Refrigerator Beer

By Stresson Stoddard
Joseph and Dan are juniors who met each other their first weekend of freshmen year at
Plattsburgh State. Since then the two have been inseparable. However, they are quite opposite.
Dan is on a sports team, drinks a lot, is very outgoing, death defying, and an individual who
believes in living in the moment and not caught up in the future. On the other hand, Joseph is a
religious, conservative, family and school oriented person. In short, Dan is the life of the party,
the person who consumes alcohol excessively and always has alcohol in his dorm. Joe is the
opposite, but the two have grown to become great friends.
In the fall semester of junior year the two decided to live together in a suite but in separate
rooms. The weekend before Columbus break, Dan decided to stock his room with alcohol. He
bought two bottles of vodka, a 30 rack of beer and proceeded to concoct various alcoholic treats
for him and his friends. Unable to stash all his treats in his room, he proceeded to Joseph's room
to store the 30 rack in Joseph's fridge with several bottles still open. Joseph was not around. Dan
knew Joseph’s code, so he punched in the code to his room and placed his 30 rack in the
refrigerator without telling Joseph.
The next day Joseph decided to play a game of Mario. Joseph's roommate, Timmy, who is an
exchange student here, was also playing with him. While playing the game Joseph left his room
door open. Minutes later his RA came into the room and asked him to store a surprise cake he
had bought for the RD in his refrigerator. Joseph did not want to stop playing the game, so he
told his RA to go ahead. The RA opened the door and was surprised at the alcohol, Joseph
himself was shocked. Subsequently, Joseph’s RA informed him he would be written up, as well
as his roommate. They both denied they knew about it.
Timmy began to cry, because his scholarship had a clause that stated if he was to be in any form
of trouble, he would lose his scholarship and any other chance of getting another from his
country. Joseph was angered as well but did not blame Dan because Dan would lose his spot on
the team and the scholarship which he desperately needed to finance his education. The three
friends were in panic because of what was at stake. What is the morally right thing to do for each
person in this case?

Soccer Bullies
Anonymous
Ever since I entered High School, I played soccer for the varsity team, the Lakeshore Leopards.
My High School was very small so there weren’t many people to choose from when trying out
for the team. In fact, because of this, the team had never won a sectional game. Since 9th grade I
had been dreaming of winning a sectional game for the first time, as had the rest of my
teammates. The opportunity came our senior year in the fall of ’05 when we won our first
sectional game; five to one. The wins kept coming until we made it all the way to the double c

Nobody admitted anything. Some of our favorite activities before practice included racing in our cars to the field. I knew they wouldn’t be allowed to play for the rest of the season and probably would even get suspended from school. one of the best players on the team. I felt guilty that I didn’t stop it from happening and considered telling my coach the next day. I decided not to tell on them because I wanted to win and didn’t want them to get into trouble but that decision has been nagging at me ever since. Spencer was covered in urine and feces. preventing Spencer from getting out. It was our senior year and I was thinking about their college future. We had to run all practice but that’s it. mostly because we thought it would get us into a lot of trouble. Basically no one got into any serious trouble. Ryan backed the car out while the other two stood in the back truck bed. We decided not to participate but we also didn’t stop him from doing it. didn’t like the idea too much. As soon as this happened Ryan. When we arrived at the field each of us did our own version of a skidding stop and a few did their own doughnuts on the gravel in celebration. He backed his truck into the rear of the port-a-john while the other two pushed the on the top of it and tipped it over onto its door side. narrowly avoiding accidents like usual. The discussion continued on for several minutes until we saw Spencer crossing the field. everyone had run back to their cars and was acting like nothing happened. That night I stayed up thinking about what had happened. The coach arrived saw what happened to Spencer and immediately asked what had happened. we were all in good spirits. We just watched. throwing up everywhere. The others. But then I thought about what would happen to Ryan and the others if I told on them. several kids on my team started to talk about getting him back. including myself. I guess we just didn’t want him to spoil our good spirits that day. All three would be playing division-one soccer for their college teams the next year. All that week we practiced until twilight or until it became too cold to practice anymore. had an idea to tip the port-ajohn over while Spencer was in there. We all stopped talking as he came closer because we figured he had heard us talking about him. Everyone said they didn’t see anything until it was tipped over. By the time he kicked the side wall out and crawled out of the mess. doing doughnuts on the gravel parking lot or skidding out on the gravel. If they couldn’t play in the semifinal game. At the time we absolutely despised this kid because he always told on us for fooling around in the parking lot before practice. We were all having a good time. we would surely lose. On the day of the second to last practice before the big game. A few of my fellow friends and teammates loved the idea and enthusiastically volunteered to help. When we saw him watching us we immediately assumed he was going to tell the coach after practice. Now the reader must understand that we liked to fool around before practice as most high school kids do. Sure enough Ryan and two others (both of whom were starting players) jumped into his pickup truck. He didn’t stop to talk to us but continued on to pass us and enter the port-a-john across the parking lot. Spencer. I think he told on us about five or six times and had gotten several teammates detention for their actions.state semifinals with the next game at home. Soon most of the team was gathered around talking about how to get Spencer back for ‘ratting us out’. . watching us from across the field. laughing and fooling around when we noticed the new kid. We all raced each other to the field.

