Class notes and notes outlining all essays as well as expectations for final test
Class notes and notes outlining all essays as well as expectations for final test 150C
Popular in Philosophy
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
Popular in PHIL-Philosophy
This 33 page Bundle was uploaded by Madelynn Romero-Thies on Friday January 30, 2015. The Bundle belongs to 150C at a university taught by Michael Gill in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 254 views.
Reviews for Class notes and notes outlining all essays as well as expectations for final test
Loved these! I'm a horrible notetaker so I'll be your #1 fan this semester
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 01/30/15
PHILOSOPHY NOTES Brooks vs Trigg 0 Options 0 Trigg hedge fund send money 0 Peace Core Steve 0 Do what you love 0 Choice of Most Moral Justification 0 In the best situation I would probably choose the hedge fund route because it saves the most people I would probably not give as much money however 0 Trigg and Peace Core options are not completely different Trigg could be paying a lot of money to the peace core which is supplying Steve with the resources to go to other countries and save children Arthur vs Singer 0 Arthur disagrees with Singers basic principles mostly 2 0 If Singers principles were correct there would be a lot of consequences they are far too demanding I Are you obligated to donate organs to people that don t have them 0 What went wrong with Singers ideas I Positiveinterference rights vs Negativenoninterference rights I Everyone can claim negative rights speech 0 Greater moral evil rule does not understand the difference between negative and positive rights 0 Arthur believes this idea is more practical O This means that more people are likely to follow Arthurs ideas because they are easier and you don t have to give up unreasonable amounts of yourself 0 Is practicality important I No Just because something is easier doesn t mean it is better or more moral I Arthurs values are more intuitive I You don t need to give everything you have because you don t actually owe anything to other people 0 People cannot claim your rights but they can demand that you respect their liberties Situations 0 While inside your boss s boat you see that there is a person drowning in the ocean 0 Option 1 Save the person but ruin the boat 0 Option 2 Let the person die and the boat doesn t get damaged 0 Suppose you are the accountant for the boat 0 Option 1 Take tiny amounts of money from any transaction made for the boat and give that money to charity 0 Option 2 Not take any money and not give to charity 0 Ideas I Don t rationalize something bad for something good Jeremy Bentham 17481832 I Utilitarianism O Consequentialist O NonEgoistic everyone s happiness matters 0 Number Game pains vs pleasures O Hedonistic I The only things of intrinsic value are pleasure and pain I Why is this important 0 Pleasure is an intrinsic good I The fact that someone feels pleasure is a good thing this is the anchor to his entire theory 0 Scientific tool for social reform I Had his body stuffed and put into the board room at the college he founded in England 0 He required that he would be wheeled out during every board meeting and counted as present but not voting 0 He did this to make a point I He wanted to support human dissections to help medicine I Produce the most happiness by helping sick people I To figure out the results of an action 0 Add up all the pleasures and pains 0 Figure out all the pleasures and pains of each person being affected 0 If one person is going to be in pain and the other is going to feel pleasure then equal this out 0 Sum up all of these results I Moral Equality O Everyone s pleasurepain counts absolutely equally O The working class lower class are just as important as the upper class 0 If you get pleasure out of something basic and fundamental it is just as important as pleasure obtained from something more complicated I The pleasure you get out of Hamlet is just as important as the pleasure you get from the Simpsons I What if you are a sadist O A person that is causing pain has a less valuable life than a person that creates happiness 0 While there may be pain from getting killed by a lion the amount of happiness that a crowd feels outweighs the pain that one person feels I Utilitarianism focuses on combining personal and social morality 0 Personal morality How you decide to treat others and live your life 0 Social Morality What kind of social structures and laws should be put into place 0 Freedom of religion 0 If enough people want to prevent the preaching of a religion is it okay to keep them from practicing this religion I Some things cannot be determined by their utility I What matters is these peoples individual rights I According to Bentham s principles to maximize utility one would outlaw the religion because it would make more people happy than sad 0 This is where Bentham s ideas start to fall apart because in real life he supports women s rights and LGTBQ rights as well John Stuart Mill 0 Younger than Bentham family friends 0 The swine objection 1 According to utilitarianism morality tells us to maximize pleasure 2 To spend ones entire life maximizing pleasure is to live like a pig or a vulgar hedonist 3 But surely morality tells us to pursue higher goals than that of a vulgar hedonist 4 So utilitarianism must be incorrect 0 Mill attacks premise 2 of the swine objection 1 Humans are capable of experiencing both higher and lower pleasures 2 The higher pleasures are more valuable 3 If one is trying to pursue the higher pleasures they are also producing the best value 4 To pursue higher pleasures in not to live like a pig or a vulgar hedonist 5 So the utilitarian view of morality does not tell us to live like a pig or a vulgar hedonist 0 Higher and lower pleasures 0 Difference between the quality of pleasures vs Bentham s focus on quantity 0 Higher pleasures are more valuable and provide more pleasure mental artistic and emotional I Last longer and persist more I Examples 0 Love and friendship 0 Going out to watch a movie 0 Getting your nails done 0 Lower pleasures are more fundamental and visceral physicalbodily I Examples 0 Being high or drunk 0 Eating food and drinking water 0 Sleeping 0 Breathing I Sex 0 Mill is very inconsistent about describing what pleasures are I Competent Judges Argument 1 It is fair to conclude that whichever of the two pleasures is deemed of superior quality by someone who has tried both really is superior 2 Those who have experienced higher and lower pleasures deem the higher to be of superior quality 3 Therefore it is fair to conclude that the higher pleasures really are of superior quality 0 Issues I Not all pleasures can be compared I Nobody can experience every single pleasure there is 0 Therefore nobody can deem one pleasure