Description
In 2-3 page paper analyzing the moral argumentation of a contemporary opinion/editorial article, political speech. Analysis should be completely based on the Logical Reasoning Handout in the Course Content Tab or the Giving Reasons book.
Directions for Moral Argument Analysis Paper
This is a 2-3 page, double-spaced, 12-point Times New Roman font paper assignment. Several articles have been posted into the Moral Argument Analysis Paper tab on the Blackboard site. Using the tools given in the “Logical Reasoning Handout” found in the Course Content tab of the Canvas site, please write a paper analyzing the argument of article attached below using the questions below. After you have completed the assignment, please submit it in the place marked in the Sylalbus & Schedule tab.
In your paper, please make sure to answer the following questions:
What is the main normative conclusion the article is arguing for?
What are the premises or arguments the article uses to support the main normative conclusion?
Are any of the premises normative? If so, which ones?
If none of the premises are normative, what would be a normative premise that would support the normative conclusion?
Are the premises strong enough to support the conclusion?
If you judged that the premises are not strong enough to support the conclusion, what are the weaknesses with either the premises or the argument that led you to think this?
What piece of evidence, if true, would make you change your mind about your judgment?
It is important to keep this paper within the page range, so each of these questions will probably receive at least a few sentences and perhaps even a paragraph in the answer. Please do not fall short of two full pages and please do not exceed three full pages.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Elon Musk’s Starship may be more moral catastrophe than bold step in s…
1 of 4
https://theconversation.com/elon-musks-starship-may-be-more-moral-cat…
Academic rigor, journalistic flair
An artist concept of the Starship following separation from the first stage Super Heavy. SpaceX/flickr
Elon Musk’s Starship may be more moral catastrophe than bold
step in space exploration
October 2, 2019 8.09am EDT
Samantha Rolfe
Lecturer in Astrobiology and Principal Technical Officer at Bayfordbury Observatory, University of Hertfordshire
Elon Musk, founder of private space-faring company SpaceX, recently unveiled his new Starship craft.
Amazingly, it is designed to carry up to 100 crew members on interplanetary journeys throughout the
solar system, starting with Mars in 2024.
The announcement is exciting, invoking deep emotions of hope and adventure. But I can’t help having
a number of moral reservations about it.
Musk has declared a fascinatingly short time line to achieve orbit with this rocket. He wants to build
four or five versions of the vehicle in the next six months. The first rocket will do a test launch to
20km within a month, and the final version will orbit the Earth.
Whether this is possible remains to be seen. Bear in mind that in the early 1960s when the then US
president, John F Kennedy, announced the race to the moon, it took nearly a decade to achieve and
several crew members died during the testing phases.
10/10/2021, 1:26 PM
Elon Musk’s Starship may be more moral catastrophe than bold step in s…
2 of 4
https://theconversation.com/elon-musks-starship-may-be-more-moral-cat…
Despite this, it has been an important goal since the beginning of the space age for people to travel
between planets – helping us to explore, mine and colonise the solar system.
Planetary protection
There are many reasons to believe SpaceX will succeed. The company has been extremely impressive
in its contribution to space, filling a gap when government agencies such as NASA could not justify
the spending. It’s not the rocket technology that I doubt, my concern is mainly astrobiological.
If life exists elsewhere in our universe, the solar system is a good place to start looking – enabling us
to touch, collect and analyse samples in a reasonably short time. Along with some of Jupiter’s and
Saturn’s moons, Mars is one of the top contenders for hosting some sort of microbial life, or for
having done so in the past.
However, there is a risk that microbe-ridden humans walking on the red planet could contaminate it
with bugs from Earth. And contamination may threaten alien organisms, if they exist. It may also
make it impossible to figure out whether any microbes found on Mars later on are martian or
terrestrial in origin.
A mission to return samples from Mars to Earth is expected to be completed by the early 2030s, with
all the collection work completed by sterilised robots. While such missions pose a certain risk of
contamination too, there are rigorous protocols to help minimise the chance. These were initiated by
the Outer Space Treaty in 1967 and must be followed by anyone in the space industry, governmental
or non-governmental entities alike.
Can we be confident that, while pushing the boundaries of human exploration in such a short time
frame, corners won’t be cut or standards won’t be allowed to slip? It will be considerably harder to
follow these protocols once humans are actually on the planet.
If SpaceX was serious about planetary protection, I would expect to see a policy on its website, or
easily found by searching “SpaceX planetary protection”. But that isn’t the case. So while it is possible
that it has a rigorous planetary protection plan in place behind the scenes, its public-facing content
seems to suggest that pushing the boundaries of human exploration is more important than the
consequences of that exploration.
10/10/2021, 1:26 PM
Elon Musk’s Starship may be more moral catastrophe than bold step in s…
3 of 4
https://theconversation.com/elon-musks-starship-may-be-more-moral-cat…
Starship Update
Musk doesn’t seem too worried about contamination. He has alluded to the concept of panspermia,
the idea that Mars and Earth have exchanged material or even life in the past due to asteroid impacts
anyway. In the recent video above, he also says: “I don’t think some Earth-based bacterium is going to
be able to migrate much through Mars” and “if there is any life, it will be very deep underground”. But
he simultaneously argues that we can excavate to make room for humans underground on Mars,
where they would be shielded from radiation.
Other moral issues
Another issue is the health of the humans are being sent out to Mars. Deep space is not without its
dangers, but at least working in low Earth orbit, on the moon and the International Space Station, the
Earth’s magnetic field offers some protection from harmful space radiation.
Mars doesn’t have its own magnetic field and its atmosphere provides little shelter from cosmic
radiation. Astronauts would also be exposed to deep space radiation for the minimum six-month
journey between planets.
Though plenty of work is being conducted, radiation protection technology is a long way behind other
aspects of rocketry. I’m not sure that it is fair or ethical to expect astronauts to be exposed to
dangerous levels of radiation that could leave them with considerable health problems – or worse,
imminent death.
10/10/2021, 1:26 PM
Elon Musk’s Starship may be more moral catastrophe than bold step in s…
4 of 4
https://theconversation.com/elon-musks-starship-may-be-more-moral-cat…
Mars photographed by the Opportunity rover. NASA/JPL-Caltech/Cornell/Arizona State Univ. › Full image and caption
Add to that the environmental impact of these missions, which release a lot of carbon dioxide, if they
become frequent.
So while there is obviously a lot to gain from sending humans to Mars, the risks of contaminating
Mars, injuring astronauts and damaging the environment are very real. I would argue that it is our
moral obligation to prevent such damage. I hope SpaceX is putting as much thought into this as it has
into its launch vehicles, and I would like to see this become a priority for the company.
Once we have better radiation shielding and have proven that Mars is entirely uninhabited, albeit a
very difficult thing to do, it will most likely be an adventure worth embarking on. But at the very least,
the company should hold off sending people to Mars until we have the results of the upcoming life
detection missions, such as the Mars Sample Return and ExoMars rover.
Until then the moon is a great target for human exploration, resource mining and colonisation. As it is
nearby and we can be reasonably confident that it does not harbour life, why not start there?
Regardless of the thrill and feelings of hope this kind of adventure brings, just because we can do
something, doesn’t mean we necessarily should, now or in the future.
10/10/2021, 1:26 PM
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
