Case #1: An Unusual Request

James Harrison is an eighteen-year old college honor student. He has been

studying the world population problem and is convinced that the explosive growth of the
human population must be stopped. In an attempt to do his part to slow the population
growth, he asks his physician for a vasectomy. His physician refuses, arguing that
Harrison is not mature enough to make such a decision. Harrison argues that people his
age are not prevented from climbing mountains, racing cars, join the military, engaging
in risky sexual practices, and doing many other things that can affect their lives in even
more serious ways. Therefore, he should be allowed to have a vasectomy if he wants it.
Was his physician morally justified in her decision?
Answer:
Legally speaking, it would be unethical, professionally, to turn down the request
of the patient which in this case is Harrison if ever he requests an operation for
vasectomy knowing that he is completely emancipated and bears the risks of his
decisions. However, as we delve deeper into the case, in its moral sense, the physician
was morally justified in her decision. Vasectomy is a permanent method of birth control
where mans vas deferens is cut and cauterized to prevent sperm from being
ejaculated during sexual intercourse and once Harrison undergoes through it, he can
never take it back.
It is true that he can freely do whatever he thinks is right, but a medical
procedure for male sterilization which is of intransience, would be like robbing the his
future from him on the part of the physician. There is a lot more that he can discover
and do for population growth without sacrificing as much as loosing the ability to pro-
create.
Submitting ones self in an operation like this needs full maturity and
understanding of its effects and consequences. It would be reasonable to accept this
kind of operation if in case of medical necessity. Consequently, an individual may not be
in the proper state to endure the pain of vasectomy on the basis of slowing down the
growth of the population because it does not in any way affect the population as a
whole.
In making a herculean choice like this would mean a thorough assessment, not
only as books and research as your sources but also the beliefs and moral stand which
you take. Following your own feelings, usually benevolent, may be of benefit to the
society but decisions which is of permanence like hishaving a vasectomy, may greatly
affect ones life in the most undesirable way and it would be too tolerant, relative and
ignorant of reason to follow this feelings as what the theory of Emotivism suggests.















Case # 2: Violent Lyrics
A rap CD contains lyrics that appear to advocate violence against women. The
lyrics suggest that women are sexually excited by being slapped and receiving other
forms of physical and verbal abuse. The lyrics also suggest that men can take a
womans protest as a way of actually giving consent to sexual intercourse and that rape
is a myth. In response to criticism, members of the rap group respond that they have a
right to advocate their views and that they sincerely believe males in our society need to
reclaim their masculinity.
Critics of the group argue that the group encourages rape and abuse of women.
Defenders of the group either agree with the groups philosophy or argue that freedom
of expression should override other considerations. Which side has the stronger moral
argument?
Answer:
If the case is morality, the critics of the group still have the stronger moral
argument. They are invoking the so-called freedom of expression but it should be noted
that this freedom is not absolute. Anyone is free to express their feelings and
sentiments provided that it is not contrary to law, morals, public order and public policy.
Clearly, advocating violence, whether implied or expressed, is against the morals of
everybody.
Freedom is not a one-way street. Freedom is also the recognition of anothers
freedom. The moment that there will be resistance on the part of the women, this
means that a person restrains ones freedom in the performance of his freedom.
In the premise that women are masochists and the resistance to a mans
aggression towards a woman will imply consent is definitely one of the corrupt effects of
todays different schools of thought.
The rap group may claim that they got their view from a particular school of
thought. But the question is, does not that school of thought go against the natural law?
Obviously, it does.
They were also saying that men have to reclaim their masculinity. There are
other ways of reclaiming this instead of creating music which could affect the thinking
of the people, most especially the children, if they get exposed to this kind of lyrics.
Given that this kind of action will persist and will attract fans, we can say that
even if many people believe in this or are doing this already, it still cannot be deemed
right. Freedom of expression has a silent command, which is respect, not only for
women, but for everyone.
However, if there is a moral theory which could justify this, it would have to be
hedonism. The rap group members get pleasure from expressing what they believe in,
whether it may prejudice other people or not.
In most cases, pursuing pleasure means engaging in enjoyable activity. In this
case, the members enjoy making raps which are violent and somehow sadistic in
nature. Pleasure depends on a person and on many different factors. If they look at it
at the hedonistic point of view, it will be a pleasurable life for them because it is where
they could derive their happiness.