Logo Students

CUL 399 – Sex, Death and Politics: The Ethics of Our Lives

2017 – S2 Day

General Information

Pdf icon Download as PDF
Unit convenor and teaching staff Unit convenor and teaching staff Co-ordinator and Lecturer
Dr Undine Sellbach
Contact via The quickest way to contact me is via email. My office phone phone is: (02) 9850 2118.
Y3A: room 149
Mondays: 1 - 3pm
Credit points Credit points
3
Prerequisites Prerequisites
39cp at 100 level or above
Corequisites Corequisites
Co-badged status Co-badged status
Unit description Unit description
This unit is about the common (yet often scandalous) dilemmas or big issues we confront or have to ethically decide upon in our everyday lives. For example, why do we, or would we, decide to have an affair or a one night stand, and with who? Why do we decide to have kids, or not? Why do we decide to work, or be educated? Why do we decide it is important to prolong human life, or not (euthanasia)? From health; environment; science, to adultery; marriage; abortion; religion, war; sport, work and education, this unit will draw on a number of theoretical/philosophical and literary writers, as well as ethical and practical approaches, to debate how and why we make the decisions we do; why we think some decisions are more important than others, and how do we find the wisdom to decide that? How are we influenced by media and politicians, religion and society, family and friends? And are these decisions emotionally, instinctively, or rationally made?

Important Academic Dates

Information about important academic dates including deadlines for withdrawing from units are available at http://students.mq.edu.au/student_admin/enrolmentguide/academicdates/

Learning Outcomes

  1. 1. Analyse, identify and communicate broad and specific arguments in contemporary cultural, political and ethical debates.
  2. 2. Evaluate cultural, social, and ethical values, to enable students to emerge as capable of professional and personal judgement in both their working and everyday lives.
  3. 3. Apply theoretical arguments underpinning contemporary issues and debates to specific ethical decision making in everyday life.
  4. 4. Apply team and individual problem and enquiry based learning to contemporary social, cultural and ethical issues and debates.
  5. 5. Reflect critically the impact and consequence of one's arguments on others, while respecting the difference of counterarguments.

General Assessment Information

EXTENSIONS AND PENALTIES

You are required to submit all assessment tasks on or before 11: 59 pm on the due date. No extension will be granted unless a formal Disruption to Studies application has been approved. Students who submit late work without an extension will receive a penalty of 10% per day. This penalty does not apply for cases in which an application for Disruption to Studies is made and approved. 

The Disruption to Studies procedure can be found at: http://www.mq.edu.au/policy/docs/disruption_studies/procedure.html

The Disruption to Studies Notification must be completed by the student and submitted online through www.ask.mq.edu.au

ASSIGNMENT SUBMISSIONS 

The Debate Essay (Assessment 1), Participation Collaboration (Assessment 3), and the Short Self-Reflective Essay (Assessment 4) should be uploaded through turn-it-in on the i-learn site.

The Team Debate (Assessment 2) will take place during class. A schedule will be distributed during semester. 

Further guidance on the assignments will be given in class and via ilearn.

Important: Be sure to keep a copy of all your work submitted. Keep copies on disk or USB until the unit is over and you have received your final grade from the University. 

 

Assessment Tasks

Name Weighting Due
DEBATE ESSAY 30% Monday 25 Sept
TEAM DEBATE 35% in class
PARTICIPATION COLLABORATION 15% Tuesday, 7th November
SELF-REFLECTIVE ESSAY 20% Friday, 10th November

DEBATE ESSAY

Due: Monday 25 Sept
Weighting: 30%

Assignment 1: Debate Essay (1, 800 words)

This Essay is a research-based, analytic, evaluative assessment task that requires you to communicate, by academic scholarly means, your ideas via well-reasoned arguments, while taking into consideration various scholarly viewpoints.

In class you will be assigned a particular debate topic, which you will have input on choosing, depending on the areas in the unit which most interest you. 

In the Debate Essay, you are required to analyse and evaluate both sides of your topic. To do so, you should outline a range of for and against positions that are generally taken in relation to the particular topic of your choice, and take a considered position by arguing which side of the debate you find most convincing and why. 

Further information about this assessment will be discussed in the lectorial, and/or via the CUL399 iLearn site. 

Grading Criteria for this assessment

Your essay will be graded on the following criteria

1. Your understanding of general ethical concepts and theories explored in the course, in the context of your chosen topic.

2. Your demonstration of reflective, analytic and evaluative skills.

3. The quality of your argumentation and analysis and your fluency on the issue which you have chosen to write about.

4. The structure of your essay: a clear statement of its aims (in the introduction); clear organisation (in a logical order and with a clearly flowing discussion); distinctive and clear argument, and a well-stated conclusion.

5. The use of appropriate theory and evidence to support your claims and arguments, drawn from the lectures, the unit's required and recommended readings/media, as well as other relevant sources.

6. Use of scholarly referencing and bibliography, as well as the clear presentation of your paper in terms of format, spelling, syntax, grammar and expression.

 


This Assessment Task relates to the following Learning Outcomes:
  • 1. Analyse, identify and communicate broad and specific arguments in contemporary cultural, political and ethical debates.
  • 2. Evaluate cultural, social, and ethical values, to enable students to emerge as capable of professional and personal judgement in both their working and everyday lives.
  • 3. Apply theoretical arguments underpinning contemporary issues and debates to specific ethical decision making in everyday life.
  • 4. Apply team and individual problem and enquiry based learning to contemporary social, cultural and ethical issues and debates.
  • 5. Reflect critically the impact and consequence of one's arguments on others, while respecting the difference of counterarguments.

