TUGASAN KUMPULAN : MAX 10 ORANG MIN 7 ORANG SILA NYATAKAN KUMPULAN ANDA DI WALL FB, KEPADA KETUA KUMPULAN,

SILA NYATAKAN NO.H/P. (^-^) Arahan : 1. Sila baca ketiga-tiga artikel 2. Bagi First & Second Article, sila baca dan fahami artikel. 3. Bagi Third Article, Sila baca dan fahami setiap tajuk yang dinyatakan. 4. Bagi yang memilih First atau Second Article, sila pilih/cipta satu tajuk, untuk dikemukakan kepada Prof. pada kuliah seterusnya untuk mengelakkan percanggahan tajuk dengan kumpulan lain. 5. Bagi yang memilih Third Article, sila pilih tajuk & kemukakan kepada Prof. Tajuk mestilah berlainan dengan kumpulan lain.

*Reminder : Jangan lupa sediakan report. o 12 muka surat sahaja. o saiz, font & spacing, saya akan feedback a.s.a.p. o Jangan lupa footnotes/endnotes Presentation dalam bentuk rakaman. o Dalam rakaman hanya 2 orang present. o Rakaman masukkan dalam CD & pastikan ia adalah software yang boleh dibuka oleh windows media player. o Presentation hanya 15-20 minit sahaja. Sila Hantar Tugasan Pada Minggu Ke-10.

First Article STEM CELL RESEARCH Stem cell research has come into the limelight recently, because of the largescale questions being raised about the ethics involved. There are people who are all for it, and there are people against it. But first, let us know what stem cells are all about. In the human body, there are a variety of cells (220 types, to be exact) - blood cells, nerve cells, brain cells, tissue cells, bone cells etc. Many of these cells keep on developing within the human body at all times. 3 days after an ovary is fertilized, the embryo is at the 'blastocyst' stage. These embryos are also referred to as 'pre-embryos'. This means, that these embryos do not have a brain, heart, lungs, internal organs etc. They also do not possess any awareness, or senses, or thought processes. Now, research has been able to isolate those cells present within these 'pre-embryos' which will eventually become one of the 220 types of cells within the body. Call them a basic template cell, if you will. Upon being nudged into the right direction, the stem cell can grow to become a liver, a lung, a heart or a nerve cell. Literally, the possibilities are endless. This means that people suffering from various diseases could find cures. Those patients who undergo organ transplants need not take drugs to avoid the rejection of the transplant. They need not wait endlessly for a transplant either. They can simply have the organ grow back. There can be a cure for broken bones, brain damage, spinal cord injuries, burns to the skin, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, leukemia, muscular diseases, Parkinson's disease etc. Actually, the list is quite vast. But this process has come under the scanner due to the ethics around the process of extracting the stem cells. The main basis being that when the stem cells are being extracted from the 'preembryo', the embryo needs to be discarded because it has now become useless. Many pro-lifers and religious groups oppose this part of stem cell research. They claim that the 'pre-embryo' is a potential human being. Some claim that this 'pre-embryo' has a soul. They see this type of experimentation as a murder and liken it to the Nazi-type of medical experimentation on human beings. Another aspect of the ethics of stem cell research that has come under the scanner is regarding those stem cell lines which were already developed in the past, before the controversy arose. The question is whether government funding for these projects should continue. Stem cell research ethics are being questioned not just because of religious opposition, but because of the fact that many of these embryos were part of the surplus embryos in government labs. Some also say that stem cell research is the first step towards cloning, which is again another controversial subject.

Taking all this into account, several alternative options are also being examined by researchers. They are looking at adult stem cell research. However, this research is purportedly quite limiting. This is because these adult cells have already decided which of the 220 types they belong to. Therefore, researchers cannot do much with these cells. Researchers are also considering the use of legally aborted fetuses for the use of research. Another option that is being considered is the presence of stem cells within the umbilical cords of babies. Nowadays, these umbilical cords are being stored and used to further research.

