{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

In fact there is one fairly obvious one to which he

Info iconThis preview shows pages 4–7. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
discrimination law and the marijuana law. In fact, there is one fairly obvious one to which he can appeal: The former has been declared contrary to the state constitution; the latter has not been alleged to be contrary to any constitution. So, Harold may object to the failure to implement the latter, even if it does conflict with federal drug laws—after all, if the law has not been found unconstitutional, shouldn’t the will of the voters prevail? (It is a separate matter, of course, whether he can build a strong argument in the case of the marijuana law.) 9. This is a tough one for many people, including us. We think dogs and people have enough in common—the very things Ms. Graybosch mentions—to warrant prohibition of experiments on dogs unless there is reason to believe that some considerable good will come of the experiments. We do not favor experiments on any such animals for the development of cosmetics, for example. When stakes are higher—as when a cure for a lethal or crippling disease may be at hand—then we think experiments on animals, including dogs, may be justifiable. So we disagree with Mr. Graybosch when he says he has “no problem” with IM – 12 | 4
Background image of page 4

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
experiments on dogs; we think Ms. Graybosch is correct in pointing to canine-human similarities. But we depart from her position when the stakes are high—the similarities are not strong enough to carry the day in such cases. IM – 12 | 5
Background image of page 5
10. It seems to us that Mr. Bork has a couple of possible answers: First, he might say that the mere fact that his children are his is a difference that’s relevant to whether he should look after them more than he should look after others’ children. Second, he can add that it is not the case that every other parent is looking after his children in the same way they’re looking after their own. (If Bill Gates begins contributing to our children the way he would contribute to his own, then we’ll be quick to begin contributing to his children in the way we contribute to our own.) 11. This passage pits one value—that of consistency and fairness—against another: the occasional importance of being able to change policies. If it is no longer feasible to continue a policy, it may be that people can no longer be treated the same as others have been. Whether the policy should be changed seems to us to depend on which of the values has the stronger claim. That is, in this case, are the university’s reasons for raising the requirements good enough and important enough to justify the inconsistent treatment of its employees? They would have to be good reasons, in our opinion, but there may be such reasons. 12. We can think of reasons that might be relevant here. If, for example, it were shown that polygamous marriages produced more jealousy and hence more unhappiness or discord in a family, this would be a reason that would not apply to same-sex marriages and would help Heinz justify his position. On the other hand, of course, one might require very strong reasons
Background image of page 6

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 7
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page4 / 9

In fact there is one fairly obvious one to which he can...

This preview shows document pages 4 - 7. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online