higher than the other I Would you give up a higher pleasure in exchange for all of the lower pleasures you could possibly think of being high constantly eating tons of cheese burgers constant sex etc 0 Mill says no matter what the lower pleasure one would never give up a higher pleasure 0 People would surely pick the lower pleasures because priorities change I Some people don t get to choose between higher and lower pleasures someone who is homeless and has no money Immanuel Kant 1724 l 804 I Nonhedonistic 0 Not all pleasure comes from the absence of pain 0 If you get pleasure out of someone s pain you are morally wrong 0 Nothing intrinsicallymorally valuable about someone that causes pain I If someone has done something wrong and is being punished for it that is good I Nonconsequentialist 0 When determining what is right to do the ends do not justify the means I Torturing an innocent person is intrinsically wrong I Even if the consequences turn out better it is still wrong 0 Most people have the notion that certain things are wrong even if they create some good I What is of moral value is to be respected and not maximized 0 Sense of infinite value of a person 0 Not trying to create the most happiness 0 Moral responsibility 0 Difference between bad things that happen and bad things that someone does I If you kill 1 person 19 live I If you do nothing everyone dies You should not do anything according to Kant Wrote Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals Good will 0 It is impossible to think of anything at all in the world or even beyond it that could be considered good without qualification except a good will 0 Good without qualification Unconditionally good good in itself intrinsically good absolutely good good in all possible worlds etc Cannot conceive of it ever not being good Cannot imagine a situation in which we wouldn t morally approve of it 0 Why aren t other things good without qualification Gifts of fortunes 0 Power riches good reputation etc 0 Hitler having power Talents of mind 0 Intelligence wit etc 0 Con artists and manipulators Qualities of temperament 0 Courage resolution perseverance etc 0 Suicide bombers Pleasure or happiness 0 Sadist invader of privacy etc 0 Pleasure that a sadist gets is immoral because it hurts other people What one chooses to do with something can change whether something is morally good or bad Neither intrinsically bad nor intrinsically good 0 What is the good will and why is it good without qualification Moral worth Willing to do the right thing not by a mere wish but by the summoning of all means in our power Motiveintention Good will is not intrinsically good because of what it performs or what it does consequences Imagine someone with a good will who is ineffective or fails to achieve what she sets out to do that is poor vs someone in the same situation that is rich 0 Both are trying their absolute hardest to do the best they can 0 Rich choice is not morally better than poor choice 0 Because of good will I Does anyone actually ever have a good will 0 We don t know 0 Actions contrary to duty No moral worth I Evil genius wants to take over the world 0 Actions in accord with duty out of self interest I No moral worth I Does what duty demands because of their own self interest I Shop keeper gives correct change to customers 0 A kid comes in with a 20 bill 0 Could rip the kid off but instead due to consequences from parents etc he does not I This man made the correct choice but has not done anything of moral worth 0 Action in accord with duty out of immediate inclination I No moral worth I Actions done due to a certain emotion I Happy man not committing suicide vs miserable man not committing suicide 0 Someone doesn t commit suicide because they didn t want to die vs someone that stays alive because it is their moral duty to do so 0 Preservation of life without loving it because it is our moral duty I People have a duty to make other people happy 0 If someone is only working to make other people happy because it increases their own happiness this act has no moral worth 0 However if someone who gets no pleasure out of helping people decides to help someone because it is their moral duty this act has moral worth 0 From duty 0 Categorical Imperative O Universalizability Principle I Older sister takes little sisters toy 0 Response How would you feel if they did that to you I Man litters on the sidewalk and thinks that it doesn t matter because he is just one person 0 Response Well what if everybody did that Trash would be everywhere I Tells us what morality consists of I Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law 1 Determine the maxim you re considering acting from 2 Imagine a world in which your maxim is a universal law 3 Ask whether you can consistently will that such a world exists 0 Example 0 You re stuck in a traffic jam and you need to get somewhere fast I You could drive on the shoulder of the road and get past the traffic I Determine the maxim To reach ones destination more quickly by driving on the shoulder I Imagine a world like this This is impossible because the shoulder would turn into another congested lane 0 Fails rule number two of universalizability test which means that you should not do this I You are benefitting because other people are following the rules and you are not 0 Example 0 You need 10 for something and your friend has 10 She says she will give it to you as long as you give it back by the end of the day Even though you cannot pay her back that day you make the promise I Determine the maxim To extricate myself from difficulty by making a false promise I Imagine a world like this Nobody would keep a promise and therefore it would be impossible to make a false promise because the words would have no meaning 0 Fails rule number two of the universalizability principle Purely rational it is wrong to lie and break rules Objective true for everybody everywhere Nonegoistic will not always make you happy Nonconsequentialist antiutilitarianit doesn t matter how much happiness you create morality isn t about the consequences Fairness impartiality reversibility not exempting yourself from what you expect of others 0 Humanity Principle Don t use people Don t treat people as mere things Treat people with respect and dignity Every human being is of the absolute worth ultimate value and utmost dignity Beyond price beyond tradeoffs Selfrespect So act as to treat humanity whether in your own person or in that of any other in every case as an end 0 Rationality Ability to deliberate to choose to decide to act for reasons to act on principle 0 Capacity to will not simply to want I Is this principle consistent with commercial transactions 0 Both parties gain something from a grocery store transaction 0 Check out person gets a paycheck because they are serving you 0 You get your groceries because you are paying