Second Article EVERYONE AT WORK LOVED MICHELLE

Everyone at work loved Michelle. She was smart, intelligent, funny in a
charming way, and radiated with a sense of austerity that demanded respect and at the same time was immensely attractive. All the guys in the workplace were attracted to Michelle, and so was Richard. He wanted to get to know her better. He wanted to ask her out. But rumor had it she had never been with a guy before, that she had never dated anyone. If Richard was to believe gossip, Michelle was tactless and quite an unattractive person. And so Richard never asked her out. Eleven months down the line, Michelle became Mrs. CEO, and Richard was left with a pang in his heart. If only he had taken a chance and tried to verify the rumors, he would have known what a warm, romantic and beautiful person Michelle actually was, and how terribly wrong the gossip was... More often than not, workplace gossip is used in a way that is mean, sarcastic and aimed at altering an employee's image in the organization or company. Personally, I believe "gossip is good"; but then 'good' and 'bad' are pretty relative terms, aren't they? Effects of Workplace Gossip The Good Helps you bond with your colleagues Helps you come to know people without interacting with them Prepares you for a future encounter or meeting with a colleague you have not interacted with before Allows you to pursue a romantic interest A mean to convey information about one's interests, pursuits, hobbies, etc. The Bad Affect your reputation/earn you the reputation of a gossiper Waste of time, energy etc. Affects quality of work Demoralizes or demotivates colleagues Can affect mental health of the person who is being subject to gossip Fuels divisiveness, leading to isolation of the 'less popular' employees Many of you might be surprised at the above list, especially list of 'The Good' effects of gossip. You may wonder - "How can gossip ever be good, it's just so mean!" To understand this, let us take a look at what gossip is, and what is the psyche behind gossip. What is Gossip?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word 'gossip' as follows gossip [noun] a conversation about other people, an instance of gossiping; a person who likes talking about other people's private lives [verb] engage in gossip Though the etymology of the word suggests a rather pure implication, the word 'gossip' and the connotation in which we use it has undergone many changes, so that it has now been reduced to a derogatory term. Gossip, in the earlier times used to mean 'a close friend' or 'a chum'. But if in today's world you point out to someone and say 'He/she is my gossip', people are going to roll their eyes and look at you! Good vs. Bad Gossip Gossip is very important to women, and that is why you should never say that women gossip in front of a woman! Apart from feeling like she is being blamed or being pointed a finger at, a woman would take offense at the fact of being called a gossiper because of the fundamental difference in the way women look at gossip, as opposed to men. Gossip, for women, represents a mean to exchange information, to communicate and to bond. This goes hand-in-hand with the old meaning of the word. I guess that is why one of the women's magazines is actually named Gossip! (And believe me, that magazine sells like crazy!) Gossip in this sense is healthy (and not that it concerns much with the topic, but let me say that is why i believe in 'Gossip is good'!). Gossip has however, long lost its 'good' meaning, and now the term is used derogatorily. Gossip is sharing information; but what makes gossip bad is if this information that is being shared is biased, judgmental, spiteful, or simply intentionally incorrect. How Did Gossip Evolve? - The Psyche of Gossip Evolutionary psychology is a new and fascinating branch of psychology that inspects the evolutionary roots of certain psyches or tendencies that humans have. Evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar has suggested that gossip is a form of indirect reciprocity. We were all brought up to believe helping people is good, and one should always help others. However, society always has its individuals who are 'selfish' and 'cheat' by not helping those who help them. To take care of this, evolution can be said to have created 'punishing cooperators'. Punishing cooperators are people who live by indirect reciprocity - "I will scratch your back, if you scratch his"! And what if you don't scratch his back? I will bad mouth you! This is believed to have been the origin of gossip - to stress upon (by word of mouth) the presence or absence of morality among fellow beings so that cooperation is reinforced among people of the society. Gossip then, in this sense, can be looked at as something that plays the role of a mahout (a person who drives an elephant); something that makes sure we are all good to each other! Workplace Gossip The previous paragraph may have already helped you understand at least partially, the dynamics of workplace gossip. Workplace gossip typically focuses on

