It will need to be broken up in 6 parts. Such as:
- Getting out the relevant facts: Generate a complete set of facts that may be used to support various positions on how the case should be resolved. Relevant facts can include someone will be or is likely to be harmed emotionally, reputation or physically if a certain resolution is chosen;
- Clarifying the conflicting moral values and moral principles: the kind of good vs the kind of evil. It can become clear that one kind of right takes precedence over another or that one sort of wrong action seems less evil than any other alternatives. At the very least, setting out the conflicts in an orderly way gives us a full and clear appreciation of what is at stake when we are forced to decide. Relevant moral principles may include: prevent harm, do good, be loyal, be fair, be honest, do not inflict harm on others, maintain integrity, be candid, live up to the moral requirements of your office or role, it is morally permissible to pursue/protect one’s own legitimate self-interest and respect the autonomy of others.
- Reflections on your Lists: Ask yourself if your lists of facts and values/principles have given each option a full hearing, and if, in your own thinking, you have given serious consideration to the weights of competing arguments.
- Make and articulate your decision: Make clear your reasons for your answer on how the case should be resolved, that is, set out your positive reasons for selecting this option.
- Justify your decision: Make clear your reasons for your answer on how the case should be resolved
- Anticipate criticism/Clarify the costs : Go back to your lists and look at the facts and values/principles and ask what the most serious objection to your decision would be and offer your response to that objection.
Laud Humphreys did a pioneering study of impersonal homosexual activity, carried out as dissertation research from 1965-1968…Humphreys’ topic was the sexual behavior and social position of men who frequent public restrooms in search of quick and anonymous sexual encounters…His results suggested that, far from being the deviant and potentially dangerous social types commonly imagined, his subjects led conventional and routine public lives (surprinsingly). Most turned out to be married (if not always happily) with children, and only 14% were exclusively homosexual.
Since homosexual activity in public facilities tends to not take place in the presence of external observations, Humphreys found it necessary to conceal his identity as a social researcher. He did so by playing the ‘watch queen’ and his job was to be on the lookout for intruders while men are engaged in acts of fellatio. To study the social position and public behavior of these gay men he recorded their license numbers and automobiles of the subjects to obtain police registers and phone company records. A year later, Humphreys disguised himself by changing his hair style and attire and interviewed these same subjects in their homes as part of this anonymous public health survey. Humphreys presented an extensive defense of his study which pointed to such beneficial consequences of the research as the destruction of dangerous stereotypes held about homosexual men. He regarded these consequences as powerful acts in any moral justification of the research. It is clear from this defense and from his book that Humphreys sympathized with the plight of his subject population. He considered them a disregarded and maligned group in American society, and believed that widespread misperceptions played a significant role in perpetrating the social injustice affecting the group. To the extend that his findings challenged prevaling misunderstandings, Humphreys argued that they would help improve the social condition of homosexual men.
Running Header: CASE STUDY Course Title:Student’s Name:Lecturer’s Name:Due Date: 1 Running Header: CASE STUDY Homosexuality is a sexual behavior among members of the same sex and mostly not…