04 Nov Considering Aristotle’s virtue theory and Hursthouse’s application of t
After reading Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" and Hursthouse's "Virtue Theory and Abortion", as well as the other material provided in this unit, write a 3-4 page es.say in which you do all of the following:
- Considering Aristotle's virtue theory and Hursthouse's application of that theory, explain what a virtuous person would think, feel, and do in the following case:
Case 12 of Regional Ethics Bowl cases 2022
You can decide which specific person you will be evaluating in this scenario (e.g. person seeking abortion, lawmaker, medical professional).
Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics": http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html
REGIONAL
ETHICS BOWL
CASES
FALL 2022
Written and edited by:
Michael Funke
Rhiannon Dodds Funke
Alexa Bishopric
Contributing Authors:
Matthew Mangum
Juliana Hemela (NHSEB)
Meredith Sheeks (NHSEB)
© Association for Practical and Professional Ethics 2 022
Editor’s Note: Please note that source materials cited may be used multiple times, but only
identified once per case.
2 © Association for Practical and Professional Ethics 2022
1. Abandoned? Well, that’s too bad
The Rowe family is suing Blue Energy LLC for compensation regarding an incident that
occurred in May 2012, although they say not even a million dollars would be sufficient for the
horrors they endured. Reuters reported that “Hanson and Michael Rowe noticed an overpowering
smell, like rotten eggs, seeping from an abandoned gas well on their land in Kentucky. The
fumes made the retired couple feel nauseous, dizzy, and short of breath.”1 Unfortunately, the
Rowes faced significant difficulty in holding the well's owner accountable. While the well was
on their land, the well itself was owned and drilled by J.D. Carty Resources LLC in 2006. Carty
dissolved in 2008 and sold the well to a company that was then acquired by Blue Energy, LLC,
which denied any ownership or obligation for the well.
The state of Kentucky declared the well an environmental emergency and ran a 40-day operation
to plug it, while the Rowes moved to a trailer on their property with no running water.
Regulators determined the leak was a toxic blend of hydrogen sulfide, a common drilling
byproduct, and the potent greenhouse gas, methane.
In last year’s bipartisan infrastructure law, 4.7 billion dollars were provided to plug and
remediate abandoned oil and gas wells.2 There are anywhere from 750,000 to over 3 million
abandoned oil and gas wells in the U.S. and they emit millions of metric tons of methane per
year. In addition to climate impacts, they also can contaminate ground water and even pose
safety hazards. And these wells are labor intensive and expensive to plug, costing anywhere
between $76,000 to $1 million for each well3. If you do the math, the funds set aside for fixing
the issue are a good start but nowhere near sufficient to fully address the problem.
While the issue of abandoned wells has been pervasive for decades, our lawmakers have only
begun to focus on remediation in the last few years. Many saw remediation of abandoned wells
as politically popular because it could become a source of jobs in so called “energy transition
communities” or areas where fossil fuel industry jobs dwindle as we transition to cleaner energy.
And although the money will be put towards reducing emissions, something which we must do
in order to reduce the most dire effects of climate change, some lawmakers have stated that the
private companies who caused this problem should be footing the bill, not the federal
government. Increasing bonding requirements for future well drilling could ensure that private
companies put aside money in advance to deal with abandoned wells, but this would not address
wells that have already been abandoned. Additionally, the money allocated in the bipartisan
infrastructure law for remediation of abandoned wells will not solve the systemic problems that
resulted in the abandonment of wells that emit methane, which would only accelerate with a
transition away from fossil fuels.
1 Nichola Groom, “Special Report: Millions of abandoned oil wells are leaking methane, a climate menace” June 16,
2020, Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drilling-abandoned-specialreport/special-report-millions-of-
abandoned-oil-wells-are-leaking-methane-a-climate-menace-idUSKBN23N1NL 2 H.R.3684 – Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-
bill/3684/text 3 Daniel Raimi, Alan J. Krupnick, Jhih-Shyang Shah, and Alexandra Thompson, “Decommissioning Orphaned and
Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells: New Estimates and Cost Drivers” Environmental Science & Technology 2021 55
(15), 10224-10230 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.1c02234
3 © Association for Practical and Professional Ethics 2022
But, as made clear by the Rowe’s situation, these abandoned wells are causing harm in
communities, and the debate over who should pay would not have helped them live in a safe
home. If there is political capital so to speak, many argue that the opportunity should be grabbed
by the horns.
