Popular in Normative Ethics: Contemporary Moral Problems
Popular in PHIL-Philosophy
verified elite notetaker
This page Study Guide was uploaded by Alexandra Notetaker on Monday December 14, 2015. The Study Guide belongs to PHI 115 at Pace University taught by Dr. Mitchell in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 49 views. For similar materials see Normative Ethics: Contemporary Moral Problems in PHIL-Philosophy at Pace University.
Reviews for Study Guides
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: 12/14/15
Abortion Chapter 21Defense of Abortion Morality states that a fetus has a right to life Argues that a baby doesn t exceed the mother 0 The mother has her own right to life I Therefore an abortion can be morally permissible Example 0 If someone is plugged into you on life support and can only live plugged into you are you then responsible to save his life 0 Example Violinist analogy I You are kidnapped and hooked to a violinist I All persons have a right to life I The violinist is a person I Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body but a persons right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body If baby has right to life is argued that mother has a right to her own life Does rape allow a woman to get an abortion 0 Some say no never permissible 0 Thompson says it is allowed I Wasn t woman s choice and the fetus was forced upon her We are obligated only to be minimally decent Samaritans Example 0 You live in a tiny house with a rapidly growing child 0 The growing child kills the women living in the house 0 The child will be in pain until it is big enough to break out of the house o Is it moral to kill the baby before it kills you and causes pain to her or his self SummaryQuestions What is used to support the argument that abortion is immoral even when it is necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman 0 The fetus is an innocent person 0 Directly killing an innocent person is murder which is absolutely impermissible Does Thomson believe that it would be wrong of a woman not to carry her fetus to term is the pregnancy only lasted and hour and did not threaten her life 0 Yes What term does Thomson use to describe one who makes a large sacri ce to keep another person alive 0 Good Samaritan Thomson used the Kitty Genovese murder in his article How does he describe the 38 people who listened and watched as she was murdered 0 As failures to be Minimally Decent Samaritans Thomson believes that the fetus is a human person well before birth true false 0 True Does Thomson believe that people have a right to do whatever it takes to save their lives 0 No Does he believe that all persons have a right to life 0 Yes Based on his view of rights does he believe that you ought to share your box of chocolates with your brother if it follows that he has a right to some of the chocolates o No Does he believe that abortion is always morally permissible o No According to Thomson does a fetus becomes a person at conception first implants in the uterus or at birth 0 He does not believe a fetus is a person with any of those listed above Chapter 220n the moral and legal status of abortion Warren agrees with Noonan s thesis debating the issue on whether or not the fetus is a person Warren thinks of the example that Thomson uses the Violinist analogy 0 Her analogy is only used for rape Warren s thesis is the fetus is not a person Characteristics of a person 0 Sentience Emotionally Reason Communicate Self awareness o Moral agency Being a fetus doesn t mean you are a member of the moral community Fetuses don t have any of the six characteristics 0 According to Warren fetuses are not humans If fetuses were person they have right that must be respected even at social and personal costs 0 But given that early fetuses at least are unlike persons in the morally relevant respects it is unreasonable to insist that they be accorded exactly the same moral and legal status 195 lnfanticide 0 Killing of a child who is at least one year or older Woman has a right to protect her own life and health it outweighs the potential of a fetus being born 0 Because a fetus is not a human being I Never permissibly morally wrong 0 O O 0 Summary Questions What aspect of Thomson s position on abortion does Warren agree 0 It requires argument to show that if fetuses are human beings then abortion is always or almost always immoral What objection does Warren make to Thomson s violinist analogy o In the majority of unwanted pregnancies it is far from clear that the woman bears no responsibility for her predicament In regards to the siX primary criteria of personhood Warren argues what 0 The more that are satis ed the more con dently we can consider an entity a person To persuade abortion opponents to change their position it is necessary to refute the arguments that fetuses are members of the human moral community according to Warren Truefalse 0 True Does Warren believe that a fetus has a strong right to life 0 No warren does not Does warren argue that a woman s moral right to choose abortion depends on the extent of her responsibility for her pregnancy 0 No warren does not argue this Does Warren believe that an entity must possess 6 basic criteria to personhood to be granted membership in the moral community 0 No Warren believes that a lateterm fetus has no more right to life than certain large brained mammals such as elephantsapes 0 True What does the concept of personhood imply o Sentience o Emotionality o The capacity to communicate Of the following which of these acts would Warren see as the least morally serious killing an earlyterm fetus killing a lateterm fetus killing a dolphin killing an adult who had lost all capacity for reason 0 Killing an early term fetus Mother who is sick has a right to abort the baby because her life is in danger and the pregnancy is affecting her health Chapter 23 Why Abortion is Immoral Views of abortion 0 Antiabortion I Life is present from the moment of conception I Fetuses possess a genetic code that is necessary for being human 0 Prochoice I Fetuses are not persons I Are not rational agents or social beings 0 Both I Truth of these claims is obvious I Claims are suf cient enough to validate their point Why are both views invalid o Antiabortionist I Defend moral principle on wrongfulness of killing Argument is too broad Example 0 Could entail that it is wrong to end the existence of a living cancer cell culture if we believe that cells within a human are living 0 Prochoicer I Argument relies on moral principle regarding the wrongness of killing Argument is too narrow Example 0 Does not explain why it is wrong to kill infants children or mentally ill Why abortion is immoral 0 Wrong to kill us 0 Killing is wrong because of its effects on the victim I The loss of one s life is the greatest loss you can suffer 0 When I am killed I am deprived both of what I now value which would have been part of my future personal life but also what I would come to value pg 206 I deprived of the value of future I by in icting this loss on person is what ultimately makes killing wrong 0 It is seriously wrong to kill children and infants because it is assumed they will have futures of value 0 Thesis 0 The point of this essay was to set an argument that abortion is except in rare cases immoral and in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being The con ict of ethical views in abortion is solvable o Reasoning behind AntiAbortionist and ProChoicer were not strong enough to reach a conclusion between what is right or wrong SummaryQuestions What does Marquis believe to be true about both the typical prochoice and anti abortion positions 0 That both positions depend on plausible moral principles Marquis argues that the antiabortionist s moral principles regarding killing are often too what 0 Broad Marquis arguments on the prochoicer s principles are often too what 0 Narrow Does Marquis believe that abortions moral status can be resolved by establishing whether or not the fetus is a human person 0 No Does Marquis analysis begin with the assumption that murder is wrong 0 Yes According to Marquis does the divine command theory provide an implausible account of the wrongness of killing 0 Yes Marquis argues that because it is wrong to kill persons it is also wrong to kill potential persons TrueFalse 0 False What does Marquis believe his argument establishes 0 That killing is prima facie seriously wrong What implications does Marquis cite to make his theory of the wrongfulness of killing seem more plausible O O 0 Compatible with the belief that killing certain kinds of nonhuman beings is wrong It ts well with the attitudes of the dying It justi es the belief that infanticide is immoral Chapter 24 Virtue theory and abortion Rival to deontological and utilitarian theories 0 O O O O O O O Hursthouse is not discussing the topic from a right or wrong perspective Rather questions I Would the agent be acting virtuously or viciously or neither 213 Abortion discussed with Status of fetus Women s rights both seen as irrelevant for virtue theory Status of fetus Virtue ethics not relevant in rightnesswrongness of abortion Parents passionate about their children and emotion plays a large role No virtuous person would have abortion based on the declaration that its their right I Disregarding human life death parenthood and family relationships Would look at circumstances not that its their right Women s Rights 0 O O Agrees a woman has rights I Right to own life and happiness Virtue theory focuses more on good human life I eudaimonia true happiness is this life a good one 218 Value of family life love and emotional development I Woman may be more immature or self1sh not having true righteous virtue Women who gets abortion could be looked at as immature I Not full virtuous life Physical components that come with pregnancy may be looked at by a woman in callous terms and find it unfair Circumstances O 0 life threatening circumstances would be acting in virtue but evil may come from this as it is still the ending of something that could have been Would have abortion for right circumstance I Rape I Sexual partner I Contraception I These would not be virtuous o Lacking the characteristics of virtuous woman I Strength I Independence I Responsibility I Etc Men can be applied to this 0 They play a role 0 Can in uence the choice 0 For them to walk away would not be virtuous o Immature man would turn a blind eye I While fathers accept a role in caring for the child as they should Virtue theorists would most likely not choose on a side of abortion There are grey areas 0 The idea od being a virtuous person and leading to true happiness would not be met id a person were to end the life of a fetus Any more issue should include the concepts that were laid out in this article Based on what kind of person you want to be Summary Questions What does Hursthouse consider to be crucial considerations for the ethics of abortion 0 Neither the status of the fetus nor the rights of women Hursthouse argues that one deficiency of virtually all philosophical writing on abortions is 0 Its abstraction from human reproductive facts What conclusion does Hursthouse draw on the majority of philosophical writing on the status of the fetus and its relevance to the morality of abortion 0 It would be consistent with the human reproductive facts being totally different from what they are Hursthouse believes that it is possible to act viciously in doing something one has a moral right to do TrueFalse 0 True Hursthouse believes that abortion is analogous to an appendectomy truefalse 0 False According to Hursthouse is the development stage of the fetus relevant to the morality of abortion 0 No Hursthouse sees abortion as fundamentally the same as any other form of killing Truefalse 0 False In Hursthouse eyes a woman who decided to have an abortion because she believes she is not ready for motherhood yet may be showing what characteristics 0 Cowardice 0 Lack of seriousness o Humility Euthanasia Chapter 25 Active and Passive Active Euthanasia 0 Patient is directly killed 0 Doctor uses a lethal injection to bring about the patients death Passive Euthanasia o Cease of medication 0 Doctor does not directly kill I Essentially does nothing Allow the patient to die of what is already affecting them American Medical Association AMA o Doctrine in which is accepted by nearly all doctors 0 States pg 226 While at a patient s request a physician may withhold extraordinary means of prolonging the patient s life a physician may not take steps even if requested by the patient to terminate that life intentionally o Argues that doctors can once life is merely imminent for the patient cease medicationtreatments with their given permission andor their immediate family members BUT they can not directly kill that patient Rachel s stance 0 That there is not nor will there ever be a moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia o What is the point of ceasing medication when that will only prolong the patients suffering even more I Whereas injecting a lethal medication will call for a relatively quick and painless death 0 argues that active better than passive because passive takes patient longer to die and may suffer more than active Examples 0 Cancer patient I A patient is dying of notably incurable cancer they are in terrible pain and that pain can no longer be alleviated It is guaranteed that this patient will die within a few days regardless of treatments He does not wish to continue living these next days and pleads for the doctor to end his life Does the doctor do it I Doctrine allows the doctor to withhold his treatments but he cannot kill him I Rachel s argues it may take the patient longer to die and so he may suffer more than he would if more direct action were taken and a lethal injection were given 277 I Active euthanasia is preferred over passive euthanasia 0 Downs Syndrome Baby I A baby is born with Down s syndrome and has an intestinal obstruction that requires several operations in order to live I Most parents and doctors will decide not to operate and to let the infant die due to the doctrine I Rachels rebuttal why should anyone favor letting dehydration and infection wither a tiny being over hours and days And the reason why such operations are not performed in these cases is clearly that the child has Down s syndrome and the parents and the doctor judge that because of the fact it is better for the child to die pg 