phil 106 philosopher study guide
phil 106 philosopher study guide PHIL 106
Popular in Moral Issues
Popular in Department
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
This 11 page Study Guide was uploaded by Tran on Sunday October 9, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to PHIL 106 at University of Nebraska Lincoln taught by Edward Becker in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 234 views.
Reviews for phil 106 philosopher 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: 10/09/16
Conservative liberal general thoughts/ no clear side Bonevac: Conclusion on Moral Theory: 1) What Sort of Person should we be? [Aristotle] 2) How should we act? [Kant] Techniques for going against arguments: o Direct method: state a true premise but follow it with a false conclusion o Counter example: give the same exact structure to the opposing argument but have a false conclusion …on Pornography… There is a no connection between harm & porn o Free Speech blocks government intervention except… If the speech is falsely advertising , sexual harassing, or persuading people to be violent Because these speeches can result / cause harm o If one can show porn is HARMFUL then it is justifiable to say porn is HARMFUL Porn raises difficult questions about the limits of freedom…3 main issues: o Is Porn actually harmful? Inciting harm is obvious Harm caused by pornography is much subtler What is the message being communicated by porn? o Does Porn even have a message? In order to evaluate the message , a message has to exist… o Is pornography even considered free speech or protected under free speech? Aquinas The Aristotle of Christian faith General Law: rule of reason directed towards the Common Good Types of law: o Eternal: laws of the universe (rational) what a thing is o Natural : rational laws what a thing ought to do How things are and how things ought to be Based on human nature Imprinted upon us [by God] Principles based on our functions Ex: preserving one’s life …as seen in 10 commandments Can have exceptions Ex: law that walls of a city must be open BUT if being attacked must close for safety Conservative liberal general thoughts/ no clear side o Human: laws made by humans which through reason man applies to particular situation Laws of the state Should aim at the common good Purpose: to make people virtuous Must be flexible and allow exceptions Unjust laws don’t need to be obeyed People are inclined to do good but must acquire training to do good Base: GOOD is to be done and pursued, and EVIL is to be avoided Hume Reason can only lead us to conclusions but NOT to action Passions are driving force to act Mill Basis beliefs off of Utilitarianism (rule) o Doing the right thing = happiness o Does NOT have to be pleasurable Pleasures: can be animalistic or intellectual o The Test: “of any 2 pleasures if there be one to which all who have experienced both and given desire to preference one, that one is the higher pleasure Ex: if someone were to have already both drank beer and listened to classical music they can choose which one they believe is the higher pleasure o Helps decide conflicting principles Ex: stealing bread for starving children Which resolution gives more happiness? Happiness is different than hour animalistic pleasures Virtue: being a good person, even if it doesn’t benefit your happiness but the happiness of others Harm Principle: “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” o Only time we can interfere w/ someone’s actions is if it is harming others o we can always reason/persuade someone to stop doing an action because it is not force o principle does NOT apply to immature groups o voluntary slavery = exception one can protect someone from signing off their liberty to enslavement Sphere of Liberty o Applied by the Harm principle o Things within the Sphere of Liberty are not to be interfered Freedom of thought, feeling, and expression Conservative liberal general thoughts/ no clear side we are free to have our own mind and person Follows the Principle of Utility: ultimate appeal to justify moral principles o Happiness is key “The individual should control those actions that concern his/her interest. Society should control those actions that concern its interests.” The individual’s obligation to society o Not to violate the rights of others [punishable by society] o Bare his share of burdens of protecting society from harm [punishable by society] o Must consider other’s welfare and not harm others [socially punishable] ‘not doing wrong’ is not enough…must also do right Ex: donating $ to charity…not an obligation but is right Answers to objections: o ‘person cannot seriously harm himself without harming others…every action affects someone therefore Harm Principle his empty’ Self regarding action= anything that isn’t harming someone/society…there can be a case Society puts restrictions on the individual BECAUSE the restrictions are to prevent harm from others not the individual o ‘person is clearly harming only himself…are we to interfere?’ Society must then just tolerate that person b/c actions are only affecting him Difference between disapproval and protecting Economic freedom: o Harm principle does not apply to trade b/c it does not violate individual liberties o Principle of Utility does not justify restrictions on free trade so there should be no restrictions o Principle of liberty cannot be applied to free trade b/c it is not infringing on self actions o Restrictions on trade cannot be applied though because it is infringing on buyer’s freedom Government interfering to prevent a crime =dangerous o Anything can be seen as ‘preventing a potential crime’ o Intervention is only justified when there is a CERTAINTY not POSSIBILITY o Intervene only if it causes HARM TO OTHERS o Discouraging= ok Putting taxes on drugs/alcohol shows discouragement but not restriction Harm vs Offensive o Just because something is offensive does not make it harmful Ex: disapproving a tattoo b/c one does not like it= not harmful Contracts o Only way to get out of a contract= mutual release o Freedom can be restricted if agreed in a contract Russell Conservative liberal general thoughts/ no clear side …on sexual morality… o Monogamy was easier to enforce in earlier times Less people, stronger belief in sin, people knew/cared about you o 2 sources on traditional sexual morality Modesty: keeping sex life private Jealousy: arouses anger Utilitarianism: all about happiness o Rule: “ a moral code is good or bad to the extent that it promotes human happiness” People inevitably move away from a set moral code o There will always be exceptions to a set of codes Lying= wrong but what if one must lie in order to save a life? Conclusions: o Women shouldn’t have children if they’re <20 years old o Young unmarried couples should have sexual freedom as long as they’re avoiding children o Divorce should be allowed without fault o Women should be free from economic motives for having sex Have sex so men can support o Men should be free from paying for sex Paying= getting married and supporting families o Be honest with children about sex Kant Does not believe happiness is base of morality A good will= only thing ‘good without qualifications’ Happiness is not good unless combined with good will o Good will= happy o Bad will= unhappy The Categorical Imperative?? o Act only according to that maxim whereby you can , at the same time, will that it should become a universal law Way to objectively consider if something is wrong or not Always treat people with respect, never use them Autonomy: kind of freedom o Respecting someone’s freedom= treating someone respectfully Mappes Don’t use people Sexual behavior is immoral when using a person Premarital sex= immoral Sex w/o love= immoral Conservative liberal general thoughts/ no clear side Traditional sex ed: “ethic of pollution and taboo” Sexual purity does not forbid desire: it simply ensures the status of desire as an interpersonal feeling Sexual morality is supposed to UNITE the person and the sexuality Using a person WITHOUT MUTUAL CONSENT= wrong o Voluntary consent must be given Children and incompetent adults cannot give voluntary consent Two cases in using a person: o Deception = lying or withholding information o Coercion = taking away consent Aristotle What sort of person should we be? Intrinsic good vs instrumental goods o Happiness= ONLY intrinsic good…end in itself Human beings= rational Fulfilling our function= reasoning o When we fulfill this we reach a virtuous life Virtue: o Intellectual: gaining through learning/teaching o Moral: practice habits to obtain a virtue o State laws are supposed to encourage virtue o Virtue= a mean/average between extremes Coward====COURAGE====rash o Feeling passion at the right time towards the right people in the right way o If you are morally virtuous you will have pride of being morally virtuous Practical wisdom: o Human virtue= state of making a person good o Having practical wisdom= having the ability to find the MEAN Scruton Sexual virtue= case of temperance Sexual happiness: giving and receiving love o Receive love only by giving it Success to erotic love= fidelity to prevent jealousy o Give love by being faithful Moral Education helps develop fidelity o Purity= seeing body as sacred o Not forbidding desire rather channel into interpersonal relationships o Goal is to find your ideal spouse Post-pone sexual activity until you find spouse Conservative