an employee's private life his/her daily on-goings his/her after hour activities his/her behavior in the organization Workplace gossip hence typically includes from things as petty as the in and out timings of the person, whether the person sleeps or eats at his/her desk, whether he/she takes too many or too long breaks, if he/she is approachable or not, to things as personal as if an employee is romantically involved in anyone, does he/she have many friends outside office, does he/she 'have a past', etc. Frankly, it is nobody's business to get involved in a colleague at that personal a level. But given the psyche of gossip, the urge to want to get involved can be understood. What is unhealthy about workplace gossip, however, is that most of the time it is used less as a mahout and more as a circus-trainer! More often than not, gossip in workplace spreads about an employee that is 'not liked' rather than an employee who is really a bad person. This leaves everybody at the mercy of the majority in the office. People do not like somebody, so they gossip about him/her until the person changes to become someone that the people like. But the bad thing about gossip is that gossip is addictive! So an employee who the office has started gossiping about, is never really 'left alone' and out of workplace gossip. More Effects of Workplace Gossip Apart from the ill-effects of gossip listed in the earlier section of this article, consider the following - a worthy employee may quit an organization due to workplace gossip induced stress. This in turn will lead to the company gaining a bad reputation outside the walls of the company. Gossip is such a powerful tool that if you are the subject of gossip or if you are being subjected to gossip, you may feel ostracized in such a way as only gossip can make you feel. Gossip may even lead to serious psychological problems such as anxiety, depression, and an increased suicidal tendency. Many organizations have recognized these ill-effects of gossip and have become more diligent about their work ethics. Employees are specifically instructed through employee handbooks about which of their actions will or will not be regarded as an instance of gossiping and what kind of action may be taken against an employee who fails to comply by the rules set by the employer. One may not be able to exactly put into words how they know if and when they are 'being talked about'; but one surely knows an instance of gossiping even without actually having to eavesdrop on a conversation. So I will not dwell upon that. However, I would like to give you a few tips on how you can stay away from and out of workplace gossip. Workplace gossip - as many of you will agree with me - is something you cannot avoid; because there is already too many people out there who are doing it. However, you can control your involvement in gossip. The best policy is to adopt a 'no comments' strategy. If someone gossips about someone to you, simply hear them out, but refrain from making any comments. If that person specifically asks you for an opinion, respond with "Oh I don't know, I haven't much interacted with him/her." As to staying out of workplace gossip, the best policy is to remember why the company hired you. They saw in

you something that they did not see in the rest of the interviewees. Respect that, appreciate that, and live up to it every single day. Wish you success

Third Article CONTEMPORARY ETHICAL ISSUES

Contemporary Ethical Issues
1. Welfare and charity. Welfare is organized charity, funneled through the collective, the government. But it raises many issues. How should we help others who are less fortunate? Can we differentiate between the "deserving poor" and the "undeserving" poor? Here are some associated questions. A. How responsible can people be? To what extent can we require that people "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps." If a college student is raised in a neighborhood where study is not fashionable, and they didn't study, to what extent are we obligated to provide "remedial" training in college? B. What if some folks are disabled, to what extent are we obligatedor would we choose to be obligated if we were fully enlightenedto help these people. The "how much" issue is tricky, because new technologies make increasing levels of aid exponentially more expensive. C. What if a teenager has been raised in an area that is judged to be significantly culturally, economically, or technically "behind"to what degree should we choose to compassionately support these people? Again, the themes would be remedial education. D. What about those whose disabilities make them mentally unable to do more than fairly simple and routine tasks? In our culture, merit is associated with intelligence. What levels of subsidy should be given? What about the in-between categories, which represents an expanding sector of the population: Folks not that smart, not smart enough to get "good" jobs, but smart enough to live independently and have full and dramatic lives. E. What about people who say they can't work? They're too burdened with kidshow much should this role of mothering be challenged? (This of course is a lively sociopolitical issue in the legal system right now.) F. Regarding the broader topic of welfare: General issues of responsibility are raised. When is helping someone really helping them, and when is it rescuing them and enabling their own self-defeating behavioral patterns. Can beggars be choosers? Are any "rights" implicitly forefeited by someone who receives charity? (This varies in different cultures!) For example, if offered work, is the person who is given welfare obligated to accept that job, even if they don't like that work? What if the decision as to a job being not acceptable is viewed as trivial or unworthy by others? G. What then are people entitled to as a basic support of society? Can these

