Feinberg on Wendell Phillips - by Carrie Bumbaugh

I agree with Joel Feinberg’s point that law should include some basic form of morality. I do not think that law can be separated from morality. I agree, “it is not, therefore, a merely contingent connection that could vanish in time as human institutions change”. The reasons why laws are questioned are mostly on moral grounds. For example, slavery was opposed because there was some sentiment that is was wrong to own another human being. However, the question arises, what should a judge do if he is opposed to a law and has to rule on it? I think the fifth option he suggests is the best option, that of the ameliorist strategy. I think this is the best option because it is a way of using the position of judge to make changes in the laws with the position of power. However, I do not agree with him that resigning is not a good option. I do not think it is narcissistic as long as the person still tries to bring notice to the cause so changes are made. While I do not think a judge should resign anytime he disagrees with a law, I think that in extreme cases, such as that during the time of slavery. I think that resigning is an acceptable option because slavery is extremely unjust and when someone disagrees this greatly with a law, resigning is acceptable. He states that it is self-indulgent to resign and not use one’s power to help the cause. He makes an unfair assumption that the person, in resigning, will not try to help the cause. There is nothing saying, however, that a person cannot resign and still fight for just laws because the person will still have press if they resign. Refusing to be part of a system that does something as unjust as allows slaves is admirable. He does admit that it would take courage to resign, but does not acknowledge that someone could resign and still be an ameliorist.

Refutation of an Argument for Stem Cell Research - by David Carrier

I find Meilaender's assessment of the stem cell research issue to be a good one. Compelling and accurate, he successfully refutes several arguments in favor of stem cell research and shows that a ban is the only reasonable course of action to take in this situation. He does this by drawing an analogy to war. With this analogy, he shows that attempts to justify stem cell research on the grounds of utilitarian reasoning, a "sliding scale," or an appeal to "supreme emergency as a permanent condition" cannot be morally supported. However, he does not consider an argument frequently put forth in favor of stem cell research, namely that the embryos used in such research (leftovers from IVF clinics) would be destroyed anyway. Proponents of stem cell research argue that they might as well be put to good use in research instead of just being destroyed.

The fallacy of this argument is evident when we consider that the medical experiments performed on the Jews under the Nazi regime were "justified" by the same reasoning. The Jews were going to be destroyed in concentration camps anyway, so the Nazi doctors chose to "put them to good use" before they died by performing experiments on them to increase medical knowledge. [I imagine it will become immediately obvious to the reader that logical extension of this analogy results in an assertion that the destruction of extra embryos for IVF therapy is comparable to destroying the Jews in concentration camps. Since I see no reason why the analogy should *not* be extended in this way, it appears that we must reconsider our practice of creating an excess of embryos in IVF and discarding them given its grave moral implications.] It appears that the near universal moral condemnation of this reasoning has been somehow forgotten, ignored, or overlooked since the argument has been repackaged in the form of the stem cell research debate. However, we must recognize that use of this argument to justify research is no more morally permissible in its new context.

Schindler -- by Kathleen Emberger

Oskar Schindler saved the lives of thousands of Jewish people during the Holocaust, but I do not believe that he was a good person or that he acted morally. Oskar Schindler was a greedy, scared man who wanted nothing more then to turn a profit. That is why he saved the lives of the Jewish workers in his factory. They were slave labor: labor which he did not have to pay for. He gained tremendous wealth through the factory. It gave him a higher standard of living which he would not give up without a fight. That is why he was willing to pay off Nazi officials to ensure the continued production in his company. He was even close with Nazi officials but did nothing as they committed crimes against humanity. Without the factory, he would have nothing and be nothing. He had little business acumen and failed to create any successful enterprise after his business closed. He acted completely in his own interest to gain wealth and power.


He simply used the Jewish people to serve his own purposes. First he used Jewish people to gain wealth, then he used them to gain security. After the war, all of his business enterprises failed. He was even funded by a Jewish organization to move to Argentina to start his own farm, which failed miserably. The only place where Schindler did not fail was in Israel. The Israelis were willing to welcome Schindler with open arms. They supported him both financially and emotionally for six months out of every year. They praised him for using Jewish men, women and children as slave labor.


Yes, he may have saved the lives of thousands but never had any motivations other than his own greed and selfishness. He lived by these vices and had not one virtue.

Dirty Hands and Moral Luck: Kurt Gerstein -- by Alex Frey

Upon learning that his water-purifying chemical was being used as a weapon of mass-murder, Kurt Gerstein made the most morally praiseworthy choice he could have; he maintained his post within the SS and endeavored to combat the misuse of his creation. It was through no fault of his that Zyclon was used in such a reprehensible way, as his intentions were good.


After learning of what was happening, he had several choices. Simply ignoring what was happening would have been morally wrong, as he would have sat by and watched the murders continue. His other option was to work against the SS and try to stop the killing. Attempting to do so by directly attacking the regime would have been fruitless, as such disloyalty would most likely have met with death. Leaving the SS would have been morally right from the standpoint of disassociating himself from the group responsible, but it also would be a risk to himself and his family, thus preventing him from taking action to stop what was happening. Thus, Gerstein’s decision to remain within the SS and covertly attempt to undermine the holocaust left him in a position from which he could actually try to make progress. However, in order to maintain this position, it he had to continue to work so as to retain his trusted standing within the organization; his hands would be dirty from these acts regardless of any gains he made against the murder.


From this position, Gerstein tried as best he could and with honorable intentions to prevent his discovery from being used in such a heinous manner. Sadly, all of the things he tried to stop or slow the killings were either ineffective or actually succeeded in making the situation worse. In this case, the ‘luck’ of the situation painted his actions as being morally bad, regardless of his intentions. This in mind, it is not right to say that Gerstein acted in a morally wrong way, only that his actions had results that were morally bad; there was no way for him to achieve results that were morally good.

Welcome to the blog!

Welcome to the Good v. Right seminar blog!

Watch here for random weekly postings from your peers. Feel free to comment on any of these posts -- offering opposing or supporting arguments is a great way to extend your experience with the issues we discuss.