Ben S
"A Priest, a Rabbi, and a Minister Walk
into an Essay: A Defense of >Offensive Humor"
Abstract:
There has been a recent upturn in the amount of scholarly
attention fixed on the ethics of humor. This renewed interest is a mere
resumption of the debate over humor that has raged throughout history. This
paper is intended to fulfill a useful role in that discussion, and to turn the
dialogue to a greater appreciation of humor. The insight that drives this paper
is that we must give offensive, politically-incorrect humor a far greater
latitude than we would give offensive, politically-incorrect "serious"
statements. Humor is more cognitively complex than serious speech, and is thus
an effective educational tool. It can help advance dialogue between two or more
parties who might otherwise be unable to engage in dialogue, as well as
influence the opinions of any passive third party observers of a humorous
exchange. It has the potential to be an extremely effective dialogic tool in a
pluralistic, multicultural deliberative democracy.
Abstract:
Is dishonesty used by democratically elected leaders as a tactic
for political, social or economic purposes is defensible? Recognizing that the democratic politician
is held to a higher ethical standard because of a) the nature of politics and
b) the ethical relationship forged in trust between leader and people, it seems
obvious that the answer is no. Some
political theorists, most notably Niccolo Machiavelli and Michael Walzer, argue
the contrary, however and maintain that certain immoral acts by a politician
are justified. Defenders of this ‘dirty
hands’ principle generally use a consequentialist calculus, weighing the
benefits of an action versus its costs.
Unfortunately for the aforementioned theorists, when dealing with ethics
in a democracy, consequentialism is unfit for judging the actions of
democratically elected leaders. A
deontological judgment, derived from the nature of democratic association is
far superior to the weighing of unforeseen consequences. Accordingly, lying by democratically elected
leaders is never justified or excusable because deceit contradicts the
principles of established democratic governance, violates the trust necessary
to sustain democracy, and marginalizes the moral worth of each individual
citizen.
Matt O
“Taking the Initiative in California:
Direct Legislation & The Threat of
Majority Tyranny”
Abstract:
This paper provides an examination of California’s initiatives
and popular referenda since 1970 that have explicitly targeted minority rights,
asking the question whether these instances are evidence of the occurrence of
majority tyranny through the institutional devices of direct democracy. A theoretical discussion of majority tyranny
and the factors that may contribute to its occurrence is offered. The future viability of direct democracy is
evaluated via reforms that could be made to secure and safeguard the rights of
political minorities.
“The LDS Church: American or Not Are the political, social, and
internal policies of the LDS Church
consistent with liberal democracy?”
This paper focuses on the political and social policies of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), as well as the internal oppression
that exists with its membership. John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty is used as a
lens to help analyze whether or not these policies a consistent with a liberal
democracy. Numerous case studies current and past are used to help understand
these issues. The final section of the paper compares the LDS interpretation of
their own history to a more liberal interpretation.
“Beefing up the Pork: A Study of Congress' Pursuit of
Distributive Benefits”
Abstract:
This paper describes distributive politics as a phenomenon in
Congress that works against the general good of the nation. With re-election
being primary in the minds of congress-people, they sacrifice the common good
in exchange for distributive benefits and packages in their districts. The paper
specifically looks at military spending after September 11, 2001, a time when
Congress would assumedly be most interested in looking out for the common good
of the nation, with defense of the nation at the top of its agenda. Looks at how even at this time, pork barrel
politics remained high on Congress' agenda and examines the way that the
defense budget was cut to further distributive spending. This paper uses the
case study of the Defense Appropriations Bill FY02 to prove the theory of
distributive politics, which suggests that congress will abandon the good of
the nation in order to pursue personal goals of re-election.
“The League of Extraordinary Men: Is the Wolfowitz-Bush Preemption Doctrine Ethically Justifiable?”
Abstract:
This paper provides an examination of the Wolfowitz-Bush
doctrine of
preemption. The paper specially looks at the application of the
doctrine
to nations such as Afghanistan and Iraq to determine if the
doctrine of
preemption is ethically justifiable. In order to determine the
justification the Wolfowitz-Bush doctrine, the doctrine is
tested against
just war theory, international law, and consequential moral
theory.
Rowena Z
“The Post Genome Condition: Challenging Performative Genomics”