TEAM DEBATE

Due: in class
Weighting: 35%

Assessment 2: Team Debate (same topic as the Debate Essay).

Instructions:

Depending on class numbers, you will be assigned a team of 2, 3 or 4 which will focus on a particular debate topic chosen from Weeks 1-7.   

While the debate essay (assignment 1) was an opportunity for you to explore both sides of your topic, in your oral debate you will be randomly assigned to one side of the argument.  

During the lectorials (and outside class) you will spend time with your team working on your specific arguments and overall team approach. 

The team debates will be formally structured with a designated time keeper and adjudicator, and the team will be given a set time in which to present their arguments. 

In your short debate presentation, you are required to engage directly with the audience and the other speakers, to summarise your argument in a way that is clear and effective for your team debate (including expressive eye contact, body language), and convey a depth of understanding of your topic. There will be an opportunity for members of each team collaboratively rebut the other team at the end. 

Note: During your debate, you will be permitted to use a one sided cue card (half an A4 piece of paper) with some key dot points, if this is helpful to your presentation.  But students are advised that they should not attempt to read their debate from a script, or feel that they need to learn their debate by heart. The important thing is convey your ideas to your audience, in a direct, engaging way. 

Timing:

The debates will be held in class in the second half of semester. The exact length of each presentation,  and the schedule will be distributed in class. 

Further information about this assessment, including will be discussed in the lectorial, and/or via the CUL399 iLearn site.

Grading Criteria for this assessment

You will be graded on the following:

1. The fluency and lucidity in which you speak and present your arguments.

2. Your ability to communicate your understanding (through argument, research and content) of your topic so that you are able to engage your audience.

3. Your ability to develop a distinct argument that compliments and builds on our other team members' arguments. This includes your ability to frame your argument, and use or refer to the other points your team members make in your presentation in order to contextualize or extend your own arguments where relevant.

4. Your ability to rebut the arguments of the other team, during your presentation and/or during the rebuttal (either in person, or in collaboration with your team members).


This Assessment Task relates to the following Learning Outcomes:
  • 1. Analyse, identify and communicate broad and specific arguments in contemporary cultural, political and ethical debates.
  • 2. Evaluate cultural, social, and ethical values, to enable students to emerge as capable of professional and personal judgement in both their working and everyday lives.
  • 3. Apply theoretical arguments underpinning contemporary issues and debates to specific ethical decision making in everyday life.
  • 4. Apply team and individual problem and enquiry based learning to contemporary social, cultural and ethical issues and debates.
  • 5. Reflect critically the impact and consequence of one's arguments on others, while respecting the difference of counterarguments.

PARTICIPATION COLLABORATION

Due: Tuesday, 7th November
Weighting: 15%

Assessment 3: Participation Collaboration (200-300 words in total)

This assessment requires you to peer-review and grade the other members of your debate team on how much they collaborated and the quality of their collaboration. You will be provided rubrics to help you grade and you will also need to justify this grade by writing approximately 100 words on the contribution of each team member. (So, for example, if you are in a group of 4, you will be asked to write approximately 100 words on each other member of your team, which would come to 300 words in total). 

You are expected to regularly attend lectorials where you will be working in your groups, and therefore will be graded on your participation in lectorials as well.

A detailed description/instruction of this assessment task, the rubric and report, and instructions on how to submit  will be discussed in class during semester, and put on ilearn.

Grading Criteria for this assessment

Your participation collaboration will be graded by your peers according to the following criteria:

1. Your contribution to developing the argument towards the team debate.

2. Your contribution of team member to research towards the team debate (finding articles, books, media coverage, etc).

3. The time spent with team members developing the debate in lectorials and outside class (face-to-face and online).


This Assessment Task relates to the following Learning Outcomes:
  • 1. Analyse, identify and communicate broad and specific arguments in contemporary cultural, political and ethical debates.
  • 2. Evaluate cultural, social, and ethical values, to enable students to emerge as capable of professional and personal judgement in both their working and everyday lives.
  • 3. Apply theoretical arguments underpinning contemporary issues and debates to specific ethical decision making in everyday life.
  • 4. Apply team and individual problem and enquiry based learning to contemporary social, cultural and ethical issues and debates.
  • 5. Reflect critically the impact and consequence of one's arguments on others, while respecting the difference of counterarguments.

SELF-REFLECTIVE ESSAY

Due: Friday, 10th November
Weighting: 20%

Assignment 4: Short self-reflective essay (800 words)

Write a self-reflective short scholarly essay on the nuances and complications that arose when arguing for only one side of the topic debate before an audience of peers.  What problems did you encounter? Were there difficulties of taking a position you might of disagreed with? What did you learn about argumentation? What did you learn about the side you had to argue for? Did you learn to respect the other side of the argument? Or was your own position reinforced further?  What did you learn from the experience of presenting an argument as part of a team, for an audience of peers? 

1. Your understanding of general ethical concepts and theories explored in the course, in the context of your chosen topic.

