Notes from week 1 to 8
Notes from week 1 to 8 PHIL 106
Popular in Moral Issues
Popular in Department
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
This 24 page Class Notes was uploaded by Tran on Sunday October 9, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PHIL 106 at University of Nebraska Lincoln taught by Edward Becker in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 338 views.
Reviews for Notes from week 1 to 8
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 10/09/16
Drug Legalization Aquinas (integrates Aristotle into Christian faith) I. Law in General: rule of reason directed to the COMMON good a. Referring to ideal laws II. Types of Law: a. Eternal: laws of the universe= rational b. Natural: rational laws i. how things are AND how things ought to be (descriptive & prescriptive) ii. Fulfilling our nature= we are being natural & we are fulfilling our function iii. Based on human nature= ethics comes from who we naturally are iv. Imprinted upon us (by God) : we are this way b/c of God thus participating in eternal law v. Principles based on our functions=> determine virtue vi. Ex: preserve one’s life; 10 commandments 1. These laws are obvious & have no exceptions vii. Lower level principles can have exceptions 1. Cities w/walls: not opening walls b/c you’re being attacked c. Human: laws made by humans i. Laws of the state ii. Aims at the common good (ideally) iii. Purpose: make people virtuous 1. Mill denies this iv. Must be flexible and allow exceptions (ex: cities w/ walls) v. Unjust laws don’t need to be obeyed III. Mill (Rule Utilitarism) a. Introductory: i. Harm Principle (Mill uses this argument) 1. “The Only Purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” 9/14 a. What constitutes a good reason in interfering w/ someone’s liberty: to protect that person from harming others, NOT from oneself b. We are free to have our own mind and person c. Reasoning/persuading someone to stop/do an action is ok…DON’T FORCE d. Principle doesn’t apply to people who are not mature i. Kids, mental, etc. ii. Utility: useful to society; sole source for addressing ethical issues 1. You’ll Get it right when you question whether/not to interfere w/someone’s freedom 2. Principle of Utility= ultimate appeal to justify moral principles Drug Legalization a. Justified in forcing people to do things & what they should not do iii.Harm principle supposed to show a Sphere of Liberty 1. Includes all traditional liberty(Declaration of Independence) & liberties not traditional 2. Includes actions that affect the agent & actions that affect a group 3. Freedom of thought, feeling, & expression 4. Freedom to plan your life how YOU see fit (Person/pursuit you want) 5. Freedom of combination/association b. Limits of Authority of State Over Individual i. General principle: “The individual should control those actions that concern his/her interest. Society should control those actions that concern its interests.” ii. Individual’s obligation: Responsibility= don’t do wrong & do right 1. not to violate rights of others 2. Bare his share of the burdens of protecting society from harm 3. Not to harm others and to consider other’s welfare (if a person is in need and you have extra resources to help that person) a. Doesn’t violate people’s rights if you IGNORE, but you’re OBLIGATED to help iii. Society is able to punish individual’s who ignore 1 &2 obligations iv. Society is able to socially punish individual’s who violate #3 c. Objections & answer to those objections i. Person cannot seriously/ permanently harm himself without harming others=there are no self regarding actions…every action affects someone…therefore His principle would be empty then 1. There are several cases where harming yourself can harm others; society can put restrictions on the individual BECAUSE the restrictions are to prevent harm from others NOT the INDIVIDUAL 2. Self regarding action= anything that isn’t harming someone/society ii. Person is clearly harming only himself & there’s no redeeming actions…are we justified in interfering? 