Crim C163 - Midterm Study Guide
Crim C163 - Midterm Study Guide Crm/Law C163
Popular in Ethics and Politics of Justice
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Criminology and Criminal Justice
This 7 page Study Guide was uploaded by Edward Avakian on Sunday April 24, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to Crm/Law C163 at University of California - Irvine taught by Geoff Ward in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 184 views. For similar materials see Ethics and Politics of Justice in Criminology and Criminal Justice at University of California - Irvine.
Reviews for Crim C163 - Midterm Study Guide
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: 04/24/16
o Define “ethics” and describe what it aims to provide. Ethics → the study of what is right or wrong (in a given situation what ought i do) >what action >provides us with a framework to make decisions and to to live our lives Morality → general, big, broad (doesn’t tell you what to do) it just tells you something is wrong → descriptive . What does the term “ethical dilemma” describe? Ethical dilemma → has to be some sort of problem where there is a should element, a right or wrong dilemma (torn in some way not dilemma if it’s clear what to do, either because we have 2 outcomes that both look good or 2 outcomes that look bad o Define “values” and explain the difference between instrumental and intrinsic values. Value (something thats important) Instrumentally important→ important because of its utility (money) Intrinsically >value in itself Describe the focus of and relationship between metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics as levels or realms of ethical inquiry. Metaethics: set of rules that must be true before when can make ethical claims it’s about itself (the kind of ground rules before we even get to ethics we have to figure out some basic rules → it’s about setting up rules, requirements (pre conditions that are necessary (before we can play the game we have to make sure we met all of the requirements → Requirement for ethics (we have to be the kind of beings that have free will to be able to make choices (what are the kinds of things that need to be true before we talk about ethics For example: Before we can determine if something is good, (metaethics) says that we need to determine what is goodness Example 2: we are not robots (we think we have the ability to make decisions (thing you have to first talk about) Normativeethics: it’s about what ought to be “things we should do” >prescriptive (a set of principles that allow us to make decisions about what we should do) 3 schools of normative ethics: Utilitarianism, Deontology (study of moral obligation, having to do with a duty and obligation things that are right and wrong, regardless of consequences, Virtue ethics its about developing a character, balancing virtues person strive to be through habitual acts which results in practical wisdom ( ways of making decisions of what we should do) Appliedethics: taking a general a thing and we are applying it to a particular situation (what should I do in a specific context → are very situational ethics business, medical ethics, student handbook Which metaethical perspective argues that, given the reality of cultural variability, there is no objective sense in which right and wrong can be discussed? Relativism: things are right or wrong according to the culture or context (according to a particular culture) >metaethical claim (if we believe in relativism than we can’t judge other people) >at best I can judge people within my own context → things are right or wrong based on their particular circumstances (thus no objective truth) I can only evaluate stuff on their perspective → this is metaethical because (if there is no objective morality (right or wrong) truth you can’t judge Is → Metaethics (a level of description) vs should (ethical) claim Absolutism → one eternal unchanging moral law, intertwined with objectivism (different from relativism) Relativism, Objectivism → metaethical (discuss what each mean Consequential → normative ethics what we should do (we outweigh consequences) → not a relativists Describe the problem of ethical minimalism and describe an example (e.g., a specific form, or source) Ethical minimalism: it’s about doing the minimum required, but we should have as few rules as possible. Have set of rules to ensure the continued survival of that society. Problem: something that is not specifically forbidden should be allowed → theft for survival o Explain the difference between: Egoism and altruism Psychological egoism and ethical egoism Egoism vs altruism The form of motivation where the decisions you make are by self interest vs altruism where acts are solely to benefit others Egoism isn’t saying people are bad (but at heart but ultimately motivated by self interests) (you feel better or you feel powerful when charity) Donate money Psychological egoism: it’s not an ethical claim but a metaethical claim (as a species human beings are motivated by selfinterests (not making claim of good or bad but what actually is) → we are describing things (tables exist This is how we behave (is metaethical claim) → that’s what kinds of beings we are not an ethical claim o Explain the meaning of and at least one problem with the following: Ethical objectivism Ethical relativism Ethical egoism: we are the kinds of being motivated by selfinterests (people should be it’s a good thing) Ethical Objectivism: metaethical claim that things exist (not only are there are real things but there is such a thing that is right or wrong (deontologist are going to support objectivism) as they are >certain things are real (and our inherently right or wrong regardless of what we think) ** *things right or wrong and exist independently from our perception***** A problem: whenever there is a conflict between people who believe that they are objectively right (competing ideas about what is objectively right or wrong) Problem with relativism: now what, we can’t make ethical claims Regarding the utility of contractualism: how does the social contract supposedly relate to and serve self interest? how does this relate to morality? how have scholars critiqued the logic or reality of contractualism? social contract: give up rights in exchange for protection, personal benefits we obey laws because we get something out of it (Era after state of Nature Hobbes) We follow law because it’s in our self interest (thus we don’t think of the implications that it has on people) Social solidarity, collective sentiment → it’s about how it benefits us (nowhere in there about right or wrong thus nothing about morality Problem: « Problems with contractualism (how we become moral actors mechanism by which why we act in ways that represent the interests of others) « 1 problem Overreach how much regulation is warranted to establish « 2 problem what prevents cheating people don’t play by the rules « 3 problem still rooted in selfinterest (moral psychologists argue that we are barely able to do anything more than that o What is the “maxim” of an act? maxim the rule that would justify that act >what would be the rule that would allow me to lie (can’t trust anyone) → rule that you create or appeal to, point to that justifies you doing the act → Example: A maxim for lying → moral rule would be it is acceptable to lie whenever your intention is to spare someone’s feelings → problem: if you apply the rule universally, stop trusting people o Imagine that two people encounter ethical dilemmas and are inclined toward utilitarian and deontological ethical frameworks, respectively. When