Case Study II

Case Study II

Some Advice on Writing Case Studies

As much as some struggle reading aloud in class, stumbling on unfamiliar verbiage (see what I did there?) or phrasing, many others struggle with their own writing. The good news is that writing well is a skill you can and must acquire before you graduate. Regardless of the profession or professions you take up, you will have to write and you want to be taken seriously.

For general advice on writing philosophy, I encourage you to study some of the advice linked from the Writing Philosophy page. Not all of the advice applies directly to these case study, to be sure. Nevertheless, there is much sound and helpful advice to be had about writing in general and writing philosophy in particular.

As for writing case studies, please bear in mind that,

  • Arguments are clearly stated in such a way that the conclusion and assumptions would be obvious to any student not taking this course.
  • Assumptions are clearly justified whenever they are controversial, which frequently requires additional research on the case at hand.
  • Theoretical assumptions (your theory of choice, typically) are stated explicitly and the resulting argument does not deviate from these assumptions.
  • Steps taken in the course of an argument are clear in such a way that any student not taking this course would be able to follow them.
  • Wherever applicable, the arguments found in the various texts we have read should be utilized but should be restated in such a way that anyone not taking the course could understand the argument.

A few further comments may help.

First, the requirement that you clearly state the arguments does not imply that you should put them into the formally-valid-numbered-lines form that we adopt in class. Of course, that is absolutely the clearest way to state an argument. Yet it is also rather difficult to do for people who have not had a course in logic. So for these case studies we strongly recommend that you write your arguments in paragraph form in such a way that the steps taken in the argument from the assumptions to the conclusion are clear.

Second, if you take as your theoretical assumption Hedonic Act Utilitarianism, say, it is mandatory that you not suddenly start arguing about the unhappy consequences of an action as if you had assumed Eudaimonic Act Utilitarianism. In other words, stick to the theory or theories you've assumed (or been assigned, as the case may be.)

Third, you should strive to write as clearly as possible. Try to avoid confusing your reader with complicated sentences and disconnected thoughts. Remember, you are gaining skills you will someday have to use. One of those skills is the ability to express your ideas in such a way that anyone can understand them. This does not mean that you will be graded on grammar per se. You should nevertheless strive as far as possible to express yourself clearly and effectively. If, in grading these case studies, we are unable to understand what it is you are trying to say, you will not be given the benefit of the doubt. We will not read between the lines or otherwise assume you meant something more astute than what you actually wrote.

Fourth, it is important that your best understanding of the moral issues as we have spelled them out in class, in the readings, and in the handouts, notes, and synopses be reflected in the nuance and sophistication of the arguments and counter-arguments you present in your case studies. (I suppose the emphasis here should be on 'studies'.)

Putting all of the above together, it is simply not possible to do a good job on a case analysis in less than the space permitted. It could well be argued that even the space permitted hardly suffices, and such an argument would have considerable merit. Suffice it to say that a single paragraph (as we've seen) hardly counts as meeting the above admittedly high expectations--this said in full recognition that those who could most benefit from appreciating and respecting the point are also unlikely to bother with reading the point in the first place. We can but try. On to the case study!

Protests and Property Destruction

After George Floyd’s murder by police was caught on camera and the video went viral, Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests erupted across the United States. These demonstrations against police violence and racial injustice may be the largest social justice movement in U.S. history: polls as of August 2020 show that about 15 to 26 million people have participated. The demonstrations have continued for weeks and have already started making real progress through both legal and cultural avenues. For example, many cities and states have banned police chokeholds, and public support for the BLM movement has skyrocketed.1

Civil disobedience is a hallmark of these protests: protestors block roads, disobey curfews, and disrupt events in order to amplify their message.2 In many instances, police have responded with brutality, further illustrating the protestors’ point.3 Nonviolent protests have a long history in this country, and often include breaking unjust laws or demonstrating abuse of power in an organized manner, knowing that the police are likely to respond with violence. Indeed, these tactics were not only famously but also successfully used during the civil rights movement of the 1960s. However, in the chaos of many of the current protests, there has also been random looting and vandalism by a small minority of the protesters present according to eyewitness accounts. It is unclear who is committing these acts, and in many instances peaceful protestors have attempted to intervene to stop the vandalism.