2. Your demonstration of reflective, analytic and evaluative skills.

3. The structure of your short essay: a clear statement of its aims (in the introduction); clear organization (in a logical order and with a clearly flowing discussion); distinctive and clear analysis and reflection, and a well-stated conclusion.

4. The use of appropriate theory and evidence to support your self-reflection and analysis, drawn from the lectures, the staging of the debates, unit's required and recommended readings/media, as well as other relevant sources.

5. Use of scholarly referencing and bibliography, as well as the clear presentation of your paper in terms of format, spelling, syntax, grammar and expression.


This Assessment Task relates to the following Learning Outcomes:
  • 1. Analyse, identify and communicate broad and specific arguments in contemporary cultural, political and ethical debates.
  • 2. Evaluate cultural, social, and ethical values, to enable students to emerge as capable of professional and personal judgement in both their working and everyday lives.
  • 3. Apply theoretical arguments underpinning contemporary issues and debates to specific ethical decision making in everyday life.
  • 4. Apply team and individual problem and enquiry based learning to contemporary social, cultural and ethical issues and debates.
  • 5. Reflect critically the impact and consequence of one's arguments on others, while respecting the difference of counterarguments.

Delivery and Resources

DELIVERY 

Lectorial Location: Y3A T1 - Theatre

Day: Mondays

Time: 3-5pm

  • From Week 1-7, classes will consist of 2 hour lectorials, comprised of interactive lectures with Q&A, problem and enquiry based group work, team work, feedback and assessment guidance.
  • From Weeks 9 - 13 classes are devoted to the team debates. The debates will be assessed by Undine and a tutor, with two sessions currently scheduled to run concurrently in Y3A T1 and Y3A 187 (Drama studio).

PLEASE NOTE:  The day and room of your debate will be allocated in the lectorials during semester. When you are enrolling in the unit, please select CUL399 Lectorial 1/01 and then choose either CUL 399 Lectorail 2/01 or CUL 399 Lectorial 2/02, depending on availability.

And remember that last minute timetable changes may occur, so always re-check details with Macquarie timetables. 

I-learn site:

The CUL399 i-learn website can be accessed at: http://learn.mq.edu.au/

Please check the i-learn site and email announcements regularly for updates and additional course material. On the i-learn site you will also be able to submit your written assignments.

Attendance:

There are no tutorials for this unit, there is only a 2 hour lectorial held once a week.   Lectorials are lively and interactive - a mixture between lectures and tutorials - with Q&A and problem solving group work taking place.   The team debate groups will be formed and practiced during lectorials from weeks 1 - 7.  Then in the second half of semester, lectorials will be devoted to preparing for and holding the team debates. During this period students will be expected to participate as both presenters and audiences.  

PLEASE NOTE: Not attending lectorials regularly throughout the semester will put you at a serious disadvantage. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that students attend all classes unless they have gained permission from their convener beforehand, or have evidence of sickness or unavoidable disruption. Not attending regularly and for the full sessions, is highly likely to affect your group 'Participation-Collaboration' and your 'Team Debate' assessment. There will be a rolls taken in class every week.  

CUL399 also requires that students follow the unit on iLearn and stay informed of special announcements and additional information posted there, by regularly checking your student emails.

ALL questions and concerns about CUL399 should be emailed to the convener Dr. Undine Sellbach, whose email is given in this unit outline.

 

RESOURCES: REQUIRED AND RECOMMENDED

IMPORTANT (Please Read): In preparation for the lectorials you should read (watch or listen to) at least TWO of the REQUIRED RESOURCES each week. It is important you do this every week, since the ethical approaches and themes explored across the course are very interconnected. Depending on the particular debate topic that you choose to explore in detail, you can then also draw on the longer list provided under Recommended Resources, but remember you may find article listed under other topic useful.  Additional resources may also be provided on ilearn during the semester. Beyond this, students will be expected to do their own independent research. 

Chapters and journal articles are available via the unit reading list for CUL399,  Macquarie University Library. Links have are provided below to open access media articles and interviews.

Introductory Reading

John Mizzoni, ‘Introduction’ and ‘Relative Ethics or Universal Ethics’, in Ethics: The Basics, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010, pp. 1 -7, and pp. 8-14.

‘Thou Shalt Not?’ The Monogamy Debate

Required

Angela Willey, “Introduction,” Undoing Monogamy: The Politics of Science and the Possibilities of Biology, Duke University Press, 2016.

Laura Kipnis, ‘A spectre is haunting the nation – the spectre of adultery’, Critical Inquiry 24 (Winter 1998), pp. 289-327.

Lamont, T ‘Life after the Ashley Madison Affair,’ The Guardian, Feb 28, 2016

Recommended

Kanazawa, S and Still, MC. 'Why Monogamy?', in Social Forces, Vol.78, No.1 (Sep., 1999), pp.25-50.

Greer, G. ‘Gay or not, nupitals are now divorced from sense.’ Sydney Morning Herald, April 20, 2013

Gardiner, S, ‘Clicking with a cheat: adultery booming in Sydney, but a life of betrayal is not so rosy’, in The Sydney Morning Herald, June 21, 2011

Richardson-Self, L.  ‘Coming out and fitting in: Same-Sex marriage and the Politics of Difference’, Journal of Media Culture, Vol 15, no 6, 2012.

