophy as dealing with abstract and theoretical questions like how
many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Even a question like whether the death penalty
is moral is probably not directly pertinent to most of our lives. Yet the question of the moral
permissibility and possible criminal sanction for alcohol impaired sex is probably one that
most college students do wonder about and deal with. It is the kind of question however
where philosophical principles can very easily be overshadowed by feelings of guilt. One
might feel guilty about drinking at all if one is not of legal drinking age. Moreover, one
might feel guilty about having sex for a variety of reasons not associated with its impairment
by alcohol. While this issue deals with some very personal concerns it does seem to be one
that we can apply philosophical reasoning to shed some light on the grey areas. Alcohol
lowers inhibitions but of course we know this when we drink it and in fact this often part of
why we may be drinking. As such we should not be surprised that we would do things after
we have been drinking that we would not do otherwise. However, it also seems clear that
just because a women drinks she is not therefore consenting to sex. This then raises the
difficult question the author begins to answer: when is impaired sex wrong and should it be
illegal. (For reasons of consistency with the article, I’ll talk about this being an issue
primarily of rape of women by men however it could also apply to rape of men as well).
Frequently asked questions
MS: I don’t see why the second limiting case is not a case of rape. I mean the woman drank
more than normal for her and has sex that she would not have had otherwise. That does not
sound like voluntary consent to me.
DS: The main reason that Dixon does not consider it rape, is that he believes that the man
has a reasonable basis for thinking that the woman is consenting. As such he is does not meet
the “guilty mind” condition for rape. Although her decision was affected by alcohol there is
not good evidence that it was sufficiently clouded to the extent that the choice was not
voluntary. The fact that someone regrets a sexual encounter is not sufficient evidence that
the choice was not voluntary since we can regret sober choices as well.
MS: Dixon seems to ignore the fact that in many of these cases of sex, impaired sex especially,
there is not a lot of conversation going on. Consequently, consent is quite often a matter of
what one feels the other person wants more so than verbal consent.
DS: That’s true, but he thinks that the man still should have a reasonable basis for believing
the woman does consent to sex. As Lois Pineau argues even having a verbal yes, should not
be sufficient evidence of consent if the woman is too drunk to stand up.
MS: I don’t see how anyone could say that a woman who voluntarily drinks too much and
goes to a frat party can later say she was raped. She should know that she is engaging in risky
behavior.
DS: That’s similar to Paglia’s argument, however Dixon notes that view is open to some
obvious and powerful objections. It’s good advice for a woman to not put herself in
dangerous situations but why let someone who takes advantage of that situation off hook?
While lots of people hook up at college parties lots more also just drink and dance or
converse. Moreover even if a woman does intend to have sex that does not mean she intends
to have sex with just anyone.
MS: I’m not all that clear on Dixon’s conclusion. Is he saying that impaired sex is wrong or
not?
DS: He seems to conclude that it is wrong, but that it should not be illegal. That is, he thinks
current rape laws are generally adequate and that we can sanction impaired sex with our
social disapproval. We should pass scorn on people who engage in it but that if it is
criminalized innocent men would go to jail.
Drug war
Michael Huemer argues that we ought to consider the prohibition of illegal drugs to be a
serious moral impairment of our society. If you don’t use drugs why should you care whether
it is immoral to prosecute the drug war? The reason concerns our basic rights which is
presumably something we all care about. There are many things that we may not do
ourselves which it may still be important to keep legal. I don’t have any desire to wear Nazi
paraphernalia and parade through the streets, most of us would find such conduct
reprehensible, but it is important that people be allowed to do this. We value freedom of
expression. Michael Huemer makes a similar claim about the right to use drugs. Huemer
argues that it is not the government’s business to prevent us from harming ourselves and
there is no good evidence that drugs cause greater harm to others than a variety of other
actions which we don’t think should be illegal. As such, he argues the imprisoning of people
for drug crimes represents a serious injustice. Indeed when we consider his statistic that over
a ½ million people are imprisoned who wouldn’t be (if drugs were legal) it is a very great
injustice. For those who agree with Huemer’s point, the legalization of Marijuana in
Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska and D.C. represent significant civil rights victories.
Frequently asked questions:
MS: Whether the war on drugs is just or not isn’t the point. The people in jail or prison for
drug offenses broke the law, so they deserve to be there.
DS: Huemer does not discuss the broader question of whether we have a moral obligation to
obey unjust laws and there is a rich literature on this topic extending at least back to Plato. It
is worth noting that many people do hold that we don’t have an obligation to obey unjust
laws.
MS: Drug dealers and users are the scourge of society I think the punishments should be even
stronger than they are.
DS: Many people strongly condemn drug use, but Huemer asks why this is the case. He cites
evidence that supports his claim that illegal drugs are less harmful than a variety of other
things which are legal. It is also worth pointing out and this is a point that Huemer does not
spend much time on, that the trade in drugs is violent because it is illegal. If one was able to
purchase cocaine in a soft drink (as used to be the case with Coca-Cola) drug sales would be
uneventful. In Colorado, Marijuana shops now occupy retail space that was previously held
by donuts shops and coffee houses and purchasing these drugs is much better regulated and
safer than trying to buy weed from some sketchy guy in a park. As such, the violence of the
drug trade is perhaps one of the best arguments for legalizing drugs. For that reason Huemer
might agree that drug dealers are bad people, but not because they are dealing drugs, but
because they are criminals.