228 I If such baby did not have Down s Syndrome there would be no question about the surgeries they would happy rst instinct o Drowning child I Different actions same motive I Smith While the child is taking a bath he sneaks into the bathroom and directly drown the child Stages it to look like an accident He is guilty because he killed the child Sneaks into bathroom Is planning on drowning the child But the child slips and falls facedown into the water just as he enters He does nothing He is not guilty because all he did was let the child die I Rachel s view of the men I That both men are guilty I Both had the same motive Motive of personal gain large inheritance and murder I The motive resulted in exactly the same outcome 0 Thesis 0 There is not and there will never be a moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia Summary Question What is Rachel s view of the 1973 American Medical Associations statement 0 That it unwisely opposes active euthanasia I Which is sometimes morally preferable to passive What is the point Rachel s wants to make with the example of Jones letting his cousin drown in the bathtub 0 That there is a difference between killing someone and letting that person die is not in itself a morally relevant issue When is it morally permissible to take direct action to end the life of a terminally ill patient 0 As soon as the decision to cease treatment has been made Who should have the final word on whether to cease the use of extraordinary means to preserve life according to the AMA 0 Patient 0 Patients immediate family Does Rachels argue that killing someone is not necessarily morally worse than letting the person die 0 Yes in the example of the drowning child ls watching a child drown in a bathtub morally equivalent to murder 0 Yes Rachels argues that letting someone die is a type of action that is subject to moral appraisal true false 0 True The physician s role in the decision to stop extraordinary means of preserving life should merely be an advisory one according the AMA truefalse 0 True Chapter 26 the intentional termination of life Steinbock argues that Rachels misinterprets the AMA excerpt incorrectly Says that the AMA only allows for the stopping of life prolonging treatment 0 Whether Dr or patients choice to end the treatment Ending the treatment does not mean the termination of life In the example with the down syndrome baby Steinbock agrees that Rachels is right to regard the decision not to operate as the intentional termination of life 0 However he says that there is no reason to believe that the law or AMA would regard it otherwise Two situations in which ceasing treatment is not euthanasia 0 Patient has the right to refuse treatment if that treatment is only going to prolong their miserable existence 0 The doctor is able to stop the treatment if it will not help the patient get better and may cause unnecessary pain Example 0 Steinbock argues that in the case of the child born with spina bifida it may be better to not operate at birth and allow the child to die to avoid the pain and suffering he she will indor throughout I This is not the intentional termination of life for again the purpose is not the termination of the child s life but the avoidance of painful and pointless treatment Thus the fact that withholding treatment is justi ed does not imply that killing the child would be equally justified23 9 Thesis 0 The AMA doesn t allow for passive or active euthanasia 0 He doesn t believe that it is okay to kill even if it is right to cease treatment I In many of the cases in which it would be right to cease treatment I do not think that it would also be right to killpage 242 SummaryQuestions ls killing someone worse than letting the person die 0 Yes What does Steinbock disagree with Rachels on 0 Whether the AMA endorses any sort of euthanasia Is the following one of the conditions that Steinbock considers to be justi able in ceasing lifeprolonging medical treatment 0 When a patient refuses treatment I Yes this is one of the conditions Why does Steinbock feel that withholding lifeprolonging treatment is morally acceptable when euthanasia is not 0 Because the doctor is not intentionally terminating the patients life What is her main point about the intentional termination of life 0 That doctors are never justi ed in intentionally terminating a patients life What is Steinbock39s opinion of the case in which the infant with Down39s syndrome was allowed to die through passive euthanasia o Intentionally allowing the baby to die was wrong whether it was quick or slow Does Steinbock believe that Rachels has misinterpreted the statement of the AMA on euthanasia 0 Yes Does Steinbock believe that in a few situations is it acceptable for a doctor to intentionally terminate a patients life 0 No A treatment that counts as ordinary care in one situation may count as extraordinary care in a different situation truefalse 0 True Is it Steinbocks belief that a quick death is always preferable to a lingering one o No Does Steinbock feel that a doctor may cease treatment when the treatment will create discomfort without improving the patient s condition 0 Yes World Hunger Chapter 27 famine af uence and morality Singer claims that we are morally obligated to sacri ce many of our present luxuries to prevent others from starving If we can prevent something bad without thereby sacri cing anything of comparable moral worth we ought to do so Singer claims that we are morally obligated to sacri ce many of our present luxuries to prevent others from starving If we can prevent something bad without thereby sacri cing anything of comparable moral worth we ought to do so Thesis 0 I shall argue that the way people in relatively af uent countries react to a situation like that in Bengal cannot be justi ed indeed the whole way we look at moral issuesour moral conceptual scheme needs to be altered and with it the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society 0 In arguing for this conclusion I will not of course claim to be morally neutral 1 shall however try to argue for the moral position that I take so that anyone who accepts certain assumptions to be made explicit will I hope accept my conclusion People are dying in East Bengal from lack of foodshelter and medical care The suffering and death that are occurring there NOW are not inevitable nor unavoidable in any fatalistic sense 0 What does Singer believe about this I It is not beyond the capacity of the richer nations to give enough assistance to reduce any further suffering to very small proportions I The decisions and actions of human beings can prevent this kind of suffering What are people not doing p 244 Line 1017 0 Responding to the situation I At the individual level people have with very few expectations not responded to the situation in any significant way 0 Demanding government assistance I they have not written to their parliamentary representatives demanding increased government assistance 0 Giving large sums to relief funds I Generally people have not given large sums to relief funds 0 Holding symbolic fasts o Protesting I they have not demonstrated in the streets held symbolic fasts or done anything else directed toward providing the refugees with the means to satisfy their essential needs 0 Providing the means to satisfy the refugees essential needs What is the government not doing p 245 o No government has given enough aid that would enable refugees to survive for more than a few days I Britain has given rather more than most countries I Australia is another country is well up in the aid to Bengal table I The estimated cost of keeping the refugees alive for one year is 50673439084 I The World Bank has said that India needs a minimum of 32762999408 in assistance from other countries before the end of the year If not India will be forced to choose between letting the refugees starve OR diverting funds from her own development program which will mean that more of her own people starve in the future What is the moral point of view 0 Should sacrif1ce it means nothing else that is bad will occur I Example If you are walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it you ought to wade in and pull the child out This will mean getting your clothes muddy but that is insignificant while the death of the child would presumably be a very bad thing I Singer believes if everyone applied this moral principle our world would be fundamentally changed o It makes no moral difference whether the person you can help is a neighbor s child ten yards away from you or a Bengali ten thousand miles away whose name you shall never know 0 the principle makes no distinction between the cases in which you are the only person who could possibly do anything versus the case in which you are just one among millions in the same position 0 We cannot discriminate against someone merely because he is far away from us or we are far away from him What are our moral obligations 0 One feels less guilty about doing nothing if one can point to others similarly placed who have done nothing This makes no real difference to our moral obligation 0 Example 0 Should one consider that they are less obligated to pull the drowning child out of the pond if on looking around they see other people no further away than himself who have also noticed the child but are doing nothing Consequence to our obligation 0 Can occur only if people are in error about the actual circumstances 0 If they think they are giving when others are not but in fact they are giving when others are 0 The result of everyone doing what he reasonably believes he ought to do could be worse than the result of everyone doing less than he ought to do Duty v Charity 0 No distinction is made 0 In our society giving money as an act of charity is supererogatoryan act which it would be good to do but not wrong not to do 0 On the contrary we ought to give the money away and it is wrong not to do so Af uence 0 To have moneywealth 0 Given a society in which a wealthy man who gives five percent of his income to famine relief is regarded as most generous o A proposal that we all ought to give away half our incomes will be thought to be absurdly unrealistic and narrow minded because not all societies have the same amount of wealth Moral attitudes o Societies need people who will observe the rules that make social existence tolerable o It is essential to prevent violations of norms against killing stealing and so on It is inessential to help people outside one s own society 0 The moral point of view requires us to look beyond the interests of our own society Morally we all ought to to be working full time to increase the balance of happiness over misery We ought to be preventing as much suffering as we can without sacrificing something else of comparable moral importance If no one gives voluntarily a government will assume that its citizens are uninterested in famine relief and would not wish to be forced into giving aid Until there is effective population control relieving famine merely postpones starvation The best means of preventing famine in the future is population control SummaryQuestions What does Singer believe those who live in relatively af uent countries have a duty to sacri ce to protect people in poor countries from preventable evils o as much as they can afford without sacrificing something of comparable moral worth to what the poor are lacking What does Singer think about relief agencies39 practice of thanking donors for their generosity o It mistakes an act of duty for an act of charity What does Singer say in response to the objection that his position requires too drastic a revision of our current moral values 0 However radical the conclusion should stand until its premises are rejected or the argument is shown to be unsound Some writers cited by Singer have feared that promoting radically demanding moral standards will 0 lead to a general breakdown in morality What does Singer think about the view that overpopulation will lead to mass starvation in the future 0 If we accept it then our duty to prevent famine should lead us to support organizations working for population control Singer believes that our duties to those who live on the other side of the world are equal to our duties to our neighborstruefalse 0 True Does what others might or might not be giving to help the poor not relevant to the question of what I should give 0 No Singer39s proposal would require a dramatic alteration of the way we think about moral issuestruefalse 0 True Does Singer believes that a society39s moral standards have little effect on the decisions its members make 0 No Singer believes that private donations are an effective way to prevent starvationtrue false 0 True Chapter 28 world hunger and moral obligation Argues against Singer 0 Says we should give whenever we can but no one is obliged to do so 0 Makes case for our individual rights not what we should do 0 Agree with Singer s view that giving is the right thing to do if you have the ability to I But is simply saying that we shouldn t be forced to do if we earn the money Our rights 0 Although giving is always the right thing to do As individuals we have the right to decide what to do with our money 0 Flaw in Singer s argument is that everyone can t be held accountable if they don t give because that s just not a realistic goal for everyone to follow 0 if someone earns the money it is THEIRS so they have the right to deicide what to do with it Example 0 farmer worked very hard all season to make his living 0 The farmer has a neighbor who doesn t work hard at all and has been lazy o The neighbor isn t getting by as well as the farmer is and needs some support I Is it the hard working farmers obligation to help the neighbor who s been lazy all season 0 Arthur argues here that it is not the farmers obligation because the farmer earned everything he worked for and shouldn t have to give anything up because his neighbor isn t working as hard as he is Rights and Desert 0 We should prevent harm to others if in doing so we do not sacri ce anything of comparable moral importance but that Singer ignores a very important point I Example giving away a kidney or an eye for someone who needs it is not comparable to the loss experienced by a person who will die without any kidney or who is completely blind However it s in our code that we are not entitled to do so You have the right to keep your kidney and eye because it s part of your body which outweighs