Paper 2 Moral Reasoning

Learning Objectives• Accurately describe the social, economic, and

political dimension of major problems and dilemmas facing contemporary American society;

• Use knowledge and analyses of social problems to evaluate public policy, and to suggest policy alternatives, with special reference to questions of social justice, the common good, and public and individual responsibility.

Dilemmas Paper II

Summer 2011

About Paper 2• What it Contains– Revised Paper I paper – A critical analysis and a moral analysis of the

Controversial Policy Solution

• 9-11 TOTAL Pages- 15 Works Cited

• Due in class on 8/2• Rubric

How it Should Be Organized

• Stuff From Paper I– Identification of the Social Problem– Scope of the Social Problem– Causes of the Social Problem– History of Policy on the Social Problem– Proposed Policy alternatives (including your

solution)

• YOU DO NOT NEED THE DEFINITIONS SECTION

On Revising Paper I

• Read through the rubric and see where you lost points– Get the easy points (MLA, Format, Grammar)– Add to your history section if it is lacking– Gather better data and evidence demonstrating it

is a problem

• Make sure that you have clearly demonstrated that this is a social problem

New Information For Paper II

I. Clearly identify and define your controversial policy solution“Should the Federal Government Raise the Retirement Age for

Social Security”

II. Pro and Con- Stakeholders, Positions and Arguments III. Stakeholder Values and AnalysisIV. Analysis of Argumentation (in light of logic, evidence, and

values held)

I. Stating the Controversial Solution

• Make sure you identify it as a normative question (should, ought)

• Describe what the policy intends to do (without bias)

• Describe how the policy might be implemented and by whom

Stakeholders

• Who are they (clearly identify them)

• What do they Want (issues and arguments for/against the policy)

• Why (evidence)

II. Identifying Stakeholders

• Relevant parties who answer your topic question ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ (your ‘Pro’ and ‘Con’ parties)

• Must be organized, or have some kind of power to effect change on the issue. (elected officials, organized interests, formal and informal governmental institutions)

II. Bad Stakeholders

• Bad Stakeholders– Crazy people with web access are not legitimate

stakeholders– People who cannot influence policy – Stakeholders are rarely absolutes

• Not all of one type of people ever take one position.• E.g. not all Democrats or Republicans favor or oppose a policy• Use Qualifiers (some, many, specific actors)

II. Stakeholders Continued

• Good Stakeholders– Are clearly identifiable• Specific Individuals (Senators, Representatives,

President Obama, legitimate activists)

• Named Groups (NRA, Labor Unions, AARP, AMA)

– Have the power to make policy change

II. Stakeholders in the Paper

• Your paper will have stakeholders on both sides

• For efficiency, you might give all those who hold one particular position or stance a label: like advocates of X, or opponents of X. – Opponents and proponents– Side A and Side B– Those for/Those against

II Stakeholder Issues and Arguments

• What do they want and why?

• Issues: Broad areas of dispute for and against the policy solution. (e.g. costs)

• Arguments: The actual reasons why a stakeholder believes we should or should not adopt the policy solution

• Do not make these up, but use research to uncover them.

II. Stakeholder Evidence• What each side uses to SUPPORT its arguments• Can include:

– Statistical information– Case Studies– Studies (i.e. by industries, government organizations, scholars or

universities)– Expert testimony (legitimate journalists, think tanks, members of

congress)

• You will evaluate the evidence for its level of bias, quantity, quality, recent-ness, expertise.

III. Stakeholder Values and Evidence (moral reasoning)

• Using the methodology of "Obligations, Values, and Consequences" for ethical decision making, identify and discuss these aspects of both sides of the policy dilemma.

• Which side has a more moral argument

• This is the most difficult part of the paper

IV. Analysis of Argumentation

• Discuss the Strengths and weaknesses of each side of the debate

• "Which side has presented a stronger case and why?“

• Avoid personal biases- judge their evidence, not what you want

VALUES, OBLIGATIONS AND CONSEQUENCES

The Heart of the Model

MORAL REASONING

• A methodology to help people deal with moral dilemmas

• The Key to doing well on paper 2

MORAL REASONING

• Value-laden, i.e., ethical, perspective

• Based on Ruggiero method

•

Real Policymaking does not examine the moral reasoning model, but your

Dilemmas Paper Must!

Moral Reasoning and Paper 2

• Paper 2 uses moral reasoning to assess the moral components of each position (pro/con)

• Read Section 8 of the Handbook

Moral Reasoning Requirements for the American Dilemmas Project

• For Each Side in Paper 2 you must identify analyze for the proponents and opponents– The Obligations inherent in the position– The Values underlying the position– The potential consequences of the position– The position in terms of the normative principles

and theories that support it

ACCEPTABLE CRITERIA FOR MORAL DECISION-MAKING

• Obligations

• Values

• Consequences

Be sure to consider each criteria before making any moral decisions.

OBLIGATIONS

• Relationships imply obligations

• Obligations relate to governmental roles

• Obligations imply restrictions

• Formal– Contracts, vows

• Informal– Citizenship, friendship, family, professions

Seeing who has the strongest obligation

• Sometimes both sides will have legitimate obligations

• Give preference to the more important one

– What is the first obligation– What will cause the greatest harm if not filled

WHAT ARE VALUES?

