Question 1

Below is a scenario that raises a moral question. Using the strategies described in Chapter 13 of Doing Practical Ethics, develop a moral IBE that addresses the moral question and represent it in standard form. Then, write a brief paragraph of supplementary information for each premise (explaining what the premise is saying and why we should think it is true).
The scenario: The Case of Henry Rayhons: Donna Lou Rayhons developed dementia when she was in her late seventies and, just before being admitted to a nursing home, could not recall her daughters' names and sometimes expressed confusion about how to do things she previously could do (like eat hamburgers). She and Mr. Rayhons had sex in the nursing home until the doctors told Mr. Rayhons that she was not competent to consent. Mrs. Rayhons sometimes initiated the sexual contact, and she often showed signs she enjoyed it, and she never showed any signs that she resisted it. Was it morally permissible for Mr. Rayhons to have sex with his wife?

Accepted Answer

It is morally permissible for Mr. Rayhons to have sex with his wife.

Supplementary information for premise A: This premise is stating that it is morally permissible for Mr. Rayhons to engage in sexual activity with his wife, despite her dementia and the doctors' assessment that she was not competent to consent. This premise is true because Mr. Rayhons and his wife had a pre-existing intimate relationship, and there is evidence that Mrs. Rayhons sometimes initiated the sexual contact and showed signs of enjoyment. Additionally, there is no evidence that she resisted the sexual activity.

B : Mrs. Rayhons was not competent to consent to sexual activity.

Supplementary information for premise B: This premise is stating that Mrs. Rayhons, due to her dementia and the doctors' assessment, was not capable of giving informed and voluntary consent to engage in sexual activity. This premise is true because dementia can impair a person's ability to understand and communicate their desires, and the doctors' assessment is based on their professional judgment and evaluation of Mrs. Rayhons' mental capacity.

C : It is morally permissible to engage in sexual activity with a person who is not competent to consent if there is evidence that they initiated the activity and showed signs of enjoyment.

Supplementary information for premise C: This premise is stating that, in certain circumstances, it may be morally permissible to engage in sexual activity with a person who is not competent to consent, if there is evidence that they initiated the activity and showed signs of enjoyment. This premise is true because it takes into account the complexities of intimate relationships and acknowledges that non-verbal cues and actions can also communicate consent and enjoyment.

Question 2

Below is a scenario that raises a moral question. Using the strategies described in Chapter 13 of Doing Practical Ethics, develop a moral IBE that addresses the moral question and represent it in standard form. Then, write a brief paragraph of supplementary information for each premise (explaining what the premise is saying and why we should think it is true).
The scenario: A Makah Whale Hunt. Factual background: in the late 1990s, the Makah tribe of Neah Bay in Washington State, near the US border with Canada, fought a multi-
year, international political battle to restore the tribe's right to hunt whales. The whale hunts, an important part of their cultural history, had ended in the early 1900s, as whale populations collapsed in the face of large-scale commercial whaling. Then, in the 1980s, international bans on whale hunting were passed by most nations, including the USA, and whale hunting became illegal nearly everywhere, including Neah Bay. But in 1996, it was the Makah tribe's position that those laws did not apply to them; they maintained that their original treaty with the US government granted them the right to hunt whales.
Eventually, the tribe won its case and in 1999 a team of Makah men killed their first whale in living memory.
Fictional scenario: Ben is the 20-year-old nephew of a tribal elder. He has been invited to participate in the Makah tribe's second modern whale hunt, planned for the spring of 2000. The previous year he had watched as the first whale hunt brought the community together like he had never seen before. Everyone worked together to help the hunters train physically and prepare spiritually. Elders met to try to reconstruct, as best they could, any fragments of cultural memory of how the hunts had unfolded 100 years before. The preparations for the hunt were the focus of multiple conversations every day. When the men returned triumphantly, with the body of a gray whale in tow, the community's celebrations were long and intense. Ben ate a meal of barbequed whale meat, and it tasted to him like the best steak he'd ever had.
When he was invited to participate in the second hunt, Ben was deeply honored. He has practiced in his canoe daily, and is stronger than he has ever been. The whalers have gone on several retreats, to purify themselves and spiritually prepare for the hunt. These retreats have brought Ben closer to men in his community that he previously did not know well.
But as the day of the hunt drew closer, Ben's misgivings began to grow. Now, when he thinks about the hunt, he gets sick to his stomach. He knows well how intelligent the whales are, with a complex language that humans haven't even begun to decode. He has spent hours admiring them from the shore and from his canoe, and believes them to be gentle, even kind creatures. He cannot deny that last year's whale hunt had a positive effect on the community, but the tribe certainly doesn't need whale meat to survive.
Ben feels trapped in a moral dilemma. If he pulls out of the hunt at the last minute, he worries he will be wronging his community, including his uncle (the tribal elder who fought so hard for whaling rights), and the hunters he has grown close to over months of preparation. But if he participates, he worries he will be committing something that feels, to him, increasingly close to murder. What is the right thing for Ben to do in this situation?