‘I do, a panel discussion on Queer Cultural Activism’ Afterimage, Vol 42, no 1. 28 – 36.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/nn94xd/some-on-the-radical-queer-left-still-think-gay-marriage-is-bad-for-the-lgbtq-community

Elizabeth Stephens and Annie Sprinkle, 'On Becoming Appalachian Moonshine,' Performance Research 17.4, 'On Ecology,' 2012, 61 - 66.

Michel Foucault, ‘We Other   Victorians’ and ‘The Repressive Hypothesis’ in The History of Sexuality Vol 1, pp. 3-13, and 17-35, respectively.

Russell Blackford, ‘A tale of Vigilante Justice, Adulterers, Hackers and the Ashley Madison affair,’ The Conversation, Aug 23, 2015

Anderson, Nancy C. ‘Four Slippery Steps to Adultery’, on The Christian Broadcasting Network, 2013.

Nelson and Simek, ‘Adultery in the Electronic Era: Spyware, Avatars and Cybersex’. Wyoming State Bar Issue, Dec 2014

Lawson, A and Samson, C, 1988, ‘Age, Gender and Adultery’, in The British Journal of Sociology, Vol.39, No.3 (Sep., 1988), pp.409-440

Siegel, MJ, 1992, 'For Better or for Worse: Adultery, Crime & The Constitution', in Journal of Family Law, Vol.30 [1991-1992], pp.45-95

Gould, E, Moav, O and Simhon, A. 'The Mystery of Monogamy'. London, Centre for Economic Policy Research, 2004.

Bingham, J. ‘Adultery can save your marriage: academic writes the new rules of marriage’, in The Sydney Morning Herald, August 21, 2012.

Lena Williams, ‘A New Level of Tolerance for Adultery’, New York Times, Jan 1996.

Worth, H, Reid, A and McMillan, K. ‘Somewhere over the rainbow: love, trust and monogamy in gay relationships’, in Journal of Sociology, 2002 38(3), pp.237-253.

Work - a social good and good for you? The Universal Basic Income Debate

Required

Russell, B. ‘In Praise of Idleness’ in In Praise of Idleness and other essays, Allen and Unwin, 1958.

Smith, N. ‘A philosopher’s view: the benefits and dignity of work,’ The Conversation, 2011.

Mc Lean, C and McKay A, “Beyond Care: Expanding the Feminist Debate on Universal Basic Income” WiSE Working Paper Series No. 1, Sep 2015.

Recommended

Rachels, J. ‘The idea of a social contract’, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, McGraw-Hill, 2003, pp. 141 – 159.

Birnbaum, S. ‘Liberal Egalitarianism and the Study of Social Justice’ Basic Income Reconsidered: Social Justice, Liberalism, and the Demands of Equality, Palgrave, 2012.

Oltermann, p. ‘State handouts for all? Europe set to pilot universal basic incomes’, Guardian, June 2, 2016.

Bergmann, Barbara ‘Why Sweden, not Switzerland, should be America’s social welfare model,’ PBS, April 11, 2014.

Harris, J. ‘Should we scrap benefits and pay everyone 100 Pounds a week?’ The Guardian, April 14, 2016.

Ikebe, S. ‘The wrong kind of UBI’ Jacobin Magazine, Jan 21, 2016.

O’Farrell, J. ‘A no strings basic income? If it works for the royal family, it can work for us all’ Guardian, Jan 7, 2016.

Gutting, G. What Work is Really For? The New York Times, Sep 8, 2012.

Dean, T. ‘Work less, live more,’ New Philosopher, July 2, 2014.

Yeatman, A. ‘Mutual obligation: what kind of contract is this?’ Ch 8, Reforming the Australian Welfare State Report, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Dec 2000.

Saunders, P. ‘Issues in Australian welfare reform’ Ch 1, Reforming the Australian Welfare State Report, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Dec 2000.

Protection or control? - the young people, sex, surveillance and agency debate

Required

Catharine Lumby (2010), ‘Ambiguity, Children, Representation, Sexuality’, in CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture, Vol 12: Issue 4.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/12/heres-an-idea-why-dont-we-get-girls-to-talk-to-boys-about-their-fears-and-desires

Further Readings:

Levine, Judith, Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2002.

Faulkner, Joanne, The Importance of Being Innocent: Why We Worry About Children, Melbourne, VIC: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Crawford, Kate, Adult Themes: Rewriting the Rules of Adulthood, Sydney, NSW: Pan Macmillan, 2006.

Higonnet, Anne, Pictures of Innocence: The History and Crisis of Ideal Childhood, London: Thames and Hudson, 1998.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/shortcuts/2014/feb/26/fight-against-sexualisation-children

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/11/how-to-keep-kids-safe-online-children-advice

https://theconversation.com/safe-schools-review-findings-experts-respond-56425

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/19/opponents-of-safe-schools-are-scared-the-world-is-moving-on-without-them

Political Animals: the Animal Rights and Personhood Debates

Required

Yuhas, A. ‘Chimpanzee representatives argue for animals rights in a New York court,’ The Guardian, May 28, 2015.

Matthew Calarco ‘Identity, Difference, Indistinction’ The Centennial Review, Michigan State University Press, Vol. 11, number 2, Fall 2011, pp. 41-60.

Wolfe, C. ‘Introduction,’ Animal Rites: American Culture, the Discourse of Species and Posthumanist Theory, University of Chicago Press, 2003, pp 1-18.

‘Harambe the gorilla’, ABC News, June 1, 2016.