liberal general thoughts/ no clear side Body embodies our person Sexuality should be channeled into loving relationships Scruton’s stances are limited towards married people Friedman: Liberal economist Pro-Legalization of Drugs Cons of criminalizing of Drugs o More $ for drug lords Drugs illegal= high demand = black market takes advantage & ups prices o Corrupts Law enforcement High profit in selling ‘limited’ drugs = drug lords bribe officials with lots of money Ex: Mexico o Reduces resources of law enforcement in more important cases Energy too focused in drug war could be put to something better like murder cases o America =an arm camp U.S. has applied EXTREME measures to prevent smuggles of drugs (violence) o Increase maintenance on prison Jails are filled with drug users o Invasion of our privacy Only way to restrict drug use is through invading privacy (ex: urine tests) o More criminal activity Addicts will do anything for drugs o Increase of danger or disease because of impure drugs Drugs aren’t regulated consumers don’t know what is in the drugs hazardous substances can be present causing disease/ death Benefits of Legalization o Rehabilitation $ that would be going to STOPPING drug use could be put into rehab source o Lower street crime Drugs are more affordable people can support their drug habits Compared Drug prohibition to the alcohol prohibition early in America’s history o Government tried passing laws to illegalize alcohol = fail high crime rate & smuggling Similar to Mill Nadelman The Legalization Strategy (Legalizing Plan) o “Government would make most of the substances legal to competent adults” Conservative liberal general thoughts/ no clear side ‘most’: some drugs are still too dangerous to be legalizing ‘competent’: available for SANE adults o Government would regulate sales and production of drugs Able to ensure substances are pure/safe o Make rehab more accessible for addicts o Government would offer honest education programs Not scare children Failure of drug policies now o Have, are, and will continue to fail b/c policies are flawed Domestic efforts to restrict drugs= little effect International efforts = failure because there will always be a high demand for drugs in the U.S. Reasons to Legalize Drugs: o Disadvantages of illegalizing: Divergent of resources from law enforcements against more serious crimes Time and energy and money can be put into something else Criminals (drug lords) gaining more $ than government Crime is being financed through illegal drug $ Increase drugs= increase violence Increase in weapons to protect drugs=gang violence Recruitment of children to sell/buy drugs Impure drugs b/c of no regulation Invasion of privacy Drug tests counter the “legal drugs= increase in use” o Forbidden Fruit Effect Drugs being illegal = more people want to be ‘naughty’ Once legal, not so many people will want to do drugs Compares drug illegalization to if tobacco were illegal o Tobacco users and farmers will still sell on black market o Foreign countries will become richer b/c of illegality in U.S. o Government would lose $ b/c reward those who stop tobacco o Tobacco Enforcement Administration(T.E.A.) would have to employ more people to enforce laws on illegalization = lose $ o Corruption in government o North Carolina will secede because main revenue in tobacco Pros of Legalizing o Increase revenue for Government o Improve quality of urban life Decline in gang activity o Reduction on homicide, burglary, robbery Conservative liberal general thoughts/ no clear side No need to protect illegal property o Resources will be put towards more serious crimes o Improve quality of life for drug users No more contamination The inconsistent attitude towards substances: o Comparing illegal drugs and harmful substances… Nicotine and alcohol= legal but addictive and dangerous Marijuana & LSD= illegal but aren’t addictive/dangerous o Defining addictive: Building a tolerance for something Having withdrawals when one stops using substance Bennett (aka “Drug czar”) Cons of Legalizing drugs o Drug use will increase Low cost & legality of drugs = more people will use drugs o Fewer Addicts will seek treatment Drugs will not be looked down upon as much = addicts will not be looked down o Children & pregnant women have easier access to drugs Even if they were restricted, it’d be widely legal in society easier access Refuting Pro-Legalization o “lower crime rates” Addicts commit crime because they are already criminals NOT because they want drugs Addicts wont’ give up on crime b/c crime is convenient o “eliminates black market” Black market will still find a way to make it easier to buy through them rather than legally Legal marijuana has high tax= higher price…black market