1. Society should then tolerate that person b/c it’s his action that only affects him a. You’re judging what is best for others = you KNOW more than them = not good reason to interfere b. Disapproving instead of protecting in reference to religious cases Drug Legalization i. => Ex: When Catholics are kneeling its degrading. Mill would say: you don’t like that/ disapproving rather than protecting them. d. Applications i. Economic Freedom: 1. Restrictions on trade are NOT violations on individual liberties b/c trade is a “social act”= involves interacting between PEOPLE a. Cannot favor free trade(harm principle does not apply) 2. Free trade is justified though b/c restrictions on trade does NOT produce economic benefits a. Principle of Utility does not justify restrictions 3. Issues of individual liberties are not involved in most questions regarding free trade (quality control, safety) a. Principle of liberty does not apply here b/c its not talking about self actions 4. Restrictions cannot be applied b/c infringing on buyer a. Restriction on poison prevents buyer from purchasing ii. Prevention of harm 1. Prevention of crime can be abused by government b/c anything can be seen as a potential crime a. Giving the government that power= dangerous 2. If someone were to see a person get ready to commit a crime= can stop them a. Clear case 3. Intervention is only justified when there is a CERTAINTY a. Clear & present danger not a POSSIBILITY 4. You can WARN a person of danger iii. Rights & Duties 1. Only time to restrict an action is if it causes harm to others a. Ex: drunkenness if they were going to do something dangerous iv. Offenses 1. Harm vs Offense a. Offensive isn’t always harmful v. Discouraging vice 1. It’s okay to DISCOURAGE actions a. Ex: taxing on drugs/alcohol to discourage use vi. Voluntary slavery 1. Exception to self harm principle 2. You can prevent someone from taking away their freedom b/c you’re preventing the enslavement of their liberty vii. Contracts 1. Only way to get out of a contract is through mutual release Drug Legalization a. No 3 party can be harmed 2. Freedom doesn’t include obligations you’ve made through a contract IntroToPhilosophy Rational thinking to problems not shown by science Not defined by its subject= no definite subject matter o Defined by methods As science progresses…questions occur 2 types of traditional questions: meaning or justifications This class focuses on ethics Bonevac General Intro: Arguments: defined by a linguistic expression of reasoning consisting of premises (assumes true) & conclusion (inferred by premises) o Validity: connection between premises and conclusion If premise is true so is the conclusion Ex: all pigs can fly -> Socrates is a pig -> Socrates can fly= valid NOT ALL VALID ARGUMENTS ARE TRUE o Inductively strong arguments: assumptions that give arguments validity Ex: I met some frats who were rude-> all Frats are rude= not valid b/c some may not be rude..but premise is supporting o Soundness: argument is valid & true premises o Cogent argument: inductively strong argument with a true premise o Validity -> if true= soundness o Inductive -> if true= cogent How to show an argument is invalid: 1) Construct a scenario where premisces are TRUE but conclusion is FALSE 2) Counter example (aristole) : give agument w/ same STRUCTURE but make it FALSE Find obvious premises to arguments so people have to agree with the conclusion Moral Arguments: appeals to moral principles; evaluative conclusion Factual/descriptive: how the world is? Evaluative, prescriptive, normative: how the world ought to be? Moral statement= conclusion Ex: stealing a book Moral principles: certain religions follow these (honor your parents) How to justify moral principle: o Use general moral principles Stealing-> breaks trust->everyone agrees stealing is wrong b/c it breaks trust o Moral induction: test the moral principles in ALL cases to see if true How to argue against moral principle: o Give example where moral principles conclude false Stealing bread for starving children Exceptions Defisible: can be defeated by coming up with exceptions Some try to show moral arguments to be defeasible Prima facie duty: would be a duty we follow unless outweighed by something heavier o Stealing bread for starving child…stealing > letting kids starve Moral Principles function as: justifying & explaining moral beliefs Moral theories divided by: 1) What should I do? Action 2) What kind of person should I be? Good person a. Virtue ethics: intrinsic good i. Only intrinsic good= happiness 1. GOOD PERSON WOULD FULFILL HIS FUNCTION OFHAPINESS Bonevac’s conclusion - Two types of moral theory: 1) What sort of person should we be? Virtue Ethics (Aristotle) - Intellectual virtue: acquiring knowledge through studying/learning - Morally virtuous: doing the right thing; acquired by practicing good habits a. Mean between 2 extremes and finding the mean between extremes= practical wisdom (ex: courage= mean between coward and rash) - (personal/pleasure?) Happiness= intrinsic good ...b/c any series of requests for justification leads eventually to the response “Because I want to be happy” - Instrumental goods other type of good - “A good person act in accordance w/virtue & to act virtuously is to act rationally” –pg 8 - Virtue is acting rationally 2) Kantianism (how should we act?) a. Having a good will and good intentions= worthy of happiness b. Act if & only if you can will it