[ktanrv]

hi guys im studying a-level philosophy and ethics and im just wondering if you could help me im doing a debate and i need more arguments both for and against
the question is
"should 3rd generation un-employed people be steralized"

any suggestions would be greatly appreciated

thank you

[Coursework.info]

It's been a while since you posted and nobody's replied yet...maybe you should check out MarkedbyTeachers.com, TSR's sister site. It has the largest library of essays in the UK.

They've got over 181,000+ coursework, essays, homeworks etc.. all written by GCSE, A Level, University and IB students across all topics. You get access either by publishing some of your own work, or paying £4.99 for a month's access. Both ways give you unlimited access to all of the essays.

All their documents are submitted to Turnitin anti-plagiarism software, so it can't be misused, and the site's used by hundreds of thousands of UK teachers and students.

What's more, you can take a look around the site and preview the work absolutely free. Click here to find out more...

[there's too much love]

I would start by researching the topic instead of relying on others to do your homework.

[Kosmos]

"Should third generation unemployed people be sterilized?"

Well firstly you can mention your own standpoint on this.

This sounds like an ethical question so you can answer the question by using utilitarianism, situation ethics, virtue ethics, kantian deontology.

Rule utilitarianism, championed by J.S.Mill, would use rules to delineate whether they should, it would consider the amount of good that would come out of doing so and the repercussions, essentially the teleological value out of committing this act. J. S. Mill's utilitarianism is based on the maxim "The greatest good for the greatest number.", therefore one viewpoint would be that they should be as it would be favorable and beneficial for the people having to deal with the repercussions of financing such people as it affects the amount of money they have to pay as well as the way their lack of contribution even though they take up resources. Therefore the greatest good could be considered as the majority who would benefit from this. However it could also be said that it would be not the greatest good as it would prevent future generations from providing contribution to society.

Act utilitarianism, from Bentham would use the hedonic calculus to reason whether it would be beneficial to do so. You can research using wikipedia or the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy what his calculus was and then apply the criteria to the question. In short, he would favor the greatest pleasure (hence from hedonism) for the greatest number, it would not take into account the minority.

Situation Ethics, as posited mainly by Fletcher, would apply the four criteria to decide (Pragmatism, Personalism, Positivism, Relativism). Hence, is it pragmatic to do so (is it practical?), does it benefit the person(s) involved?, is it applicable in terms of relative principles?, does it allow for the person(s) involved to freely choose under agape (Christian concept of love).

There is also kantian ethics, by Immanuel Kant, which would ask whether this principle can be universal, i.e should all third generations of unemployed people be sterilised? would that take into consideration the rights of the people involved, there pretending that you are from the kingdom of ends, therefore would you yourself apply such a rule?

Virtue ethics is essentially a aretaic philosophy by Aristotle which is based on how a person should act, which may or may not be applicable to this question.

Hope this helps, good luck.