trying to answer the question “what is the right thing to do?” what process should each undertake to determine the right course of action? First the individuals should think about course of action from a utilitarian perspective where they evaluate, calculate, and weigh the consequences of their choices. Each particular choice will have a corresponding possible consequences. If looking at this from a deontological perspective, the individuals must first determine what their moral duty and obligations are Utilitarian would weigh consequences, Deontological: is going to look at what are her or his moral obligations (Kant) >the way you do that is by determining the categorical imperative. It’s about disciplining ourselves according to moral rules that we identify as sufficiently compelling à Deontology and Hypothetical/Categorical imperative Deontology argues that there are absolute moral obligations that we can identify as duties that sort of imposed upon us 2 types (hypothetical imperative and Categorical imperative) Hypothetical imperative àwe ought to follow commands if we have desire to achieve or realize (following rule is hypothesized to obtain desirable outcomes) à saving women and kids (desirable thing in the end saving humans) àif we want this, then we should do this (treat others well if we want to be treated well) Deontology is that we have to do something because its our duty not because of outcome Categorical imperatives are absolute commands we ought to follow under all circumstances Kantian ethics suggest we should only act according to categorical imperative When thinking about a choice contemplating (we should do what is rooted in moral obligation not necessarily a desired consequence) o What does “prima facie duties” describe and what problem does it aim to address? Primafacies >first glance, duty that is binding, things that are prior, a duty you have or don’t → aims to address >duties you consider valuable what matters morally is whether our actions conform to relevant duties and moral laws, though duties can be overriden by other duties in situations Conflicting Categorical imperatives where choosing 1 would seem to violate another (2 categorical imperatives – inquiring murder) either be honest or doing malice for good Categories of Primafacie duty Duties of Fidelity: Keep promises, honor, truth Duties reparation: duty to make wrongs right Duties of gratitude: appreciation Duties of beneficence: create good will Duties of no maleficence: forward looking, duty to do no harm Duties of justice: promote fairness, equity Duties of selfimprovement: develop and nurture oneself Rightsbased ethics sees rulemaking as a means of establishing normative ethical conduct. Regarding these rights, explain: The idea of rule consequentialism The difference and ideal priority between “natural” and “legal” rights, and why that priority. The correlativity of rights and duties. Rule consequentialism: the rightness of an act depends not on the goodness of its consequences, but on whether or not it is in accordance with a certain code of rules, which has been selected for its good consequences. Selects rules solely in terms of the goodness of their consequences and then claims that these rules determine which kinds of acts are morally wrong. Keeping to certain rules may produce better consequences than trying to determine what consequences follow from every individual action Positive rights: are things that we kind of do , negative; things that are against you (others have duty to respect Natural vs legal rights → one bestowed by creator (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness regardless of status vs those established by means of a social contract(law) Correlativity of rights & duties: rights are valid so long as others acknowledge their duties defined by these rights (rights only so good if others acknowledged the obligations) rights and duties are only as good as so far as others recognize obligations Regarding virtue ethics, generally, explain: The difference between moral virtues and vices The idea of practical wisdom Virtue ethics: deals with being a certain type of person, acting upon certain kind of virtues to avoid vices Virtues: are personal qualities that lead you to act in a moral fashion Vices: are personal qualities that lead you to act in harmful fashion Practical wisdom: a level reached when you have acquired the ability to naturally make decisions that are good as a whole Virtues are positive things(ex.honesty) Vices are opposite (ex.lying) P.w. acquired by developing a certain character habitually over time o Overreliance on rules and incentives is seen as undermining practical wisdom. How so? You are undermining practical wisdom because you are not affirming your true person but rather are following set rules or incentives in order to accomplish something, when it should very well be in your person to be a certain kind of individual habitually. Undermining your true person if follow rules; robot o Imagine that someone inclined toward virtue ethics encounters an ethical dilemma. When trying to answer the question “what is the right thing to do?” and considering a couple of options, what process should each undertake to determine the right course of action? First off the individual should know what the kind of person they are, by this I’m referring to the fact that they should be able to easily identify with their character. When referring to virtue ethics, people should think about what kind of person they want to be and thus act in accordance to the roles that they wish to fulfill. o Kohlberg says morality proceeds gradually, through stages, along with the development of what? Kohlberg says morality will proceed along with the development of human cognition. o Describe key differences between preconventional, conventional, and post conventional morality, according to Kohlberg’s stages. Be sure to indicate clearly the general phenomenon that is changing and at least one specific consideration at each stage Preconventional: child only cares about selfinterest (stage 1 motivated by punishment and obedience→ to receive praise) Conventional: child cares about social norms, relies on the rules, seeks the approval of others, focused on conforming to society Postconventional → child develops critical reasoning skills and develops a sense of situational discretion with the goal of achieving social good, keeping civilization healthy o Discuss the “ethic of care,” including: Its basic claim and origin in a critique of Kohlberg’s stages of moral development; Significant gender differences between males and females on how they respond to moral dilemmas Critique: Gilligan argues that what distinguishes morality for women is a concern for human relatedness and caring o Concerns seemingly distinguishing moral orientations of men and boys vs. women and girls; Men typically follow formal rules, women are conventional (stage 3) → implying that women are less moral than men because of gendered focus approach o The potential basis (source or sources) of this distinction. Gilligan suggests morality develop from multiple orientations: justice, rights (men) vs interpersonal care (women) o Criminal justice routinely presents ethical dilemmas. Discuss the relevance of any metaethical or normative ethical perspective to the practical ethical matter of criminal punishment. o Beyond the area of criminal justice, how has the study of ethics informed your own thinking about the idea and/or pursuit of “justice.” Are you more mindful of problems of justice and injustice? How so?
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'