to be a universal law i. Borrowing money & promising to pay it back but not really wanting to pay it back 1. Maxum: breaking promise i. Can’t universally have everyone do this or promises will always be broken and have no meaning=don’t act on it -Utilitarianism: universal “Will this make everyone happier?”; two types (act vs rule) 1) act: max happiness applies directly to actions (ex: will the action bring happiness) 2) rule: applied to rules of actions not directly (ex: will the rule of breaking promises bring happiness) Pornography Bonevac I. Pornography & Harm a. Lack of connection between harm & porn i. Traditional exceptions to free speech 1. Not justified to false advertise, sexual harassment with words, persuading people to riot 2. All of these exceptions are stopped b/c the result of these actions may cause a harm; certain kinds of speech are harmful a. Ex: persuading a riot can cause a riot= danger ii. If one can show porn is harmful then it is justifiable to say porn is wrong 1. No obvious indication porn is wrong objectively II. Pornography & The benefits of communication a. Deciding what type of speech can/can’t be restricted is considered by weighing the benefits & harm it causes i. Benefits of information being conveyed by public officials> private citizens 1. People want information rather than keep it private ii. What’s the message in porn that benefits? 1. Seems to have no message thus no benefits iii. Mill’s argument on freedom of speech w/ Harm Principle 1. If information being suppressed is true then should not be suppressed 2. Even if information is false, suppressing = depriving the public with discussion of clarifying the truth a. Free discussion is ALWAYS beneficial 3. Pornography isn’t conveying any clear message there is no true/false no application of the Mill Argument III. The Legal Standard for Banning Porn a. The Standard: there are many reasons what is porn/ what can be banned i. Pruett : ‘sexual yuck’ 1. Average person/community sees as unacceptable ii. Depicting anything sexually offensive iii. Doesn’t contain artistic/political means b. Problems: i. How do you define community standards? 1. Local government officials have standardized it ii. What type of community are we speaking of? 1. There are different communities (internet, local), where/what is the standard in each community? iii. What can be censored? 1. Something that is not seen as sexually aroused by the common person might be seen as sexually arousing to one person a. Ex: showing foot fetishes to the common person won’t be a valid test rather show a foot fetish material to the common foot fetish person…if they see it as arousing then it is to be censored Burger & Douglas (1973) I. The Case (Miller vs California) a. CA had restrictions placed on obscene materials, but plaintiffs said CA is violating freedom of speech b. Majority Opinion (Burger) i. The Test: (see Bonevac) + material in question be taken as a whole 1. Must look @overall material & not look at just one part that may be explicit ii. The Arguments: 1. If Inability to give precise definition of porn is the reason we allow porn in the public, young people will see hardcore porn in public 2. It’s unreasonable to have the states make the laws on obscenity b/c it should be the community’s standard st 3. 1 Amendment protects materials that are artistic and politically informing; it’s supposed to help with exchange ideas politically and socially a. Porn has nothing to do with that c. Minority Opinion (Douglas) i. Language of 1 Amendment makes no exception on porn; “no law” ii. Judges and courts should not be in position to make something “obscene” 1. They should just stay out of it 9/28 Mackinnon I. Feminism a. Women live in a world of inequality b. Have come from abuse II. Pornography a. Porn sexualizes the abuse of women= promotes &accepts it b. Porn sexualizes hierarchy and dominance c. “Constructs what a woman is from what a man wants” d. Portrays women as wanting to be “bound, battered, tortured, humiliated, and killed” i. Softcore: women are depicted as wanting to be subjected e. “makes dominance and submission” into sex f. Inequality is the central dynamic i. Pornography is an institution of inequality g. Pornography is not fantasy “it is sexual reality” i. That’s what male/female sexuality is like h. Pornography constructs male sexuality as a consumption of female sexuality” i. Female sexuality= consumed and possessed by man i. The world is a ‘pornographic’ place j. Harm of pornography shows the harm of the hierarchy of women under men III. Obscenity & Pornography a. Attacks current obscenity laws (see obscenity laws) i. “looking at the work as a whole”= it should be enough to censor harmful sexual things being done to women ii. “treats