whatever duty you have to help This is why Singer s argument is awed because we can t be forced or required to give up what s ours Moral right negative rights 0 Negative rights I Are rights of noninterference Our right to 0 Life 0 Property 0 Free religion They all require people leave others alone and not interfere 0 Different from positive rights because these depend on what you are 0 Natural rights we are born with Moral rights positive rights 0 These rights are of received 0 Example I parents not putting their children up for adoption By doing this the parents are giving the children the right to be fed clothed and housed o Opposite to negative rights I Positive rights are rights that occur because of agreement or promise Summary Questions Arthur does believe that giving when your in the position to is a good thing but he is stating that you have the right what to do with your earnings and no one can take that away from you especially if you earned it It s not about the best thing to do but rather a matter of being able to make our own choices and decide what we want to do with what we own What does Arthur believe that Singers argument ignores the notion of o Entitlements Is the right to be fed a negative right 0 No What values does Arthur believe Singer neglects o Fairness The greater moral evil rule would require a substantial redistribution of the planets wealth truefalse 0 True Does Arthur believe that one has a duty to sacri ce one of their kidneys if doing so will save the life of another person without causing the end of yours 0 No Do bystander s watching a child drown in a swimming pool violate that child s rights 0 No Terrorism Chapter 29terrorism Walzer view of terrorism 0 Victory for the champions of order No means unknown Way to avoid engagement in society Its purpose is to destroy the moral of the nation it attacks Indirect approach I Targets a particular group but there is still Murder of innocent and random people 0 Terrorism s purpose is to not only destroy morale of a nation but to undercut its solidarity o Randomness is crucial feature of terrorist activity Intentions of terrorism 0 Frighten a population 0 Example war I Used by established governments during World War II before it was adopted by revolutionary movements I British admiral sees terrorism as Unmilitary o It is a civilian strategy I British describe aim and end of terror bombing in the same way what they sought was the destruction of civilian morale 267 3 examples try to act in accordance with the norm 0 Russian revolutionaries I Wanted to kill tsarist of cial in his carriage I The day approaches but the young revolutionary notices that the tsarist has children sitting on his lap I The revolutionary walks away I Even in destruction there s a right way and a wrong wayand there are limits Page 268 0000 I Republican militant was to carry a preset time bomb in his bicycle to the Coventry power station I Missed where he was going causing him to become lost As the time gets near he leaves the bike and lets the bomb explode on the side walk 0 Kills 5 innocent people I No one in IRA saw it as a victory Men were horri ed that they killed innocent bystanders I There plan was not to kill bystanders o Stern Gang I Killed Lord MoyneBritish minister I 268 We were being followed by the constable on his motorcycle My comrade was behind me I saw the constable approach him I would have been able to kill the constable easily but I contented myself with shooting several times into the air I saw my comrade fall off his bicycle The constable was almost upon him Again I could have eliminated the constable with a single bullet but I did not Then I was caught What do the three have in common 0 1st Category Off1cials I Protected by war convention and by the positive international law 0 2nd Category Ordinary Citizens I They are innocent politically as civilians are innocent militarily It is these people that terrorists try to kill Such as the Aristocratic children Coventry pedestrians I Egyptian policeman o What is the Moral Distinction I It is the difference between aiming and not aiming OR aiming at particular people things that they have done or are doing and aiming at the whole group of people who they are 0 Example of aimless I A bomb planted on the street comer hidden in a bus station thrown into a cafe or pub this is aimless killing except that the victims are likely to share what they can not avoid a collective identity Soldiers v Off1cials 0 Soldiers activates is a matter of fact the unjust or oppressive character of the officials activities is a matter of political judgments I Political o The threatening character of the soldiers activities is a matter of fact 0 The unjust or oppressive character of officials activities is a matter of political judgment I Political assassins Killersmurders of ordinary citizens I Soldiers Only called murders when they kill civilians The young revolutionary eventually killed the grand duke was tried and executed for murder as were the Stern Gang assassins of Lord Moyne o All three treated like the IRA militants also captured 0 Were held responsible for the deaths of citizens Walzer thinks this treatment is appropriate Vietcong Assassination Campaign 0 NLF waged a campaign aimed at destroying the government of South Vietnamese countryside 0 19601965 I 7500 Officials were assassinated by the Vietcong o Walzer is saying that one might argue that any of cial is by de nition engages in the political efforts of the unjust regime same as any soldier engaged in the war effort 0 According to Walzer as a private person they are immune entirely 0 Most political militants don t regard themselves as assassins at all but rather as executioners 271 I They are engaged themselves or so they regularly claim in a revolutionary version of vigilante justice Walzer s Impression 0 terrorism is the deliberate violation of its norms 0 people killed to simply deliver a message of fear to others like themselves 272 0 Current terrorists focus in people Whose existence has been lessened such as I Jews of Israel I Protestants I Northern Ireland 0 Terrorism breaks moral limits In modern manifestations terror is the totalitarian form of war and politics 0 Thesis 0 Indiscriminate killing cannot be justi ed 0 Terrorism is inherently immoral o The moral justi cation for terrorism and nds such activity not permissible SummaryQuestions What is the purpose of terrorism 0 Destroy the morale of nationclass According to Walzer the British used terrorism during World War II What do the targets of terrorism share 0 Collective identity over which they have no control Militants engaged in politically motivated killing tend to regard themselves as o Executioners For Walzer terrorism refers to a tactic practiced by radical movements only truefalse 0 False According to Walzer terrorism is not a military but s civilian strategy Truefalse 0 True Does Walzer consider targeted assassinations a form of terrorism 0 Yes Does Walzer believe that the Vietcong s 1960s assassination campaign amounted to genocide o No A just assassination is inconceivable according to Walzertruefalse 0 False Can an army engaged in war engage in terrorism 0 Yes I WW2 Bombed villages in Germany that were full of civilians to try to create fear ls assignation ever morally justi able o Hitler people did attempt to assassinate him but failed would this be morally justi able is it terrorism I No because he was killing tons of people So soldiers differ from political of cials as appropriate targets of attack 0 Soldiers and of cials are different 0 Soldiers matter of fact have to do it part of their job I By wearing the uniform they are obligated to ght others who are in uniform Main thesis 0 Not permissible unless your a soldier o If soldier acts through terrorism its ok because he s in uniform and his identity is a solider o Wont carry if civilians around Chapter 30 is terrorism distinctly wrong McPherson 0 Aims to challenge and criticize the dominant views that come with terrorism 0 Terrorism is I The deliberate use of force against ordinary noncombatants which can be expected to cause wider fear among them for political ends 275 I In a sense terrorism is use of last resort in order to achieve the goals of the state and not always an act of outrageous violence but will use the acts of fear in order to get the point across Just Warfare vs Terrorism 0 Ethics of Welfare I Questions the theory of just warfare and how civilians or noncombatants end up being killed and hurt indirectly or directly through war Between 1900 and 1990 o 43 million soldiers died in wars 0 62 million civilians were killed 0 Those who are apart of the military forced combat this idea and state that civilian death is not always because of direct military action I Claims that indirect effects of the war cause the civilian death 0 McPherson says that both indirectdirect action is wrong I That the ethics of war includes recognizing that war leads to inextricable casualties Two objectives to terrorism 0 1st objective I Terrorists could have concern to risk the lives of noncombatants and don t believe in the excessive use of force and only aim to use this kind of violence in order to obtain their politicalmilitary goals I Plausible charge is that terrorists simply reject the idea of proportionality principles as conventionally constructed Since its deliberately ignored the use of force against civilians not saying that they lack concern for them at all 0 2nd objective I The military only uses and defends the lives of the noncombatant if the harm or threat exceeds a certain level I The military doesn t commit to the idea of proportionality and reducing the casualties of civilians Mandela s Imprisonment 279 o The idea of terrorism being a valid act is argued when Africa was ghting against its struggle with apartheid and its leader Nelson Mandela was sentenced to a life imprisonment I only when all else failed when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us 0 The ANC were prepared to carry out acts of violence to meet the political demands but even then decided not to So in a way Mandela encouraged the acts of terrorism and the risk of other lives in order to get the goal met Terrorismdeliberate used of force against not combatant Should consider the life of the non combatant Civilian death is not always because of direct military actions Main point 0 People who are in warfare are doing the same thing as the terrorist 0 Being more careless I Killing just to kill 0 Defending terrorism with some restrictions I Pointing out that the reason behind their actions is political I Military bombs village no strategic importance other than to break peoples will Just as bad as terrorism SummaryQuestions Dominant views 0 Believe that terrorism is necessarily and egregiously wrong 0 They are akin to murder What does McPherson define terrorism as o Politically motivated use of force against ordinary noncombatants which can be expected to spread fear among them Why does McPherson doubt that the proportionality principle of just war theory compels us to recognize terrorism as distinctly wrong 0 Because terrorists could be concerned about disproportionate harm to noncombatants Why do the laws of war include a principle that seeks to reduce noncombatant casualties 0 Because warring states usually have little to gain by harming noncombatants Does McPherson claim to share the dominant view of terrorism s moral status 0 No In the 1990s were civilian deaths vastly outnumbered by those of soldiers 0 Yes Does McPherson argue that terrorism differs from conventional war because of the widespread fear terrorism can be expected to cause 0 Yes McPherson believes that terrorists are by de nition morally indifferent to harming noncombatants Truefalse 0 False Torture Chapter 31 torture Torture is the action or practice of in icting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something or for the pleasure of the person in icting the pain It is a cruel assault upon the defenseless In combat the other person one kills is still a threat when killed and is killed in part for the sake of ones own survival Torture in icts pain and damage upon another person 0 the other person who s virtue of now being within hisher power is no longer a threat and is entirely at the torturers mercy Terroristic Torture Its purpose cannot satisfy the constraint of possible compliance because its purpose cannot be accomplished and may not even be capable of being in uenced by the victim of torture It is a pure casethe purest case possible caseof violation of the Kantian principle that no person may be used only as means Interrogational Torture Its purpose of gaining information appears to be consistent with the observation of some constraint on the part of any torturer genuinely pursuing that purpose alone It does however have a built in endpoint when the information has been obtained the torture has accomplished its purpose and need not to be continued It must reluctantly be admitted that the avoidance of assaults upon the defenseless is not the only or even in all cases an overriding moral consideration Consequently we must sketch the elements of an overall assessment of these two types of torture beginning again with the dominant contemporary form terroristic Summary Questions As an attack on a literally defenseless enemy torture appears to violate the moral principle that war be 0 A fair ght Torture is incapable of satisfying the constraint of possible compliance when 0 Its purpose is to intimidate people other than the victim Which of the following categories of possible victims of torture not be provided with a legitimate escape from torture even in principle o Innocent bystanders Existing legal prohibitions against torture should be 0 Strengthened Does Shue argue that an instance of morally acceptable torture is unimaginable o No Shue denies that betrayal of ones ideals and comrades can be considered as escape from torture truefalse 0 True Does Shue suggest that only angels could use terroristic torture with the constraints that make it permissible 0 Yes Shue argues that severe interrogational torture would be likely to be in icted only on the onnocent and the seriously commited truefalse 0 True Does shue believe that torture should be enforced to justify their actions in a public trial 0 Yes What would satisfy a morally permissible instance of torture 0 The torture would have to serve a demonstrably and supremely important purpose 0 The