1. What does Stanley Milgrams Perils of Obedience have to tell us about efforts to standardize professional ethics? What does Milgram believe is the relationship between the obedience and individual morality? And how would Milgram evaluate Edward Snowdens decision to leak classified information about what he believed to be unconstitutional practices within the NSA?
2. Using MacIntyres theoretical framework (that is, by reference to terms like internal goods, and external goods), explain why someone who loves the child depicted in MacIntyres chess example might offer her some candy to play chess when she doesnt want to play? And why might one offer her twice as much candy if she plays well? Refer directly to the paragraph in The Nature of the Virtues where this is discussed, making sure to explain all its relevant aspects.
3. Consider Seumas Millers comments on Searles discussion of deontic powers:
??Consider an incompetent surgeon who is incapable of performing a successful operation on anybody. . . By virtue of being a fully accredited surgeon this person has a set of deontic properties, including the right to perform surgery, and others have deontic properties in relation to him . . .Moreover, these deontic properties are maintained in part by, say, the Royal College of Surgeons, his colleagues and the community. However, the surgeon simply does not possess the substantive functional capacities of a surgeon. The deontology is there but the underlying functional capacities are not. Accordingly, it is arguably false to claim that he is a surgeon. If someone cannot perform, and knows nothing about, surgery he is surely not a surgeon, irrespective of whether he is the possessor of the highest professional qualification available, is treated as if he were a surgeon, and indeed is widely believed to be the finest surgeon in the land . . .??