a mother and her mentally disabled son came to Bounce-Around. The Bounce-Around has different bounce equipment ranging from different bounce houses. At this point Susan left the woman to get the manager. Susan told the mother that she would have to get off. Keep in mind that while it is the employee’s responsibility to watch the children while they are on the inflatables. This woman believed that her son needed special attention and constant supervision. She went on to involve her lawyer and make legal threats to Bounce-Around. her child could stay. This is dangerous and against the rules because there is the possibility that an adult could slip and fall. One rainy Saturday when Bounce-Around was particularly crowded. The woman accused both Susan and the manager of discriminating against her child. Bounce-Around does not discriminate and all children are allowed on the inflatables as long as they meet the height requirements. This woman disregarded the rules and chose to follow her son onto the bounces. Should children with special circumstances or needs be afforded special rules or a modification of the rules even if doing so increases the liability of the benefactor? Like Father. Her job included working the front desk. a bounce obstacle course and a little kid section full of different inflatables. however. telling her that her child had every right to be on the inflatable as any other child. they cannot afford to give one child special attention. The manager told the woman that it was for the safety of the other children that she was not allowed on the inflatables. Special Needs By Emma Puglisi This past summer Susan had a job at the local mall as an employee at Bounce-Around. The employees are also not allowed on the inflatables while there are children on them unless there is an emergency. This was not a satisfactory response. When it came to Susan’s attention that the woman was on the inflatable. The woman responded by yelling at Susan. hosting birthday parties. and if either she or another child got hurt due to her actions the insurance would not cover it. making sure that people paid as they entered. However. Like Son . also informing the patrons of the rules of Bounce-Around. The woman then responded by saying that she had to stay with her son in order to help him. yelling at both Susan and the manager. Susan agreed and reminded the woman that she had not told the child to get off but only the mother herself. At this point the woman was very worked up. watching the children while they are on the inflatables and cleaning the inflatables. The mother was informed about the rules verbally by Susan as well as by the posted lists of rules. a slide.Should I have told my coach what really happened? FYI: We went on to win the semifinals and went to the finals. adults are not allowed on the bounces because they are not covered by Bounce-Around’s insurance. The manager reiterated everything that Susan had just said.

