Portrayed as the Manhattan Project of the late 20th century, the Human Genome Project, or HGP, not only undertook the science of sequencing the human genome but also the ethics of it. For this thesis I ask how the HGP did this; what was the range of possibilities of goods and evils imagined by the HGP; and what, if anything, was left out. I show that the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications, or ELSI, research program of the HGP was inscribed with the competencies of the professional field of bioethics, which had lent itself useful for governing biomedical science and technology earlier in the 20th century. Drawing on a sociological framework for understanding the development of professional bioethics, I describe the development of ELSI, and I note how the given-in-advance boundaries between authorized and unauthorized questions shaped not only its formation but also biased technologically based conceptualizations of social problems and potential solutions.

The need to draw a more explicit connection between literature and the daily lives of students has become an increasingly pressing issue. Preeminent literary scholars have long argued that the design of many undergraduate classrooms only engages the student with literature to a degree that, long term, does not produce habits of criticism that engage students with wider contexts of conflict. The yield instead primarily takes place in a classroom. Leading scholars tend to draw connections of value between the work they are teaching and the lives of students by focusing on how they negotiate specific power discourses. However, placing an emphasis on having habits of criticism function regarding specific biases in contexts restricts the kinds of conflict students are prepared to negotiate. To encourage a habit of critical thinking in undergraduate students that can be applied to any context of conflict and bias, a vocabulary on language failure should be taught and analyzed through its implications in origin myths that explain and justify division. Language failure, or the failure of symbols to represent subjects in their full capacity, is a concept and theory introduced by Kenneth Burke to examine conflict at a conceivable root. Burke suggests that language failure is the core of misrepresentation and conflict and is inevitably the result of any ‘identification’, or selection of meaning that is assigned to symbols. Identifications are selections of meaning and conceptions of value that organize bodies towards a social purpose, under a limited perspective. The danger of language failure is present when it goes unacknowledged. In identifications, the repercussions of language failure continually complicate, divide and propagate in discourse; assumptions about the validity of identifications encourage more complex ‘blind-spots’ and misrepresentations that exclude populations and have violent potentials. The more complex the layering of association between identifications becomes, the more obscured their foundational failure, their nature of non-innateness, is, faced as truth, affective as justice. The ‘affective’ foundation behind these powerful associations and assumptions is myth. Origin myth, or a narrative that explains the beginning of some worldly phenomena, founds, and adapts to the needs of culture and society. Teaching students to regard risks of language use as being foundational in their cultural thought, their criticism, and their communication, enriches their capability to negotiate and participate ambivalently in conflicts faced during their daily lives.

The field of intercultural communication emerged from demonstrated need in the public sector and has roots in cultural anthropology. There is continued need in academic and practitioner domains for improved ways to effectively engage across cultures. To do so, it is necessary to develop approaches that enable a person to take the emic perspective of an intercultural Other. Worldview is a promising concept in several fields, such as anthropology and cross-cultural psychology, but remains undeveloped in the field of intercultural competence. In addition, existing conceptualizations and approaches to identify worldviews are too comprehensive or ambiguous to be useful. The purpose of this project was to propose a novel worldview framework synthesizing existing literature. The resulting construct is constituted by the composite universals, morality, agency, and positionality (MAP). Worldview MAP was applied to intercultural interactions between members of two distinct sociocultural groups working together on a two-week global management project in a multinational organization in Japan. Three research questions focused on identifying intercultural difficulties, worldview assumptions of each party, and relationships between the difficulties and worldviews. Inter-rater reliability was calculated for three morality subdimensions most underdeveloped in the literature. Findings include worldview descriptions for both culture groups across MAP and ways in which worldviews are interconnected with and illuminate three complex intercultural difficulties. Further, five meta-level worldview findings show how implicit worldviews were indirectly revealed in narrative data. Limitations of the study and implications for future work are discussed.

ABSTRACT

Although the US government has been using remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), more commonly referred to as drones, to conduct military strikes against terrorists and insurgents since at least 2001, only around 2011 did media outlets and polling organizations began assessing the attitudes of Americans towards the use of drones as a weapon of war. Initially, public support for drone strikes was robust with nearly 70 percent of Americans expressing approval. As the discussion of drone strikes intensified however, public support declined over 10 percentage points.

Only a handful of studies have examined public opinion and drone strikes, and all have focused exclusively on explaining support. This study seeks to fill this gap in the literature and explain opposition to drone strikes. The primary argument put forth in this dissertation is that people’s beliefs determine their opinions, and their morality determines their beliefs. Although independent opinion formation is often considered a cognitive process, I argue that, at least in the case of drone strikes, the opinion formation process is largely an affective one.