4 © Association for Practical and Professional Ethics 2022
2. Happy to be alone?
On May 18, 2022, the New York Court of Appeals heard a case on whether Happy the elephant
has the right of Habeas Corpus, and therefore, whether she is considered a legal person. This was
the first case of its kind in an English-speaking high court and called into question what
constitutes a person in the United States.1
For the past 45 years, Happy the elephant has been kept at the Bronx Zoo in a one-acre
enclosure, with intermittent contact with other elephants.2 A petition led by the Nonhuman
Rights Project (NhRP) garnered almost 1.5 million signatures calling for Happy’s release to an
elephant sanctuary. The petition, titled “End Happy The Elephant's 10 Years of Solitary
Confinement”, states that Happy has been in isolation since her companions Grumpy and Sammy
died. Zoo defenders assert that Happy is not alone, and that she receives extensive care,
including efforts at interaction and enrichment, unlike prisoners in solitary confinement who
receive little if any human contact. For instance, Happy resides next to another female elephant,
Patty, who is separated by a fence and the two elephants can see and smell each other, and even
touch trunks.3
Proponents on both sides agree that a ruling in favor of Happy’s personhood would have massive
ramifications. The Nonhuman Rights Projects filing the case on behalf of Happy, argue that the
ruling could help animals achieve the bodily liberty that has been denied to them across human
history. Whereas in a brief, attorneys for the Bronx Zoo wrote “Expanding the notion of a
‘person’ to include animals … has implications not just for zoos, but for pet owners, farmers,
academic and hospital-based researchers and, most critically, every human who might seek or
need access to the judicial system.”
Happy was, in part, selected by the NhRP because in 2005 she was the first elephant to pass the
mirror test, previously only passed by great apes and dolphins. The mirror test determines
whether an animal possesses the ability of visual self-recognition and is often associated with
capacity for empathy. It is unclear whether opening the legal recognition of personhood to
Happy the elephant would set the stage for all animals to fall under this category. There have
been many theories on how to quantify the moral value of a being, whether that is self-
awareness, capacity for pain, or the capacity of rational thought. Some philosophers have even
addressed consideration for the moral weight of plants.
NhRP argues that those who have claims against their case do so for personal interest, such as
the National Association for Biomedical Research, which claimed that “extending habeas rights
to animals would … drive up the cost of conducting critical research using animals, threatening to
1 Michael Doyle, “Happy the elephant's case poses heavy philosophical” Politico, 05/12/2022
questionshttps://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2022/05/12/happy-the-elephants-case-poses-heavy-
philosophical-questions-00032060 2 Vicki Constantine Croke, “Happy the elephant had her day in court. We humans are better for it.” The Washington
Post, June 23, 2022 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/23/bronx-zoo-elephant-lawsuit-happy-
captivity/ 3 Jill Lepore, “The Elephant who could be a person” The Atlantic, 11, 2021
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/happy-elephant-bronx-zoo-nhrp-lawsuit/620672/
5 © Association for Practical and Professional Ethics 2022
impede important medical breakthroughs and other major scientific advances that benefit
humans and animals alike.”4
Three Buddhist scholars countered in a brief that “this legal moment for Happy represents a great
opportunity to consider the treatment of sentient beings from a cross-cultural and more moral
perspective than we have done before, so as to avoid perpetuating a great moral wrong merely
because it has been a habit of the law.”
On June 16, 2022, the top New York Court ruled that Happy cannot claim habeas corpus rights,
and therefore, is not a legal person. While this may put to rest this challenge seeking animal
personhood in the United States, the law is not necessarily coextensive of morality.
4 Kathleen M. Sullivan, Amicus Curiae Brief, September 24, 2021
https://www.nonhumanrights.org/content/uploads/Kathleen-Sullivan-brief-Happy-Court-of-Appeals.pdf
6 © Association for Practical and Professional Ethics 2022
3. Knowledge for the sake of … lizard dewlaps?
An ecology lab at a renowned University focuses their research on animals largely found in the
Caribbean and the southeastern United States. One of the groups focuses on anoles, a type of
lizard of which there are more than 425 species, and focuses on one of these species. The Anolis
Distichus had been selected out of hundreds, due to the dearth of research on the particular
species, because it is smaller and quicker, and therefore harder to catch than others. The group
researches the lizard’s dewlap, a brightly colored extendible flap of skin, and seeks to determine
its true purpose as it has been hypothesized that male anoles use it to attract mates. In the course
of research, teams of students are sent to capture wild anoles for study, measurements are taken,
and then the lizards are released. But sometimes during this process, accidents happen, and the
lizards die due to sun exposure, dropping of containers, or other unforeseen circumstances.