for them I You can treat people as a means as long as you also treat them as an end 0 Love your enemies do good to those who hate you 0 Jesus must have meant love as an action rather than an emotion I We do not control our own emotions no choice I Treat your enemies in a certain way regardless of how you feel I Act out of duty 0 Idea that humans are made in the image of God 0 Every single human being is made in the image of god 0 Always something of moral value in a person since they are made in the image of God 0 Every human is made in the image of that in which is above and beyond all else 0 Every human being has the same rights I Even a criminal has humanity Rawl s Theory of Justice 0 You have heard that it was said you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy But I say to you love your enemies 0 Love your enemies do good to those who hate you 0 Actual past contact 0 Did it really happen 0 How would the past contract obligate us 0 Actual current contract I Unlikelihood of unanimous agreement I Unfair power differentials O Hypothetical contract I What every rational person would agree to from a fair original position 0 Fair Original Position 0 Eliminate everything arbitrary from a moral point of view 0 Social lottery I Being born in a rich or poor family 0 Natural lottery I Not deserving the body you were born in LeBron James disabled person 0 Veil of ignorance Decide without knowing your place in society class social status or natural assets I Two things to decide behind the veil of ignorance 0 Political liberties 1 Equal basic liberties for all 2 We should depart from strict equality when and only when it will benefit everyone including the worst off Robert Nozick 0 Justice 0 Retributive correct determination of guilt I Check the evidence 0 Check the past 0 If you have performed the action in the past you are guilty 0 Distributive correct distribution of goods I Based on the past I Are you entitled to something 0 Do you deserve it I If you got something in an unfair way you are not entitled to it I Desert entitlement whats owed or due 0 Libertarian answer of Robert Nozick 0 Entitlements desert rights 0 History 0 Backwardlooking 0 Nozick s View 1 A person is entitled to a holding if it was acquired through just original acquisition 2 A person is entitled to a holding if it was acquired through just transfer of holdings 3 No one is entitled to any holdings except by 1 and 2 I If we are to respect person s free choices and if we are to respect their liberty we must distribute goods based on entitlements I Liberty upsets patterns 0 If we respect peoples liberty to make their own choices it will disrupt the pattern of distribution 0 Liberty Upsets Patterns Argument 0 In January everybody has equal holdings division one money for everybody 0 From FebruaryNovember everybody is given the liberty to make their own choices about what to do with their holdings more people give money to LeBron I Pattern is upset by this I LeBron s holdings increase 0 In December LeBron will have much more than others I Because people decided to give him more money 0 Is this justified I Ideas 0 Yes LeBron should pay taxes because that is what you must do for the public to thrive You have a contract with the United States 0 Yes everything would fall apart if we don t pay taxes even though it may not be fair it is necessary consequentialism 0 Although Nozick is an anticonsequentialist I Kantian view respecting liberty is more important than benefitting everybody I No LeBron did not cause anyone to not make as much money as he does 0 Enforcing patterns violates liberty 1 Taxation the coercive taking of earnings i If you don t do it you will be put into jail The coercive taking of earnings forced labor Forced labor slavery Slavery moral violation Therefore taxation is equal to slavery Coercively taking ten hours a week of someone s wages is morally equivalent to forcing someone to work ten hours a week for the benefit of someone else 0 Humanity as an end in itself I Objection to Nozick 0 Democracy and consent 0 Original acquisition 0 Great need OMPPP Thomas Picketty 0 Types of taxation 0 Head Tax Everybody pays the same tax 0 Flat Tax Same tax rate for every person I Trickledown theory that the money the rich get will cause them to hire more people and help the lower class 0 More incentives than progressive 0 Is this money really going to trickle down 0 Progressive Tax As you make more money you pay more I Shows inequalities of different levels of pay 0 Inequality O Inequality from 1000 years ago to today 0 As the tax rate becomes more and more progressive income earned by the top 1 decreases I Progressive tax rate lowers inequality I More middle class Thomas Pogge 0 Real World Justice 0 Pogge s Argument 1 The world s poor are suffering great harm factual 0 Similar to Singer 0 18 million die prematurely from poverty related deaths 0 Physical suffering I Rightsviolations 0 Right to physical integrity freedom of movement adequate nutrition to basic necessities to avoid lifethreatening poverty 0 Radical inequality 0 Absolute Poor people that are poor are not making enough money 0 Relative While some people can t feed their children others have so much money 0 ImperviousPervasive Those who live at the bottom of the world s poor cannot help themselves and lift themselves out of poverty no educationnutrition O Avoidable Those in the af uent countries are responsible for and benefit from that harm factual 0 Most controversial claim I Colonial history 0 European countries colonized Africa and then left them to take care of themselves I Slavery was profitable for western countries I Took their resources without trading with them I Controlled the system so that all of the wealth went to Europe and those colonized in Africa got almost nothing in return 0 Global institutional order 0 All sorts of agreements that create tariffs taxes and make unfair policies between wealthy and poor countries 0 Objection corrupt incompetent oppressive local leaders I If you look locally at a lot of these countries their own leaders are putting them into these terrible situations I Pogge does not deny this but he says that we do cooperate with them in some way 0 Poison in the stream analogy I Both companies are responsible for poisoning the stream 0 If this is right Arthur would have to say that the poor are entitled to help from the rich countriescompensation O Stronger claim than Singer vs Arthur 3 Those in the af uent countries can prevent the harm to the world s poor factual 0 Possible fix 0 Global Resource Dividend A 1 global tax on all natural resources I All oil gas silver copper etc I It will add up to 320 billion dollars a year I Goes into global fund 0 Help the world s poor 0 This would be 86 times what is currently spent on helping poor countries I Who would enforce this I Who knows I We should not conceive of