artistic and scientific value”= artistic & scientific value should not matter if women are objective iii. Existing law does not treat porn as a women’s issue b. Legal definition of obscenity: defined by the law i. Porn vs obscenity 1. Obscenity= moral idea a. Abstract b. Porn is concrete (the reality of porn is always there) Her definition of c. Involves nudity excessive candor, arousal or pornography seems excitement, illegality of the depicted acts, may to only involve women in a hetero involve unnaturalness or pervet 2. Porn= political practice partnership a. Has a political affect; reinforces antifeminist attitude b. “Involves sex forced on women so It can be sold as profit, and forced on other women” c. “Involves women’s bodies being tied up, maned, rate, and made into things to be hurt, obtained, and accessed” i. Presented as nature of women d. Involves coercion (visible/ invisible) i. Visible: can see the sexual force ii. Invisible: can’t see the sexual subjectiveness happening to women 3. Harm: a. Obscenity doesn’t do harm b. Pornography is “integral to attitudes and behaviors of violence and discrimination that defines the treatment and status of women” IV. Comments a. “construction” metaphor= reinforces the concepts b. Use of word “pornography” i. Can’t redefine the word to mean something you want it to mean 1. Ex: calling someone “son of a bitch” because you want it Professor’s to mean a good person ii. Mackinnon’s redefining pornography is difficult advice: 1. Readers look at the word as the actual definition 2. Mackinnon sometimes goes back to the actual definition= Don’t redefine a word confusing iii. Arguments? 1. Doesn’t see that many arguments because she is **don’t write persuading like a lawyer like Mackinnon in 2. She talks in emotional stance philosophy 10/3/16 Attorney General’s Commission I. What causes harm? a. Scope of the concept i. Some harm government can deal with, some they cannot 1. Hurting someone’s feelings…government cannot intervene ii. Concept of harm is not limited to individual…but can be inflicted upon communities/societies iii. Harms can/cannot be observable or measurable iv. Harm should be distinguished from offenses b. Primary & secondary harms i. Primary: harms that in themselves are harmful 1. Rape, assault ii. Secondary: acts that are not harmful in itself, causes harm 1. Porn=contains sexual violence (primary) which makes porn secondary c. Analysis of pornography as harm i. Identify the alleged harm ii. Determine whether the harm is actually harmful iii. Examine the link between the material and the harm II. Violent Material a. Sexual violence i. Evidence has showed link between sexual violence material and aggression towards women ii. Common sense also justifies an increase in aggression towards women= increase in sexual violence 1. Evidence/common sense is referring to selecting a population (aggregate) and exposing them to the sexual violence material= aka on the average iii. Therefore sexual violence materials leads to violent behavior b. Other effects i. Exposure to porn causes users to believe victims of sexual violence are more responsible for the assault , that they have suffered less injury, and they are less degraded 1. Minimizes the effects upon the victims ii. Makes users believe sex offenders are less responsible= less negative attitude towards sex offenders iii. Exposure to these materials lead to a greater acceptance of the “rape myth” 1. Women enjoy being forced into sexual activities, that they enjoy being physically hurt. And the man who is forcing the actions is satisfying her ‘true’ desire…when a woman says NO she actually means YES c. Important details i. Bad effects of sexual violence material are more pronounced when the women are enjoying ii. Evidence shows that increasing sexual violence explicit material eventually leads to solely an increase in violence Conclusion: agree that sexual violence material= wrong III. Degrading Material i. Domination, subordination, humiliation…more common than sexual violence ii. Sexual violence 1. There is some evidence that shows exposure to degrading materials can cause attitude changes (rape myth, sympathy towards victim and offender) 2. There is less evidence that links degrading material to sexual aggression 3. People who have these attitudes are more likely to commit sexual violence Conclusion: Substantial exposure to materials of this type, there is some causable relationship between sexual violence, sexual coercion, or unwanted sexual aggression 4. Nonviolent effects: exposure to degrading material links attitude toward discrimination and segregation attitudes IV. Non-violent, non-degrading material a. conclusion: material of this type does NOT bear a causable link between rape or