entitlements be negotiated? H. Do we have special obligations to veterans, the elderly, children, women, any minorities, any types of disability or "differently-abled" people? I. When does support for certain occupational groups, tariffs for workers in certain industries, subsidies for certain farmers, when are these matters of social -ethical policy and when are they merely matters of community economic self-interest. (1) Do we owe people jobs? To what extent do we collectively need to extend ourselves to sustain lines of work that are economically uncompetitive? (2) As tobacco is becoming viewed as less of a socially beneficial substance, what obligations do we have to tobacco farmers? J. What about our obligations to help people in other countries? There's national and international charity, but is Government aid an ethical obligation? (1) What about "strings attached"? Can we demand political, human rights, ethical governmental policy, enforcement of human rights, etc. before we give aid? (2). What rights do we have on criticizing the ethics and priorities of peoples in other cultures? K. Should those who have been "dis-advantaged" because of past injustices, colonialist policies, slavery, etc., be given reparations?--or their descendents given reparations? What kinds? 2. Addictive SubstancesAlcohol, drugs, tobacco... A. Should we consider addiction a "disease"? What does that mean in terms of the role of the alcoholic or other drug abuser? (1) Should we collectively pay for drug treatment? (2) If they enter rehab and relapse, should they be taken back? How many times? (3) How much should addiction be considered a mitigating circumstance from some associated misbehavior or crime? 3. Abortion: Should abortion be allowed? Is this a religious or a legal issue? A. What about if the life of the mother is endangered? B. What if the fetus is found to be anencephalic no functioning brain Or if it has some other either catastrophic congenital defect? Is Down's Syndromemoderate retardationgrounds for an abortion? C. How late can an abortion be performed? 3 months? 5 months? 7 months? D. How early can an abortion be performed? Is the "morning-after pill?" an abortion? (I.e. before the embryo has implanted into the uterus) E. Should the community regulate contraception or is this for the individual to decide? 4. Suicide: How should the community relate to the problem of suicide? Should there be any legal constraints at all?

A. Might it be allowed only to stop the suffering of the terminally ill? B. What about people whose illnesses deprive life of its meaningnot terminal, but severely handicapped, or dying over years, but not immediately terminal. Should they be allowed to kill themselves? C. What about those who can't do it themselves? Should assisted suicide be allowed? D. What about those who can't even decide? Should euthanasia be allowed in any circumstances? (1) What about those who have failed to leave an advanced directive: If they are left in a vegetative state after an accident, stroke, etc., when is it okay to "pull the plug?" (2). Should a consideration of the legal device of advanced directives be made a compulsory unityou don't have to sign it, but you do have to discuss why you won'tfor people at age 80? 60? 30? In college? 5. Parenthood: Is there a "right" to parenthood? Should we support anyone who wants to be a parent in this activity? What if they are thought to be "unfit"? What makes a person "unfit" as a parent? (This is related to the next topic of abuse.) How much attention does a child really need? How nice must the housing be? The neighborhood? What if a parent cannot protect a child from the bullying of other children? A. Under what circumstances, if a parent has "lost" the right to parent for a while, should that right be re-instated? When should it not be? B. What about conditions for adopting babies? (1) Is it okay for gay or lesbian partners to adopt a child? (2) What about adopting a child of a different race? Or religion? (3) If the child is in permanent foster care because the parent has lost rights, can that parent nevertheless protest against the parents who would adopt that child on the basis of religion or some other ethnic criterion? 6. Animal Rights What rights should animals have? Our sensitivity to other peoples, minorities, etc. continue to expand. We're less tolerant of rank cruelty. What about intermediate conditions, excessive constraints in raising livestock, for instance? Animal laboratory testing? A. Supervision and regulation of animal farms, e.g., dog-raising kennels. 7. Heroic Medicine: How "sacred" is life itself? How heroic are we obligated to be in near-terminal conditions? A. How much money should be spent to attempt to keep alive a 2 month-premature infant? A 3-month premature infant? The limits of viability gradually are pushed down along with an exponential increase in cost and resources. Just because science can do something, it raises the question whether it should be done. B. Should we begin to consider rationing health care for the very old, those with senility? Again, a disproportionate amount of money is being spent for near-heroic