can sell w/o tax Pros of illegalizing drugs o Less drug addicts o Increase peace Less drug use= less crime o Educate citizens about drugs Making it illegal show drug use is wrong Wilson Disadvantages of legalization o Increase in drug addicts Lowering price& safer drugs = more people will want to use Conservative liberal general thoughts/ no clear side o Increase availability to children Easy access to adults = easy access for children o Dangers of crack cocaine Users do just to get high Fetuses of drug users will suffer Refuting Pro-Legal crack cocaine o Pro says: [cocaine] only a small % become addicts; legalizing will lead to small increase of addicts Refute: This is an assumption based on how things are now There is less incentive to be clean if drugs are legal Legalizing crack would be more addictive o Difference between cocaine and crack o Pro says: Drug war already lost & hopeless cause Making cocaine/heroine illegal has already reduced it o Pro says: Criminalization has increased Legalization will increase addicts o Pro says: if legal Revenue for Government & increase in funds for rehabs Taxes on drugs will be high, addicts will still steal to support habits or turn to black markets If taxes are low= increase in addicts & less revenue Benefits for Illegality o Less addicts and More treatment Courts can persuade addicts to seek treatment More incentive to not use drugs o Education of cocaine Using cocaine = wrong Proof legalizing harmful substances is bad: Alcohol o Alcohol does do more harm BECAUSE it is legal o Too late to illegalize though because of wide spread of use Burger (reference to Miller vs California) How to consider something obscene o Use Bonevac’s “Test” o Look at material as a whole and not just one part that may be explicit Douglas (regards to Miller vs California) 1 Amendment makes no exception on porn Judges and courts should not be put in the position to choose what is obscene Mackinnon (feminist) Conservative liberal general thoughts/ no clear side Women live in a world of inequality Pornography o Sexualizes the abuse of women promotes & accepts it o Sexualizes hierarchy and dominance o “Construct what a woman is from what a man wants” o Portrays women as wanting to be “bound, battered, tortured, humiliated, and killed” Even softcore porn depict women as WANTING to be subjected o “makes dominance and submission” into sex o An institution of inequality o “it sexualizes reality” o Constructs female sexuality as being consumed and possessed by man o Harm of porn shows the harm of the hierarchy of women under men The world is a pornographic place Obscenity vs Porn o In regards to obscene laws… “looking at the work as a whole”- should be enough to censor something that is harmfully sexualizing women “treats artistic and scientific value”- artistic & scientific value should not matter if women are being objectify o Existing laws on porn do not treat it as women’s issue o Legal definition of obscenity: defined by the law Obscenity: moral idea Abstract Involves nudity , excessive candor, arousal or excitement Illegality of the depicted acts that may involve unnatural or pervish behavior Porn: political practice Reinforces antifeminist attitude “involves sex forced on women so it can be sold as a profit, and forced on other women” “involves women’s bodies being tied up, rate, and made into things to be hurt obtained, and accessed” Involves coercion Obscenity doesn’t do harm Porn is harmful towards women because it defines the treatment and status of women through behaviors of violence and discrimination McElroy (‘traditional feminist’) Porn is a form of free expression Part of a wholesome trend to liberate women, their desires, and sexuality Acknowledges women as sexual beings Conservative liberal general thoughts/ no clear side Porn can be a replacement for people who act violently Criticizing gender feminists on porn: o Disregard sex workers as consenting adults Women desire for $ in porn industry economic coercion Porn involves coercion women aren’t consenting voluntarily Women who thought they consented= wrong Contracts signed by sex workers shouldn’t be taken seriously o Attitudes of sex workers Sex workers are psychologically sick Sex workers are victims of their culture Sex workers are mentally incompetent o Gender feminists are degrading women w/ these attitudes Research done on porn= bias o Researchers are being paid to ‘research’ obvious results Correlation ≠ causation o Ex: rooster crows when the sun comes up when the rooster crows, the sun will go up o Rape may/may not be caused by porn Having states intervene = oppressing women o Government has had history of intervening w/ women’s rights
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'