torture would have to be the least harmful means to a supremely important goal 0 The torture would have to have a clearly de ned and reachable endpoint Chapter 32ticking bombs and the analogy with selfdefense It is never permissible intentionally to in ict severe pain or severe harm on someone unwilling unless the painharm is intended i for their bene t or ii as a punishment or iii as a part of the pursuit of a legitimate war or iv to prevent the individual from causing severe pain or severe harm to innocents 296 Defense casemorally permissible 0 Police Tasers the terrorist in self defense for himselflives of others Interrogation casenot morally permissible Re ex case unclear Holding casemorally permissible Withholding casenot morally permissible o By in icting pain upon the terrorist the police of cer is not preventing him from doing anything the action is already done Fellow casenot morally permissible 0 Police torture terrorist that they have captured and has no knowledge of the bomb 0 Has no knowledge the Argument 1 o The terrorist planned out all of his actions carefully and by not informing the police of the bombs whereabouts he is preventing the police from preventing him from completing his joint action of murder 3 02 Argument 2 o The silence of a terrorist who refuses to tell the location of a planted bomb is considered to be a part of his attack since his voluntary refusal to speak will allow the bomb to go off completing the attack Hills response 0 One completes an action when they nish basic physical movements that lead to the effects of said action If completion were based upon the effects happening one could continue to perform actions even after their death Argument 303 0 Those who don t disclose where the terrorist ha been spending their time are subject to torture I His response Torturing the innocent who made seal of confession is not justi ed Is not justi ed when it doesn t permit someone from committing the act himself or herself Cant testify against ur spouse Positive duty 0 Duty not to allow harm to come onto someone Negative 0 Requires u to withhold or stop someone from doing 0 Leave person alone Drowning case 0 A s moral reaso 39 Defense In re eX Hol 39 Withhol 39 fellow Non Ext SummaryQuestions Does Hill doesn t see the distinction between positive and negative duties as morally signi cant 0 No some morally evil actions do not license the in iction of severe pain even in self defense truefalse 0 true Hill takes the difference between stopping a terrorist from in icting harm and trying to get him to give information as morally signi cant 0 True ls interrogational coercion but not interrogational torture morally permissible o No Would hill see the following circumstance as a failure to inclict pain as a breach of a positive duty 0 a police of cer refusing to shoot a terrorist in the foot when that is the only way to prevent him from detonating a bomb I Yes Why does hill cite the roman catholic seal of confession 0 As an example of innocent motives behind noncooperation with the authorities When does Hill believe one completes an action 0 One finishes the basic actions that ultimately leads to the effects Hill believes it is not morally permissible to in ict severe pain or harm on someone unwilling when it is intended o For the greatest happiness of the greatest number Capital Punishment Chapter 33 the morality of capital punishment 0 Thesis 0 Bern39s argues that the death penalty is a fitting expression of our care for victims of horrendous crimes and our anger at those who have perpetrated brutal injustice p 31 1 View of law 0 We must trust in the law and those who do will be rewarded o The law must respond to the deeds of the wicked and the righteous must have confidence that the law will respond and do so in an appropriate manner 0 Examples 0 Roosevelt Grier 311 0 Lower east side 312 Punishment 0 Serves to Make criminals unhappy Make the lawabiding person feel happy It promotes justice A just society is one where everyone gets what he deserves and the wicked deserve to be punishedand the righteous deserve to be joyous OOOO Anger o Anger is expressed or manifested on those occasions when someone has acted in a manner that is thought to be unjust and one of is bases it s the opinion that men are responsible and should be held responsible for what they do 313 I Walk into a door you are mad Not going to hold it against the door 0 Anger is a very human passion because it acknowledges the humanity of its objects 0 It holds them accountable for what they do 0 Anger shows that you care about others Moral Community 0 Criminals are the objects of great anger because Injure an isolated person Violated the foundations of trust and friendship These are necessary elements of a moral community A moral community is one whose members are expected freely to obey the laws and are trusted to obey the law 314 0 To have a moral community means you have people who care for others in the community Capital Punishment 0 Serves to remind us of the majesty of the moral order that is embodied in our law and of the terrible consequences of its breach 3 14 o The criminal law must possess a dignity far beyond that possessed by mere statutory enactment or utilitarian and selfinterested calculations the most powerful means we have to give it that dignity is to authorize it to impose the ultimate penalty 3 15 o It must remind us of the moral order by which alone we live as human beings and in our day the only punishment that can do this is capital punishment 3 15 SummaryQuestions Why does Bems believe that the law must punish the wicked 0 To satisfy the anger of the law abiding citizens What is anger according to Bems o The right response to a terrible criminal act Bems thinks we can become angry and stay angry with 0 Human beings except for those who are insane and not responsible for their actions What is the moral community 0 Members of the community trust one another to obey the laws Why is the anger we feel at criminals important 0 Criminals hurt the whole community not just the victim and out anger is a sign of how much we care for that community Does Bems argue that anger is a selfish passion o No Does Bems expect the lawabiding person to feel happy when a criminal is punished 0 Yes Bems believes that to be angry with someone is to acknowledge their human dignity and moral responsibility true false 0 True Does Bems argue that our anger at criminals is a selfish and mean calculation 0 No Capital punishment is something that Bems favors because killing criminals is a stature enacted at the will of the majority truefalse 0 False O O O O Chapter 34 The death penalty as a symbolic issue What is the death penalty 0 The death penalty is the punishment of execution for someone who committed a capital crime for an example killing someone innocent Berns V Nathanson o Berns believes that capital punishment acknowledges the dignity of human beings o Nathanson views the death penalty as a violation of such dignity meaning that capital punishment is morally wrong 0 Berns believes that people who are angry and kill means that they aren t selfinterested and they care but doesn t provide justi cation o Nathanson believes that it doesn t matter how angry a person is it s not appropriate to kill innocent human beings and it s not appropriate to kill criminals Symbolism of the death penalty 0 One way we express our respect for the dignity of human beings is by abstaining from depriving them of their lives even if they have done terrible deeds 3 19 o No matter how terrible a person s deeds or acts we may not punish him in a cruel and unusual way 0 Nathanson argues that it is okay for people to be punished by their crimes but not to the extent where their lives become deprived I Which is what the death penalty does 0 If we take the life of a criminal we convey the idea that by his deeds he has made himself totally worthless and without human value Nathonson argues 0 That the death penalty is a violation of such dignity o It is not right to take away a human s life no matter what they have done 0 The death penalty is hypocritical I Because it deliberately kills people even though killing is not right SummaryQuestions What do Berns and Nathonson agree on 0 That capital punishment symbolizes out values as a society What does Nathonson argue that actions performed in the name of righteous anger are 0 They may or may not be morally right Berns argues that the death penalty would encourage people to feel reverence towards the criminal law How does Nathonson objective this point 0 Which of these is one of the symbolic messages Nathanson believes we would convey if we abolished the death penalty 0 All human lives deserve I Respect Regardless of what they have done What is the second message that Nathanson uses to see abolishing the death penalty 0 That violence is only acceptable in selfdefense Does Bems think that the death penalty is a symbolic issue but Nathanson disagrees 0 Yes Nathanson uses the example of the automobile accident to show that feeling angry at someone doesn39t prove you are justi ed in killing themtruefalse 0 True Does Nathanson believe that the law always deserves complete reverence and respect 0 No According to Nathanson by abolishing the death penalty we express our respect for human dignitytrue false 0 True Does Nathanson thinks that moral monsters like Hitler and Stalin deserve the death penalty 0 No Animal Right Chapter 35 the case for animal rights View animals as a purpose to bene t us Claims our goals should be 0 Total abolition of the use of animals in science 0 total dissolution of commercial animal agriculture 0 total elimination of commercial and sport hunting and trapping 3 perspectives 0 many people have come to believe that animals exist for their bene ts 0 indirect duty I humans have no duty to animals I we owe them nothing I we can do nothing that wrongs them I Ex If your neighbor kicks your dog that is not a wrong to your dog it is a wrong to you because your neighbor damaged your property pg 327 I Morality consists of a set of rules that individuals voluntarily agree to abide by As for animals they can t understand contracts they obviously can t sign therefore they do not have rights pg 328 Children are unable to sign contracts but are protected by the contract of the sentimental interests of others most notably by their parents Abolitionist 0 Stop the abuse of animals What does Regan mean by inherent values 0 Animals can feel pain have a life worthy of respect Animals have qualities that are similar to human and deserve respect The lion needs the zebra to live 0 Necessarily dependent on meat 0 Unlike us we can live on meat or plant life Zoos wouldn t be morally acceptable 0 Taking away their right to roam free Animals have inherent values Should be respected like humans 0 Some treat their pets like children SummaryQuestions What is most fundamentally wrong about the way we treat animals 0 The assumption that they are our resources Does the following statement express an indirect duty view of animal welfare 0 We owe nothing to animals themselves but we do have duties such as respecting private property that indirectly bear on our treatment of animals I Yes What does Regan see as the de ciency of even the most sophisticated form of contractarianism o It denies that we have direct duties to those who don t possess a sense of justice What does Regan say according to utilitarianism 0 Individuals have no value in their own right Whose view does Regan s right theory most closely resemble o Kant Is it immoral to use animals in science for any purpose 0 Yes Regan argues that the idea of animal right neither has nor requires a foundation in reasontruefalse 0 False Does Regan believe that we have a direct duty to animals 0 Yes According to Regan can utilitarianism be used to justify murder 0 Yes Does Regan believe that animals have as much inherent value as humans 0 Yes Chapter 36 Why animals have no rights Lack free moral judgment What is a right 0 A right properly understood is a claim that one party may exercise against another 0 they are in every case claims or potential claims within a community of moral agents Rights arise and can be intelligibly defended only among beings who actually do or can make moral claims against one another I Have certain obligations to animals only humans possess rights I Animals have no rights but should nevertheless be treated humanely An entity can be considered the bearer of rights if it possesses the ability to make and respond to moral claims Animals have no rights at all Obligations may arise from o lntemal commitments made I Example Physicians have obligations to their patients and teachers have obligations to their students 0 differences of status I example Adults owe special care when playing with young children and children owe special care when playing with young pets 0 Adults andor parents to young children I Example pg 341 the payment of my sons college tuition is something to which he may have no right although it may be my obligation to bear the burden if I reasonably can 0 Children to their pets I Example my dog has no right to daily exercise and veterinary care but I do have the obligation to provide these things for her Children or pet owners are obligated to take care of their pet because they physically can not do it themselves Someone may also be obligated to another for a special kindness done or obligated to put an animal out of its misery in view of its conditions although neither the human benefactor nor the dying animal may have had a claim of right Thesis 0 Animals do not have such moral capacities They are not morally self legislative cannot possibly be members of a true moral community and therefore cannot possess rights In conducting research on animal subjects therefore we don t violate their rights because they have none to violate SummaryQuestions If a lion was about to attack a zebra and a human being could save the life of the zebra can you imagine circumstances in which such an intervention would be morally justified 0 Need it to stay alive Does a lion have a right to eat a baby zebra o No the lion doesn t have the right to eat the baby zebra Animals lack the capacity to press claims in a community of moral agent According to Cohen a lion has the right to eat a baby zebra 0 False Obligations entail rights 0 False Does Cohn deny that we have moral obligations to animals 0 No Does Cohen believe that human beings alone