Recommended

Gary L. Francione and Robert Garner,  ‘Introduction: what this book is and is not about,’ The Animal Rights Debate, Columbia University Press, 2010.

Calderwood, K. ‘Why we’ve been testing animal intelligence all wrong’, Saturday Extra, ABC RN, June 14, 2016.

Berkoff, M. The Emotional Lives of Animals: A Leading Scientist Explores Animal Joy, Sorrow, and Empath – and why they matter, New World Library, 2008.

Gerrard, Greg.  ‘Animals’ in EcoCriticism, Routledge Press, 2011.

Singer, Peter , ‘Speciesism and Moral Status,’ Metaphilosophy, Vol. 40, nos 3-4, July 2009.

Oliver, K. ‘Introduction,’ Animal Lessons: how they teach us to be human, Columbia University Press, 2009.

Cary Wolfe, Zoontologies: the question of the animal, University of Minnesota Press, 2003.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/16/new-zealand-river-granted-same-legal-rights-as-human-being

Insects: friend, foe or food? - the eating insects debate

Required

Dicke, M, ‘Why not eat insects?,’ 2010. To listen to Dicke’s public talk own why we should eat insects follow thislink: http://www.ted.com/talks/marcel_dicke_why_not_eat_insects/transcript?language=en

Grorman, J. ‘Do Honeybees Feel? Scientists are Entertaining the Idea,’ April 18, 2016.

Halpin, T. ‘Can plant based food be better than the real thing?’ ABC news, June 17, 2016.

Recommended

Loo, S and Sellbach, U, (2013), ‘Eating (with) Insect: Insect Gastronomies and an Upside Down Ethics,’ Parallax, vol. 19, no. 1 12-28.   

Holt, V. Why not Eat Insects?, 1885.

Amy Wright, ‘I think I’ll go eat a worm’, Gastronomica, 84, Winter 2014.

Francione, G. ‘The Abolition of Animal Exploitation,’ The Animal Rights Debate, Columbia University Press, 2010.

For a summary of some some arguments for and against vegetarians eating insects look at this blog: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/06/should-vegetarians-consider-eating-insects/

Tucker, A. ‘Do insects have consciousness: a new theory has scientists buzzing’ The Smithstonian Magazine, July 2016.

Huis, Arnold van, et al. 2013. ‘‘Edible Insects: Future Prospects for Food and Feed Security.’’ Report of the Programme Committee, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, March 18–22.

Alan Louey Yen. ‘Edible insects and other invertebrates in Australia: future prospects’ Biosciences Research Division, Department of Primary Industries.

Mc Williams, J. ‘If Vegans Replaced Plants with Insects, They’d Harm Fewer Animals,’ The Huffington Post, Noc 14, 2014.

Lin, D. Vegans and Honey,’ about.com, March 26, 2016.

Frame, J. Mona Minim and the Smell of the Sun, Random House Books, 2005.

'To be or not to be?’ - The Euthanasia Debate

Required

TV Program Transcript ‘Euthanasia Debate’ at: ABC Lateline broadcast on 30/5/2002

George Zdenkowski, ‘Human rights and euthanasia’. Paper for the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Dec 1996, pp. 1-29.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-16/draft-legislation-in-nsw-a-step-closer-to-assisted-dying/8529082

Srivastava, R. ‘In 15 years of medicine I’ve had only one conversation about euthanasia,’ The Guardian: Nov 9, 2015.

Recommended

Discussion of Assisted suicide on ABC Q&A, 10 April, 2007: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4635101.htm

Jecker, NS. 'Ethics and Euthanasia', in Encyclopedia of Gerontology Vol. 1, ed. James E. Birren, (2007) pp.522-525.

https://theconversation.com/when-it-comes-to-euthanasia-not-all-slippery-slope-arguments-are-bullshit-76160

https://theconversation.com/ruling-on-assisted-dying-drug-nembutal-sets-important-precedent-73362

https://theconversation.com/euthanasia-and-palliative-sedation-are-distinct-concepts-intent-matters-70277

Broom, A.  ‘On Euthanasia, Resistance, and Redemption: The Moralities and Politics of a Hospice’, in Qualitative Health Research, 22(2), (2011) pp.226-237

Brown, GT. ‘Discovery and Revelation: The Consciences of Christians, Public Policy, and Bioethics Debate’, in Christian Bioethics, 18(1), (2012) pp. 41-58

Fernandez-Sola, C et al. ‘New regulation of the right to a dignified dying in Spain: Repercussions for nursing’, in Nursing Ethics, 19(5), (2012) pp.619-628

Kolata, G, 1997, ‘Passive Euthanasia in Hospitals Is The Norm, Doctors Say’, in The New York Times, June 28, 1997.

Shuriye, AO. ‘Ethical and Religious Analysis on Euthanasia’, in IIUM Engineering Journal, Vol.12, No.5, 2011: Special Issue on Science and Ethics in Engineering (2011) pp.209-211.

Stevenson, C and Leaf, D. ‘Activist dead wrong on voluntary euthanasia’, ABC Religion and Ethics, Oct 18, 2011.

Stonington, SD. ‘On ethical locations: The good death in Thailand, where ethics sit in places’, in Social Science and Medicine, 75 (2012) pp.836-844.

