Paper 2, Discrimination, Moral Reasoning

Learning Objectives Accurately describe the social, economic, and political dimension of major problems and dilemmas facing contemporary American society; Use knowledge and analyses of social problems to evaluate public policy, and to suggest policy alternatives, with special reference to questions of social justice, the common good, and public and individual responsibility.

Dilemmas Paper II Summer 2011

About Paper 2 What it Contains – Revised Paper I paper – A critical analysis and a moral analysis of the Controversial Policy Solution 9-11 TOTAL Pages- 15 Works Cited Due in class on 8/2 Rubric

How it Should Be Organized Stuff From Paper I – Identification of the Social Problem – Scope of the Social Problem – Causes of the Social Problem – History of Policy on the Social Problem – Proposed Policy alternatives YOU DO NOT NEED THE DEFINITIONS SECTION

On Revising Paper I Read through the rubric and see where you lost points – Get the easy points (MLA, Format, Grammar) – Add to your history section if it is lacking – Gather better data and evidence demonstrating it is a problem Make sure that you have clearly demonstrated that this is a social problem

New Information For Paper II I.Clearly identify and define your controversial policy solution “Should the Federal Government Raise the Retirement Age for Social Security” II.Pro and Con- Stakeholders, Positions and Arguments III.Stakeholder Values and Analysis IV.Analysis of Argumentation (in light of logic, evidence, and values held)

I. Stating the Controversial Solution Make sure you identify it as a normative question (should, ought) Describe what the policy intends to do Describe how the policy might be implemented and by whom

II. Identifying Stakeholders Relevant parties who answer your topic question ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ (your ‘Pro’ and ‘Con’ parties) Must be organized, or have some kind of power to effect change on the issue. (elected officials, organized interests, formal and informal governmental institutions)

II. Bad Stakeholders Bad Stakeholders – Crazy people with web access are not legitimate stakeholders – People who cannot influence policy – Stakeholders are rarely absolutes Not all of one type of people ever take one position. E.g. not all Democrats or Republicans favor or oppose a policy Use Qualifiers (some, many, specific actors)

II. Stakeholders Continued Good Stakeholders – Are clearly identifiable Specific Individuals (Senators, Representatives, President Obama, legitimate activists) Named Groups (NRA, Labor Unions, AARP, AMA) – Have the power to make policy change

II. Stakeholders in the Paper Your paper will have stakeholders on both sides For efficiency, you might give all those who hold one particular position or stance a label: like advocates of X, or opponents of X. – Opponents and proponents – Side A and Side B – Those for/Those against

II Stakeholder Issues and Arguments What do they want and why? Issues: Broad areas of dispute for and against the policy solution. (e.g. costs) Arguments: The actual reasons why a stakeholder believes we should or should not adopt the policy solution Do not make these up, but use research to uncover them.

II. Stakeholder Evidence What each side uses to SUPPORT its arguments Can include: – Statistical information – Case Studies – Studies (i.e. by industries, government organizations, scholars or universities) – Expert testimony (legitimate journalists, think tanks, members of congress) You will evaluate the evidence for its level of bias, quantity, quality, recent-ness, expertise.

III. Stakeholder Values and Evidence (moral reasoning) Using the methodology of "Obligations, Values, and Consequences" for ethical decision making, identify and discuss these aspects of both sides of the policy dilemma. Which side has a more moral argument This is the most difficult part of the paper

IV. Analysis of Argumentation Discuss the Strengths and weaknesses of each side of the debate "Which side has presented a stronger case and why?“ Avoid personal biases- judge their evidence, not what you want

Discrimination based on Sexual Orientation Not based on a visibly ascribed status Not counted in the U.S. Census

Homophobia What it is it? What are the results

Legal Protections Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Legal Restrictions Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (currently in limbo) – Defense of Marriage Act The laws in Texas

The Future of DOMA Candidate ObamaObama In 2011, the Justice Department stopped defending DOMA. Legislation to repeal is backback

Age Discrimination Work and Retirement Age discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 Work Place discrimination

MORAL REASONING A methodology to help people deal with moral dilemmas The Key to doing well on paper 2

Moral Reasoning and Paper 2 Your paper has a value-laden problem Paper 2 uses moral reasoning to assess the moral components of each position Read Section 8 of the Handbook

Moral Reasoning Requirements for the American Dilemmas Project For Each Side in Paper 2 you must identify analyze for the proponents and opponents – The Obligations inherent in the position – The Values underlying the position – The potential consequences of the position – The position in terms of the normative principles and theories that support it

WHAT IS A MORAL DILEMMA? Occurs when you are facing a value-laden problem and… All the choices appear to have merit

WHAT IS MORAL REASONING? Ability to work through moral dilemmas using a rule- based framework Involves both decision-making and taking action Focuses on situations that involve value conflicts – Beliefs about what is good/desirable and undesirable

What are Morals? What are morals? Moral Relativism Moral Absolutism

INSUFFICIENT, CRITERIA FOR MORAL DECISION-MAKING Feelings Religion Majority view Law

ACCEPTABLE CRITERIA FOR MORAL DECISION-MAKING Obligations Values Consequences Be sure to consider each criteria before making any moral decisions.

Moral Reasoning and Dilemmas Don’t simply list the values, obligations and consequences Use the literature to justify these things for each side. Do not just assume that they believe it.