Todd Furman

This paper presents a lesson plan originally designed for applied ethics classes filled with primarily white, conservative students. In an environment where students used the terminology of “reverse discrimination” and “quotas” rather than “Affirmative Action,” the author employs a fictionalized example of a claim jumper and the rightful owner’s entitlement to the claim in order to present basic arguments for compensatory justice. These arguments are extended by analogy to the issue of Affirmative Action in order to deliver several key points: First, the “discrimination” of Affirmative Action programs is restitution, even if modern white people are not responsible for the privilege they possess, and thus Affirmative Action is not the same as the discrimination suffered by African-Americans. Second, an extraordinarily high number of African-Americans are still suffering as a result of past injustices. Third, while theoretical opportunity may exist for African-Americans today, true equal opportunity does not. Appended to this paper are a number of statistics relevant to the Affirmative Action debate and an Affirmative Action bibliography.

In a nutshell, I construct and defend an analysis of empirical knowledge. Call this analysis A . A is very eclectic, but it is best described as a reliabilistic-defeasibility analysis of knowledge. Its virtues are these: A seems to be able to handle Gettier examples. A overcomes the 'social aspects problem' of knowing. A makes sense of this phenomenon: Sometimes we are willing to attribute knowledge to S who has evidence E for believing that P. But, at other times, we are unwilling to say that S knows that P even though he has the same evidence for believing that P as he had in the first case. And , given A , knowledge is possible despite the possibility that we are brains in vats

In his classic paper, The Serpent Beguiled Me And I Did Eat, Gerald Dworkin makes the case that, without probable cause, the useof Proactive Law Enforcement Techniques (PALETs) is morally impermissible. Call this prohibition Dworkin’s Rule (DR). Here we argue that there are two reasonable exceptions to DR—the use of PALETs, without probable cause, is justifi ed when employed against High Level Government Officials (HLGOs) and High Level Business Officials (HLBOs). Moreover, these exceptions are consistent with Dworkin’s notion of Ideal Criminal Sanctioning. Finally, if society were to endorse the use of PALETs on HLBOs, we might be able to dispose of the current bane of American business, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and let business get back to the business of business.

If applied behavior analysis works as claimed by Furman and Tuminello, then both Schlinger and Potter agree that ABA could, in principle, be an aid for solving many more problems than just those associated with autism spectrum disorder. Does ABA work for children with ASD as Furman and Tuminello claim? Schlinger believes that ABA can, in fact, solve developmental and behavioral problems associated with ASD for some children to the point that those children might flourish in the Aristotelian sense. On the other hand, Potter does not believe that ABA can, in fact, elevate children with ASD to the level of Aristotelian flourishing.Schlinger may be predisposed to agree with Furman and...

Is it possible for children with autism to live a good life, to flourish? Surprisingly, the answer is yes, given a particular understanding of flourishing. Our project is to explain the conception of flourishing that we have in mind and explain how children with autism may come to flourish.Instead of constructing an account of a good life from the ground up for this project, Aristotle’s conception of a good life, of human flourishing, will be used. Using Aristotle’s paradigm of a good life, the initial prognosis for children with autism flourishing is very poor. But this prognosis is made in the absence of children with autism receiving early intensive behavioral intervention using the science...