procedures for those whose prognosis is guarded. C. What about liver transplants for alcoholics, drug abusers with Hepatitis C, etc? Expensive AIDS treatment for those whose lives were reckless? Lung transplants or other heroic treatments for inveterate smokers? Rehab, surgery, etc. for victims of reckless driving and motorcycling without helmets? Or should health care attempt to be blind and non-judgmental as to the source of illness (All this is related to item 1-B and 4-C.) D. Should we differentiate between mild and severe disability in considering the allocation of costs of help? Differences between prognosishow likely that help will yield substantial changes in function? E. Do we need to re-negotiate our standards in times of significant economic constraints, recession, economic depression? 8. Safety Standards: What standards of safety do we wish to set? Is there a "right" to be protected even from our own foolishness? A. Should government get out of the business of telling people what substances they can or can not put into their bodies? (A strict "libertarian" stance.) (1) Is there a moral difference between "legalization" and "de-criminalization"? (2) Are there ethical or philosophical issues in drawing distinctions among the harm potential of alcohol, tobacco (in different forms), cocaine, amphetamines, caffeine, marijuana, LSD, heroin, other opiates (e.g. Oxycontin), sedatives, ecstasy (MDMA), etc.? (3) What about the whole field of restricting drugs or medicines to "doctor's" prescriptions? (a) what are the economic advantages of making all drugs over-the-counter? B. How much should we regulate different types of foods and drugs? Should many of the alternative and herbal medicines that slip through the technical net of FDA requirements be brought under that process? Or should we return to a "buyer beware" type of ethos? C. What about liability for accidents? Are some lawsuits becoming excessively lenient towards people doing dumb things, like getting drunk and laying down on the railroad tracks? D. How much "purity" can we afford in air pollution, ground pollution, water pollution, or food pollution standards? (There are some carcinogens in foods naturally that are present in far greater concentration than some so-called carcinogens from other "artificial" sources, but these latter must be reduced to almost impossibly low levels. 9. Environmentalism. What obligations do we have to the environment? A. To what extent must we go to preserve species of animals or plants?

B. How much intervention in foreign affairs is ethical in the service of "saving" forests, whales, various other ecological systems? 10. Governmental Corruption: Should corruption in politics be dealt with more severely? What kinds of ethical standards are appropriate for those in greater power, in government or business? 11. Rehabilitation of Criminals: What kinds of efforts should we make to rehabilitate prisoners? A. Is there an obligation to differentiate between violent and nonviolent crimes? B. Regarding "cruel and unusual punishments," what rights should prisoners have? (1) should there be protection against homosexual rape? (2) to what degree should criminals be supported in the right to appeal? (What if they are in fact innocent?) C. Is there a moral justification for capital punishment, also known as institutional murder? (1) What degrees of defense and protection should there be to make sure the innocent are not executed? (2) Would some punishments, such as flogging, be less destructive and expensive in the long run and more deterrent? D. What kinds of moral obligations do we have not to release people on parole who have shown themselves to be fully rehabilitated? Or to release people who have not shown a continuing threat to society? (1) How many chances should people be given for various problematic behaviors? E. What about obligations for restitution to the victims of crime? 12. Supporting Businesses: Do people have an obligation to collectively ensure that others be supported if the economy shifts? (A) What if people who go bankrupt have been foolish or high-handed, fraudulent or ethically lax, even though they've been legally just within the law. Should distinctions be drawn as to degrees of "fault"? (After all, they are in effect getting debt relief from hundreds or thousands of people, many of whom may not be able to afford that loss!) (B) What about farmers who move into a region with marginal resources for supporting those farms, or others who set up a business in an area with already too much competition. How much unemployment should be given? (C) What about workman's compensation? Are there limits? (See questions about tort reform) 13. Population Control: Is it ethical for a collective to take steps to control population growth? A. China's policies regarding having second children.

B. Pushing contraception even to people who don't believe in it religiously. C. Do some religious groupsnot just the Roman Catholicswho refuse to consider any artificial contraception approachesneed to be pressured to re-consider their policies? (It's hardly even spoken about anymore in this culture of tolerance.) 14. Is medical care a "right"? What is the moral problem of demanding medical care for all? What would the cost be? (A). What kinds of mental health care, psychotherapy, is appropriate for coverage by the collective, and what kinds are not appropriate? (B) What about substance abuse treatment? 15. Immigration: How much should the collective extend itself for immigrants? A. Should we have bilingual education? B. What levels of immigration should the better-off countries permit, and what restrictions are permissible? 16. Support for the Gifted: What obligations should the collective take on to foster talent, the gifted? 17. Homosexuality: What should be the status of gays and lesbians? Are they immoral? A. Parenting rights: See... B. Should their economic considerations, rights of inheritance, right to be named closest of kin, etc., be respected? C. Should tolerance of homosexuals be taught in school along with teaching other types of cultural diversity? D. What about bisexuals, trans-gendered folks, etc.? 18. Affirmative action: Should extra weight be given anyone because of that person's belonging to a group that has been considered "disadvantaged." Should there be any communal or governmental policies that "level the playing field"? 19. Freedom of speech: What are its proper boundaries? Should it extend to include pornography? To what degree? Now that the internet is available, what kinds of censorship is permissible? 20. Smokers' rights: Should we recognize such a concept? What about non-smokers' rights? 21. Gambling: Should there be any restriction of gambling? Is it a form of freedom, or an invitation to addiction?