other acts of sexual violence b. bad effects: i. there may be a causable relationship between material and intimate relationships 1. these effects are subjectively harmful ii. harm can also be in exposing the privacy of sexual activity V. legal consequences a. What should the legal consequences upon each material? b. 8/29/16 Mill : rule& hedonism views o Utilitarianism: max happiness/ min unhappiness “Will this action max happiness?” Doing the right thing would will happiness Doesn’t have to be pleasurable Hedonism: similar to utilitarianism but adds happiness= pleasure o Unhappiness= pain and deprivation of pleasure o Qualities of Pleasure: to separate the animalistic from intellectuals a. Some pleasures are higher than others b. We should seek higher pleasures (intellectual); lower= animalistic The Test: to show objectivity-> “of any two pleasures if there be one to which all who have experienced both and given desire preference to one, that one is the higher pleasure” o Ex: (1) drinking beer (2) listening to classical music… whoever have experienced both can testify which one is more preferable/higher pleasure Happiness and contentment o Happiness is different than our animalistic pleasures o People can be content with animalistic pleasures but aren’t really happy o Virtue: being a good person, even if not beneficial your happiness, is beneficial to happiness of others o Argument for Utilitraisim: You can’t ignore secondary principles of utility: no need to ignore Need secondary to help support/advice Misapply the principles of utility: you can misapply any principle One of these advantages= deciding conflicting principles Ex: stealing bread for starving children o Resolved by which principle gives more happiness Thomas Aquinas Human good depends on human nature; to live well is to fulfill one’s function well o “just as an excellent knife cuts well and an excellent eye sees well, an excellent human being displays excellence in rational activity” o What a thing ought to do and be depends on its function ->depends on nature o Hierarchy of laws: Eternal Law (what a thing is) determines Natural Law (what at thing ought to do) which is applied to Human Law (which through reason man applies to particular circumstances) o Natural law: the participation in the eternal law in the rational creature o Human law aims @ common good, helps people become virtuous for their own good, is flexible to apply to circumstances, and laws must be just and support social structures o First precept of law: Good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided. Everything is based on this o People are inclined to do good but must acquire training to do good David Hume Reason can only lead us to conclusions but not to action Disconnect between reaching a moral conclusion and acting morally Claims passions are driving force to act 8/31 Russell 1940s (liberal w/ sexual morality) General Point: (tradition= premarital sex is wrong) speaks in 2 ways: ought to do & factual orientated parts Monogamy & Modern Life: much easier to enforce sexuality b/c population was small, people believed in sin, and people knew/cared about your actions o Now: population increase, sin ‘nonexistent’, people don’t care 2 Sources of Traditional Sexual Morality o (comes from the view Men were given sexual liberties; women expected to be pure) 1) Modesty: keeping sex life private 2) Jealousy: arouses anger…when rationalize = moral disapproval; men are jealous so women had to be pure? Two Sources of Change (during this time, sexual revolution was about to begin) 1) desire for women equality a. Double standard b. New ethics of sexual morality b/c of women equality..sexual morality=unequal i. Either give women sexual freedom or enforce strict laws on men 2) development of scientific outlook a. Improve knowledge on diseases & human psychology b. This development has included human behavior i. He says behavior is inconsistent with moral ethics…the way you act cannot be controlled (controversial) Jealousy, Polygamy, Sexual Ethics o Jealousy is natural but reinforced by (conventional views) traditional expectations and property of partner Will continue to exist as long as the fathers of the house have duties to their offspring & family Utilitarianism: (theoretical level this is what he is) he sees this view as a natural part of utilitarianism o Rule utilitarianism: “A moral code is good or bad to the extent that it promotes human happiness” o People will inevitably move away from the set moral code o Ex: you thought it was in general wrong to lie…but there are exceptions...but also recognize people know the exceptions…adopt the code : lying is wrong & sort out the exceptions rather than lie sometimes… =adopt strict codes so people can adjust o