You must choose TWO of the topics below, and for each one that you choose you must write an essay. The two essays are equally weighted. Each essay should be approximately 1 2 single-spaced typewritten pages, font size 12. You must upload the exam, as assignment 3, to OWL no later than 72 hours after the exam begins. That is, the exam must be uploaded to OWL by 9 AM on Monday, June 29, Eastern Daylight-Saving Time. Remember that OWL incorporates the plagiarism checker Turnitin. Verbal similarities between your essays and the essays of any other student in the class will be caught by the plagiarism checker. If this happens, then you will be penalized, and disciplinary procedures will be initiated against you.
In writing this exam, you should display your knowledge of Chapters 1-8 of Onora ONeills Justice Across Boundaries: Whose Obligations? The individual questions below will direct you to files that could be found in the Resources section of the OWL site for this course. Each question will be graded out of 30.
1. (For this question, you should use the files called the good Samaritan and Scott Warren in the Resources section of the OWL site for this course.) How might the parable of the good Samaritan be used to justify the idea that wealthy states should give aid to poor states? Give an account of how we might interpret the story of the good Samaritan below in terms of Kants categorical imperative. Explain why this is relevant to ONeill. Is Scott Warden a good Samaritan? What do you think ONeill would say about governments that try to prosecute people like Scott Warden? Explain.
2. (For this question, you should rely on the file called sittlichkeit in the Resources section of the OWL site for this course.) Almost certainly, ONeill would maintain that in a relatively large country like Canada, more than one sittlichkeit can be found. Why should she think so? On the assumption that she is right, what problem does this raise for communitarianism in connection with figuring out what the obligations of Canadians are?
3. (For this question, you should rely on the files called gay-rights SCOTUS and conflict and gay-rights in the Resources section for the OWL site for this course.) The Supreme Court of the United States has recently decided that discrimination based on sexual orientation is included under discrimination based on sex, so that since in American law people have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex, they also have a right not to be discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. In American law, too, people have a right to practice their religion. To many people, these rights appear definitely to conflict. According to ONeill, when apparent conflicts of real rights occur, a delicate, fact-based accommodation must be worked out. In the file called conflict and gay-rights, to conservative authors propose an accommodation between the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation, and the right to religious freedom. Briefly summarize the proposal. Do you think that their proposal is satisfactory? Do you think that their proposal would satisfy ONeill? Give reasons for your answers.
4. (For this question you need to make use of the file called economic refugee in the Resources section for the OWL site for this course.) Currently, Canada, like most countries, does not grant refugee status to coming into the country and claiming truthfully that they are fleeing on the basis of their genuinely awful economic and possibly life-threatening economic prospects in their country of origin. Do you think that ONeill would say that Canadians have an obligation to grant such people refugee status in Canada, so that they could stand eventually become Canadian citizens? Give reasons for your answer. Do you yourself think that Canadians have an obligation to grant such people refugee status in Canada, so that they could stand eventually become Canadian citizens? Give reasons for your answer.