22. Prostitution: What about legalizing or regulating prostitution? Is it always a degradation of women, a form of subtle oppression? What if some women who claim to enjoy this way of making a lot of money are not deceiving themselves? A. If it isn't a problem for consenting partners, is it a moral or ethical issue? 23. Privacy Rights: Are the rights to privacy diminished by the demand for drug testing for various schools, jobs, etc.? A. Should the type of employment have to justify its reason for demanding drug testing? Why couldn't a person use drugs on their days off? B. What about medical privacy in a world of managed care? 24. AIDS & Venereal Disease: Now that one venereal disease is both deadly and untreatable, should our policies and ethics about "free sex" be changed? A. Is there any place for governmental intrusion or laws, say, to make sure that all people who test positive can be interviewed and their contacts also notified? (1) Is it a moral obligation to inform contacts. What about for herpes or other venereal disease? 25. Tort Reform: Now that liability insurance is beginning to cripple health care delivery and interfere with other industries, we need to look at the fairness issues involved in civil liability suits and "tort reform." Should there be limitations, caps? Is there any way to suppress "nuisance" litigation without also limiting the rights of people who are disadvantaged? 26. Exclusive "Clubs": When are free organizations, clubs, fraternities, etc., against the common interest, unduly privileging certain groups, enabling of prejudice, etc? A. Are there any contexts where limiting participation by members of the opposite sex is appropriate? B. Should schools with co-ed dorms also make sure they have non-co-ed dorms for those who don't want to be exposed to the pressures on modesty in co-ed living? 27. Age Limits: What should be the proper age limits for driving, drinking, smoking, voting, going into the military, getting married without a parent's consent, having an abortion without a parent's consent, and other age-limitations. A. Should there be any routine age limitations on the older age side? For which roles or skills? 28. Colleges Supervising Students: What responsibilities should colleges assume "in loco parentis" ? 29. Grade Inflation: What is the obligation of the teacher, administrators, and general society (parents, media) to fight against pressures for grade inflation? A. Are there circumstances in which a child who has failed to perform should be flunked, retained, not passed along? When? B. Should kids be passed in the service of self-esteem? Other reasons? C. At what ages should these policies be looser or tighter? D. Is expulsion ever justified? Where should the child go?

What responsibility does the community school system take for severely obstreperous kids? E. What pressures are appropriate to demand psychological evaluation of not only a child, but also of the family? Is this intruding on the freedom of parents to raise their kids as strictly or permissively as they wish? F. When is discipline abuse? 30. Language Dialect and Accent: Is it all right to discriminate among people because of dialect, when that mode of speech may not be understood by a significant portion of the community? A. Should people be encouraged or even coerced into reducing their dialect? B. Or should dialects be granted equal status? What about jobs or roles in which being understood clearly is an important role component, such as in offering tech support by phone, or other service-related dealingwith-people roles? 31. Privacy: What are the appropriate limits of privacy? Is it unethical to break a confidence if the behavior that is known involves something really destructive to the person or otherse.g., suicide or murder? A. What about self-mutilation, cutting; or driving while intoxicated? B. Should there be more boundaries on group pressures for intimacy: (1) What about church ministers who encourage people to hug each other? (2) In groups, being encouraged to disclose more about one's life than is comfortable. (This could apply to this class, too so check it out.) C. Recent moves toward a standard or pooled electronic health records opens them to hackers and insurance administrators who then can use this information to deny health care coverage to the people. Claims that these records can be made secure are of dubious validity, even if they are naively sincere. 32. International Obligations: Are wealthier nations obliged to help other nations or governments, not just with humanitarian aid, but with military aid, or even more, are we obliged to intervene if those governments institute or enable or condone massive human rights abuses? A. What if the governments collapse in civil war? Or become chaotic and ineffective? Or allow or encourage genocide ("ethnic cleansing")? (Some have advocated a return to colonialism as being more ethical and benign than our self-righteous claims to non-interference in the service of promoting democracy) 33. Degrees of Wealth: Should a distinction be made between those who earn moderately more than the average and those whose income is hundreds or thousands of times greater than those who earn a minimum wage? Should there be a steeply graduated income tax or inheritance tax so as to reduce this discrepancy? A. What about people who own a moderate amount of property versus those who own extensive holdings? Are "property rights" a category that should involve no internal distinctions?