Many believe that this type of indiscriminate destruction of property only serves to discredit the movement. As one author argues, “The violence and property damage associated with the civil unrest are inexcusable. The looting is indefensible. Both do incredible damage to any cause seeking justice, especially ones fighting to end police brutality and reform the criminal-justice system.” In other words, “using peaceful protests as a cover for theft and destruction is actually violence perpetrated against the movement itself.”4 These critics of looting would argue that looting and vandalism do not constitute legitimate civil disobedience, insofar as the laws against such acts are not inherently unjust.

According to Attorney General William Barr, “groups of outside radicals and agitators are exploiting the situation to pursue their own separate, violent and extremist agenda,” and “the violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly.”5 President Trump has blamed Antifa and the “radical left” for the rioting, and announced that Antifa would be designated as a terrorist organization.6

But others have taken the stance that this type of property damage and theft are justified, considering the vital importance of fighting for black lives and the dire state of racial inequality in this country. One author argues that “the destruction of property should be taken seriously rather than treated as an unfortunate externality or the expression of regrettably unchecked passions.”7 The looting and burning of multinational chains and big box stores can be seen as acts of anger and rage directed at an unfair system, a bid for the redistribution of property, and a necessary escalation to get the attention of the broader community.8 As Trevor Noah has explained, “Black Americans watch time and time again how the contract that they have signed with society is not being honored by the society that has forced them to sign it with them.”9

  1. Larry Buchanan, Quoctrung Biu, and Jugal K. Patel, Black Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History, The New York Times, July 3, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/03/us/george-floyd-protests…
  2. Matthew Yglesias, Vandalism and theft aren’t helping, Vox, June 4, 2020, https://www.vox.com/2020/6/4/21278048/civil-disobedience-looting-vandal…
  3. Anthony L. Fisher, Police rioted, justifying the point of the protests,” Business Insider, June 1, 2020, https://www.businessinsider.com/police-rioted-george-floyd-riots-justif…
  4. Anthony Fisher, Destruction swings at the system, but the punch lands on the peaceful protests, Business Insider, June 14, 2020, https://www.businessinsider.com/george-floyd-peaceful-protests-looting-…
  5. Hollie McKay, George Floyd unrest: How riot groups come together to loot, destroy, Fox News, June 1, 2020, https://www.foxnews.com/us/george-floyd-riots-looting-destroy
  6. Rob Blitzer, Trump announces US to designate Antifa as terrorist organization following violent protests, Fox News, May 31, 2020, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-announces-u-s-to-designate-antif…
  7. R.H. Lossin, In Defense of Destroying Property, The Nation, June 10, 2020, https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/blm-looting-protest-vandalis…
  8. Olga Khazan, Why People Loot, The Atlantic, June 2, 2020, https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/06/why-people-loot/6125…; Glenn Greenwald, What is the Goal of the Protests, and Which Tactics are Morally Justified and Strategically Wise, The Intercept, June 4, 2020, https://theintercept.com/2020/06/04/what-is-the-goal-of-the-protests-an…
  9. @TheDailyShow, “Society’s Broken Contract with Black America,” Twitter, May 31, 2020, https://twitter.com/thedailyshow/status/1267078626203144199; see also, “You broke the contract,” YouTube, uploaded by The Ferryman, June 8, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoDeVpvuEzI

From the 2020 Regional Ethics Bowl. Prepared by

Michael Funke
Rhiannon Dodds Funke
Gretchen A. Myers
Greg Shafer
Becky Cox-White

Question: When if ever is the destruction of property morally justifiable as a form of protest against current injustice?

Do not answer this question using the same theory you used on the first case study. You may, however, use a different utilitarian theory, KET, or SCT to answer this question.