Dilip Barman - Topic description

What relationship do humans have with non-human animals? What kinds of relationships should we strive toward? What kinds of ethical considerations apply?  The session will include a half hour presentation about the philosophical background of animal rights, and

 include some material on animal welfare. We will consider the two short reading assignments and discuss how participants feel about animal issues raised in them. Do animals have "rights"? If so, who endowed them with these rights? Does providing or recognizing rights diminish human rights? Do non-humans serve at our pleasure and for our needs, or do they have an inherent value that goes beyond utility to humans?

Enhancement: Biomedical technology already allows us to implant and select embryos on the basis of traits we wish our children to have.  Do people have a moral right, even an obligation, to use this technology to create children who are more likely to be happy, healthy, and productive?  If the costs and benefits of reproducing are shared by everyone who shares a common environment, and a gene pool, do people who choose to reproduce have an obligation to create children with the best chance of the best life? 

Description: The way we feel about things often leads us to make moral judgments about them. Should we listen to those feelings? Can they reliably help us distinguish right from wrong or will they lead us astray? Do they work in conjunction with thought (reason) or are they in conflict? We will examine several cases to promote discussion about what emotion is and how it relates to moral deliberation. Examples include feelings about animals and vegetarianism, feelings for friends and family and judgments about the morality of actions, and investigating creatures who have undeveloped emotional capacity (e.g. fetuses, nonhuman animals, psychopaths).

Ethics of Food – GMO Foods
 
The debate over the health and safety of using genetically modified (GM) crops in the food industry is a contentious topic. Some argue that GM crops will promote ecological disaster, and that because no long term scientific studies have been performed, there is no telling how GM foods will impact human health. Proponents claim that anti-GM crusaders don’t have all of the facts and that GM crops are a safe and economically sound solution for the problem of world hunger. There are several key questions in this debate: 1) Should GMO foods be labeled so that the public is aware of status of the food they are purchasing? 2) Are GMO foods safe? 3) Who is really benefitting from the development of GM foods? 4) What is the potential impact of GMOs on the environment?

Ethics in War: Just War Theory Should countries respect certain boundaries in warfare? Do countries respect any restrictions or is war a state of unlimited violence where anything goes? This session will explore questions such as these along with possible answers arising from the “just war” tradition. We will talk about various limitations states might place on themselves (target selection, collateral damage likelihoods, weapons employed, and even the decision to go to war.) We will also consider recent developments related to drone warfare.

 We will discuss the main kinds of genetic testing - diagnostic, carrier, and predictive.  Then, we will discuss scenarios where genetic testing may be advantageous or more harmful than helpful.  Lastly, we will look at 2 case studies to further understand the complexities of genetic testing and why these decisions often raise serious ethical and moral questions.

Due to unprecedented leaks of state secrets by Edward Snowden (to The Guardian and The Washington Post) and Bradley Manning (to Wikileaks), a public debate has raged over the importance of secrecy for security and the rights of citizens to know about government policy, especially when it affects their privacy. In this discussion we'll explore some less-discussed moral and epistemological issues raised by this debate. These include but are not limited to: (i) how much should citizens know about the actions of their government in general?; (ii) should a responsible citizen ever support policies of which s/he is unaware and, if so, when and why?; and (iii) to what extent should we defer political judgments to policymakers as experts, like we would a medical doctor or an automobile mechanic?

The North Carolina General Assembly Long Session 2013:
Appearance, Reality, and Leaders’ Responsibility to Understand the Issues
 
            The North Carolina General Assembly met this past winter and spring for the first time since the end of Reconstruction in 1876 with super Republican majorities in both houses and in the Governor’s Mansion.  Many bills were proposed and passed that charted a new direction for the government and for the people in this state.  One reaction to the work done by the General Assembly saw many Democratic citizens come to Raleigh to engage in “Moral Mondays,” a weekly protest in front of the capital to call attention to their displeasure with the work of these elected officials.
 
In this session we will examine whether LEADERS have an obligation to separate the rhetoric of the protesters from what the laws and legislation passed by the General Assembly and signed by the Governor really were.  We will use copies of the actual legislation that passed as well as published summaries of what was accomplished published by legislative leaders and by North Carolina journalists.  Success of this session rests students coming in with an open mind and a willingness to look at some of the new laws from multiple perspectives in order form opinions based on reason and rationality and not emotion and misinformation.

How should humans treat non-human animals? Do non-human animals have rights? Can we justify living with and protecting some animals while killing and consuming others? Is it morally permissible to keep some animals in zoos? Is it wrong to test medicines on animals? This discussion of the ethics of human interaction with animals will address these and other questions.

Recently a judge dismissed a lawsuit from a high-school student against his history teacher for poking fun of creationism and religious fundamentalism.  Attorney Robert Tyler responds, "This case is about establishing legal precedent concerning the rights of children to be able to sit in a public school classroom without having their religion attacked,"   However the court disagrees, stating  "teachers must also be given leeway to challenge students to develop their critical thinking skills."  This is a complex issue.  Should an instructor be allowed to express her/his own religious views?  Wear religious garb or pray with students?  Ridicule others' beliefs?  What is the balance between personal religious beliefs and constitutional neutrality? 

In this session NCSSM students share what they did to design and implement a year-long, school-wide project to enhance the community’s knowledge of how to live more sustainably, reduce the school’s environmental footprint and have fun doing it.
 
Presented by the Sustainability Project Leaders @ NCSSM 
 
AM PRESENTATIONS FOR CHAPERON'S ONLY
PM PRESENTATIONS FOR STUDENTS ONLY