Read either "Ban the Box" or "Selecting for Deafness." Write responses to some or all of the questions posed at the end of the reading you select. (I.e., respond to at least one of the questions.) Your response(s) should total 750-1000 words. Make sure your language use, grammar, and so on, are appropriate for a college writing assignment. You are not required to do outside research.
In your response(s), you should take a position and defend the position you take. So, first, you need to clearly state your position on the question being asked. Let the reader know what side you're on. Second, you need to defend your answer. To defend your view, you need to give clear reasons for thinking that your point of view is the morally correct one to take. So tell the reader why they should agree with you.
Here is a little advice on defending your view. There are two common mistakes students often make in this sort of assignment. First, they sometimes say someone should do something because it is "right" or "good" to do that thing. This won't do for this assignment. What you need to explain is what makes some act or decision good or right.
- Does the act have important consequences? If so, what are they? Who benefits, the actor and/or others? Are there negative consequences for anyone?
- Is there some important principle that should be observed? If so, what is the principle? How does it apply to your decision?
- Is good character the main issue? If so, what character trait (or vice) is involved in the decision? E.g.: Courage? Compassion? Pride/Self-Love? How would you define the trait? How does it apply?
Second, students sometimes say it is morally right or ok to do something just because a person has a legal right to do it, or morally wrong because the law forbids the act. Avoid this in your responses. There is a complicated relationship between the law and morality, but we know that the law sometimes forbids things that are moral (e.g., the law once prohibited people from helping slaves escape) and the law sometimes allows things that are immoral (e.g., it is not illegal to cheat on your boyfriend or girlfriend). In any case, for any law that forbids or requires some act, we can ask, does that law have morally good content? So, bottom line, it's not enough to point out in your response that something is legally allowed or forbidden.n the Box
It can be very difficult for former prisoners to find employment upon release. Employers in both public and private settings ask about criminal history on job applications. Employers can reject qualified applicants based on their criminal history alone. Many companies have human resources departments that screen and reject job applications before hiring supervisors see them.
Vermont's governor recently instituted "ban the box," an executive order that removes questions regarding criminal history from the initial application for state jobs. In other locations, "ban the box" legislation also applies to private employer applications.[2]
"Ban the box" advocates argue that ex-convicts who have served their sentences have paid their debt to society, and should not continue to be punished when seeking meaningful employment. Offenders who have served their time should be presumed ready and able to become productive members of society.
Others argue that these exclusions are counterproductive: Ex-offenders who cannot find jobs are more likely to commit crimes in the future. Some refer to the fact that even those convicted of non-violent and petty crimes are also affected by this policy. Finally, some have observed that this policy has racial implications. In the U.S., for instance, 60% of the 1.6 million people in prison are Black or Hispanic males.[3] Hiring policies that discriminate against ex-convicts therefore have a disparate impact on communities of color. One solution, advocates argue, is for employers to delay the background check. Questions about criminal history should come after those responsible for hiring have met with job candidates; this way, factors like a criminal record can be understood in context of who the ex-convict has become.
Opponents of these laws point out that private employers should have the right to screen applicants with criminal histories since previous behavior speaks to character. That is, employers have a right to ask about criminal history because committing a crime is an action people choose to undertake rather than an immutable characteristic such as skin color. An employer also deserves to know, for example, if the accountant she is planning on hiring was convicted of theft.
Employers also don't want to waste time and resources interviewing candidates that they will turn down for employment at a later phase of selection.Questions:
- Is it morally permissible for employers, including state entities, to ask about criminal history on an application?
- Is it morally permissible for the state to prevent employers from asking about criminal history on an application?
- Assuming that employers do ask about criminal history on an application, is it morally permissible for them to reject all applicants with a criminal history?
- If a government employer refuses to hire someone with a past criminal conviction, does this count as an additional punishment? If so, is it fair for the government to impose such an additional punishment? If a private employer refuses to hire someone with a past criminal conviction, does this count as an additional punishment? If so, is it fair for that private employer to impose such an additional punishment?
Selecting for Deafness
Andre and Leslie want to have a child. They decide to use a process called preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). In a 2006 story, the New York Times explained PGD as a process whereby "embryos are created in a test tube and their DNA is analyzed before being transferred to a woman's uterus. In this manner, embryos destined to have, for example, cystic fibrosis or Huntington's disease can be excluded, and only healthy embryos implanted."[1]
Andre and Leslie, however, wish to use PGD to select for a disability: Andre and Leslie are deaf and want to have a child who will grow up immersed in Deaf culture, who understands the experience of Deafness, and who communicates via sign language.
Some of their friends strongly object to their plan but find it hard to articulate exactly what is so wrong about selecting for deafness. Others argue that Andre and Leslie are compromising their child's future by trying to engineer their deafness and that knowingly and willingly bringing someone into the world under these conditions is wrong. But Andre and Leslie respond that no child is born with an uncompromised future, and yet very few people think that having children is wrong in general. Many children are born into families whose circumstances are not considered optimal and in which opportunities may be limited, yet few would claim that these parents acted immorally by having children.
In fact, Andre and Leslie argue that their child would have a better life if born deaf because they would be in a better position to parent this child, and because the family would experience the world in similar ways. Andre and Leslie also explain that they are not harming anyone by creating a deaf child. After all, since they are choosing which of multiple frozen embryos to bring to term, a different person will come into existence depending on which choice they make. How could they harming their deaf child when the alternative is that embryo remains frozen and that child is never born at all?
Questions:
- Can we harm or benefit a child by bringing them into existence? Why or why not?
- If a parent has the power to decide which of two people will come into existence, and if they know that one of these people will have a better life than the other, do they have a moral obligation to choose the person who will have a better life? Why or why not?
- What is the relationship between disability and wellbeing? All else equal, is it better to be born without a disability than with one? Why or why not?
- In the case presented, the parents are choosing to bring to term an embryo with naturally occurring deafness. Compare the ethics of this scenario with the ethics of a scenario where parents seek to render deaf an embryo with the potential to develop normal hearing.