Jacob’s mother trusted him enough to be home alone for the short period of time. 24. was shocked. 1972). Situations: (Adapted from John Hospers.  Rate the actions described from best to worst according to your group as a whole. his father unexpectedly arrived home early and found Jacob with a lighter and a dime bag sitting there on the coffee table. Since his father was coming home within the half hour. While Jacob stood there in disbelief and anguish. After going to smoke a joint with friends in the woods as usual. Jacob came upon not only a bowl. Jacob is typically given about an hour to get rid of the evidence and straighten up before they walk through the door. Opening one of his father’s drawers. One day. Human Conduct (New York: Harcourt Brace. Last week. Unable to find a ruler in his room that he needed to use for one of his school assignments. [A] Because of graft and corruption among high officials in the city government. . He told his son how disappointed he was in him and provided what he thought was an appropriate punishment. city taxes have to be raised 35 per cent.  Justify why you rated the actions the way you did.Anonymous Jacob is a teenage student and a senior at Green Hill High School. Jacob sat there staring at his father. he recognized the bowl sitting on the coffee table. Jacob’s father. he walked towards his home. however. Jacob ventured into his parent’s room. but also a fair amount of marijuana. Arnold. He gave him the strict orders to return home directly from school from then on. he decided to take the items out of his father’s drawer and keep them for himself.  Rate the actions described in A through E from best to worst according to your personal ethics. Just as Arnold was about to punish his son once more. The next week Arnold came home early and caught Jacob smoking again. Should Arnold punish his son Jacob for smoking weed. With his parents always still at work by the time he returns to his house. when he does it himself? Is it morally right for him to punish Jacob if he believes that he is looking out for his son’s best interest? Philosophy 302: Ethics Case Study Your group is requested to do four things:  Carefully read the situations in paragraphs A through E below. Jacob arrived at his door to find his mom on her way out.

The judge sentences them to thirty days on the chain gang. The bus driver accuses one of the Blacks of doing it and has the bus evacuated while the Black soldiers clean it up. but by that time he is dead. (The issue is about religious leaders influencing political issues.” At the other city hospital he is also refused.[B] The ambulance brings to the hospital a man bleeding to death. While they are working the driver calls the local sheriff and has the Black soldiers locked up for disorderly conduct. 1569.) [E] The communist youth turns in his parents to the Secret Police for suspected activity hostile to the aims of the Party. An intoxicated white soldier on the bus becomes sick and vomits. Mills. III.” the man at the receiving desk says falsely. two years before. So he is returned to the first hospital. “Take him to the other city hospital. New Republic. being a free city hospital. “We don’t have room. W. They condone the intent to murder millions of people by clean-cut young men flying and aiming intricate machineries toward Euro-Asia. 1958. (Cf. use religion to cloak and to support impersonal. [C] A group of Black soldiers in the South going home on leave is riding in a bus. not about the ethics of war. The hospital. wholesale murder and the preparation for it. . on exactly the same grounds. zeroing in on cities full of human beings young men who. does not admit him. No.) 126. Vol. 871-872). The Causes of World War Three (New York: Simon and Schuster.” (C. were begging their fathers for the use of the family car for a Saturdaynight date. Rating and Justification: Situat ion Best Justification . [D] “Preachers. They are not permitted to get in contact with Army headquarters or with their families who are expecting them home for Christmas the next day. priests .. rabbis. pp. .

we can test the discrepancy and come up with suggestions to improve rational performance.” that is. beyond thought experiments and experimental philosophy: the case study. in other words. Why not. the X-phils ask. i. you’ve got to be very careful in designing your experiments. why rest with their intuitions about other people’s intuitions.” . and case studies. but I’d like to lay out some thoughts here about three methods: thought experiments. and thereby settle the empirical question. the whole bestiary of brains-in-a-vat. “the method of dramatization. or as Deleuze calls it. the X-phils answer. and doesn’t seem to show signs of settling down any time soon.e. Why rest with philosopher’s “intuitions” about the matters of life. or the way they should think. For all the talk of “intuition pumps” in thought experiments.Wors t Case studies: beyond thought experiments and experimental philosophy I’m no expert in philosophical methodology. a pedagogical enterprise that is itself subject to empirical testing. X-phil has made a big splash with its critique of armchair philosophy and its use of thought experiments. once we settle the normative question. I want suggest a third method for philosophers. and then. et al. We know. So this is less a definitive statement to be defended than an invitation to discussion: less an article than a blog post. the X-phil critique claims the armchair approach is wrapped up in very questionable assumptions about normalcy and normativity. instead design experiments that test how people do in fact think. The debate goes on.. experimental philosophy. comes the retort from critics of Xphil. the critics say. zombies. the X-phil proponents say. as we know. you’ve got to be careful of experimental artifacts in X-phil results.. the way most people do think. Swampman. But then. we know. and especially. that’s why we work with social science experts in designing our experiments. As far as I can tell. that any one given philosopher’s intuitions map onto that of “the rational man.