MS: I can see Huemer’s point when it comes to marijuana, but does he really think we should
legalize cocaine and heroin? After all, addiction to coffee and tobacco is problematic but no
one stops paying their mortgage in order to get more lattes.
DS: That’s a good point and one that would probably need to be investigated further.
Although some illegal drugs may be just as addictive as tobacco or caffeine if the
consequences of those addictions were much greater that might give a reason to prohibit
them. Of course we would also have to consider whether prohibition made addiction less
likely and less harmful. Moreover, although it is common to believe that any use of a drug
like heroin or cocaine results in addiction that is not the case. Many people experiment with
it and use these drugs and maintain their everyday functions and relationships. Finally, as
Huemer argues if people are not free in their choice to take the drugs (or not take them) it
seems unfair to punish them for doing so. Typically we are only responsible for actions
where we were capable of doing otherwise.
All animal equal
This reading includes a contentious selection from Peter Singer. As I mentioned in the
theory chapters, the two topics that get people the most riled up are feminism and animal
welfare. Although Singer wrote this article over 30 years ago, the issue of extending moral
consideration to animals is still highly controversial. Vegetarians are often made to defend
their views, but Singer puts the burden of proof on those who would give animals lesser
consideration. As such, it will not suffice to defend giving preference to humans by saying
that others are acting this way or that it’s the way things have been done in the past. By
analogy, Singer could point to a time when racial or sexual discrimination was the
norm. Singer’s argument is actually pretty simple. First he argues that suffering is necessary
and sufficient for having an interest. In other words you have to be able to experience
suffering to be interested in it stopping and if you can experience suffering we should care
about it. Secondly, he thinks we plenty of credible evidence that animals other than humans
do experience suffering. Lastly, it shouldn’t matter what size an animal is, or what it looks
like, or how smart it is in determining whether we give consideration to its suffering. All
that matters is the extent of the suffering itself.
With that in mind let’s turn to some questions.
MS: Singer’s argument is ridiculous, racism or sexism is nothing like this made up word
“speciesism”. Humans are radically different from other animals.
DS: That may be true, but for Singer the question is whether the difference is one that
justifies ignoring another creature’s suffering. Suffering is bad and just because a creature is
stupid that should not permit us to cause it unnecessary suffering. Similarly, less intelligent
people do not deserve to be tested on for experiments.
MS: But humans are rational and animals are not.
DS: Singer has two basic replies to this; first, not all humans are rational –some disabled
persons and infants for example. Indeed some animals are more rational than some
people. As such to only consider the suffering of humans is unjustified
discrimination. Second, what’s so great about rationality? Rationality may enable us to act
as moral agents, those who should be responsible for their actions, but that is different from
whether we deserve to be treated morally. Some people do not have the rationality to
defend themselves, yet we still say it would be wrong to exploit them.
MS: But eating animals is natural.
DS: In nature, some parents eat their young. It would be wrong for humans to behave in
this way. What’s natural is not a sufficient determination of what’s right.
MS: But treating animals as equal is stupid. They are not equal.
DS: Singer is not saying that they are equal in capacities only equal in deserving
consideration. That may still sound absurd to many. In that case, it is probably worth
reviewing the arguments that people gave against extending the right to vote to women and
minorities. Many people argued that it was absurd that people of different races should be
treated equally. Can you imagine that in the future people might look back at the way we
raised and treated animals with equal disgust?
MS: I’ve read that plants suffer. Does that mean we cannot eat them either?
DS: Well the best evidence of today day does not support that view. In other words, we
know that cows and pigs and chickens have the neurophysiology to suffer, so at the very
least we ought to stop causing them unnecessary suffering.
MS: How far down does sentience go? Can scallops feel pain?
DS: That’s a good question. That’s probably why Singer errs on the side of caution and is a
vegan. However, the difficulty of answering that question should not prevent us from acting
on those cases that don’t seem controversial. In other words, if we know that a cow suffers
we shouldn’t eat fast food burgers.
MS: Singer’s argument does not actually seem to say that I should be a vegetarian. I mean
meat is dead it does not suffer. Even Jeremy Bentham who Singer cites as giving credence to
his argument was an omnivore.
DS: That’s true (about Bentham). Keep in mind though that in Bentham’s time (late 1800’s)
there was no factory farming. Singer’s argument really says that we have an obligation to
treat animals humanely (or not raise them at all). If you are hunting your own food and you
don’t cause animals any more suffering than they would if they were killed by a predator
then you may meet the conditions that Singer prescribes. As for so-called free range animals,
Singer is skeptical about their quality of life. However, we’d need another course to go into
detail about those issues.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

error: Content is protected !!