Sexual code should be accepted & also be between jealousy and polygamy Conclusions: o Women should not have children <20 o Young unmarried should have considerable sexual freedom so long as children are avoided (aiming towards teens) o Divorce should be allowed w/o blame to either party (advocated before popular) Divorce used to require some fault o Women should be free from the economic motives for having sex & Men should be free from paying for sex by getting married & supporting wives Women didn’t work outside of home so felt need to get married in order to be supported…let them work outside home Men had to get married in order to have sex…let them have premarital sex o Be honest with children about sex Used to not let them know anything Kant (Christian) (oppose to utilitarianism & how happiness is base of morality) A Good will is the only thing “good without qualifications” o The will to act…person of principle acting on correct moral principles o Trying to do the right thing o Happiness is NOT good unless combined with good will People with good will= happy ; bad will=unhappy People SHOULD NOT be happy if they have a bad will Imperatives: “formulations of commands of reason”; commands o Ex: shut the door. Honor your parents. o Hypothetical Imperatives expresses prudence: means to ends If you want to be healthy avoid smoke…if you want to make money go to school o Categorical Imperatives expresses morality: command actions good in itself w/o means Don’t commit adultery, honor your parents Which imperatives do you use for morality? The Categorical Imperative o 1 formulation: universal law (everyone does it) & maxims Maxims: doing things on purpose , you have in mind a general maxim where your actions fall…act on the correct maxim … if your maxim can be a universal law do it Ask if you can see others doing it o Examples: Lying promises: Make a promise in order to get a benefit but not keep it Maxim: say whatever to benefit Can this be a universal? No, because you could be taken advantage of/ No, because no one will be able to trust each other’s promises Developing one’s talent M: Not developing talents b/c lazy Can this be universal? No, because then no one will see each other’s talents Helping the needy M: withholding money for the poor b/c your selfish Can this be universal? No, because if you were poor you would not benefit o Classification of duties Necessary duties: couldn’t imagine violating these actions in another world Meritorious duties: imagine a world without this action , but you don’t want to live in it o Second Formulation: *gives the same result as 1 formulation* Always treat people w/ respect, never use them (using= subjective) o Autonomy: kind of freedom…subject to only laws of our will We have free will… Respecting people’s freedom= treating someone respectfully Sexual Morality 9/7 I. Mappes a. Bases on Kant…don’t use people b. From book talks a lot about Aristotle’s principles on sex c. Sexual behavior is immoral when using a person d. Conventional sexual morality (he doesn’t accept it) i. All sex outside of marriage is immoral (only permitted in marriage) ii. Non-marital sex w/o love is immoral-less restrictive e. Applying general principles to sexual morality f. Sees traditional sexual education as “ethic of pollution and taboo” g. sexual purity does not forbid desire: it simply ensures the status of desire as an interpersonal feeling h. task of sexual morality is to unite the person and the sexual…uniting ourselves with our bodies i. in conclusion: scruton thinks a lot about how passion and pleasures of our body are connected j. Using someone (“it is morally wrong for A to use B merely as a means, that is, in a way incompatible with respect for B as a person” pg 66) k. We all technically USE people, but the KEY is that these interactions entail MUTUAL recognition i. “A” immorally uses “B” if and only if , A intentionally acts in such a way that violates the requirement that B’s involvement with A’s ends be based on B’s voluntary consent 1. Whenever you involve someone in your action , they must give you their voluntary consent 2. w/o voluntary consent = immoral l. Exceptions: Voluntary consent can’t be given by children/mentally retarded/ drugged/drunk people m. 2 cases of using a person: i. Deception 1. Lying: A lies to B so A can get B to do something 2. Withholding relevant information: A doesn’t tell B info b/c B wouldn’t give consent if B knew....not giving INFORM consent ii. Coercion (takes away voluntary consent) 1. Occurrent: rape 2. Dispositional: making a threat a. Threat : undesirable consequence if you don’t do it/ withholding benefit a person is entitled= always wrong b. Offer: if you do what I want, I’ll give you a desirable consequence=some are wrong