this as aid but rather as a reconceiving of property 0 The earth is the property 0 The earth belongs to all of us 0 Whatever comes out of the common earth partially belongs to everyone 4 Those in the af uent countries are obligated to prevent the harm to the world s poor moral I We are obligated to implement the Global Resource Dividend 0 Positive Duties O Duties to help 0 EX Providing health care to someone charity preventing assault 0 Negative Duties O Duties not to harm 0 EX Don t poison the drinking water don t assault don t steal 0 More compelling and much stronger then positive duties 0 Intermediate Duties O Duties to avert harms ones past conduct may cause in the future I Repair a window that one has broken I Compensate a driver if you hit them I Clean up stream that you polluted 0 This is a negative or an intermediate duty not simply a positive duty 0 So if you agree that the rich countries are harming the poor countries then you must agree that those rich countries have negativeintermediate duties towards the poor countries McMillan 0 Problem extreme global poverty 0 Solution 1 redistribution of wealth he thinks this won t work I It won t work because I Squash incentive to earn 0 Forced I Would not change outcomes for the poor in the long run 0 Solution 2 Economic growth I US in the past 100 years I Rising tide tends to raise all boats I poor become better in lock step with everyone else I Free Market I Necessary condition of improved living conditions 0 Child mortality rates fall 0 Gender inequality falls I Efficacious Institutions 0 Property rights 0 Prevention of corruption Contract law 0 Political stability Inequality is caused by unequal growth rates Risse 0 Why does Risse think illegal immigration in such a case would not be morally wrong I What justifies borders anyway 0 Protection 0 Arguments for open borders 0 Libertarian O Utilitarian 0 Egalitarian Risse 0 Good usage argument 1 If the US population were to shrink to two those two morally should allow immigration 2 Those two morally should allow immigration because they are underusing natural resources 3 Immigration should be allowed up to the point that a country s resources are not underused 4 The US underuses its space The US morally should allow more immigration 0 Population per square mile I Germany and UK 600 I Japan 830 I Netherlands 1200 U I Bangladesh 2600 I US 80 I Duties to global poor argument 1 The global rich have duties to the global poor 0 Egalitarian Ownership Argument 1 The earth s natural resources are the accomplishment of no one 2 Everyone has a symmetrical relationship to the natural resources boundaries are arbitrary 3 It is unjustified to exclude someone from a part of the earth if natural resources on that part are being underused 4 The US is underusing its natural resources 5 It is unjustified to exclude wouldbe immigrants from the US 0 Equality of Human Life Argument 1 All humans are equally deserving of moral consideration the life of a western European is no more valuable than that of a subSaharan African 2 Where a person is born profoundly affects hisher chances of living a minimally decent life 3 No one deserves where she was born its arbitrary 4 It s wrong to restrict movement that can profoundly improve lives based on arbitrariness 0 Risse on immigration 0 Debates about immigration should not be merely about what s good for us Immigration policy must be justifiable not only to those who already in country but also to those who seek admission What ought we to say to the Mexican who seeks access to the US but is turned away at the AZ border 0 Because the US is underusing its portion of the Earth the Mexican has a claim to entry 0 Pevnick amp Carfaro s distinction of resources 0 Natural resources vs Socialpolitical resources 0 What are the different kinds of resources 0 Which kind draws more immigration 0 Should we consider these resources to be equally owned by all humans 0 Conclusion 0 Perhaps there s moral case for collective ownership of natural resources but not of socialpolitical resources 0 There are ways other than immigration to respect collective ownership of natural resources 0 Objection to PampC I A state can have plentiful socialpolitical resources only if they ve had plentiful natural resources 0 Response I The current generation of Americans is no more entitled to the legacy of their ancestors than nonAmericans Leif Wener I The Resource Curse 0 Resource exports are correlated with higher rates at child malnutrition lower healthcare amp education budgets higher illiteracy rates higher poverty rates amp lower life expectancy O Abundance of natural resources and intense poverty along with political violence and corruption Resources are used to enrich those at the top and oppress those at the bottom We all own stolen property Corporations complicity in resource curse 0 Role of china and other countries 000 I Incentives 0 Those in control of the resources get 0 buys guns to oppress the people 0 to control resources 0 MIGHT MAKE RIGHT VS PROPERTY RIGHT I The resources of a country belong to O The people of that country 0 Principle of National Ownership 1 Divestment I Do not invest in corporations that buy stolen goods 2 People s Fund Legal Action 4 Clean hands trust I China buys 3 billion oit from Sudan I We set up a trustgt 3 billion 0 Funded with tariffs on Chinese imports 9 0 Trust fund is given back to the Sudanese people Baxter 0 Two kinds of value 1 Intrinsic end in itself direct moral standing 2 Instrumental mere means indirect moral standing 0 Two views of intrinsic value 1 Anthropocentric I The only things that have intrinsic value are humanity or human welfare I The Grand Canyon is beautiful and people enjoy seeing itget some environmental education I What if we could give everyone the chance to see the Grand Canyon 0 Send artists photographers etc to copy the grand canyon I People can even make simulations of it 0 Then make it an energy source and ood it because now we have images and experiences of it saved 2 I No longer need to visit the Grand Canyon NonAnthropocentric I Some nonhuman entities have intrinsic value 1 Sentience Pleasurepain is always intrinsically valuableinvaluable 2 Land Ethic Everything that promotes the biotic community is right and good 3 Theology Nature is sacred and a manifestation of the design of GodGod in and of itself 4 Aesthetics Beauty in itself is intrinsically valuable 0 The Circle of Moral Concern O O O 0 Should it include all humans Should it include nonhumans that are sentient Singer says yes Should it include living entities that are not sentient Direct vs indirect moral standing I Anything can have indirect moral standing I Intrinsically valuable vs valuable as a means I Direct moral standing 0 Rationalism 0 All and only rational or autonomous beings I Anthropocentricism 0 All and only humans 0 Baxter s view I Sentientism 