Unit Schedule

CUL399: WEEKLY SCHEDULE

Important Guidelines (Please Read):

In preparation for the Lectorials please read (watch or listen to) at least TWO of the REQUIRED RESOURCES each week.  It is important you do this for every topic, since many of the ethical approaches and themes explored across the course are highly interconnected.

Over the semester it is recommended that you engage with a range different texts and media as part of your preparation for class (academic articles, newspaper articles, films and transcripts). Depending on the particular debate topic that you explore in detail, you can then explore the longer list of Recommended Resources, which is provided under "Delivery and Resources" in your Unit Guide, as well as doing your own research. But remember you may find articles listed under other lecture topics very useful.

Chapters and journal articles are available via the unit reading list for CUL399, Macquarie University Library. Links to open access media articles, films and interviews are provided below.

Please keep in mind that the following schedule and reading list may need to be adjusted in the course of the semester, so check for updates in class and/or on ilearn.

WEEK

TOPIC

REQUIRED RESOURCES

 1

What are we going to do? And how are we going to do it? The Unit structure and expectations. Ethical Decisions: How do we make them?

AND

‘Thou Shalt Not?’ - the Adultery Debate

Dr Undine Sellbach

John Mizzoni, ‘Introduction’ and ‘Relative Ethics or Universal Ethics’, in Ethics: The Basics, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010, pp. 1 -7, and pp. 8-14.

Angela Willey, “Introduction,” Undoing Monogamy: The Politics of Science and the Possibilities of Biology, Duke University Press, 2016.

Laura Kipnis, ‘A spectre is haunting the nation – the spectre of adultery’, Critical Inquiry 24 (Winter 1998), pp. 289-327.

Lamont, T ‘Life after the Ashley Madison Affair,’ The Guardian, Feb 28, 2016

2

 

PUBLIC HOLIDAY

3

Work - a social good and good for you? The Universal Basic Income debate

Dr Undine Sellbach

Russell, B. ‘In Praise of Idleness’ in In Praise of Idleness and other essays, Allen and Unwin, 1958.

Smith, N. ‘A philosopher’s view: the benefits and dignity of work,’ The Conversation, 2011.

Mc Lean, C and McKay A, “Beyond Care: Expanding the Feminist Debate on Universal Basic Income” WiSE Working Paper Series No. 1, Sep 2015.

 4

Protection or Control? - Young people, sex, agency and surveillance debate

Prof Catharine Lumby

Catharine Lumby (2010), ‘Ambiguity, Children, Representation, Sexuality’, in CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture, Vol 12: Issue 4.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/12/heres-an-idea-why-dont-we-get-girls-to-talk-to-boys-about-their-fears-and-desires

5

Political Animals: The Animal Rights and Personhood Debates

Dr Ian Collinson

Yuhas, A. ‘Chimpanzee representatives argue for animals rights in a New York court,’ The Guardian, May 28, 2015.

Matthew Calarco ‘Identity, Difference, Indistinction’ The Centennial Review, Michigan State University Press, Vol. 11, number 2, Fall 2011, pp. 41-60.

Wolfe, C. ‘Introduction,’ Animal Rites: American Culture, the Discourse of Species and Posthumanist Theory, University of Chicago Press, 2003, pp 1-18.

‘Harambe the gorilla’, ABC News, June 1, 2016.

6

Insects: friend, foe or food? - The eating insects debate

Dr Undine Sellbach

Dicke, M, ‘Why not eat insects?,’ 2010. To listen to Dicke’s public talk own why we should eat insects follow thislink: http://www.ted.com/talks/marcel_dicke_why_not_eat_insects/transcript?language=en

Grorman, J. ‘Do Honeybees Feel? Scientists are Entertaining the Idea,’ April 18, 2016.

Halpin, T. ‘Can plant based food be better than the real thing?’ ABC news, June 17, 2016.7

7

'To be or not to be?’: The Euthanasia Debate

Dr Undine Sellbach

TV Program Transcript ‘Euthanasia Debate’ at: ABC Lateline broadcast on 30/5/2002

George Zdenkowski, ‘Human rights and euthanasia’. Paper for the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Dec 1996, pp. 1-29.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-16/draft-legislation-in-nsw-a-step-closer-to-assisted-dying/8529082

Srivastava, R. ‘In 15 years of medicine I’ve had only one conversation about euthanasia,’ The Guardian: Nov 9, 2015.

 

MID SEMESTER BREAK

 

 8

PUBLIC HOLIDAY

 

 9

Dr Undine Sellbach

debates

10

 

debates

11

 

debates

12

 

debates

13

     

debates

   

 

 

Policies and Procedures

Macquarie University policies and procedures are accessible from Policy Central. Students should be aware of the following policies in particular with regard to Learning and Teaching:

Academic Honesty Policy http://mq.edu.au/policy/docs/academic_honesty/policy.html

Assessment Policy http://mq.edu.au/policy/docs/assessment/policy_2016.html

Grade Appeal Policy http://mq.edu.au/policy/docs/gradeappeal/policy.html

Complaint Management Procedure for Students and Members of the Public http://www.mq.edu.au/policy/docs/complaint_management/procedure.html​

Disruption to Studies Policy http://www.mq.edu.au/policy/docs/disruption_studies/policy.html The Disruption to Studies Policy is effective from March 3 2014 and replaces the Special Consideration Policy.

In addition, a number of other policies can be found in the Learning and Teaching Category of Policy Central.