It is unclear to some, what this research would do for either humanity, or for the lizards
themselves. This begs the question whether knowledge, for the sake of knowledge, is a goal
justified in it of itself, in exchange for the loss of animal lives. Others may argue that scientific
discoveries sometimes lead to unexpected advantages in other aspects of life. Like how scientists
discovered that sharks resist infection, and then transitioned this knowledge into studying the
sharks’ immune system with the hope that their immunity could unlock secrets to improve
human health1. Scientists may not always know the application of their study until after findings
are made. Thus, it’s possible the dewlap research could become relevant for conservation of
lizard habitats if, for instance, we learn that they need to use their dewlaps in a particular
location, climate, or time of day. And even if the research does not impart some immediate
further application, some could say the knowledge alone is powerful. But the anoles at the
moment do not get a say.
The above is an example where animals are accidentally killed in the field, but in many cases,
animals are killed at the end of experiments due to factors such as stress or illness, that would not
allow them to be returned to the wild. Many consider this a reasonable cost of better knowledge
and understanding of our world. In Germany, there are investigations into whether the routine
culling of unused research animals should be allowed, as they were not even used “for the
greater good”. For example, the European Union estimated that in 2017, EU labs culled 83% of
mice in labs without any studies, due to space or time constraints.2 Animal rights activists in
many countries have tried and failed for decades to get stricter animal testing laws on the books.
The Animal Welfare Act is the only federal legislation that regulates researching animals in the
U.S, but it does not cover 95% of the animals used in laboratories such as mice, rats, birds, and
fish.3
1 Melinda Ratini, “Understanding Cancer — the Basics” WebMD, January 20, 2022
https://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20170721/what-sharks-can-teach-us-about-our-health 2 Hinnerk Feldwisch-Drentrup “Germany weighs whether culling excess lab animals is a crime” Science, May 5,
2022, https://www.science.org/content/article/germany-weighs-whether-culling-excess-lab-animals-crime 3 Susan Gilbert, Gregory E. Kaebnick, and Thomas H. Murray, “Animal Research Ethics: Evolving Views and
Practices,” Special Report, Hastings Center Report 42, no. 6 (2012) http://animalresearch.thehastingscenter.org/u-s-
law-and-animal-research/
7 © Association for Practical and Professional Ethics 2022
4. Do no harm
On December 24, 2017, 75-year-old Charlene Murphey was admitted to Vanderbilt University
Medical Center with a subdural hematoma.1 Two days later, Murphey’s condition had improved,
and she was prescribed a sedating drug, Versed, to allow her to be still during a final MRI before
release. RaDonda Vaught, a registered nurse with seven years of experience at the hospital, was
ordered to administer the sedative. Vaught attempted to withdraw the sedative from an
automated dispensing cabinet by keying “VE” into the search function. When this failed Vaught
used an override code to manually withdraw the medication. Unfortunately, Vaught mistakenly
withdrew vecuronium, a paralyzing drug, the administration of which led to the death of
Charlene Murphy.
Vaught admitted her error to Vanderbilt administrators, explaining that she was distracted by a
trainee and had been complacent. That information was not passed on to medical examiners, as
required by law, and Murphy’s death was attributed to natural causes. In the following month
Vaught was fired but retained her nursing license as Vanderbilt continued to suppress public
knowledge of the incident. In October 2018, the incident became public due to an anonymous tip
and Vaught faced a hearing with the Tennessee Department of Health’s Board of Nursing.
Vaught explained the incident and that overriding the automated dispensing system was daily
practice, that “You couldn’t get a bag of fluids for a patient without using an override function.”
The board allowed her to retain her license.
