Virtue Ethics as an Alterna6ve to Deontological and Consequen6al Reasoning in the Harm
Reduc6on Debate, Chris6e, et al. – text pgs. 451-456
Answer the following questions based on the above reading from the course text. These are
intended to elicit short answer responses of about 3-4 sentences (on the shorter side if you
can convey your ideas very concisely, and on the longer side if you need a bit more space to
say what you mean).
1. The authors identify two main approaches available to policy-makers regarding addressing
substance use/abuse in society: an abstinence-based approach and a harm reduction
approach. Describe the main features and goals of each approach.
2. The authors go on to ask how a harm reduction approach can be ethically justified. What
do they think is the most plausible argument for a harm reduction approach? Write out how
this argument proceeds (consider what is the main conclusion and what premises are given
in support of that conclusion).
3. The authors present three main criticisms of the harm reduction approach. Based on the
information presented in the article, do you think the cri6cisms deny that harm-reduced
approaches achieve their stated goals (see your response to Q1)? Say why or why not.
4. According to the authors, utilitarianism most plausibly favors a harm reduction
approach. Do you agree? Why or why not?
5. According to the authors, Kan6anism most plausibly favors an abs6nence-based
approach. Do you agree? Why or why not?
6. Can you think of any way to ameliorate the (actual or perceived) conflict between these
two positions? What moral theory/ies, or aspects thereof, does your proposed approach rely
upon and how?