Student Code of Conduct

Macquarie University students have a responsibility to be familiar with the Student Code of Conduct: https://students.mq.edu.au/support/student_conduct/

Results

Results shown in iLearn, or released directly by your Unit Convenor, are not confirmed as they are subject to final approval by the University. Once approved, final results will be sent to your student email address and will be made available in eStudent. For more information visit ask.mq.edu.au.

Re-Mark Application

MMCCS In-session Re-mark Application http://www.mq.edu.au/pubstatic/public/download/?id=167914

 

Student Support

Macquarie University provides a range of support services for students. For details, visit http://students.mq.edu.au/support/

Learning Skills

Learning Skills (mq.edu.au/learningskills) provides academic writing resources and study strategies to improve your marks and take control of your study.

Student Enquiry Service

For all student enquiries, visit Student Connect at ask.mq.edu.au

Equity Support

Students with a disability are encouraged to contact the Disability Service who can provide appropriate help with any issues that arise during their studies.

IT Help

For help with University computer systems and technology, visit http://www.mq.edu.au/about_us/offices_and_units/information_technology/help/

When using the University's IT, you must adhere to the Acceptable Use of IT Resources Policy. The policy applies to all who connect to the MQ network including students.

Graduate Capabilities

Discipline Specific Knowledge and Skills

Our graduates will take with them the intellectual development, depth and breadth of knowledge, scholarly understanding, and specific subject content in their chosen fields to make them competent and confident in their subject or profession. They will be able to demonstrate, where relevant, professional technical competence and meet professional standards. They will be able to articulate the structure of knowledge of their discipline, be able to adapt discipline-specific knowledge to novel situations, and be able to contribute from their discipline to inter-disciplinary solutions to problems.

This graduate capability is supported by:

Learning outcomes

  • 1. Analyse, identify and communicate broad and specific arguments in contemporary cultural, political and ethical debates.
  • 2. Evaluate cultural, social, and ethical values, to enable students to emerge as capable of professional and personal judgement in both their working and everyday lives.

Assessment tasks

  • DEBATE ESSAY
  • TEAM DEBATE
  • SELF-REFLECTIVE ESSAY

Critical, Analytical and Integrative Thinking

We want our graduates to be capable of reasoning, questioning and analysing, and to integrate and synthesise learning and knowledge from a range of sources and environments; to be able to critique constraints, assumptions and limitations; to be able to think independently and systemically in relation to scholarly activity, in the workplace, and in the world. We want them to have a level of scientific and information technology literacy.

This graduate capability is supported by:

Learning outcomes

  • 1. Analyse, identify and communicate broad and specific arguments in contemporary cultural, political and ethical debates.
  • 2. Evaluate cultural, social, and ethical values, to enable students to emerge as capable of professional and personal judgement in both their working and everyday lives.
  • 3. Apply theoretical arguments underpinning contemporary issues and debates to specific ethical decision making in everyday life.
  • 4. Apply team and individual problem and enquiry based learning to contemporary social, cultural and ethical issues and debates.
  • 5. Reflect critically the impact and consequence of one's arguments on others, while respecting the difference of counterarguments.

Assessment tasks

  • DEBATE ESSAY
  • TEAM DEBATE
  • PARTICIPATION COLLABORATION
  • SELF-REFLECTIVE ESSAY

Problem Solving and Research Capability

Our graduates should be capable of researching; of analysing, and interpreting and assessing data and information in various forms; of drawing connections across fields of knowledge; and they should be able to relate their knowledge to complex situations at work or in the world, in order to diagnose and solve problems. We want them to have the confidence to take the initiative in doing so, within an awareness of their own limitations.

This graduate capability is supported by:

Learning outcomes

  • 1. Analyse, identify and communicate broad and specific arguments in contemporary cultural, political and ethical debates.
  • 2. Evaluate cultural, social, and ethical values, to enable students to emerge as capable of professional and personal judgement in both their working and everyday lives.
  • 3. Apply theoretical arguments underpinning contemporary issues and debates to specific ethical decision making in everyday life.
  • 4. Apply team and individual problem and enquiry based learning to contemporary social, cultural and ethical issues and debates.
  • 5. Reflect critically the impact and consequence of one's arguments on others, while respecting the difference of counterarguments.

Assessment tasks

  • DEBATE ESSAY
  • TEAM DEBATE
  • PARTICIPATION COLLABORATION
  • SELF-REFLECTIVE ESSAY

Creative and Innovative

Our graduates will also be capable of creative thinking and of creating knowledge. They will be imaginative and open to experience and capable of innovation at work and in the community. We want them to be engaged in applying their critical, creative thinking.

This graduate capability is supported by:

Learning outcomes

  • 2. Evaluate cultural, social, and ethical values, to enable students to emerge as capable of professional and personal judgement in both their working and everyday lives.
  • 4. Apply team and individual problem and enquiry based learning to contemporary social, cultural and ethical issues and debates.

Assessment tasks

  • TEAM DEBATE
  • SELF-REFLECTIVE ESSAY

Effective Communication

We want to develop in our students the ability to communicate and convey their views in forms effective with different audiences. We want our graduates to take with them the capability to read, listen, question, gather and evaluate information resources in a variety of formats, assess, write clearly, speak effectively, and to use visual communication and communication technologies as appropriate.