possess rights 0 Yes An entity can be considered the bearer of rights if it possesses o The ability to make and respond to moral claims In what relationships would Cohen recognize an obligation 0 Parents to their children 0 Children to their pets 0 Researchers to their lab animals Chapter 37 Soeaking of animal rights Warren argues that Regan s notion of inherent value is unclear Thesis 0 Maintains that animals do have rights but not identical in strength to those of humans Warren s case 0 The weak animal rights position I There are for instance compelling realities which sometimes require that we kill animals for reasons which could not justify the killing of persons Regan s case 0 The strong animal rights position 0 Nonhuman mammals have essentially the same right not to be harmed or killed as we do 3 stages of Regan s argument pg 345346 1 He argues that normal mature mammals are not only sentient but have other mental capacities as well These include the capacities for emotion memory belief desire the use of general concepts intentional action a sense for the future and some degree of selfawareness 2 He argues that subjectsofalife have inherent value To hold that some individuals have more inherent value than others is to adopt a perfectionist theory one which assigns different moral worth to individuals according to how well they are thought to exemplify some virtues such as intelligence and autonomy 3 Regan uses the thesis of equal inherent value to derive strong moral rights for all subjectsofalife This thesis underlies the Respect Principle which forbids us to treat beings who have inherent value as mere receptacles mere means to the production of the greatest overall good Inherent value is a key concept in Regan s theory 0 It is the bridge between the plausible claim that all normal mature mammals human or otherwise are subjectsofalife and the moral debatable claim that they all have basic moral rights of the same strength p 346 Inherent value appears as a mysterious nonnatural property which we must take on faith p 346 Regan says that it is a postulate that subjectsofalife have inherent value a postulate justi ed by the fact that it avoids certain absurdities which he thinks follow from a purely utilitarian theory p346 In short the concept of inherent values seems to create at least as many problems as it solves p347 Sharp line 0 Regan s theory requires us to divide all living things into two categories I Those which have the same inherent value and the same basic moral rights that we do I And those which have no inherent value and presumably no moral rights 0 But how could we draw a sharp dividing line between animals that have rights and animals that do not I The existence of a few unclear cases need not pose a serious problem for a moral theory but in this case the unclear cases constitute most of those with which an adequate theory of animal rights would need to deal 0 We are forced to say that either a spider has the same right to life as you and I do or it has no right to life whatever and that only gods know which of these alternatives is true 0 Regan s suggestion for dealing with such unclear cases is to apply the bene t of the doubt principle That is when dealing with beings that may or may not be subjectsofalife we should act as if they are 0 But then we are still forced to draw a line somewhere on the continuum of life forms Animal V Human Rights 0 we are able to listen to reason in order to settle our con icts and cooperate in shared projects 0 because we are subjectsofalife that we are both able and morally compelled to recognize one another as beings with equal basic moral rights 0 Why is rationality morally relevant I It is morally relevant insofar as it provides greater possibilities for cooperation and for the nonviolent resolution of problems I The recognition of the moral equality of other persons is the price we must each pay for their recognition of our moral equality I Without this mutual recognition of moral equality human society can eXist only in a state of chronic and bitter con ict Opponents of animal rights claim that rationality and moral autonomy are essential for the possession of rights Defenders of animal rights claim that they are not Sentient animals unlike mountains rivers or species are at least logically possible candidates for moral rights This fact together with the need to end current abuses of animals scientific research provides a plausible case for speaking of animal rights need to be more nuance Do all human beings deserve the same rights 0 Yes all humans have rights Regan s view 0 All subjects of a life have inherent value 0 Animals have inherent value because they are subjects of life They want prefer believe feel remember and eXpect things 0 He argues that all normal mammals over a year of age have the same basic moral rights Nonhuman mammals have essentially the same right not to be harmed or killed as we do Cohen s view 0 Although we have certain obligations to animals only humans possess rights 0 Animals lack the capacity to press claims in a community of moral agents Warren argues that o Regan s notion of inherent value is unclear 0 that Regan s case for the strong animal rights position is unpersuasive and that this position entails consequences which a reasonable person cannot accept Warren does not deny that some nonhuman animals have moral rights indeed she would extend the scope of the rights claim to include all sentient animals SummaryQuestions The weak animal rights theory asserts that 0 Any creature whose natural mode of life includes the pursuit of certain satisfactions has the right not to be forced to exist without the opportunity to pursue those satisfactions p353 0 Any creature which is capable of pain suffering or frustration has the right that such experiences not be deliberately in icted upon it without some compelling reason p 353 o No sentient being should be killed without good reason p 354 Warren has argued that Regan s case for ascribing strong moral rights to all normal mature mammals is unpersuasive because 0 It rests upon the obscure concept of inherent value which is de ned only in negative terms 0 And it seems to preclude any plausible answer to questions about the moral status of the vast majority of sentient animals Warren thinks that Regan s concept of inherent value is o Obscure Warren s view is a weaker animal rights view because 0 She argues that animal rights are not as strong as human rights What is Warren s objection to deciding which animals are subjects of a life 0 It is impossible to draw a sharp line between which animals are and which are not subjects of life Aristotle argues that in order to be free moral agents people must be able to 0 Listen to reason and change their behavior accordingly What kinds of things can have rights 0 Beings capable of sentience including humans and many animals Warren argues with Regan that some nonhuman animals have rights 0 True Warren argues that some things may have inherent value but not have rights such as trees 0 True According to Warren all animals are subjects of a life 0 False Rationality is morally relevant because it allows humans to cooperate nonviolently to resolve con icts 0 True According to Warren an anticruelty view about animals is insuf cient because it would still allow animal suffering and killing 0 True The Environment Chapter 38 We are what we eat Fortunate to have abundance of food Supermarket has no season Food system 0 Those who produce cereal produce other products Mono culture 0 Growing one crop in one particular area America the poisoned o Disgust with EPA Our food isn t being regulated the way it should 0 357 a review Chemicals being persistent in the environment 0 Drinking wells in san Juan California A lot of our drinking water is contaminated with these pesticides o 50 Acid rain 0 So much pollution in air 0 Dead lakes I Smothered I No plant or animal life 0 Chesapeake bay I Area around it is intensely farmed Has harmed the bay Petrochemical industry 0 Pesticides are byproduct of this industry 0 4000 products that come from this industry 0 12 are pesticides Do we have a moral obligation to our future 0 Does nature have rights how do we protect those rights I He talks about sentience Big clash 0 We currently live that it doesn t consider the environment to have rights this would cause us to relook at what we are doing Pollution is a public evil 0 Harms ecosystems I Ex frog three legs Was affected by pollutants in water Our current industrial system is unsustainable and pollution is a public evil 0 Public I Our environment is not immobile and is a public commons as pollution travels pollution is every ones concern Pushing us to reevaluate our current system Anthropocentrism o All about people 0 We are center of concern 0 Has lead to genetic modi cation and industrialism 0 Based soley on human needs and wants Everything measured on a human value 0 We measure things based on human things I We look at sentience Does the animal have the same psych as us or biology Reevaluates our whole industrial model The food on our plate that we eat todaydoes it include a message from future persons condemning us for a failure of moral will and vision to act now to protect the vital interests of generations yet to come pg 360 Our current industrial system is unsustainable and pollution is a public evils Public Our environment is not immobile and is a public commons as pollution travels pollution is everyone s concern Evil Pollution is harmful to anyone exposed Summary Question Pollution is a public evil truefalse 0 True Does the law prohibit chemicals know to be carcinogenic from being used in pesticides o no Does Regan dismiss groundless the fear that pesticide residues on our food may be seriously harmful to our health 0 No What does Regan cite as a principle contributing cause of endangering specie 0 Urban growth What is acid rain caused by 0 Industrial emission of sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides Modern agriculture is increasingly monocultural in that o A particular crop is grown on the same land year after year Chapter 39Philosophical problems for environmentalism Holistic view values preservation of species communities or Ecostems Individualistic view individual organisms If suffering is bad then it is bad for any individual who suffers pg 365 Mountains trees and salt marches do not experience pleasure or pain because they do not have experiences at all so they do not suffer n m question Sperm whales and blue whales have the same capacilyfor experiencing pain Animal liberationist would say that sperm whales are upto par with blue whales and both should be preserved but the fact that one species is endangered and the other is not does not make the rare individual more intrinsically important Environmentalists would say that an endangered species makes all the difference Therefore a world with n amount of sperm whales and m amount of blue whales is far better than a world with nm sperm and zero blue whales Take in to consideration that the species may be bene cial but it could also be deleterious The extreme views that every single part of an ecosystem no matter how miniscule is crucial is almost certainly not true This view is irrational Slippery slope argument 0 if it is morally permissible to destroy one species then it is morally permissible to destroy all species 0 it is not okay to destroy all species 0 not morally permissible to destroy one species Environmentalists lack concern for what is humanly created like domesticated chickens or urban slums of the United States They are only concerned with natural organisms and perhaps the meaning behind this is that the things that are humanly created may not have been present if we did not create them 0 Natural without human intervention Any human who tries to intervene with a natural death or disease is considered bad 0 Natural what occurs in nature Since humans are natural everything they do is natural so this view would not rule out any human activity Summary Questions Environmentalists should stop being so radical about the environment unless there is a true reason to become infatuated with saving ecosystems or organisms unless they are drastically being affected What is the main conceptual problem for environmentalism o Justifying the belief that species and ecosystems ought to be preserved for reasons additional to their known value as resources for human us Which of the following eXpresses Sober39s purpose in discussing the widespread willingness of travelers to y on airplanes when safer but less convenient alternative forms of transportation are available 0 To show the inadequacy of the argument from ignorance What is an important reason for the environmentalists to resist simply grounding their ethics in what is natural 0 If we are part of nature then everything we do is naturalincluding destroying the environment Is an individual organism goal directed according to Darwinian biology 0 Yes Sober thinks that justifying environmentalist policy objectives requires the wholesale jettisoning of most familiar moral judgmentstruefalse 0 False Is the life situation of individual members of species of primary importance for the environmentalist o No Does Sober believe that every species is crucial to a balanced ecosystem o No Does Sober recognize the distinction between wild and domesticated as ethically important 0 No Sober regards preference utilitarianism as better suited than hedonistic utilitarianism to the task of securing ethical status for endangered species 0 False Which of the following similarities does Sober see between environmentalism and aesthetic values 0 An interest in rarity o Concern for preserving context 0 An attachment to objects that goes beyond the experience they facilitate Life and death Chapter 45 the trolley problem Trolley o Goes around bend There are 5 track workers Brakes don t work Can turn trolley There is one worker on other track Is it ok to kill that one Is it morally permissible to kill the one to save the 5 I Everyone says it is morally permissible Scenario 2 I Large man standing hear u I Push him to save the 5 I Is it appropriate to push him onto track to save the 5 No Because you are pushing him to death to save those ve 0 Everyone who has heard this hypothetical case has said yes it is morally permissible 0 Some even say that morally speaking you must turn it that morality requires you to do so 0 Others do not agree that morality