By examining media coverage and elite discourse surrounding drone strikes, I isolate three narratives which I believe communicate certain messages to the public regarding drone strikes. I argue that the messages produced by elite discourse and disseminated by the media to the public are only influential on opinion formation once they have been converted to beliefs. I further argue that conversion of message to belief is largely dependent on individual moral attitudes.

To test my arguments, I conduct a survey-experiment using subjects recruited from Arizona State University’s School of Politics and Global Studies student subject pool. My research findings lead to two key conclusions. First, opposition to drone strikes is largely the product of the belief(s) that drone strikes are not necessary for protecting the United States from terrorist attack, and that drone strikes kill more civilians than do strikes from conventional aircraft. Second, whether an individual expresses support or opposition to drone strikes, moral attitudes are a relatively good predictor of both beliefs and disposition.

In this honors thesis certain religious and moral beliefs were analyzed and used to predict active euthanasia acceptance for Christians in the United States. The factors used to predict euthanasia acceptance for a suffering, terminally ill individual were religiosity, empathy, God representations, and attitudes toward God. Negative correlations were observed between acceptance of euthanasia and religiosity, empathy, positive attitudes toward God, and a benevolent God representation. Positive correlations were observed between acceptance of euthanasia and negative attitudes toward God, whereas there was no significant correlation between support for euthanasia and an authoritarian God representation. When acceptance of euthanasia was regressed on these independent variables, religiosity was the most significant predictor of acceptance. It was concluded that highly religious Christians may tend to prioritize their religious teachings over their instinctual empathy for a suffering person because prematurely ending a patient’s life interferes with God’s will and reduces his role in worldly affairs.

I argue that a morally heavy, poorly researched, emotionally powerful piece of non-fiction media with complex subject matter shown to an ill-equipped audience is unethical. I then evaluate methods of avoiding unethical situations from the perspective of media creators. I conclude by calling for a strictly diligence based ratings board anchored in the professional guilds of the entertainment industry.

Health knowledge alone does not appear to lead to sustained healthy behavior, suggesting the need for alternative methods for improving diet. Recent research shows a possible role of moral contexts of food production on diet related behaviors; however no studies have been conducted to specifically explore the relationship between moral constructs and food consumption. This study examined the relationship between fast food consumption and two measures of morality, Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ), specifically harm/care and purity/sanctity foundations, and the Ethical Concern in food choice (EC) questionnaire, which includes animal welfare, environment protection, political values, and religion subscales. The study also examined the association between the measures of morality. 739 participants, primarily female (71.4%) and non-Hispanic Whites (76.5%), completed an online survey that included the MFQ, the EC questionnaire, and a brief fast food screener. Participant's morality scores in relation to their fast food consumption were examined first using bivariate ANOVA analysis and then using logistic regression to control for covariates. The MFQ foundations were compared with the EC subscales using Pearson correlation coefficient. Significant bivariate relationships were seen between fast food consumption and the MFQ's purity/sanctity foundation and EC's religion subscales (p<0.05). However these significant bivariate relationships did not hold after controlling for gender, race, university education, and religion in the logistic regression analysis. The foundations of the MFQ were positively correlated with the subscales for the EC questionnaire (r values ranging from .233-.613 (p<0.01). MFQ's purity/sanctity foundation and EC's religion subscale were the two most highly correlated (r=.613, p<0.01) showing that moral intuitions may be associated with eating decision making. The study did not find significant associations between MFQ or EC scores and fast food consumption.

The current study explored whether intrinsically religious individuals are able to separate the "sin" from the "sinner" (i.e., separate category membership from behavior) when judging homosexual individuals, or whether they are instead subject to the negativity bias (judgments based solely on category membership) in moral judgments. All effects were expected to occur only for participants high in homophobia. Participants were 305 undergraduate male and female students at a large, public university in the southwestern U.S. Respondents read one of five scenarios that described gay or straight targets who were celibate or engaged in same or opposite sex relationships, then were asked to respond to a series of questions evaluating attitudes and behavioral intentions toward the target. Results revealed that homophobia led to a negativity bias in judgments of gay targets, which was intensified by intrinsic religiosity. However, individuals high on intrinsic religiosity and high on homophobia also differentiated between gay targets based on sexual behavior, such that gay targets who were celibate or in an opposite-sex relationship were rated more favorably than gay targets in a same-sex relationship. These findings demonstrate that the negativity bias and "sin vs. sinner" differentiation may both be occurring for intrinsically religious individuals. The moderating effect of homophobia on the interaction between intrinsic religiosity and judgments of gay and straight targets shows us that religiosity itself is not inherently tolerant or intolerant.