[fredwlau]

PAPER #3: “If there is an Al Qaeda cell in a New Jersey city committing
(P) terrorist activities, it should be combated with every available weapon regardless of the harm to non-combatants, even if this results in more non-combatant casualties than continued terrorism would produce.” (Terrorism is defined here as violence deliberately aimed at non-combatants by non-governmental organizations for political goals.)
(1) MAKE THE STRONGEST MORAL ARGUMENT that this statement is true. You may wish to specify a particular set of conditions under which it is true. MAKE THE STRONGEST MORAL ARGUMENT that this statement is not true. For each argument, specify the general moral value which underlies it and why this value should be given priority over the corresponding value in the opposing argument, using the concepts of impartiality and universality. You must have different values for each argument. Concepts and issues associated with just war theory may be useful. (Approximately one page)
(2) ISOLATE ONE EMPIRICAL QUESTION and CONSTRUCT ONE
HYPOTHESIS (a general, empirical, testable, comparative statement) which, if tested, would help reduce the differences among people advocating
these two positions. This is likely to involve the consequences of such a policy, perhaps drawn from empirical assumptions of the moral arguments. Do this by converting the empirical question into a causal statement--A is more likely to occur when B is true than when B is not true. Make your hypothesis as precise as possible. Remember that hypotheses about the

future cannot be tested, since we have no data about the future, so they cannot be used. Therefore hypotheses should be written using the past or present tense. Be sure to specify the alternatives that you are comparing.
(3) EXPLAIN briefly how testing the hypothesis would help reduce the differences on whether this policy would be morally correct. One way to do this is to specify (a) how the arguments would change if you persuaded everyone that the hypothesis was true and (b) how the arguments would change if you persuaded everyone that the hypothesis was false.
(4) EXPLAIN briefly (a few sentences) what sort of data you would need to
test the hypothesis. Note that you are not asked to either gather the data or
test the hypothesis; simply tell how you would do so given enough time and
resources. (This should also allow you to judge how well someone else with
such time and resources has done the job when you read about research
in the area.) Note that, unlike your groupworks, we are not interested in your opinion on this issue.



What would be an example of a moral argument for and against, thanks!

[immiketoo]

Seriously, I think the point is for YOU to think of those arguments. Good luck with YOUR homework.

Example: (for) The moral argument for your doing your homework is that you would gain the experience of actually thinking for yourself, looking at an issue from two different perspectives and a sense of accomplishment.

(against) Fuck that man, thinking is hard and why not let someone else who already thought of the answer give it to me? I'll take my grade even if it belongs to someone else.

[bmwmthree]

[fredwlau]

Originally Posted by immiketoo

Seriously, I think the point is for YOU to think of those arguments. Good luck with YOUR homework.

Example: (for) The moral argument for your doing your homework is that you would gain the experience of actually thinking for yourself, looking at an issue from two different perspectives and a sense of accomplishment.

(against) Fuck that man, thinking is hard and why not let someone else who already thought of the answer give it to me? I'll take my grade even if it belongs to someone else.

Troll

[bigslick82]

PM David Hobbs. He's got great ideas.

[bosstones]

Originally Posted by fredwlau

weapons instructor

fixed