requires you to turn the trolley and even feel a certain discomfort at the idea of turning it 0 Everybody says that you may turn it and it would not be morally wrong Surgeon o Transplant organ 0 5 patients who need organs I Will die today without organ 0 Young man has same blood type I Possible donor I He says no 0 Is it morally permissible to operate I No I Because the man says no and that is his right I Everyone put in this hypothetical situation has said no it is not morally permissible to operate In trolley case they don t have the choice 0 Whereas in donor cause he has the choice and is in perfect health Utilitarian view 0 Killing one to save the 5 0 Greater good Why is it okay to kill the donor but not the worker o In the trolley case the victims don t really have a choice so it is morally permissible to kill one to save the other ve The one trolley worker hasn t asked you to spare his life In this situation someone must die and killing one for five is morally permissible 000000 0 o For the greater good A Utilitarianism view 0 In the case of the surgeon the man who would be sacri ced to save ve others wills that his organs are not taken out of his body and he is in perfect health This is an individuals right and it should be respected Summary Question What does the trolley problem represent 0 A hypothetical moral problem Who are you supposed to think you are in the trolley case 0 The driver How do most people feel about the trolley case 0 It is permissible to turn the trolley Is saving ve lives the better choice even at the cost of one person s death a reason to turn the trolley 0 Yes Thomson tells the surgeon case in order to encourage us to think about what 0 Whether we have different reactions to the surgeon and trolley case and if we do why Does Thomson believe that the trolley problem has reallife applications in the transportation industry 0 No In the trolley problem the driver must choose between the death of one versus the death of vetruefalse 0 True In the surgeon case the doctor suggest using the organs from a patient who is going to die anywaytruefalse 0 False Although both stories are about sacri cing one life to save ve lives most people have different feelings about the trolley case and the surgeon casetruefalse 0 True Do most people think the surgeon should be allowed to sacri ce a healthy patient if it was 100 guaranteed that he would be able to save the lives of ve other people with the organ transplants o no Chapter 46 turning the trolley Bystander near switch 0 Can hit switch Two options for bystander I Kill 5 I Kill 1 Bystander 3 has 3 options 0 Do nothing 0 Hit switch to the right kill one 0 Hit switch to the left kill self What to do 0 Choosing 2 would be unacceptable on the bystanders part o If he can throw the switch to the left and kill himself how dare he throw it to the right and kill a man 0 The bystander wants to save the life of ve people but in doing so it will cost his life or another mans life 0 The bystander is going to make the workman pay the cost of his good deed because he doesn t t feel like paying it himself 0 if he wants to do a certain good deed and can pay what doing it would cost he may do that good deed only if he pays the cost himself Morality o Morality does not require the bystander to choose option 3 0 Second Principle He may let them die if it means saving them is killing himself 0 In Bystander s Three Options he may choose option 1 Wants to save life of 5 but doing so causes the death of 1 OR himself Morality doesn t require bystander to choose option 3 SummaryQuestions How does Thomson change her thoughts about the trolley problem 0 She now thinks it is not permissible to turn the trolley to kill the one person What is the difference between bystander s two options and bystander s three options is that the third option is that the bystander 0 Turn the trolley to run himself over In Bystander39s Three Options option 3 is sacri cing oneself in order to save the ve workers Thomson says that option 3 is o A good deed but not morally required If you want to save the ve workers but you don39t want to sacri ce yourself you can take option 2 and turn the trolley towards the one worker What does Thomson say about this option 0 Its an acceptable choice 0 You are making someone else pay the price for your good deed because you don t feel like paying it yourself What is Thomson s conclusion about turning the trolley to kill one person 0 That you are making that person the sacri ce for your good deed and therefore is morally unacceptable In this article Thomson changes the point of view in the trolley case so that we imagine ourselves as a bystander instead of as the trolley drivertruefalse 0 true Does Thomson still believe that the best option is to choose for one person to die rathe than for ve people to die 0 No Does Thomson argue that the bystanders must choose to sacri ce themselves 0 No Thomson believes that turning the trolley towards the one worker is making that person pay the cost of your good deedtruefalse 0 True Does Thomson conclude that it is NOT morally permissible to turn the trolley and kill one person even if it saves ve others 0 Yes Chapter 47 death If death is unequivocal and permanent end of our existence the question arises whether it is bad thing to die 435 o no people misunderstand death people believe death is evil 0 they are afraid of it o aren t afraid of the state of death but they are afraid of what death deprives a person from I But if death is an evil it is the loss of life rather than the state of being dead nonexistent or unconscious that is objectionable Death itself is not evil 0 life is a good and death is the corresponding deprivation or loss bad not because of any positive features but because the desirability of what it removes People have different opinions on something depending on when it happens 0 All the questions have something to do with time A man has suffered a misfortune that makes him in the same condition he was at the age of three months as he is now 0 If instead of concentrating exclusively on the oversized baby before us we consider the person he was and the person he could be now then his reduction to this state and the cancellation of his natural adult development constitute a perfectly intelligible catastrophe 43 9 No one pitied him when he was in the age of three months but they do now because he is older 0 This case should convince us that it is arbitrary to restrict the goods nd evils that can befall a man to nonrelational properties ascribable to him at particular times 440 Keat and Tolstoy died at different ages Keat at 24 and Tolstoy at 82 Even thought they will both be dead forever Keat s death was considered more tragic because he was younger 442 Often we need to know his history to tell whether something is a disaster or not 0 EX I A man who wastes his life in the cheerful pursuit of a method of communicating with asparagus plants Thesis 0 The trouble is that life familiarizes us with the goods of which death deprives us Page 442 Afraid of what death deprives them of Before born and death 0 Same state 0 But death more tragic I Have something to lose Life ended today o Tragic Go back before birth didn t exist o Is this tragic I Didn t exist so no Whereas now our potential is being cut off Losing a life Summary Questions When we set aside those things that make life better and those that make life worse what is left over experience itself is 0 Positive in value Nagel39s discussion of an intelligent person who suffers a brain injury that reduces him to the mental condition of a contented infant is meant to illustrate which of the following o that it is wrongheaded to restrict the goods and evils that can befall a man to the experiential states ascribable to him at particular times What are the times before one s birth and the time after ones death considered 0 Importantly different Does Nagel deny the possibility of immorality or life after death 0 No Goods and evils do not necessarily depend for Nagel on the subjective state of the person who experiences them truefalse 0 True Nagel would agree with the view that what we don39t know can39t hurt ustruefalse 0 False The meaning of Life Chapter 48 the meaning of life Sisyphus 0 Was punished by the gods 0 He had to roll stone up a hill over and over again when it rolled to the bottom 0 Going to do this for eternity because he was condemned by the gods not to die 0 His life now has meaning I His goal was to keep pushing the rock up the hill Are we not just doing the same things over and over again like Sisyphus Life has meaning because of our attitude toward things Drawn out and repetitive activity can have a meaning if it has some lasting end that had come from the direction and purpose of the activity The point of any living thing s life is simple It is nothing but life itself Life presents itself as a machine constantly feeding on itself running on forever to nothing We toil with our goals reaching one and immediately setting another creating a never ending cycle of goals to achieve Everyone39s life resembles one of Sisyphus s climbs to the peak of the hill and each day one of his steps The difference is that Sisyphus returns to push the stone up again while we leave this for our children Sisyphus is the picture of existence of the individual man of the human race and of the life of the world Have to be happy with what you are doing Create never ending cycle of goals If it makes you happy your life has meaning Find meaning in task can you be mistaken 0 Yes when task over lose meaning Someone says how does that make you happy 0 Its what you personally enjoy doing 0 Its subjective This illustrates how Sisyphus rolled the stones up and how they were created into a beautiful enduring temple that is what lies before all of us now Pieces of our life then pieces of our children39s life create this everlasting temple the stones continue to roll and roll up the hill Sisyphus life and our life has the same outline We scale our towers just as he raises his stones to the top the of the hill Every achievement eventually fades giving an opportunity for a new achievement of the same kind We achieve a goal and set a new goal Sisyphus rolls the stone to the top and rolls it to the top again If rolling stones had been Sisyphus39s one desire in life his life now had meaning Although his life was not changed in any aspect this was what he wanted to do his desire in life If instead he had an interest in creating a temple once it was completed what would he do now The meaning in his life is now gone All he would have left is the temple The meaningfulness we possess is that inner compulsion to be doing just what we were put here to do and doing it forever The endless activity which is the will to pursue is the whole justification and meaning The point of living is to be living The meaning is from within us Summary Question The myth of Sisyphus represents 0 Meaningless existence What is Taylors purpose in imagining that the gods have given Sisyohus a desire to push stones forever 0 That an objectively meaningless life can have meaning foe the person who lives it What does Taylor say about the pictures of Sisyphus and of our own lives 0 They are in outline the same What would genuine meaningfulness in existence result in 0 In nite boredom The question of the meaning of life admits of no signi cant answer 0 False Imagining Sisyphus s task as relatively easy his stone as relatively light diminished the oppressive dejecting quality of the myth 0 False For Taylor can an objectively meaningless existence nevertheless have meaning for the one whose existence it is 0 Yes According to Taylor to have a meaningless task we irrationally enjoy would be more worthwhile than to have an objectively meaningful task we nd uninteresting 0 True Chapter 49 meaning in life Meaningful life has basis for an af rmative answer to the needs or longings that are characteristically described as needed 0 Example the sort of question they ask on their deathbeds about whether their lives have been or are worth living whether they have had any point and the sort of questions one ask when considering suicide and wondering whether one has any reason to go on 0 These questions arise I Times of crisis I Intense emotion I Moments of calm re ection I When considering important life choices Meaningful lives are lives of active engagement in projects of worth 0 A person who is actively engaged by something if they are gripped excited involved by it Actively engaged by things and people about which and whom we are passionate 0 activities in which people are actively engaged frequently involve stress danger exertion or sorrow 0 Example writing a book climbing a mountain training for a marathon caring for an ailing friend 0 Something good about the feeling of engagement one feels alive Meaningful life must involve projects of wort o Controversial because the phrase hints of a commitment to an objective value 0 Wolf believes that the idea of meaningfulness and the concern that our lives possess it are conceptually linked to such a commitment 0 Wolf does not have a philosophical theory of what objective value is nor a substantive theory about what this sort of value 0 To her there is no sense to the idea of meaningfulness without a distinction between more and less worthwhile ways to spend one s time where the test of worth is at least partly independent of a subject s underground preferences or enjoyment Thesis 0 A meaningful life I Must have active engagement Subjective I Must be engagement in or with projects of worth Objective Life is meaningless if it lacks active engagement with anything When someone looks for ways to add meaning to their life they are looking for worthwhile projects about which they can get enthused First people might have concerns about meaning that their lives have their wondering whether their lives are meaningful their vows to add more meaning to their lives Second people need an explanation for why certain sorts of activities and involvements come to mind as contributors to meaningfulness while others seem intuitively inappropriate Think about what gives meaning to your own life and the lives of your friends and acquaintances Some things are worthwhile but do not make life worth living Wolf says that active engagement in projects of wort answers that need to account of meaningfulness that life must meet If a person has been actively engaged then they have an answer to the