both case studies and experimental design reduce the dimensions of a situation to gain control and clarity. In other words. technical. problems cannot be solved once and for all. This isn’t the place for a full-blown inquiry into Deleuze’s metaphysics. and that very experimental knowledge helps us critique old case studies and produce new ones. is that the trolley problem yields pre-set. as in the Borges story. case studies which respect and describe the multiple dimensions and interconnected pressures of “problems in the Deleuzean sense. For a case study itself involves the choice of what to include: a map that produces a 1-to-1 duplication of the territory.The problem with even the best designed X-phil use of the trolley problem.” That’s not to say we should only do case studies. It rests upon a variable context such that no final formula is likely to be resistant to new developments or even adequate in light of all currently available information. A problem in Deleuze’s metaphysics is closer to the sense of a problem in macroeconomics such as ‘Should we raise interest rates now?’ with its wide range of ethical. than to a … problem … that might allow for a definitive answer. The economic problem is practical and experimental. But it is to say that the multiple and interconnected pressures and consequences of open-ended and evolving situations or “problems in the Deleuzean sense” can be studied better in detailed case studies than in experiments done in the armchair or even in the lab. for our actions now in resolving it change the conditions for future cases of the problem. James Williams claims in his chapter on Deleuze and Gilbert Harman in The Transversal Thought of Gilles Deleuze: Encounters and Influences (Clinamen . as I’ve tried to do with the case studies in Political Affect. 2005. individuated. but open-ended situations. The difference is that case studies strive to describe the interaction of as many dimensions as possible while still producing a coherent case. is no map at all. For Deleuze. responses. so that there are no pre-set. But the trolley problem is not a “problem in the Deleuzean sense. But we can write case studies of the real-life resolutions of problems. individuated. And they can only be resolved in concrete situations by singular actions. available online here). but the take-away point I think is that problems are differential fields. but they can be resolved for the time being. while experiments strive to isolate a few key dimensions and measure that reduced interaction (often the classic relation of . they can only be dealt with practically and temporarily. There can be synergy here: an apprenticeship in case studies can help us identify key dimensions of situations that can be isolated from their real-world context and tested experimentally. social and political pressures and variables. They cannot be solved. responses (pull the lever or not) and the experiments looks at the distribution of choices between individuated results (and also often at brain states and so on correlated with those choices).” which for Williams looks like vast inter-linked networks of conflicting ideal pressures and actual responses to these pressures…. and that no experiment can duplicate the complex pressures and real consequences of true problems.

Let me close with a challenging question I need to think more about: is it that X-phil methodology looks for “linear” relations between dependent and independent variables. problematic) reality. and that these virtues can be cultivated in a periodically renewed immersion in case studies.dependent and independent variables. but not even multi-factorial analysis is going to deal with as many dimensions as a good case study). So I’d say that good experimentation needs a self-consciousness and openness to revision of our choice of critical dimensions. whereas case studies try to describe the “nonlinear” feedback loops of our (Deleuzean. which are resistant to the construction of dependent / independent variable experiments? So that it’s not really the quantity of dimensions that distinguishes experiments and case studies as their treatment of them? . But we have to remember that the very clarity of experimental results comes from our choice of critical dimensions and our disregarding of the others.