This book introduces major philosophical theories and issues in the context of the contemporary debate about the so-called culture wars in American society. It is designed to make these theories come alive as they are related to these vital contemporary concerns and to provide a framework within which to assess the ongoing debate about the future direction of Western culture. As a book in ethical theory, it is designed to provide the framework for clear and comprehensive thinking about our cultural (...) development. Classical ethical positions like cultural relativism, emotivism, egoism, hedonism, utilitarianism and theorists like Kant are introduced and assessed. The contemporary theorists John Rawls and Alasdair MacIntyre are given extensive treatment and made accessible to the introductory student in philosophy. Culture War and Ethical Theory exhibits a non-ptolemical tone as it relates these theories, for heuristic purposes, to the contrasting perspective of fundamentalism and secular humanism. These two viewpoints are treated fairly without pretense of thorough exposition. They were chosen because they set the contemporary debate in stark relief. Thus, they assist the reader in understanding the relationship of philosophical reflection to commonly held perspectives. (shrink)

The legal consensus that has evolved through adjudication and legislation since the Karen Quinlan case in 1976 is founded on the premise that there is a bright line between passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. Indeed, the term passive euthanasia is often eschewed in favor of less emotionally-laden terminology such as "forgoing life-sustaining treatment" or "terminating life support" so as to further sever any possible connection with active euthanasia. Legal approval has been bestowed upon passive euthanasia under certain circumstances while active (...) euthanasia is routinely condemned. This consensus was put to a test in 1990 when the United States Supreme Court ruled on the Cruzan case. However, the Court's narrow decision did not upset the consensus, and in the most significant appellate decisions handed down by state courts since Cruzan, there has been a reaffirmation-and possibly even an extension-of the consensus. Two other threats to the legal consensus about forgoing life-sustaining treatment have begun to manifest themselves: the increasing pressure for mercy killing and "futility" cases. Both of these challenge the fundamental premises on which the consensus is grounded. (shrink)