question of whether their life is or has been worthwhile whether it has or has had a point Summary Question What does active engagement mean 0 Doing something that you are passionately involved in Why does Wolf believe that enjoyment alone is not enough to make a life meaningful 0 Some people have enjoyable lives but still feel those lives are too shallow Other than active engagement what is another requirement for Wolf 0 Projects of worth Why might someone be living a meaningless life 0 She wasn t actively engages in any projects 0 Her projects weren t objectively worthwhile or valuable What does Wolf consider when trying to define the meaning of life 0 The questions people ask on their deathbed o Paradigm cases of meaningful and meaningless lives Does Wolf think that a meaningful life must be a pleasant and fun life 0 No Wolf argues that to live a meaningful life one must b actively engaged in projects that one is passionately involved in 0 True What is the opposite of active engagement 0 Boredom A happy life may not always be a meaningful life 0 True Any activity that you enjoy can be a project of worth according to Wolf 0 False Chapter 50 meaningful lives Activity can be judged as meaningful or meaningless o Depends on the person who is performing the act Can characterize lives as 0 Long or short 0 Moral or immoral 0 Successful or unsuccessfully in various respects I Accumulating business pro ts I Creating artistic works I Maintaining loving relationships To ask whether a life is meaningful is to pose a question that incorporates an enigmatic term Searching for the right answer leads to frustration Vitrano says that an obvious problem with Wolf 5 position is that by her own admission she has neither a philosophical theory of what objective value is nor a substantive theory about has that sort of value she relies on shared intentions regarding the worth of various activities but to assume such agreement is unjusti ed Some people appreciate an activity Wolf disparages yet dismisses one she values highly Example spending thousands of hours training for a marathon may seem wearisome so spending hours on a computer may engage them Only deepens Wolf s dif culty because the same activity could be judged as meaningful or meaningless depending on why a person engages in it If you do not agree with Wolf 5 point of view then you could accept Richard Taylor s position that a meaningful life is one that affords you longterm satisfaction regardless of the activities you choose Taylor claims that Sisyphus would be happy were he contended with his life but meaningfulness means more than contentment Wolf emphasizes that point but cannot say what more is required Neither point is convincing Vitrano says that lives can be characterized as long or short moral or immoral as well as successful or unsuccessful in various respects including accumulating business pro ts creating artistic works or maintaining loving relationships To ask whether a life is meaningful however is to pose a question that incorporates an enigmatic term Searching for the right answer leads on to frustration Summary Question Vitrano s opinion of Taylor s and Wolf s accounts of meaningful lives saying that 0 Neither is entirely convincing Argues that wolf is mistake in thinking that people mostly agree about what 0 Which activities are objectively valuable Vitrano suggests that Wolf might say an activity is worthwhile only if a person takes it seriously What is Vitrano39s response to that 0 Then the same activity could be meaningful or not I Depending on ones motives What does Virtrano argue about the notion of objective value 0 Weakens wolfs theory Without the idea of objective value we could simply say that a life you find enjoyable is the same as a meaningful life What is Vitrano39s objection to defining meaningful lives this way 0 Why call it meaningful rather than just saying that it is happy or pleasant Does Vitrano think there are problems with both Taylor s and Wolf s accounts of meaningful lives 0 Yes Vitrano agrees with Wolf in thinking that most people agree on which activities are objectively valuable 0 False Does Vitrano feel that the problem with Wolf s theory is that it relies on the notion of objective value which is not eXplained 0 Yes Vitrano39s objection to Taylor39s theory is that Taylor incorrectly thinks that meaningfulness means more than contentment 0 False Vitrano39s conclusion is that we should stop trying to describe lives in terms of meaningful or not meaningful 0 True Af rmative action Chapter 40two concepts of affirmative action analyze the issues in the dispute over af rmative action Your conclusion may differ from mine but I hope you nd that the article contributes toward an increased understanding of this complex matter 0 He claims not to give an opinion but to analyze to explain the history of Af rmative ActionAA and what in uenced AA in it s beginning This was a committee to encourage employers to hire based on skill instead of race creed color or national origin This was based rst and foremost to give equal opportunity for employment when all applicants had equal skill this committee had nothing to do with equal pay for equal work hire regardless of sexual orientation etc 0 Does not change or in uence education So those who have the skill the employer seek are still the same because those who achieve education have not been addressed The Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity was abolished and the responsibilities it held were transferred to the Secretary of Labor December 1971 Dept of Labor was issued from Pres Richard M Nixon Revised Order No 4 requiring all federal contractors to develop an acceptable AA program including 6an analysis of areas within which the contractor is de cient in the utilization of minority groups and women and further goals and timetables to which the contractor s good faith efforts must be directed to correct the de ciencies o Minority Groups were referred to as Negros American Indians Orientals and Spanish Surnamed Americans 0 These terms to de ne minority groups by using these terms is inherently racist To attain goals of revised AA means that the country would have to shift to be completely willing to hire minority groups if they were to not only apply for the position but meet the requirements for the job Back to issues with lower and higher education availability and treatment towards people of minority groups To adopt any policy that continues to treat essentially irrelevant criteria as relevant is to share the guilt of those who discriminated originally Irrelevant criteria should be recognized as such and abandoned as soon as feasible At least three reasons 0 They would be especially effective teachers of any student who shares their race sex or ethnicity 0 They would be particularly insightful researchers because of their experiencing the world from distinctive standpoints 0 They would be role models demonstrating that those of a particular race sex or ethnicity can be effective faculty members AA will only mean that the elements of race sex creed color religion and ethnicity are not a deciding factor of why someone was not hired but it adds an element of so many more people are able to apply for this job and we must truly take what we as employers are looking for and classify and go through a thorough process of who would fit best the position we are looking to fill But even with AA in place discrimination based on the above listed will still happen but they are greatly reduced If our standpoints 0 To decide everything based on the individual aspect would take so many different characteristics and even then one would not have a complete picture of someone because that person is an individual and more unique and amazing than anyone else could ever understand from the perspective of an outsider Why make decisions based on fallible racial generalizations when judgments of individual merit are obtainable and more reliable the crucial feature of a person is supposed to be not what the person does but who the person is 0 We seek ourselves in who we look up to Role models would then both encourage members of a group that had suffered discrimination and discourage further discrimination against the group The person chosen would need to be viewed as having been selected by the same criteria as all others 0 It is a bit of strange controversial statement but at the same time it makes perfect sense We must judge all by the same criteria but it is people s differences that make them who they are Those who suffered discrimination would conclude that it still eXists while those prone to discriminate would conclude that members of the group lack the necessary attributes to compete equally 0 Those who have eXperienced discrimination can point out where it is what it is and from whom it comes from Those who are privileged and have never eXperienced discrimination do not understand what being discriminated means in any sense and so they believe that discrimination does not eXist or is not as bad as members of the group say it is The approach that ensures merit selection is procedural AA It maximizes equal opportunity by demanding vigilance against every form of discrimination Before deeming them necessary evils in the struggle to overcome pervasive prejudice why not try scrupulous enforcement of procedural AA This is saying that instead of dealing with the root of the problem and addressing it and making sure that it would not continue instead we push the root of these sources of discrimination out of our minds and instead make the point that we need representation while leaving discrimination alone the point here We need representation we need professionals of every race color creed and anything else that applies We also need to educate those in our society who are privileged what their privilege gives them and then eXplain why they discriminate against other groups by acting how they wish regardless of anything else SummaryQuestions Cahn is in favor of procedural affirmative action What president s administration was the rst to use the term affirmative action 0 Kennedy Which of the following presidential administrations did NOT implement preferential affirmative action policies 0 Kennedy What is not one of the Cahn s objections to preferential affirmative action 0 It assumes that victim of discrimination deserve to be compensated What is an outcome of preferential affirmative action 0 Doubts about the abilities of those chosen Is Cahn in favor of procedural forms of affirmative actions 0 Yes Procedural affirmative actions declares sex religion and nation origin to be irrelevant for employment 0 True Does Cahn believe that victims of discrimination deserve compensation 0 Yes Should preferential treatment be given to victims of sexual and racial prejudice only 0 No Cahn believes that procedural affirmative actions are the best way to maximize equal opportunity for all 0 True Chapter 41What good am 1 Af rmative action 0 An action or policy favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination especially in relation to unemployment or education 0 Thesis 0 In a morally perfect world it is no doubt true that if women and minorities were the most quali ed they would be hired by virtue of their merits But this truth tells me nothing about how things are in this world It does not show that biases built up over decades and centuries do not operate in the favor of say white males over nonwhite males p3 99 o Discrimination against minorities and women which leads to a disadvantage for them in academia Ole Boy relationships 0 Relationships formed between minority teachers and white students is based entirely off of emotion with race or sex having no impact this causes white students to feel superior causing racism and the separation of different groups 0 What should happen according to Thomas I That relationship formed between teachers and students should be entirely emotional and never include a discrimination based on gender or race Role model argument page 398 o It is also the argument that I think is the least satisfactory not because women and minorities do not need role models everyone does but because as the argument is often presented it comes dangerously close to implying that about the only thing a black for instance can teach a white is how not to be a racist Intellectual af rmative action 0 Has to do with gratitude and nonverbal behavior 0 A lot of this racism still exists because many people make a verbal commitment to advocate equality but their actions don t support their claims 0 One of the reasons white people don t realize racism is because they say they re going to x it but when it occurs they don t do anything about it or realize it because they re not experiencing it I Minorities realize it s not being xed more clearly because they re on the receiving end and deal with the pain In academia women and minorities are heavily discriminated against 0 Racism is unintentional 0 Lack of trust in minorities by students and teachers 0 Af rrnative action is justi ed because it is used to overcome the social injustices that arise from this unintentional racism He says that in order for this to stop there needs t be gratitude and trust amongst all genders and races in academia 403 Says that it must be acknowledged that different groups shouldn t only trust each other Should be equality for everyone Summary Question What argument for af rmative action does Thomas nd the least convincing o The role model argument What is Thomas s objection to the counterfactual argument from quali cations 0 It overlooks the builtup biases that act against women and minorities What is Thomas s view of the idea that a teacher s race and gender matter 0 He accepts it on the grounds that racism often undermines the trust students must have in their mentors Why is it often harder to convince a women or minority person that we are committed to racial and gender equality than it is to convince ourselves 0 Our nonverbal behavior which we are not in a position to see often belies our explicit commitment to equality What does Thomas nd is the commonly expressed wish for more minorities and women in the academy to be 0 Insincere Thomas is in favor of af rmative action in educational institutions because it ensures that minorities and women will have role models to look up to 0 False Does Thomas detect hypocrisy in the counterfactual argument from quali cations 0 Yes Thomas believes that