0 All and only sentient beings I Biocentrism 0 All and only living beings I Ecocentricism and Echolism 0 All natural entities living or nonliving 0 Baxter s Ultimate Values where why s end 0 O O O 0 Freedom for human beings is intrinsically good Waste of resources that could benefit humans is bad Every person deserves to be treated with dignity like Kant Human satisfaction is valuable Does not care about the intrinsic value of animals the cleanliness of the environment or the preservation of natural ecosystems because there is no intrinsic value in any of these things 0 Baxter s Reasoning l 2 3 Morality applies only to the human world Restricting morality to humans is the only way to administrate public policy I Other view is unworkable How much do entities count for Who is their proxy How do we resolve con icts What is good for humans is often good for nonhuman entities so this won t lead to massive destruction 0 That something is natural is absolutely no reason in itself to preserve it I Primordial ooze plant reproduction disease hospitals human activity itself I We re going to alter nature The question is what is the best way to do it I Penguins are only valuable in the way that they help humans Peter Singer on Animals 0 View on the circle of moral concern 0 Just myself Me and my kin My class My compatriots Those of one sex All humans Singer believes that all sentient beings are of moral concern I Brings up a discussion about the quote all humans are equal 000000 0 There is a sense in which this is obviously not true 0 Natural lottery I Not everybody is equal when it comes to intelligence athleticism etc 0 Should we draw moral lines based on the differences between people I No Even those who are lesser deserve the right to vote speech etc I Everyone deserves the same moral rights 0 The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans it is a prescription of how we should treat human beings 0 Everybody deserves the same moral consideration 0 Not supposed to be controversial 0 A moral ideal I Disregarding another beings suffering because of another species is as morally arbitrary as disregarding another beings suffering because of another race or sex 0 Species in and of itself is as morally irrelevant as race 0 Racism Disregarding another beings suffering because of race 0 Sexism Disregarding another beings suffering because of sex 0 Speciesism Disregarding another beings suffering because of species I Singer is against speciesism I Objections Devall and Sessions 0 Deep Ecology 0 There are obvious differences between humans and animals that justify differential treatment It s absurd to give pigs the right to vote 0 Singers Response I The principle of equality demands equal consideration of equal pain not equal treatment in all cases Implications 0 Eating meat 0 Testing on animals for product safety 0 Scientific testing on animals I Orphan Infant Test 0 Three possible reasons to conserve natural environments 1 It is in your own selfinterest 2 It is in the longterm interests of humanity even though it may not benefit you personally humanitarian 3 Nature is intrinsically valuable independent of its effect on humans deep ecology ideal O Believes in number 3 O Maj or in uence on contemporary environmental movement I Aldo Leopold I Wrote a book called A Sand County Almanac I View of moral progress 0 Between individuals I Story of Odysseus Goes away for 20 years Kills suitors in his house Kills the maids in his house because they slept withwere overly kind to the suitors Leopold says that this happens because someone like Odysseus doesn t really think of the maids as important as himself or really even as morally important 0 Between individuals and society 0 Between humanity and the land I We see the land as a mere instrument I Land Ethic 0 A thing is right when it tends to preserve integrity stability and beauty of the biotic community It is wrong when it tends otherwise 0 Every part of the biotic community is intrinsically valuable O The land has a direct moral standing Ultimate Norms O Selfrealization O Biocentric Equality All things in the biosphere have an equal right to live and blossom All organisms and entities in the ecosphere are equal in intrinsic worth The wellbeing and ourishing of human and nonhuman life on earth have value in themselves and this value is independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes Noninstrumental value of the ecosphere as a whole species habitat rivers landscapes etc Implications of Biocentric Equality 0 Live with minimum rather than maximum impact on other species and the earth 0 Decrease human population 0 Concern for vital needs and life quality 0 Rejection of false needs and destructive desires 0 Rejection of economic growth and standards of living 0 Promotion of wildness 0 Humans have no right to alter environment except to satisfy vital needs 0 Compare with Baxter and Kant Callicott They believe that human beings are the only rational beings in an of themselves 0 Echolism No problem with hunting 0 Some environments are being overrun by some invasive species 0 You are doing the right thing if you reduce the number of overrun species Domesticated animals 0 Lambs vs last jaguar in United States Land Ethic Utilitarians look at lambs and jaguars and say that their pleasure and pain are equally important LeopoldEcholism thinks there is something morally important in protecting the last jaguar O Utilitarianism is biologically preposterous 0 If nature is good then pain and death are also good I Vegetarianism 0 Ways to eat meat I Eat What you kill I Eat was you raise I Eat vegetarian products from Whole Foods I Eat factoryfarmed meat I Leopold has no issue With these things minus factoryfarmed meat I Utilitarianisms don t allow any of these things Madelynn Romero PHIL 150C 1 J ohansen Singer Assignment Peter Singer s main argument in The Life You Can Save concerns the morality of giving money to human aid organizations and is composed of four smaller arguments The first premise states that suffering and death from lack of food shelter and medical care are bad Singer then moves on to say that if it is in someone s power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything nearly as important it is wrong not to do so One solution to these bad things that Singer mentions is to donate to ad agencies Therefore as Singer believes if someone that can donate to an agency again without giving up anything nearly as important does not they are doing something morally wrong These smaller arguments come together to form what we know as the Greater Moral Evil Rule This rule states that those who do not give to human aid organizations who are financially able to do so are acting immorally The most important objection to Singer s Greater Moral Evil Rule are the ideas of Arthur in the reading World Hunger and Moral Obligation More specifically