Case 3: The Hunger Games

You become involved in an argument at a dinner party, over ‘trendy foods’, when your host serves a
tasty quinoa salad. The debate leads to the complexities of world hunger, which affects about 900
million people globally. This turns to an argument that countries like Australia eat more than their fair
share of high water and energy consuming foods such as meat, and in particular beef. One of your
friends suggests that it is no longer ethical to eat meat, and that you cannot justify meat consumption
ethically. Can you?
General questions to think about Specific questions to think about
Week 1
?? What are the issues in this case?
?? What are some of the arguments for and
against particular actions?
?? What kind of frameworks and principles
might you apply to your analysis of the
case?
Week 2
?? Which way will you argue the case?
?? What two frameworks are you using?
?? Are there any considerations of principles
such as freedom/determinism and
absolutism/relativism?
Week 3
?? What are the arguments for the two
frameworks?
?? What are the points you will make in
presenting the case?
?? Who/how will the case be presented within
the timeframe allowed?
?? Are these environmental ethics related to
aesthetics, sustainability, social justice, or a
combination?
?? Make a note of any questions that arise in
your tutorial discussions
Additional readings and resources
?? Online lecture on Environmental ethics.
?? UN World Food Program Hunger statistics and facts – https://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats
?? Economist article on livestock and environmental impact –
http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2013/12/livestock
?? The link below highlights two arguments about aspects of vegetarianism and environmental impact
from a debate in the Guardian for full stories guardian.co.uk N.B. there are two articles in the link –
one being a reply to the other – http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/16/vegansstomach-
unpalatable-truth-quinoa
?? Thiroux and Krasemann Text Chapter 16

CASE STUDY REPORT (1,500 words)
You are required to choose one of the case studies listed on vUWS. You will analyse this
case study from two ethical frameworks studied this semester and discuss how each position
offers a way of understanding the issue and of responding to it. In your introduction briefly
identify which case study you are using. Introduce the two frameworks you are using to
analyse the case study and briefly describe them. In the body of your paper you will be
required to apply them to the case study. This means critically analysing how aspects of the
case study might be understood from the two different theoretical frameworks you have
chosen. Your conclusion should address the implications of these two positions for the case
study, the people involved and the broader community. You must use at least 5 academic
references, and may use references other than those listed in the learning guide. Wikipedia
will not be considered a legitimate reference. Please be advised that websites are of
inconsistent value and you need to be vigilant in your use of various websites. The
frameworks you can choose from will be discussed in the lectures and tutorials.
I’ll add case theory in pdf file.
ASSESMENT STRUCTURE
Introduction-
1a) identify case study (10) words
1b) identify 2 theories(around 20 words)
1c) say something about why those theories are relevant to the case study( around 100
words)
2 theories- e.g- act ultraism, divine command theory
2) NAME FIRST THEORY(e.g Kant’s Duty Ethics)
2a) define the theory (what are all the components of this definition?) “around 20 words”
2b)Apply all the components of the theory to the case study(around 200 words)
3) Strength of the first theory
3a) name two strengths of the theory(around 20 words)
3b) Apply the two strengths to the case study(around 170 words)
4) Weakness of first theory
4a) Name two weakness of the theory (Around 20 words)
4b) Apply the two weakness to the case study (Around 170 words)
5) Do 2,3 and 4 again for your second theory( same words for theory 1)
6) Conclusion) (Around 190 words)
6a) Summarise Key points (compare theories) ( Around 120 words)
6b) Reflection/conclusion statement (Around 70 words)
Note:- Use headings
Key tips:-
Everything you say has to be referenced to the theories
Contrast absolutist and relativist theories
Simple, short sentence- read them out to yourself
Minimum Five References- text book for theories, 2 for each theory ( google scholar/
library) in text and end text.
CONTRAST MORAL ISSUE E.GRule
Vs Act
Absolutism Vs Relativism
Outcome vs Action Itself
Self Vs Action Itself
Self Vs Other
Emotion Vs Reason