i. Immorality w/o using a person Sexual Morality 1. Ex: professor promises an A for having sex…isn’t using a person rather an offer (exploiting power) n. Believes some form of sexuality is morally wrong, but doesn’t buy conventional sexual morality i. Can’t defend conventional sexual morality on Kant’s moral philosophy II. Aristotle a. Review: what sort of people should we be? b. Review: intrinsic good vs instrumental goods i. (HAPPINESS= ultimate intrinsic good ;end in itself; end of all actions) c. Review: fulfills function well= good thing i. Unique feature of human beings= rationality ii. Our function is to reason-> virtuous life= reasoning d. Virtue: i. Review: intellectual & moral virtues= virtuous 1. Moral virtues: practice habits to obtain virtue/vice 2. Intellectual: gaining through learning/teaching ii. State laws are supposed to encourage virtue iii. Virtue is a mean between extremes 1. Coward------courage------------rash iv. Actions are virtuous if they are performed by virtuous people 9/12 1. Ex: courage performed by courageous people e. Happiness & virtue: proper pride- the crown of the virtues i. If you are morally virtuous you will have this pride of being morally virtuous (self respect) ii. Necessary condition of being happy-> can’t TRULY be happy w/o being morally good f. Practical Wisdom i. Human virtue is the state of making a person good ii. Virtue consists of feeling passion/action @ the right time, towards the right people, & in the right way iii. Virtue= mean : relative to US not the object; subjective 1. Ex: eating right/ exercise= reason depends on the person (mean) iv. The ability to find the MEAN III. Scruton (“conservative”) a. Sexual Virtue: special case of TEMEPERANCE i. Sexual happy= give & receive love including erotic love ii. Receive love only by giving it iii. Mean between animal LUST and VIRGINITY iv. Success to erotic love= fidelity to prevent jealousy 1. Give love by being faithful b. Moral Education: helps develop fidelity i. nupuality of desire: all cultures require fidelity ii. purity: seeing body as SACRED 1. certain sexual acts treat body as unsacred= polluting iii. not FORBIDDING desire; channel into interpersonal relationships Sexual Morality iv. should be encouraged to finding your ideal spouse 1. should be taught to post-pone sexual activity until you find your spouse v. prime focus on sexual morality: focus on BODY 1. body: embodies our PERSON 2. we are human beings, sexuality should be channeled into loving relationships c. sexual relationship: remain faithful & in marriage (traditional) d. Questions i. Doesn’t his position permit between unmarried people? Is he confining love to ONLY marriage ii. What would his position apply to love-less marriages? Is that bad? They’re married but not loving… iii. Does it follow all other sexual relationships outside of marriage are immoral? b/c marriage is the ideal sexual relationship Friedman & Bennett & Nadelman& Wilson- Drug Legalization Friedman (libertarian economist) I. Effects of Criminalization of Drugs (making drugs illegal) a. more $ for drug lords => gives drug lords more incentive to get people to do drugs b. Corrupts law enforcement= lots of $ involved= bribing enforcements/government i. Ex: mexico c. Reduces resources of law enforcement in more important cases (murder) d. Turned America into an arm camp i. U.S. has applied EXTREMELY measures to prevent smuggles of drugs (violence) e. Fills jails w/ Drug users= increase maintenance on prison f. Gives enforcer more power to invade our privacy i. Only way to restrict drug use is through invading privacy (ex: urine tests) g. People turn to crime… i. Addicts will do anything to get their drugs h. Increase of danger/disease b/c of impure drugs i. Drugs aren’t regulated= impure= disease and death of substance II. Benefits of legalization a. Rehabilitation b. Drop in street crime= cost is low = people can finance drug habits III. Analogy with Alcohol Prohibition a. Gov tried passing law to illegalize alcohol = fail (HIGH CRIME RATE ) IV. Ideas are more like Mills Bennett( “drug czar”-restricted) I. Costs of legalization (bad things that will happen if legal drugs) a. Drug use will increase i. Low cost & legality = more people will use drugs b. Fewer addicts will seek treatment i. Being an addict is not bad anymore c. Children & pregnant women would have easier access i. Even if it weren’t legal for them to do it, it’d be widely legal in society= easier access for them II. Refuting Friedman a. Why addicts turn to crime? i. Commit crime not b/c of drug use rather because they are already criminals b. Addicts wouldn’t give up crime i. Still would find convenient to do crime c. Wouldn’t eliminate black market i. Ex: legalizing marijuana= taxed = increase