let's read the study case in p. 133 "hunter acquitted of manslaughter charge"
1. why did the jurors voted "not guilty" rogerson?
2. explain why they voted this way p. 134.
3. p. 135 offers a different picture. this is called a counter argument. do you find this necessary?
4. what is there about "good reasons" in this case that makes this counter argument compelling?
5. why is it that justification should not be culture-bound?
6. why is it that conflicting ethical claims cannot both be justified?
No comments:
Post a Comment