Are procurement programs that offer financial compensation to living donor morally permissible?

Instructions: The final essay is not timed, so that you have the time and resources to draft and develop thoughtful and principled arguments in response to the prompt you choose. You should attempt to defend a position with well-founded reasons and normative principles, anticipate and explicate a strong possible objection targeting an inference or a premise in your argument, and respond to the reasoning of the objection. Note: an objection is not simply a counter-claim against your conclusion, rather an objection is an argument that aims to undermine the reasoning of the argument you develop and defend. One can reasonably respond to strong objections by either modifying or clarifying a premise in your argument to accommodate the concern or countering with a counter-argument that undermines the reasoning of the objection (not merely rejecting the conclusion of the objection). Proficient critical thinking and argumentative writing should always aim to identify the weaknesses in one’s own arguments, in order to anticipate the strongest possible objections and provide preemptive replies to those specific concerns.

This is a medium-length piece of argumentative writing (1200-1500 words), so you should strive for clarity and concision—omitting any orthogonal or tangential thoughts. See rubric for detailed grading criteria. You must upload your essay as a document (in a standard file format: .doc, .docx, .rtf, .pdf, .odt, .odf) through the final essay submission portal. Deadline: Friday, 07/22, before 11:59PM.

Choose one of the following three prompts on which to write a clear and concise 1200-1500 word argumentative essay, completely answering each part of the prompt:

Organ Sales: Are procurement programs that offer financial compensation to living donor morally permissible? Should we permit living donors to sell their organs to such programs? Why or why not? Do procurement programs offering financial compensation to living donors disproportionately exploit impoverished and desperate persons? Why or why not? How might financial incentives impact the possibility of autonomous consent for impoverished persons? (i)Defend your position on organ sales with a principled argument by either (a) arguing along utilitarian or libertarian lines that organ sales are morally permissible (cf. Gill & Sade 2002, Savulescu 2003) OR (b) arguing along Kantian lines that financially compensating living donors commodifies the body and undermines human dignity (cf. Cohen 2002, de Castro 2003); (ii) consider how someone might raise a compelling objection that targets a premise or inference in your argument; and (iii) offer a reasonable rejoinder to the objection by either modifying your position to accommodate the concern or countering the objection with an argument that neutralizes the force of the objection.

Moral Status of Animals: There are many competing ethical positions regarding the moral status of non-human animals. For instance, speciesism is the view that humans possess some property or capacity that entitles them to use non-human animal species as resources. What reasoning do speciesists invoke to defend the purported moral superiority of humans (cf. Steinbock 1978, Cohen 1986)? Does this justify the exploitation of non-human animals? Why or why not? Some have argued that speciesism is a logically inconsistent and unacceptably arbitrary position, and instead defend utilitarian positions that focus moral considerations on the capacity for an animal to suffer harm (see Singer 1975, and Norcross 2004: 239-42). In order to avoid the problems of inconsistency and arbitrariness, others have developed more nuanced positions that depart from speciesism in significant ways, (e.g. Warren’s (1987) “Weak Animal Rights position” and Nussbaum’s (2006) “capabilities approach”). In your judgment, what position best represents the moral status of non-human animals? How should this inform our evaluation of human practices that impact other animals? In what does the ethical treatment of animals consist? (i)Defend a position on the moral status of animals with a principled argument and use detailed examples of concrete human practices to illustrate the ethical implications of your principled position; (ii) consider how someone might raise a compelling objection that targets a premise or inference in your argument (explain the reasoning that supports the objection); and (iii) offer a reasonable rejoinder to the objection by either modifying your position to accommodate the concern or countering the objection with an argument that neutralizes the force of the objection.

Moral Status of Carebots: Carebots and other social robots are increasingly playing interactive roles in our lives. As the design and implementation of carebots rapidly develops, we will bring them into our homes, hospitals, and other care facilities to assist in the care for the sick, disabled, elderly, children, or otherwise vulnerable persons. We will entrust them with social roles involving companionship and even intimate caregiving tasks (e.g. bathing, dressing, feeding, turning, medicine administration, monitoring, or transporting). As the applications for social robots and their involvement in our lives increases it raises pressing questions about the ethical implications of human-robot interactions, as well as the moral status of social robots (cf. Darling 2014: 9-21, Gunkel 2015). Should social robots, and carebots in particular, be afforded some moral rights and legal protections (e.g. prohibitions on robot abuse and mistreatment)? Why or why not? What are the potential problems with granting or denying social robots some degree of moral standing? How should we establish limiting factors and determine the extent of protections for social robots? (i)Defend a position on the moral status of social robots with a principled argument and use detailed examples of concrete human practices to illustrate the ethical implications of your principled position; (ii) consider how someone might raise a compelling objection that targets a premise or inference in your argument (explain the reasoning that supports the objection); and (iii) offer a reasonable rejoinder to the objection by either modifying your position to accommodate the concern or countering the objection with an argument that neutralizes the force of the objection.

Reproductive Genetic Engineering: What are the ethical concerns in light of the recent advances in reproductive genetic engineering? Should parents be permitted to use such biotechnology to select desirable traits for their children? Why or why not? Are there any morally significant differences between selecting against genetic diseases vs. selecting for non-disease genetic traits? (i) Defend your position with a principled argumentand discuss the implications of your view for reproductive decision-making (cf. Liao 2008, Savulescu 2001, Sandel 2004, Brown 2009), (ii) consider how someone might raise a compelling objection that targets a premise or inference in your argument; and (iii) offer a reasonable rejoinder to the objection by either modifying your position to accommodate the concern or countering the objection with an argument that neutralizes the force of the objection.