price = black market can find a way to eliminate tax and still sell their drugs III. Favor of illegalization Friedman & Bennett & Nadelman& Wilson- Drug Legalization a. Takes away drug addicts b. Increases peace i. Less drug use= less crime c. Educates citizens about right and wrong i. Thinks drugs are wrong= making it illegal= citizens learn it is wrong 1. Promoting virtue like Aquinas & Aristotle said Nadelman (like Friedman) I. The legalization Strategy a. “Government would make most of the substances legal to competent adults” i. ‘most’: there are still some drugs that are too dangerous that gov wouldn’t want to make legal ii. Competent adults: available for sane Adults (not children/mental) b. Government would regulate sales and production of drugs i. Laws ensuring that substance are pure/safe c. Make drug rehab more accessible for drug addicts d. Gov would offer honest drug education programs i. Maybe to prevent frightening them II. Failure of drug policies a. Have failed, are failing, and will continue to fail b/c fundamentally flawed i. Domestic efforts to restrict drugs have had LITTLE affect ii. International efforts have failed b/c there has always been a high demand of drugs in U.S. 1. Disallow legal market= bigger black market III. Reasons for Legalization a. Disadvantages: i. Divergent of resources (time, energy, $) from enforcements of laws against serious crimes ii. Laws of revenues from taxing sale of drugs 1. More $ for government iii. Organized criminals get more $...rather than to the government iv. Increase of crime finances purchases of drugs v. Increase drugs = increase violence 1. Increase in weapons, drug gangs – protect drugs vi. Recruitment of children 1. Have children sell/buy vii. Unhealthy (impure) viii. Invasion of privacy (drug tests) b. “not lead in a dramatic increase of drug abuse” i. Forbidden Fruit Effect (ie: Garden of Eden) 1. b/c they’re illegal more people want to try b/c “naughty” 2. once legal not so many b/c they are legal c. compares to criminalizing tobacco i. tobacco users and tobacco farmers will still sell on black market Friedman & Bennett & Nadelman& Wilson- Drug Legalization ii. foreign countries will become richer b/c of illegality iii. gov would have to reward people who snitch iv. Tobacco Enforcement Administration (T.E.A.) would have to employ more people to enforce laws v. Tobacco on black market will be hazardous (dangerous chemicals) vi. Corruption in government vii. N.C. will secede b/c they’re big tobacco state d. Benefits of legalization i. Increase revenue ii. Improve quality of urban life (decline in gang activity) iii. Reduction on homicide, burglary , robbery 1. No need to protect illegal stuff, $ for drugs iv. Better enforcement of other laws v. Improve quality of life for drug users 1. No more contamination / impure drugs e. Inconsistency of attitudes toward substances i. Compare illegal drugs & harmful of substances 1. Nicotine and alcohol= legal but are addictive & dangerous 2. Drugs like Marijuana and LSD aren’t so addictive/dangerous as legal drugs 3. ‘addictive’ a. Tolerance for it= use more to get same effect b. Withdrawal= stop using will go through this Wilson (like Bennett) I. Disadvantages of legalization a. Increase in drug addicts i. b/c lower prices & safer= more people will use b. increase availability to children i. easy access to adults= access to children c. dangers of crack i. bingers live just to get high ii. fetuses of drug users will suffer health d. refuting pro-drug users i. (cocaine) only a small % become addicts…legalizing will lead to small increase of addicts 1. That’s an assumption made from illegality a. Less incentive to be clean > addict if it were legal 2. Data about cocaine is different crack a. Legalizing crack would be more addictive…can’t use cocaine data to support crack legalization ii. Drug war already lost & hopeless cause 1. Making cocaine/heroine illegal has already reduced it iii. Criminalization increases crime 1. False: legalization will increase addicts -> increase in crime iv. Revenue for gov & increase in funds for support Friedman & Bennett & Nadelman& Wilson- Drug Legalization 1. If taxes on drugs are high, addicts will steal to support habits & black market will increase 2. If taxes are low, more addicts & less revenue e. Benefits for illegality i. Less addicts/ more treatment 1. If drugs were illegal, courts can compel addicts to seek treatment 2. Incentive to not do it ii. Education of cocaine 1. Using = moral issues 2. Cocaine use is bad iii. Alcohol vs cocaine 1. Alcohol does do more harm, but b/c it is LEGAL a. Not sure if alcohol should’ve been legal i. Already legalized, too late to illegal iv. Risks of legalization
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'