• Beliefs about what is good/desirable and bad/undesirable

• Guide us on how to behave• Unique to each individual

• Change due to time, experience

SOME EXAMPLES OF VALUES

(terminology: Milton Rokeach)

TERMINALNational securityFamily securityEconomic prosperityA peaceful worldInner harmonySalvationEqualityWisdomJusticeAn exciting life

INSTRUMENTALImaginativeHonestKindFriendlyProductivePoliteFairObedientGenerous

Questions to Help identify Values

• What utility do those holding a side expect to achieve?

• What interest do those holding a given position wish to protect or gain?

• What harm do those holding a position wish to prevent?

When Values Conflict

• Select the higher ideal (value)

• Select the action that will achieve the greatest good

• If there is no good, then choose the one with the lesser evil

CONSEQUENCES

They are the projected results that might occur from any given action.

• Beneficial or detrimental• Immediate or long-range• Intentional or unintentional• Involve the person performing the action

and/or others

Measuring Consequences

• Difficult to predict because people behave irrationally

• Immoral Acts that produce good results – No• Moral Acts that produce mixed consequences-

maybe• What if a choice must be made

Moral Reasoning and Dilemmas

• Don’t simply list the values, obligations and consequences

• Use the literature to justify these things for each side. Do not just assume that they believe it.

NORMATIVE PRINCIPLES

What are they

• Short statements about how humans “should” act.

• Choose those that apply to your stakeholders’ positions and why they are applicable

• These help you select the more moral choice

FOUNDATIONAL NORMATIVE PRINCIPLE:RESPECT FOR PERSONS

• Honor others’ rights• Do not treat them as a means to our ends• Theological – Humans are created in God’s image

• Philosophical – We wish the best for others, since they are the

same as us

Principle of Consistency

Moral reasons and actions are binding on all people at all times in all places, given the same relevant circumstances.

Principle of Impartiality

Each person should be treated equally unless there is a good reason not to do this.

Principle of Rationality

All legitimate moral acts must be supported by generally accepted reasons.

Principle of Least Harm

When one has to choose between evils, he/she should choose the one which will cause the least harm. When one has to choose between goods, one should choose the one which will cause the most good.

Principle of Right Desire

• we ought to desire what is really good for us and nothing else

MAKING A MORAL DECISION

USING THE CRITERIA IN A SYSTEMATIC WAY

1. Study the details of the case

2. Identify the relevant criteria• Obligations• Values• Consequences• Identify the foundational values at play

3. Determine courses of action

4. Choose the most morally responsible action

USING THE CRITERIA IN A SYSTEMATIC WAY

1. Study the details of the case– sometimes there are not enough details to

satisfy the three criteria. – Use creative thinking to speculate about possible

answers, depending on different imagined details.

USING THE CRITERIA IN A SYSTEMATIC WAY

2. Identify the relevant criteria• Here you should identify the obligations,

values and consequences. • Whom will they affect, in what way. • Rank which of the three is most important in

the given case. – Many times with public policy, you will find the

consequences to be the most important.

USING THE CRITERIA IN A SYSTEMATIC WAY

3. Determine possible course of action- consider all the choices of action that are available. – It is only in rare circumstances that an individual

has just one course of action. – E.g. adopt, reject the policy

USING THE CRITERIA IN A SYSTEMATIC WAY

4. Choose the action that is most morally responsible after reviewing the information above– No Set Formula

– See which side wins the most important criteria

– See which side wins the most criteria

Crime

Types of Crime

• Part I Offenses– Violent– Property (e.g. car theft)

• Part II Crimes– Everything else– E.g. public drunkeness

What the UCR does not Measure

• Unreported Crimes

• Poor Reporting/discretion

• The Number rather than the rate

Crime and Law

Crime: behavior that violates the criminal law and is punishable by a fine, jail term, or other negative sanctions

2 categories of criminal law:Misdemeanors: minor crime, punishment is fine

or <1 year in jail (ex: public drunkenness)Felonies: serious crimes, punishment is >1 year in

jail or even death. (ex: murder, rape)

The Crime Rate

• Between 1970 and 1980, the crime rate rose by 40%

• It has declined by 36% since 1991

• Despite this, crime is still higher than in previous decades

Four Measures of Crime

Property Crime

Juvenile Crime

• Difficult to Deter Children

• Young People commit 20% of all crimes

• We try to give them a clean slate

Crime By Region

Who Commits Crimes (Individual Level Theories)

• Internal Factors cause people to Commit Crimes

• Biology

• Psychological Theories

Solution is to Lock up people with these traits

Sociological Theories of Crime

• Criminal Activity derives from social and economic conditions of society (functionalism)

• Otherwise normal people are changed by the conditions in which they live

Solution is macro-societal change

Crime And Deterrence

• For Deterrence to work, threats must be made credible– The Godfather– Certain– Swift– Severe

• If Benefits from Crime outweigh the costs, we have crime

The Death Penalty

The Police and Deterrence

• Community Policing

• Broken Window Theory

Guns and Gun Laws

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

30,000 gun deaths per year

Federal Gun Laws

• Bans on interstate commerce involving guns

• The Brady Law

• The Impact of Gun Laws

The Courts and Guns

• U.S. vs Miller (1939)

• DC vs Heller (2008)

Who commits Crime

• Age

• Opportunity

• Economics

Gun Crimes are Stable

Victims of Crime- Age

•

Victims of Crime: Race

Hate Crimes

• Must show that crime is bias motivated.

• There has to be an actual crime committed

• Hurt Feelings are not protected under Hate Crime legislation