Phil 106 Final Exam Review

PHIL Final Exam Review

Exam

Topics:

1. Sexual Orientaion and Same-Sex Marriage

      White, 79-81

      Kennedy, 82-86

      Kurtz, 102-105

      Koppelman, 106-111

      Gallagher, 112-118

2. Abortion

      Thomson, 297-306

      Beckwith, 333-341

      Warren, 307-317

      Marquis, 318-326

      Pruss, 342-349

      Hobbes, 261-265

      Locke, 266-272

      Mill, 282-285

3. War

      Aquinas, 427-428

      De Vitoria, 429-431

      Grotius, 432-437

      Clausewitz, 428-441

      Ghandi, 442-445

      Posner and Becker, 446-448

4. Economic Equality

      Aristotle, 451-454

      Locke, 455-465

      Rosseau, 466-477

      Marx and Engles, 478-483

      Rawls, 192-196

      Nozick, 497-504

      Hospers, 510-515

      Murray, 520-528

      Anderson, 529-539

      Rector and Sheffield, 540-553

Sexual Orientation and Same-Sex Marriage

Kennedy (pg 82), Majority Opinion in Lawrence vs Texas (2003)

• Case about 2 men (Lawrence and Garner) who were charged for performing sexual acts in the privacy of their home
• The courts must acknowledge that adults my choose to do these acts in the privacy of their home and still retain they dignity as free persons
• The liberty by the Constitution allows homo-sexuals the right to make this choice
• Over the course of the last decades, States with same-sex prohibitions have moved toward abolishing them
• “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment…”
• When homosexual conduct is made criminal, it become an invitation to subject homosexuals to discrimination
• “Bowers was not correct when it was decided (…) Bowers v. Hardwick should be, and is now overruled”
• The case involves 2 adults doing a homosexual act, they are entitled to respect for their private lives.
• Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct with out intervention of the government
• decisions whether to marry or who to marry plays a large role in shaping ones own identity

Majority and Dissenting Opinions in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (2003)

• The question is whether the Commonwealth may deny the protections and benefits from 2 same-sex people who wish to marry. It may not
• The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals
• “Our obligation is to define liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code” Lawrence v Texas
• Same-sex couples are deprived of membership in our community’s most rewarding and cherished institutions
• 3 partners to every civil marriage: the 2 spouses and the state
• Without the right to choose to marry, one is excluded from a range of benefits
• The right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry who you wish
• Marriage, sexual intimacy, and how to establish a family is a part of one’s liberty and due process rights
• “Absolute equality before the law is a fundamental principal of the Constitution
• Fertility is not a condition of marriage
• If procreation were a component to civil marriage, out statutes would be more strict about child-bearing outside of marriage
• Stereotype that same-sex relationships are unstable, unworthy of respect, and inferior to opposite-sex relationships
• Some belive that children with opposite-sex parents are raised in a more “optimal” setting
• “For the best interests of the child” is not based on the parents sexual orientation or marital status
• Extending civil marriage to same-sex couples reinforces the importance of marriage to the community
• Prohibiting marriage by same-sex couples reflects the communitys cosensus that homosexuality is immoral

The Libertarian Question (Kurtz, pg 102)

• If homosexual sex is private, why doesnt consentual adult incest fall under the same sort of protection?
• Our taboo on incest helps to offset the potential temptation to participate in acts of incest
• We need this incest taboo because there is no effective way for the state to protect children from sexual abuse by family members
• Like the incest taboo, the taboo on non-marital and non-reproductive sex helps to cement marital unions
• The tabooo on homosexuality protects marriage
• By making homosexuality taboo, it reinforces the idea that the highest purpose of sex was to bind families closer
• Weakening taboos increases our personal freedom
• Marriage is protected by monogamy; the danger of gay marriage is that it will undermine the taboo on adultery
• Gay marriage threatens monogamy because homosexual couples tend to see monogamy as nonessential
• Openly non-monogamous married gay couples will break the connection between marriage and monogamy
• Gay marriage would set in motion a series of threats to monogamy

The Decline and Fall of the Case Against Same-Sex Marriage

• We have 2 debates about smae-sex marriage
• First debate is about what relationships to value
• The second is a debate about administartion—about which relationships ought to have legal consequences
• The conservative view may be linked to the view that homosexuality is wrong
• Americans oppose same-sex marriage, two to one
• Gays dont want second-class status, and dont want their relationships to be seen as any diffrent than hetero relationships
• The gay struggle for equality in many ways resembles the struggle against racism; “separate but equal” has an ugly history
• Same-sex marriage depends on the idea that “marriage is an essentially private, intimate, emotional relationship between two people for their own personal reasons to enhance their own personal well-being
• There is no reason to think that any heterosexual family will benefit from withholding marriage from seme-sex couples

Will Gay Marriage Weaken Marriage as a SocialI nstitution: A Reply to Koppelman (Gallagher, pg 112)