Vaught was arrested on February 4, 2019 and charged with reckless homicide and impaired adult
abuse. To fund her legal defense, Vaught started a GoFundMe campaign writing, “Many feel
very strongly that setting the precedent that nurses should be indicted and incarcerated for
inadvertent medical errors is dangerous.” Nurses rallied to Vaught’s defense raising over
$100,000, appearing at her trial, and writing letters of support. Janie Harvey Garner, a St. Louis
registered nurse and founder of Show Me Your Stethoscope, a nurse’s group with more than
600,000 members said, “In response to a story like this one, there are two kinds of nurses,”
Garner said. “You have the nurses who assume they would never make a mistake like that, and
usually it’s because they don't realize they could. And the second kind are the ones who know
this could happen, any day, no matter how careful they are. This could be me. I could be
RaDonda.”2
Pharmacists have taken Vaught’s case as an object lesson in the need for reform in the control of
dangerous medications. For example, pharmacist confirmation of drugs obtained by overriding
an automated dispenser, limiting overrides to emergency situations, separate control systems for
paralytic drugs, like vecuronium, and other increases in institutional safeguards.3 Under
1 Brett Kelman “The RaDonda Vaught trial has ended. This timeline will help with the confusing case” Nashville
Tennessean March 27, 2022. https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/health/2020/03/03/vanderbilt-nurse-radonda-
vaught-arrested-reckless-homicide-vecuronium-error/4826562002/ 2 Brett Kelman “As a nurse faces prison for a deadly error, her colleagues worry: Could I be next?” NPR, March 22,
2022 https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/03/22/1087903348/as-a-nurse-faces-prison-for-a-deadly-error-
her-colleagues-worry-could-i-be-next 3 Myungsun (Sunny) Ro and Emily B. Holcomb, “More Lessons Learned From RaDonda Vaught Case” Pharmacy
Practice News June 27, 2022 https://www.pharmacypracticenews.com/Operations-and-Management/Article/06-
22/More-Lessons-Learned-From-RaDonda-Vaught-Case/67213
8 © Association for Practical and Professional Ethics 2022
increased federal scrutiny Vanderbilt developed a “plan of correction” which satisfied officials
and allowed it to continue operations with federal funds.
On the other hand, the Tennessee Department of Health’s Board of Nursing reversed its earlier
decision and revoked Vaught’s nursing license. Vaught was subsequently convicted of criminally
negligent homicide and abuse of an impaired adult. Although guilty of very serious charges,
Vaught was sentenced to three years of probation and while she will likely never be a nurse
again, she will also likely not serve time in prison. Still, many worry that the apparent
institutional cover-up and chilling effect on nurses will cost other patients their lives.
9 © Association for Practical and Professional Ethics 2022
5. Do innocents pay the price?
On February 24, 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine in an escalation of long-standing tensions
between the nations. The on-going conflict has caused humanitarian problems including food
shortages and a refugee crisis. In response to the conflict American and EU nations have
provided and pledged billions in military support to Ukrainian defense. Individuals and private
organizations have refused to carry Russian vodka in restaurants, liquor stores, or bars; refused to
play symphonies by Russian composers. Additionally, western nations have implemented an
aggressive series of escalating sanctions on the Russian state and individual powerful Russian
citizens.
Beyond western state sanctions, some private organizations have chosen to apply pressure on
Russia within their own spheres of influence. In one such case, Wimbledon, the oldest and
perhaps most prestigious tennis tournament in the world, banned Russian and Belarussian
athletes. Wimbledon’s ban impacts a handful of top players including Daniil Medvedev, the
number two ranked men's tennis player, and Aryna Sabalenka, the number four ranked women’s
tennis player.1
Wimbledon wrote in explanation, “Given the profile of The Championships in the United
Kingdom and around the world,
Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.
Fill in all the assignment paper details that are required in the order form with the standard information being the page count, deadline, academic level and type of paper. It is advisable to have this information at hand so that you can quickly fill in the necessary information needed in the form for the essay writer to be immediately assigned to your writing project. Make payment for the custom essay order to enable us to assign a suitable writer to your order. Payments are made through Paypal on a secured billing page. Finally, sit back and relax.
About Wridemy
We are a professional paper writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework. We offer HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE Papers.
How It Works
To make an Order you only need to click on “Order Now” and we will direct you to our Order Page. Fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.
Are there Discounts?
All new clients are eligible for 20% off in their first Order. Our payment method is safe and secure.