This graduate capability is supported by:

Learning outcomes

  • 1. Analyse, identify and communicate broad and specific arguments in contemporary cultural, political and ethical debates.
  • 2. Evaluate cultural, social, and ethical values, to enable students to emerge as capable of professional and personal judgement in both their working and everyday lives.
  • 3. Apply theoretical arguments underpinning contemporary issues and debates to specific ethical decision making in everyday life.
  • 4. Apply team and individual problem and enquiry based learning to contemporary social, cultural and ethical issues and debates.
  • 5. Reflect critically the impact and consequence of one's arguments on others, while respecting the difference of counterarguments.

Assessment tasks

  • DEBATE ESSAY
  • TEAM DEBATE
  • PARTICIPATION COLLABORATION
  • SELF-REFLECTIVE ESSAY

Engaged and Ethical Local and Global citizens

As local citizens our graduates will be aware of indigenous perspectives and of the nation's historical context. They will be engaged with the challenges of contemporary society and with knowledge and ideas. We want our graduates to have respect for diversity, to be open-minded, sensitive to others and inclusive, and to be open to other cultures and perspectives: they should have a level of cultural literacy. Our graduates should be aware of disadvantage and social justice, and be willing to participate to help create a wiser and better society.

This graduate capability is supported by:

Learning outcomes

  • 1. Analyse, identify and communicate broad and specific arguments in contemporary cultural, political and ethical debates.
  • 2. Evaluate cultural, social, and ethical values, to enable students to emerge as capable of professional and personal judgement in both their working and everyday lives.
  • 3. Apply theoretical arguments underpinning contemporary issues and debates to specific ethical decision making in everyday life.
  • 4. Apply team and individual problem and enquiry based learning to contemporary social, cultural and ethical issues and debates.
  • 5. Reflect critically the impact and consequence of one's arguments on others, while respecting the difference of counterarguments.

Assessment tasks

  • DEBATE ESSAY
  • TEAM DEBATE
  • PARTICIPATION COLLABORATION
  • SELF-REFLECTIVE ESSAY

Socially and Environmentally Active and Responsible

We want our graduates to be aware of and have respect for self and others; to be able to work with others as a leader and a team player; to have a sense of connectedness with others and country; and to have a sense of mutual obligation. Our graduates should be informed and active participants in moving society towards sustainability.

This graduate capability is supported by:

Learning outcomes

  • 1. Analyse, identify and communicate broad and specific arguments in contemporary cultural, political and ethical debates.
  • 2. Evaluate cultural, social, and ethical values, to enable students to emerge as capable of professional and personal judgement in both their working and everyday lives.
  • 3. Apply theoretical arguments underpinning contemporary issues and debates to specific ethical decision making in everyday life.
  • 4. Apply team and individual problem and enquiry based learning to contemporary social, cultural and ethical issues and debates.
  • 5. Reflect critically the impact and consequence of one's arguments on others, while respecting the difference of counterarguments.

Assessment tasks

  • DEBATE ESSAY
  • TEAM DEBATE
  • PARTICIPATION COLLABORATION
  • SELF-REFLECTIVE ESSAY

Capable of Professional and Personal Judgement and Initiative

We want our graduates to have emotional intelligence and sound interpersonal skills and to demonstrate discernment and common sense in their professional and personal judgement. They will exercise initiative as needed. They will be capable of risk assessment, and be able to handle ambiguity and complexity, enabling them to be adaptable in diverse and changing environments.

This graduate capability is supported by:

Learning outcomes

  • 1. Analyse, identify and communicate broad and specific arguments in contemporary cultural, political and ethical debates.
  • 2. Evaluate cultural, social, and ethical values, to enable students to emerge as capable of professional and personal judgement in both their working and everyday lives.
  • 3. Apply theoretical arguments underpinning contemporary issues and debates to specific ethical decision making in everyday life.
  • 4. Apply team and individual problem and enquiry based learning to contemporary social, cultural and ethical issues and debates.
  • 5. Reflect critically the impact and consequence of one's arguments on others, while respecting the difference of counterarguments.

Assessment tasks

  • DEBATE ESSAY
  • TEAM DEBATE
  • SELF-REFLECTIVE ESSAY

Commitment to Continuous Learning

Our graduates will have enquiring minds and a literate curiosity which will lead them to pursue knowledge for its own sake. They will continue to pursue learning in their careers and as they participate in the world. They will be capable of reflecting on their experiences and relationships with others and the environment, learning from them, and growing - personally, professionally and socially.

This graduate capability is supported by:

Learning outcomes

  • 2. Evaluate cultural, social, and ethical values, to enable students to emerge as capable of professional and personal judgement in both their working and everyday lives.
  • 3. Apply theoretical arguments underpinning contemporary issues and debates to specific ethical decision making in everyday life.
  • 4. Apply team and individual problem and enquiry based learning to contemporary social, cultural and ethical issues and debates.
  • 5. Reflect critically the impact and consequence of one's arguments on others, while respecting the difference of counterarguments.

Assessment tasks

  • TEAM DEBATE
  • PARTICIPATION COLLABORATION
  • SELF-REFLECTIVE ESSAY

Changes from Previous Offering

This unit was previously run from weeks 1 - 8, with an intensive session during the mid semester break. To ensure timetabling is simpler for students, the intensive teaching session has now been removed, and unit will run for the full semester, from weeks 1 - 13.