Discussions of autonomy at the end of life in health care contexts is no new phenomenon. However, what seems to have changed in issues of autonomy is cases where patients want to refuse a treatment to cases where patients are demanding more treatment when medical professionals may not agree or be able to provide them with the medical treatment. Some key competing interests impacting patient autonomy include beneficence-doing what is in the best interests of the health or well-being of the patient- and resource limitations. Here, I will explore distributive justice theories that impact the end of life and how they constrain autonomy.

The Gulabi Gang is a feminist vigilante based in northern India. They are known as a group that uses physical violence to fight systems of oppressive power. The idea of a Gulabi Gang vigilante, interacting with the people and the state will be discussed, while incorporating John Locke’s social contract theory into the argument as a way to critique vigilantism, or as a basis of critique to then argue why the Gulabi Gang’s vigilantism is necessary. After both sides of argument are weighed, possible solutions of how the Gulabi Gang can better their organization will be discussed in the concluding chapter.

Abstract In this paper, I will analyze Nietzsche’s argument for a moral error theory and examine the implications of his view. In order to arrive at the best possible interpretation I will heavily incorporate many passages from Nietzsche’s original works so that I can delve into a textual analysis of Nietzsche. Because Nietzsche is notoriously vague at times and often contradictory, I recognize that this is far from the only appropriate interpretation. However, I hope that it is one which has at least some intuitive appeal. Eventually, I hope to prove that despite his rejection of moral truths, Nietzsche’s theory of value can lead us to a sound ethical theory.

This thesis explores the strength of the two major theories of punishment, consequentialism and retributivism. It also explores the two most critiqued systems of punishment in the world: The U.S and Norway. By presenting the idea that retributivism is the only plausible theory that can morally justify the U.S. penal practises, I argue against the theory by incorporating various objections delivered by Antony Duff, Michael Zimmerman, and Jeffrie Murphy. I then explore the question of what could possibly ground the Norwegian justice system, for the answer to this is crucial, if we hope to demand prison reform and tailor our systems to resemble the Norwegian ideal. To answer this question, I present a theory that incorporates the ‘capabilities approach’ as developed by Martha Nussbaum and Amartya Sen, arguing that the Norwegian prison system is grounded in a hybrid theory of consequentialism that aims to enhance our human rights.

The scope of war has changed dramatically in the recent part of the 20th and 21st centuries, in particular, with regard to state sponsored terrorism (“SST”). The responses of nations too have changed as they seek to protect both their sovereignty and the rights of their citizens. This paper will address possible ethical responses to SST through the view of contemporary Just War Theory (“JWT”) as Michael Walzer describes it. I will begin by arguing for an ethical approach to war, and why JWT is the best ethical approach. Then I will outline the basics of JWT in addition to some of the main concepts that will be drawn upon throughout this paper. Next, I will put forth a spectrum of possible responses to acts of aggression and in so doing provide the framework for what constitutes a legitimate threat. Then I will critique Walzer’s interpretation of a legitimate state, followed by my own proposal. Following this, I will define ‘terrorism’ and considering various scenarios of SST with direct reference to the arguments made prior in the paper. Finally, I will conclude by restating the argument made in short, and illustrate the implications of this new ethical approach.

I examine the current state of democracy in the United States and how it has evolved from its original, direct form. Present-day problems with democracy emerge in part because of a failure to exercise our autonomy, which is the very basis of our self-governance. To consistently improve the ways in which we organize ourselves in society, I suggest a civil duty to become informed about political issues and engage with others from different backgrounds. Because we exercise reason in order to determine governance, thoughtful deliberation provides opportunities to include more diverse opinions and ideas in political decision-making. I outline an ideal deliberative democracy that would better serve the interests of the constituents given the uniqueness of today’s challenges. To explore the value of deliberation, I examine Immanuel Kant’s text “What is Enlightenment?” and Michel Foucault’s text in response to Kant. I argue that if deliberation is carried out with intention, citizens in a democracy can help strengthen the system by fulfilling duties of civility. Foucault’s historicocritical examination of ourselves reinstates our autonomy and allows an emergence from a state of immaturity. Recognition of our condition in the present day is, I will argue, an achievement of progress towards a dynamic conception of personal and collective enlightenment.

John Rawls was a political philosopher who proposed a theory centered around the idea of justice as fairness. His primary concern was social justice, so more specifically, he proposed a basic structure for society that ensures major social institutions like the government fairly distribute fundamental rights and duties and optimally divide advantages brought about by social cooperation. His theory is based on the idea that the correct principles to use for the basic structure of society are those that free and rational people would agree to in attempt to advance their own self-interest from a fair and equal starting position. Rawls proposes three principles that he believes people would agree to in this situation and describes what a society based on these principles would look like. Throughout this paper, I will attempt to explain Rawls’s “Theory of Justice” and defend various aspect of the theory against common objections.

In this thesis I have examined Anti-Natalism, specifically arguments by David Benatar, which conclude that human procreation is under all circumstances wrong, and Seana Shiffrin, which concludes that procreation is a “moral hard case.” I provide objections and responses to each argument of my own, as well as those from Saul Smilansky, Rivka Weinberg, and David Wasserman. I also examine the manner in which female unemployment rates (as well as aggregate female and male) unemployment rates in a year between 2005 and 2014 impact fertility rates in the following year (from 2006-2015).

This work examines how values seem to be contingent on various factors which affect their growth and development. This study is based around the ethical writings of Friedrich Nietzsche. Specifically, On the Genealogy of Morals serves as the foundation for my thesis. This book contains three essays which purport to show how moral values originated as a result of certain human phenomena rather than, as many people take for granted, from moral “truths.” This contribution to ethics is important because it leaves many questions regarding the value of morality untouched. In the Genealogy, there are numerous themes of Nietzsche’s philosophy which are important to note such as anti-realism and naturalism. However, one of the difficulties of reading Nietzsche is that his writing has been misinterpreted, and it can be difficult to reach a consensus on how to properly understand his meanings. In the paper, I argue that to properly interpret Nietzsche one must recognize that his Genealogy serves two purposes: 1) to shake our faith in morality as “given” or “factual;” and 2) to provide us reasons that moral values might have detrimental effects on human flourishing. To fully appreciate these aspects of the Genealogy, I argue that the historical form of the text is a crucial component which cannot be ignored. Ultimately, if Nietzsche is successful in demonstrating these factors, then it will be shown that morality is contingent upon a plethora of historical factors.

Introduction: A Global practice of civil disobedience -- Decency, the right to disobey, and non-domination -- Undocumented disobedients as a special class of civil disobedients -- Institutionalizing the human right of the undocumented to be domestic political participants -- Unfair terms of global cooperation and the fair equality of liberty between peoples -- Executive prerogative and disobedient disclosure of government secrets -- Disobedience as an expression of global solidarity and redefining disobedience in a global perspective. This book explores a hitherto unexamined possibility of justifiable disobedience opened up by John Rawls' Law of Peoples. This is the possibility of disobedience justified by appeal to standards of decency that are shared by peoples who do not otherwise share commitments to the same principles of justice, and whose societies are organized according to very different basic social institutions. Justified by appeal to shared decency standards, disobedience by diverse state and non-state actors indeed challenge injustices in the international system of states. The book considers three case studies: disobedience by the undocumented, disobedient challenges to global economic inequities, and the disobedient disclosure of government secrets. It proposes a substantial analytical redefinition of civil disobedience in a global perspective, identifying the creation of global solidarity relations as its goal. / https://dc.etsu.edu/etsu_books/1124/thumbnail.jpg