knowledge is colorblind 0 True Thomas considers the success of many minorities in the modern world grounds for abolishing affirmative action 0 False Does Thomas argue that the number of women and minorities on a university s faculty should be proportional to their numbers in society 0 No Chapter 42 truth in advertising Preferential treatment and reverse discrimination are prevalent in the hiring process of candidates looking to seek a position in a collegeuniversity Preferential treatment is a job preference that is given to someone who is of the right race ethnicity or gender Preferential treatment 0 Prevalent in hiring process of candidates looking 0 see a position in a college or university Job posting for a particular position at a college university will be open to only females or people of a minority group Advertisements for the job may seem as though position is open to all but it is really only open to a few groups of people Reverse Discrimination 0 Reverse Discrimination is the unfair treatment of members of majority groups resulting from preferential policies as in college admissions or employment intended to remedy earlier discrimination against minorities 0 People who are hiring shouldn t use reverse discrimination so that the hiring process remains fair 0 We believe we know what is best for our departments although we cannot articulate why it is best at the same time admitting that deep problems of potential injustice reverse discrimination for example haunt our favored guidelines pg 406 Advertising 0 Academic departments should inform job candidates that they are looking to hire either a woman or person 0 Be more forward say at beginning I They are geared toward all persons but the ending will have a message like Women and minoritygroup candidates are especially encouraged to apply The University of X is an equal opportunity af rmative action employer 406 They may include messages like this one 0 Be honest I Gives false hope otherwise Quotas o Is a numerical requirement for hiring people of a particular race religion or gender 0 The point is that departments commonly act in setting out their goals in a way that suggest department members willingly endorse what either is or has a strong family resemblance to a quota 406 0 There are inconsistencies and contradictions in peoples attitudes towards hiring women minority group members for a position at universities I Contradiction is because even though those people are hiring oppose the use of quotas they still want to hire women and minorities Quotas aren t bad 0 More diversity 0 Advertising should be straight forward I If want to hire female than should 0 They don t say it because people then say I U did it because u needed to ll a quota Comparison 0 He compares the moral embarrassment of university s recruiting efforts to assisted suicide 0 Like the quota system assisted suicide is not often spoken about to avoid issues 0 It is an embarrassment to medicine that a practice so widespread is underground little discussed never publically announced and generally condemned in the profession In academic appointments our recruitment embarrassment is even more difficult to explain 407 Thesis 0 Morally acceptable for an academic department to aim to hire a specific percentage of females and minorities o I believe these endeavors often are morally praiseworthy They are honest openinthedepartment fair attempts to shape the character of an institution for the better 408 o Advertisements should be more truthful about who they are looking to hire so they don t lead others interested in the position to believe they have a chance Summary Question What is the contradiction that Beauchamp notices in peoples attitudes towards hiring women or minority job candidates 0 They are opposed to quotas but still say they want to hire a certain percentage of women and minorities What is a quota o A minimum number of people that must be hired from some particular group Beauchamp thinks that academic departments who are seeking to hire new faculty members should 0 Inform job candidates if they are seeking to hire a woman or person of color What is Beauchamp s opinion of af rmative action such as an academic department that aims to hire a certain percentage of women or people of color as faculty 0 It is morally praiseworthy Why are many people opposed to quotas 0 They are concerned that the most quali ed candidate might get passed over Beauchamp notices that many people are inconsistent when talking about quotas 0 True Job advertisements rarely come right court and say that the employer is seeking a woman or person of color 0 True Academics believe that they are wrong to seek a job candidate of a certain race or sex 0 False Beauchamp compares af rmative action to assisted suicide because getting a job through af rmative action is like career suicide 0 False Beauchamp thinks that quotas are morally praiseworthy 0 true Academia Chapter 43zconsensual sex on campus 3 possible endings to grad student who becomes involved with prof 0 Relationship unspoken I Isn t a good idea They have a professional relationship I Suspicion of their relationship Affects her job search Leads to her only obtaining temporary jobs and then leaving eld 0 They get married within 6 months of his arrival I Relationship is goodconversation for hours I Institution doesn t higher graduates Husband wont move I She alters her career path and goes to law school 0 Passionate affair I Great at rst Then goes sour I Hard to decided what happened rst Dissatisfaction with work or end of affair I She loses con dence in herself and her work I Seeks new chair Still gets criticism Thinks it is because he is badmouthing her I Now unlikely to nish her dissertation Thesis 0 I defend the moderate view that sexual relationships within universities should not be prohibited when one of the parties has direct supervisory authority over the other and should be strongly discouraged when there are signi cant power imbalances between the two 412 0 Its ok for student and prof to be involved as long as prof is not directly above her power wise and I That relationship is ok I Consensual Relations 0 Policy that seriously limited consensual relations on campus would also interfere significantly with the liberty to enter into relationships Core argument for a permissive policy about sexual relationships on campus I Privacy I Core liberties Value of autonomy I Insult Joan s intelligence to make her decisions and is particularly demeaning Affects women unequally I Preclude women students from a particularly desirable source of satisfying relationships may have to change fields or institutions I Women want a successful smart man and eliminating relationships between professor and bosses causes women to lose what they want I Problems 0 O O O Distracts from I Teaching I Learning I Research Interferes with core functions of academy I The development amp transmission of knowledge Con ict of interest I Impairs quality of professional services Educational quality can be distracted by these relationships I Impaired Consent O O O O Genuineness of the consent Sometimes even a clear yes is not what it seems Imbalance of power Medial ethics I For consent to be informed the patient s level of understanding must be such that she can give an account of the options available and possible consequences Coercive aspect I Students can sometimes feel overwhelmed in their new environment I Feel vulnerable and powerless I Person in power could take advantage of this and manipulate the situation How do you know when person under bossprof is actually saying yes Person with less power may feel obligated to say yes 0 Person fully understands what is going on and can understand the consequences Conclusion 0 Consensual relationships should be permitted when they don t threaten educational or opportunity mission of the campus 0 Consensual relationships should be permitted when a student is not under the direct supervision of a faculty member 0 Semesters quarters eventually end 0 Universities should try to help the people in the relationship make alternative arrangements so that one party is not overseeing the other 0 The university should also prohibit such relationships in other types of campus sexual relationships involving those in supervisory positions over their partners I Ex if spouse is teaching class that the spouse needs to take 0 When there are such imbalances there may be reason for concern about the quality of the consent and relationships that are not genuinely consensual are impermissible harassment on this basis Capacity 0 Medical ethics 0 Informed consent I Have to fully understand 0 In some situations there is an imbalance of power n person in authority will have some power over your academics and it can limit u in your free sense because you will look to please Does the physicianpatient relationship offer a useful analogy to the professor student relationship 0 Yes because common power imbalance 0 Prof has power over student 0 Doc power over patient 0 Divorce lawyer and client I Client vulnerable I Lawyer can manipulate to get what they want Student has to understand the consequences of their actions 0 Prof would have to sit down and make sure the student understands that they can not work together Summary Questions What is the point of the story about the character Joan 0 Romance with a professor can impact a students career What is the main argument that Francis is making about when the romantic relationships between students and teachers should be prohibited 0 When the teacher is directly supervising the student A romantic relationship between a teacher and a student can detract from the university39s mission of education by 0 Why might students have impaired ability to give consent to romantic relationships with a teacher 0 They may not fully understand the possible consequences What is paternalism o Overprotectiveness that is unnecessary and insulting Does Francis argue that universities should allow students and teachers to enter any relationships that they consensually choose 0 Yes Francis argues that universities should prohibit romances between students and teachers when there is a direct supervisory relationship between them truefalse 0 True Does Francis point out that banning all student teacher relationships could be seen as paternalistic 0 Yes Distractions are the only potential problem for a teacher who dates a student in his or her classtruefalse 0 False An example of a con ict of interest would be a teacher having to evaluate students for a scholarship when the teacher is romantically involved with one of the students 0 True Chapter 44 the letter writer s dilemma Profs asked to write letters for students who are below average Sher debates o What does the professor do in this instance I Lieexaggerate I Tell truththis would damage the students career I Pass the problem off to a colleague I Is there any other way out of this dilemma Page 420 Sher 0 Offers a way to compose a letter that will avoid candid assessment but will not assert falsehoods 0 421 o It is a source rather is a tension often severe between two different and equally legitimate moral demands one the duty to tell the truth and the other the obligation to do one s best to get jobs for one s students The basic difficulty is that it is logically impossible both to tell the full truth and to write a letter that will get a student a job that he would not get if the full truth were told o This is an explanation of the dilemma between writing the full truth which I Ultimately negatively effects the student or I To leave out parts of the truth in order to better the student for the position Moral Dilemma amp Moral Luck 0 Doesn t think this is a genuine moral dilemma o Believes that professors have an obligation to write on behalf of their students that are sometimes in a position in which anything they do will be at least somewhat wrong 0 When faculty members are placed in this position it is not due to any particular wrongdoing but it is a case of bad moral luck 421 o Moral luck I Refers to a situation in which asserting a persons actions depends on factors beyond the agents control He gives tips for stressing the positive and downplaying the negative qualities of the student 0 To tell the truth without lying but to leave out negative qualities and exaggerating the positive qualities that the student possess Professors should compromise 0 Do what they can for weaker students 0 Try to write letters that will not exclude the from the position 0 Yet still making connections to the truth Professor Responsibility 0 To make the weaker student better 0 Why I Because they agreed to write the letter I Admitted them into the program 0 Play up the positives of the student Their responsibility to what they can for weaker students Thesis 0 The basic problem is that it is logically impossible both to tell full truth and to write a letter that will get a student a job that he would not get if the truth were told 424 He doesn t say to lie but not to over exaggerate Summary Question What is the dilemma Sher writes about between 0 A duty to tell the truth and a duty to help ones students How does Sher describe professors who find themselves in this moral dilemma 0 As victims of bad moral luck What does Sher believe would happen if professors wrote completely honest letters about student they believe to be below average 0 The letter could doom the students chances of employment Sher considers several possible responses to the letter writer s dilemma Which one does he end up arguing for o Compromisetry not to lie too much but give the student the best chance possible For a belowaverage student Sher suggests which techniques 0 A resounding but vague expression of support and aiming for a letter between truth and falsity Does Sher believe it is possible to tell the full truth about a belowaverage student and still write a supportive letter of recommendation 0 No Sher39s letter writer39s dilemma is a situation that a professor gets into without any prior wrongdoing through bad moral lucktrue false 0 True Letters of recommendation are typically expected to be very honest Without exaggeration truefalse 0 False Does Sher believe that a professor has a duty to tell the truth and a con icting duty to help students 0 Yes Sher39s solution to the dilemma is that a professor shouldn39t get into the situation in the rst placetruefalse 0 False
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'