Arthur s strongest argument concerns negative noninterference and positive interference rights This argument mostly combats Singer s second principle if a person can prevent something bad from happening it is their moral duty to do so Singer s argument is clearly very strong since it has withstood multiple attacks Although Singer does have a strong argument against Arthur s ideas I do not think that he successfully rebuts Arthur s entire objection Singer argues that if it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything nearly as important it is wrong not to do so In The Life You Can Save Singer explains two situations the shallow pond and the envelope In the shallow pond situation a man is walking to work and comes across a toddler drowning in a pond The man can save the child and ruin his new very expensive shoes or he can continue on his way to work On the other hand in the envelope situation Singer asks the reader to look at a more common occurrence in their own life receiving an envelope from UNICEF which asks for money to save a child A person can either decide to send money to UNICEF or throw away the envelope Singer s argument weighs these two situations on the same scale meaning that the choice to not save the drowning child is just as bad as the choice to throw away the envelope therefore they are both equally morally wrong Singer s second argument towards his main claim is that if welloff Americans do not donate to human aid agencies they are doing something morally wrong Again Singer explains two different situations one involving a man named Bob and his Bugatti and another addressing people that put money into a retirement fund In the Bugatti situation an older man parks his expensive car at the end of some train tracks While the man is walking back to his car he sees that there is a train heading towards a child playing on another set of tracks The man is given the choice to switch the train tracks and let his car get destroyed or let the child die and continue on his way In this situation many people including Singer would say that it is morally necessary to save the child and give up the expensive car The second situation that Singer brings up is much more controversial In this situation a man receives an envelope from UNICEF asking for money to save a child The man can either send money back in the envelope or throw the envelope away and put the money into his retirement fund Singer again weighs these situations on the same scale meaning that to not save the child is just as bad as putting money into your own retirement funds and throwing away the envelope As mentioned previously the most important objection made to Singer s main claim is that of John Arthur Arthur bases his main argument on negative and positive rights Negative rights are rights that cannot or at least are not supposed to be taken away from citizens like speech and the right to not be murdered natural rights Positive rights are rights that require that other people provide you with something like housing or transportation consensual Arthur argues that in both envelope situations our positive rights are being infringed upon Everyday people have not signed any contract obligating them to send money and therefore it would not be morally wrong for them to not contribute Arthur brings up a situation that is structured much like Singer s arguments but comes out with a different ending In this situation one person is dying from lack of a kidney andor completely blind in both eyes Due to the Greater Moral Evil Rule a healthy person would be morally required to give up their kidney or eye To disprove Singer s main argument Arthur puts this example into an ifthen statement if Singer s rules are correct then it is morally wrong not to give up an eye or a kidney to help someone else Clearly this idea is outrageous By using this example and the rules formed due to positivenegative rights Arthur has proven that it is not wrong to not donate or do certain favors for people even if it doesn t kill you to donate Peter Singer would likely respond to Arthur s objection by saying that a person is morally required to give up an eye or a kidney because it would not require them to sacrifice anything nearly as important Singer might also conclude that Arthur is stretching the main goal of his Greater Moral Evil Rule since giving money is very different from giving up a body part While I agree that giving up a body part and sending money to charity are two very different things on a moral scale I find that Singer does the same exact thing To compare saving a drowning child that is right in front of you to sending money to a charity with questionable morals is asinine Of course I would jump in and save the child that was drowning but sending money to charity until you are living in poor conditions is very different As a young college student working to go to school I have barely any money left over to buy groceries let alone send any to UNISEF I have a hard time choosing whether I agree with Singer or Arthur because I do think that giving to charity is a great thing I have to take a middle ground in this argument and sort of wash down both Singer and Arthurs ideas While I think that everyone has the right to spend their money where they would like if you have enough money to support yourself and your family then you should at least give as much as you can to charity Singer says that you should give as long as it doesn t cause you to be in an equally bad situation however I don t think it is ever a good idea to depreciate the value of someone s life or any life for that matter in order to increase the value of another person s life 3 Parts 0 Present Rawls39 position 0 Justice 0 Veil of lgnorance the process and why it matters Being able to detach yourself from where you are in a socioeconomic standpoint in order to form an opinion Imaginary situation where you don39t know about yourself You may know that there is a naturalsocial lottery but you do not know where you will go what the lottery will do to you Rawl39s talks about this because Describing the distribution of wealth across a whole society Rawls basic approach to distributing wealth Wants it to be fairly distributed 0 Starting point o If we are going to answer this question the way to do that is gure out the type of society that everybody would like to haveagree with o A reasonable way to divide things up is to gure out what they will all agree to Since we haven39t all gotten together to agree to anything this perfect society is something that we could have formed through a social contract Ask yourself what kind of society a whole bunch of impartial contractors would choose Veil of ignorance is creating the impartialness of the contract 0 Make sure that the initial contract is created in a fair way just a social contracthypothetical Rawls claims