Case 3: The Hunger Games

You become involved in an argument at a dinner party, over ‘trendy foods’, when your host serves a
tasty quinoa salad. The debate leads to the complexities of world hunger, which affects about 900
million people globally. This turns to an argument that countries like Australia eat more than their fair
share of high water and energy consuming foods such as meat, and in particular beef. One of your
friends suggests that it is no longer ethical to eat meat, and that you cannot justify meat consumption
ethically. Can you?
General questions to think about Specific questions to think about
Week 1
?? What are the issues in this case?
?? What are some of the arguments for and
against particular actions?
?? What kind of frameworks and principles
might you apply to your analysis of the
case?
Week 2
?? Which way will you argue the case?
?? What two frameworks are you using?
?? Are there any considerations of principles
such as freedom/determinism and
absolutism/relativism?
Week 3
?? What are the arguments for the two
frameworks?
?? What are the points you will make in
presenting the case?
?? Who/how will the case be presented within
the timeframe allowed?
?? Are these environmental ethics related to
aesthetics, sustainability, social justice, or a
combination?
?? Make a note of any questions that arise in
your tutorial discussions
Additional readings and resources
?? Online lecture on Environmental ethics.
?? UN World Food Program Hunger statistics and facts – https://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats
?? Economist article on livestock and environmental impact –
http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2013/12/livestock
?? The link below highlights two arguments about aspects of vegetarianism and environmental impact
from a debate in the Guardian for full stories guardian.co.uk N.B. there are two articles in the link –
one being a reply to the other – http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/16/vegansstomach-
unpalatable-truth-quinoa
?? Thiroux and Krasemann Text Chapter 16

CASE STUDY REPORT (1,500 words)
You are required to choose one of the case studies listed on vUWS. You will analyse this
case study from two ethical frameworks studied this semester and discuss how each position
offers a way of understanding the issue and of responding to it. In your introduction briefly
identify which case study you are using. Introduce the two frameworks you are using to
analyse the case study and briefly describe them. In the body of your paper you will be
required to apply them to the case study. This means critically analysing how aspects of the
case study might be understood from the two different theoretical frameworks you have
chosen. Your conclusion should address the implications of these two positions for the case
study, the people involved and the broader community. You must use at least 5 academic
references, and may use references other than those listed in the learning guide. Wikipedia
will not be considered a legitimate reference. Please be advised that websites are of
inconsistent value and you need to be vigilant in your use of various websites. The
frameworks you can choose from will be discussed in the lectures and tutorials.
I’ll add case theory in pdf file.
ASSESMENT STRUCTURE
Introduction-
1a) identify case study (10) words
1b) identify 2 theories(around 20 words)
1c) say something about why those theories are relevant to the case study( around 100
words)
2 theories- e.g- act ultraism, divine command theory
2) NAME FIRST THEORY(e.g Kant’s Duty Ethics)
2a) define the theory (what are all the components of this definition?) “around 20 words”
2b)Apply all the components of the theory to the case study(around 200 words)
3) Strength of the first theory
3a) name two strengths of the theory(around 20 words)
3b) Apply the two strengths to the case study(around 170 words)
4) Weakness of first theory
4a) Name two weakness of the theory (Around 20 words)
4b) Apply the two weakness to the case study (Around 170 words)
5) Do 2,3 and 4 again for your second theory( same words for theory 1)
6) Conclusion) (Around 190 words)
6a) Summarise Key points (compare theories) ( Around 120 words)
6b) Reflection/conclusion statement (Around 70 words)
Note:- Use headings
Key tips:-
Everything you say has to be referenced to the theories
Contrast absolutist and relativist theories
Simple, short sentence- read them out to yourself
Minimum Five References- text book for theories, 2 for each theory ( google scholar/
library) in text and end text.
CONTRAST MORAL ISSUE E.GRule
Vs Act
Absolutism Vs Relativism
Outcome vs Action Itself
Self Vs Action Itself
Self Vs Other
Emotion Vs Reason