PHI1630 Contemporary Ethical Problems - Shanghai Summer 2019

History has shown that drug prohibition reduces neither use nor abuse. When a rapist is arrested, there are fewer ****. However, after a drug dealer is arrested, it remains unchanged for the supply and demand of the market. The arrest only creates an endless stream of drug entrepreneurs who would like to take the risk to create profits. It costs billions of dollars every year from tax payers but drug become more widely used in these years. By eliminating prohibition of all drugs for adults, we may focus on the crimes or violences in law enforcement which may further establishing appropriate regulations. Such crimes like murder, child abuse and aggravated assault may further controlled and thus our communities will be safer. Non-violent drug use destroy families and with better regulations, drugs will be less accessible for children and safer for adults. Placing drug abuse in the hands of doctors instead of criminal justice system will reduces rates of addiction and deaths. With the money in better purpose, black market and drug cartels will be suppressed rather than benefit. Furthermore, the job opportunity created by drug legalization gives way for potent criminals and drug dealer a way to survive rather than taking risk in committing crimes.

in，Davis.A.j.Richards, SEX, DRUGS, AND PRIVACY; it mentioned that " To say, therefore, that people have a human right to use drugs is not to conclude that everyone should exercise this right." I think this is totally right and easily understand. it means that every citizen do have right to use drugs, but it does not mean, or strongly not suggest, that everyone should use this right to take drugs to experience this. many people when they begin to take drugs. it is hard for them to get rid of it. They will be addicted to drugs and destroying their lives.
in Qing dynasty, ancient China, government did bot forbidden opium. Almost Everyone take it, because they did not have correct recognition. Everyone, even officials take it, thus there is the bad example. Besides, there is no law restriction. Many people even do not want to take the drug. They are lured into taking it. Once they taken, they cannot resist the temptation, so they still taking it, then they get sick. Some people wanted to take drugs to comfort the disappointment in real life, so they takes it, this worsen the situation. Of course, this bad situation might because many England  wants to invade China, so they did that. Also, the main reason is that there is no law to forbid that. Thus, the situation is that people in Qing becomes sicker and sicker, many people even died, and the country becomes weaker. Thus, after that, Qing made a activity to destroy the opium. The story is remembered by others.

I disagree David’s view about drug and privacy. Firstly, he argued that sometimes the power of criminal law exceed moral constraints, which violates human rights. It is important to keep the fairness of criminal law and making sure that it is executed in right place, which is for the sake of our society. When laws have extremely authority, the stability of society can be guaranteed. Human is a complex animals, if we let human right beyond everything, then government is hard to maintain the order of the society. Also, laws are respect human rights if they are legal. For example, if someone hide a murder in his house, and he refused police’s searching request. It is true that the house owner has the right to protect the privacy of his house, however, if the police lets his right over laws, then they can’t catch the criminal, and he may murder more person when he escapes. So, when human rights and criminal laws have conflict, the laws are should always be taken in first place. Secondly, he argued that paternalism cannot be justified. The interference of government is necessary because not everyone has the right moral education. Without government’s supervision on drugs, those who have wrong moral action may abuse drugs. Now we assume the right of taking drugs without interference is promised by government, then people who abuse drugs will hurt others and make a bad influence on the society because drugster can’t control their actions and moral standards are nothing for them. In conclusion, I disagree David’s arguments for drugs and privacy.

Page 169-189, this is a short science-fiction story. There’s couple questions I want to discuss. I know in those kind story we are forced into doing some moral choice like this, so I have get rid of any other possible solution, like the situation in the “train” story.
As in utilitarianism approach, in order to maximizing the benefit, the best choice for them is to throw the little girl out the window,  which would save other five’s life. And they did, also they are following the conventionalism approach, they are on a mission and no matter what it takes, they should follow the command. Here is my question, what if that was not a little girl, instead, it was an animal(dog/cat/bear), and captain has huge connection to it. Does he still choose to throw it out the window. I guess he could not make choices in that circumstance. So the point is, anything , a living creature or a object, once there’s relation or emotion associated with it, people tend to hesitate, that is the virtue doing the work. In the end, they throw the girl out the window, she does not have a connection to the captain. That is why she got throw out in my opinion.

shuran lin


Libo cheng

First of all, I think you have a very clear point for your argument, it is easy to follow and make connections of. I specifically agree with your point on utilitarianism, which "kill one to save a hundred", valuing personal satisfactions and cost-benefit worked as the main aim of this ethic theory. However, in this case, I think the relationship between the captain and the little girl is debatable. Although the little girl is not related to the captain, the captain should not throw her out of the window. If being flexible in different circumstances is the captain's virtue, then throwing his loved ones will also be equivalent because it is virtuous and he should not hesitate. If he knows the negative feelings will come to him if he decides to throw his loved ones out, then the little girl should be treated the same. Moreover, humans have feelings and too complicated to analyze every kind of it, in the same time it is hard to follow the same standard all the time, thus in my opinion I think the captain have made the tough decision between throw the girl or not, but I think there is no essential difference if the little girl was replaced by someone or something that is associated with him based on utilitarian's perspective. Different emotions will be attached to him if the person is different, but the decision will be the same.

“A U.S. tourist, driving through a central American country ruled by a cruel dictator, stops in a village where twenty rebellious peasants are lined up against a wall, facing a firing squad.  The commanding officer approached the tourist and offers to spare nineteen of the rebels if the tourist takes the officer’s revolver and shoots one of the rebels. Compared to the dilemma facing the pilot of the spaceship in “The Cold Equations,” is the tourist’s moral dilemma more, less or equally difficult to resolve morally? Defend your position as you compare the two situations.”

------ p.188 Ethics for Modern Life, Raziel Friquegnon



The question is whether a U.S. tourist will go and execute one of the rebels in a nation of the dictator in Central America in order to save the other nineteen. First, if the tourist is following Divine command. Majority of the Americans are Christians. The Christian religion teaches people that they should not kill people. So if the tourist is strictly following the Divine command, he will not kill the man and save the other 19. However, a single U.S. tourist going to central American, according to my stereotype, is more likely to come from a rather liberal state, and holds liberal, non-religious view when making their act.

If the tourist is a government official or a businessman, he or she might follow the Utilitarianism, believing that he or she should do the best for the greatest number. If he wants to the best for the greatest number of Americans, he will shoot one and save the others. American’s traditional value is liberal and democratic, thus opposing any authoritarian states (with exceptions of the cases that there are great benefits to be gained). A state that is led by a dictator is by nature U.S.’s enemy and assuming the enemy of an enemy is a friend because the tourist doesn’t have enough time to investigate the reason those 20 people are rebelling for, the people rebelling is American’s friends. And if the tourist shoots one of the rebels and saves the other, that means saving 19 allies of America, who might fight for freedom around the world and for American’s interests. However, the tourist needs to take the credibility of the commanding officer in an authoritarian nation. If he shoots the man and the commanding officer ordered his firing squad to keep shooting. That means that he didn’t save anyone, plus that he’s now killed one himself. In this case, the cost outweighs the benefits. He also needs to consider the identity of those twenty rebels. If one of them is the head of the rebel, he should, when following utilitarianism, shoot one of the other to save him.

If the tourist is following Kant’s duty theory. He should not shoot the man and save the others. The act of killing something is not going to pass CI. If killing something is normalized and universalized, then the world will be in a state of suffering, and chaos. So even though the consequence of him or her killing one is good, he can not do that based on his goodwill, under Kant’s duty theory.