that while quotthe distribution of wealth and income need not be equal it must be to everyone s advantagequot Rawls 182 0 Natural and social lottery All of the factors that in uence how you are going to do in life that are out of your control If you are born into a family with lots of moneyopportunities If you are very tallshort or malefemale o The Difference Principe the outcome of the process and how we get it These people will decide to divide things up under the veil of ignorance in order with the difference principle Social and economic inequalities are just only if they are to the greatest bene t of the least advantaged members of society 0 An inequality is only acceptable if the losers of that society are at least happier than they were before Only qualities acceptable are the ones that create the most bene ts for those at the bottom of society Distribution that follows the distribution principle You should look at the worst off in society when you are deciding on a contract and build the society up from that point When rational people are bargaining behind the veil of ignorance many people become very conservative They do not want to see themselves on the terrible end of an inequality May mean adopting a distribution where the people that were making a lot of money will now make less Maxmin distribution 0 lnherently better than other distribution 0 Present Nozick s objection 0 Main objection Would not pick a speci c type of distribution of wealthresources What makes a distribution just or unjust has nothing to do with the type of distribution all that matters is how you arrived at the distribution 0 Support The process of a distribution makes it justunjust Like a game of poker how much money you take home the amount of money you take home is not pre determined Entitlements People are entitled to their property and can use it however they see t In other words if you are born into a family with money you have more opportunities Nozick does not think that this is bad he doesn39t want to minimize the impact of the socialnatural lotteries like Rawls does Nozick says that to make things equal you would have to take from some people that are better off and give it to others that are worse off 0 You would have to tell people how to use their own resources Under what conditions are you entitled to a hold PropertY o If you started with it fairly justacquisition o If you got it fairly justtransfer Check out the fairness of the chain of transfers Only way you can be entitled to a hold Welloff people will not agree to getting their money taken away 0 Taxes are a form of coercion Maybe inequalities aren39t the greatest things but people would be more happy overall if the bottom people had more and the top people had less 0 But this doesn39t matter because that would be unfair o Fairnoncoercive o Wilt Chamberlain Argument D1 Fair transfer of wealth l D2 Fair distribution D Transfers of wealth D Top people have more money than others 0 Would we be justi ed in asking the D2 people for money 0 Nozick says no 0 Maybe it is less equal but it is not unjust and it makes sense Give a bunch of money to Wilt Chamberlain to watch him play basebaH Assess Nozick s objection 0 quotStupid Little Tipquot 0 Take some time and think about how you39re going to present your argument 0 Think about a machine to explain it you must explain all of its parts how they39re all connected and what those connections mean 0 Present connections well How does Pevnick use the distinction between natural resources and manmade resources to argue against Risse s view of immigration How does Risse respond to Pevnick s argument Which of them do you think is right and why Risse s View Good usage argument 1 If the US population were to shrink to two those two morally should allow immigration 2 Those two morally should allow immigration because they are underusing natural resources 3 Immigration should be allowed up to the point that a country s resources are not underused 4 The US underuses its space 5 The US morally should allow more immigration Debates about immigration should not be merely about what s good for us Immigration policy must be justifiable not only to those who already in country but also to those who seek admission What ought we to say to the Mexican who seeks access to the US but is turned away at the AZ border 0 Because the US is underusing its portion of the Earth the Mexican has a claim to entry Pevnick s View Risse pays too little attention to the distinction between natural resources and political or social resources Most things concerning immigration are typically the result of cooperative political or social undertakings such as public education health care pension programs and especially publicly supported markets Even if equal access to natural resources were an important goal contravened by the immigration restrictions of wealthy countries it must be recognized that there are 0 Other important moral considerations most important the ownership claims political communities have over those institutions that they create 0 There are alternative ways of recognizing the importance of collective ownership ones that do not require us to conclude that the United States is morally obliged to legalize all present illegal immigrants Risse s argument leads us to think about immigrationrelated con icts in terms of access to natural resources but the resources typically at stake in such arguments are manmade 0 Public goods law and order an effective functioning market government enforced contracts public programs of mutual assistance educationhealth care 0 If settling on a just response to immigration pressures meant nothing more than settling migrants in resourcerich countries with relatively low population densities there would be far more efficient ways of doing so than opening up migration to the United States Risse s Response 0 Egalitarian Ownership Argument 1 The earth s natural resources are the accomplishment of no one 2 Everyone has a symmetrical relationship to the natural resources boundaries are arbitrary 3 It is unjustified to exclude someone from a part of the earth if natural resources on that part are being underused 4 The US is underusing its natural resources 5 It is unjustified to exclude wouldbe immigrants from the US 0 The object of ownership is the earth itself and what is at stake is how this physical location can be divided up given that it is held in common I It is precisely not the case that those goods are no one39s accomplishment 0 There is little more one can say to show why any current generation is entitled to the legacy of their ancestors to a larger extent than outsiders 0 They certainly have no such privileged claim to natural resources and space simply because those are within the limits of frontiers that have developed historically without regard to how many resources and