Accepted Answer

Moral IBE:
P1: It is morally wrong to participate in an activity that feels like murder.
P2: It is morally wrong to go against one's deeply held beliefs about the treatment of intelligent and gentle creatures.
P3: It is morally important to consider the impact of one's actions on the community and the relationships one has with others.

Supplementary information:
P1: This premise is saying that it is morally wrong to engage in an activity that feels like taking the life of another being unjustly. This is true because most ethical theories, such as utilitarianism and deontology, hold that causing harm to others without justification is morally wrong.
P2: This premise is saying that it is morally wrong to act in a way that goes against one's deeply held beliefs about the treatment of sentient beings. This is true because acting in a way that goes against one's moral convictions can lead to feelings of guilt and moral distress.
P3: This premise is saying that it is morally important to consider the impact of one's actions on the community and the relationships one has with others. This is true because our actions can have a significant impact on those around us, and it is important to consider the well-being of others when making moral decisions.

Question 3

Below is a scenario that raises a moral question. Using the strategies described in Chapter 13 of Doing Practical Ethics, develop a moral IBE that addresses the moral question and represent it in standard form. Then, write a brief paragraph of supplementary information for each premise (explaining what the premise is saying and why we should think it is true).
The scenario: Eco-sabotage. Hayduke is an Army veteran who lives in rural Oregon near an old-growth forest. That forest houses a thriving ecosystem of plants, fungi, birds, insects, and mammals that Hayduke has studied, admired, and loved since he was a child. It was this forest that prompted him to become an environmentalist, donating money to mainstream groups like Greenpeace, and also to more extreme environmentalist organizations, including Earth First!.
Hayduke learns that a logging company has secured the legal rights to clear-cut his beloved forest. He believes, with reason, that this will destroy the local ecosystem, which will have terrible effects for the region. Without the forest, many plants and animals, some of them relatively rare, will die. Erosion into a local river will likely become a problem, perhaps even causing flooding in an area that has never experienced flooding.
Because of his Army training and long-standing friendship with members of Earth First!, Hayduke has a good grasp of the the kinds of eco-sabotage techniques that will effectively damage, or even destroy, the logging equipment the company has begun to assemble at the border of the forest. Some of these techniques are as simple as sugar in the gas tanks of the bulldozers. Some techniques are more complicated, but still within his ability. He knows, for example, how to mix thermite, which can destroy any machinery he chooses to target. Hayduke believes that he, acting alone, could cause enough damage to heavy logging equipment to convince the company to leave his beloved forest alone, and to move, instead, to a forest ecosystem that could withstand logging without collapsing.
Hayduke has never before destroyed property in pursuit of his environmentalist goals, but he believes this is a special case. If the government understood the importance of the forest, he believes they wouldn't have issued the logging permits, and he even believes that if the logging company knew the forest as well as he does, they would leave it alone. But at this point, Hayduke feels he has no other options: do nothing and allow the forest to be clear-cut, or prepare for a night mission to destroy as much heavy equipment as he can. Is it morally permissible (or morally wrong, or morally required) for Hayduke to destroy logging equipment to stop the destruction of his beloved old-growth forest?
 (Adapted from The Monkey Wrench Gang, by Edward Abbey.)

Accepted Answer

It is morally permissible for Hayduke to destroy logging equipment to stop the destruction of his beloved old-growth forest.

Supplementary information for premise A: Hayduke's action of destroying logging equipment is justified because it is in defense of a valuable and irreplaceable ecosystem. The old-growth forest houses a thriving ecosystem that will be irreparably damaged by clear-cutting, leading to the death of many plants and animals, erosion, and potential flooding. By taking action to prevent this destruction, Hayduke is acting in the best interest of the environment and the well-being of the local ecosystem.

B : Hayduke has no other viable options to protect the old-growth forest.

Supplementary information for premise B: Hayduke has exhausted all other options, including donating money to mainstream environmentalist groups and attempting to appeal to the government and the logging company. He believes that the government and the logging company do not fully understand the importance of the forest and are not taking the necessary steps to protect it. As a result, he feels that he has no other choice but to take direct action to prevent the destruction of the forest.

C : The potential harm caused by the destruction of the old-growth forest outweighs the harm caused by the destruction of the logging equipment.

Supplementary information for premise C: The destruction of the old-growth forest will have far-reaching and long-lasting consequences, including the loss of biodiversity, erosion, and potential flooding. In comparison, the destruction of the logging equipment, while causing financial harm to the company, does not pose the same level of harm to the environment and the local ecosystem. Therefore, Hayduke's actions are justified in preventing the greater harm caused by the destruction of the forest.

Quiz 13: Developing an Ibe