how much space that would be What duties does Pogge think wealthy countries have to poor countries How does Pogge argue for his View Do you think Pogge is right Why or why not Pogge s View 0 Argument 1 The world s poor are suffering great harm factual O Rightsviolations I Right to physical integrity freedom of movement adequate nutrition to basic necessities to avoid lifethreatening poverty 0 Radical inequality I Absolute Poor people that are poor are not making enough money I Relative While some people can t feed their children others have so much money I ImperviousPervasive Those who live at the bottom of the world s poor cannot help themselves and lift themselves out of poverty no educationnutrition I Avoidable Those in the af uent countries are responsible for and benefit from that harm factual and most controversial O Colonial history I European countries colonized Africa and then left them to take care of themselves I Slavery was profitable for western countries I Took their resources without trading with them I Controlled the system so that all of the wealth went to Europe and those colonized in Africa got almost nothing in return 0 Global institutional order I All sorts of agreements that create tariffs taxes and make unfair policies between wealthy and poor countries Those in the af uent countries can prevent the harm to the world s poor factual 0 Global Resource Dividend A 1 global tax on all natural resources I All oil gas silver copper etc I It will add up to 320 billion dollars a year I Goes into global fund 0 Help the world s poor 0 This would be 86 times what is currently spent on helping poor countries I We should not look at this as aid it is the reconceiving of property as the earth in whole Those in the af uent countries are obligated to prevent the harm to the world s poor moral 0 Positive Duties Duties to help ex Providing health care to someone charity preventing assault 0 Negative Duties Duties not to harm ex Don t poison the drinking water don t assault don t steal more compelling and much stronger then positive duties 0 Intermediate Duties I Duties to avert harms ones past conduct may cause in the future 0 This is a negative or an intermediate duty not simply a positive duty 0 So if you agree that the rich countries are harming the poor countries then you must agree that those rich countries have negativeintermediate duties towards the poor countries What duties does Singer think we owe to nonhuman animals How does Singer argue for his View Do you think Singer is right Why or why not Singers View 0 Singer believes that all sentient beings are of moral concern 0 Disregarding another beings suffering because of another species is as morally arbitrary as disregarding another beings suffering because of another race or sex I Species in and of itself is as morally irrelevant as race I Speciesism Disregarding another beings suffering because of species 0 Singer is against speciesism 0 The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans it is a prescription of how we should treat human beings 0 Everybody deserves the same moral consideration 0 Not supposed to be controversial 0 A moral ideal Objections 0 There are obvious differences between humans and animals that justify differential treatment 0 It s absurd to give pigs the right to vote 0 The principle of equality demands equal consideration of equal pain not equal treatment in all cases 0 Implications 0 Eating meat 0 Testing products to make sure they are safe What duties does Baxter think we owe to the nonhuman animals and the environment How does Baxter argue for his View Do you think Baxter is right Why or why not Baxter s View 0 Two types of intrinsic value 1 Anthropocentric 0 The only things that have intrinsic value are humanity or human welfare 0 The Grand Canyon is beautiful and people enjoy seeing itget some environmental education I What if we could give everyone the chance to see the Grand Canyon 0 Send artists photographers etc to copy the grand canyon 0 People can even make simulations of it 0 Then make it an energy source and ood it because now we have images and experiences of it saved 0 No longer need to visit the Grand Canyon 2 NonAnthropocentric 0 Some nonhuman entities have intrinsic value I Sentience Pleasurepain is always intrinsically valuableinvaluable I Land Ethic Everything that promotes the biotic community is right and good I Theology Nature is sacred and a manifestation of the design of GodGod in and of itself I Aesthetics Beauty in itself is intrinsically valuable 0 Baxter s Ultimate Values where why s end 0 Freedom for human beings is intrinsically good 0 Waste of resources that could benefit humans is bad 0 Every person deserves to be treated with dignity like Kant 0 Human satisfaction is valuable 0 Does not care about the intrinsic value of animals the cleanliness of the environment or the preservation of natural ecosystems because there is no intrinsic value in any of these things 0 Baxter s Reasoning 1 Morality applies only to the human world 2 Restricting morality to humans is the only way to administrate public policy 3 What is good for humans is often good for nonhuman entities so this won t lead to massive destruction 0 That something is natural is absolutely no reason in itself to preserve it I We re going to alter nature The question is what is the best way to do it I Penguins are only valuable in the way that they help humans What do Devall and Sessions mean by biocentric equality How does their position differ from Immanuel Kant s View of morality How does their position differ from the Utilitarian View of morality Devall and Sessions View 0 Biocentric Equality 0 All things in the biosphere have an equal right to live and blossom 0 All organisms and entities in the ecosphere are equal in intrinsic worth 0 The wellbeing and ourishing of human and nonhuman life on earth have value in themselves and this value is independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes 0 Noninstrumental value of the ecosphere as a whole species habitat rivers landscapes etc 0 Implications of Biocentric Equality I Live with minimum rather than maximum impact on other species and the earth I Decrease human population I Concern for vital needs and life quality I Rejection of false needs and destructive desires I Rejection of economic growth and standards of living I Promotion of wildness I Humans have no right to alter environment except to satisfy vital needs 0 Kant believes that humans are the only type of rational beings in and of themselves I Utilitarians O Domesticated animals I Lambs vs last jaguar in United States I Utilitarians look at lambs and jaguars and say that their pleasure and pain are equally important 0 Utilitarianism is biologically preposterous o If nature is good then pain and death are also good
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'