Ethics 4

Summarize the thought experiment John Rawls proposes to address the challenge of inequality in forming a social contract. (Be sure to explain the concepts of the original position and the veil of ignorance.)

"Suppose that when we gather to choose the principles, we don't know where we will wind up in society. Imagine that we choose behind a "veil of ignorance" that temporarily prevents us from knowing anything about who in particular we are. We don't know our class or gender, our race or ethnicity, our political opinions or religious convictions. Nor do we know our advantages and disadvantages- whether we are healthy or frail, highly educated or a high-school dropout, born to a supportive family or a broken one. If no one knew any of these things, we would choose, in effect, from an original position of equality. Since no one would have a superior bargaining position, the principles we would agree to would be just." Rawls invites us to ask what principles we-as rational, self-interested people- would choose if we found ourselves in that postion. He doesn't assume that we are all motivated by self-interest in real life; only that we set aside our moral and religious convictions for purposes of the though experiment. What principles would we choose? -First, he reasons we would not choose utilitarianism. No one would risk being the Christian thrown to the lions for the pleasure of the crowd. *Social contract- hypothetical agreement in an original position of equality

Explain van den Haag's concluding argument that murder is self‐inflicted degradation, and explain how van den Haag thinks this justifies execution. Is this argument deontological or consequentialist? Explain.

Common sense indicates that it cannot be death-- our common fate-- that is inhuman. Therefore, Justice Brennan must mean that death degrades when it comes not as a natural or accidental event, but as a deliberate social imposition. The murderer learns through his punishment that his fellow men have found him unworthy of living; that because he has murdered, he is being expelled from the community of the living. This degradation is self-inflicted. By murdering, the murderer has so dehumanized himself that he cannot remain among the living. The social recognition of his self-degradation is the punitive essence of execution. To believe, as Justice Brennan appears to, that the degradation is inflicted by the execution reverses the direction of casuality.

Explain the "compensation argument" for Affirmative Action, and how Pojman critiques this argument.

- The argument goes like this: blacks have been wronged and severely harmed by whites. Therefore white society should compensate blacks for the injury caused them. Reverse discrimination in terms of preferential hiring, contracts, and scholarships is a fitting way to compensate for the past wrongs.

Explain how Reiman argues that execution is horrible in a way that is similar to the wrongness of torture.

- "Calling for the abolition of the death penalty, though it be just, then, amounts to urging that as a society we place execution in the same category of sanction as beating, raping, and torturing, and treat it as something it would also not be right for us to do to offenders, even if it were their just deserts." - Torture is to be avoided not only because of what it says about what we are willing to do to our fellows, but also because of what it says about us who are willing to do it. - "By placing execution alongside torture in the category of things we will not do to our fellow human beings even when they deserve them, we broadcast the message that totally subjugating a person to the power of others and confronting him with the advent of his own humanly administered demise is too horrible to be done by civilized human beings to their fellows even when they have earned it: too horrible to do, and too horrible to be capable of doing. And I contend that broadcasting this message loud and clear would in the long run contribute to the general detestation of murder and be, to the extent to which it worked itself into the hearts and minds of the populace, a deterrent. Refusing to execute murderers though they deserve it both reflects and continues the taming of the human species that we call civilization."

What is "colorblindness" according to Aleinikoff?

- "In the colorblind world, race is an arbitrary factor-one upon which it is doubly unfair to allocate benefits and impose burdens: one's race is neither voluntarily assumed nor capable of change. For nearly all purposes, it is maintained, the race of a person tells us nothing about an individual's capabilities and certainly nothing about her moral worth.

Explain what Reiman calls the "retributivist principle" and how this principle in Reiman's view supports the justice of the lex talionis. What does the retributivist principle not settle about punishment, according to Reiman? Explain.

- "The equality and rationality of persons implies that an offender deserves and his victim has the right to impose suffering on the offender equal to that which he imposed on the victim" - This principle provides that the lex talionis is the criminal's just desert and the victim's right. - The principle also indicates the point of retributive punishment, namely, it states the equality and rationality of persons, victims and offenders alike.

Explain Clifford Geertz's concept of "local knowledge." How does this concept call for race-consciousness?

- "To see ourselves as others see us can be eye opening. To see others as sharing a nature with ourselves is the merest decency. But it is from the far more difficult achievement of seeing ourselves amongst others, as a local example of the forms human life has locally taken, a case among cases, a world among worlds, that the largeness of mind, without which objectivity is self-congratulation and tolerance a sham, comes."

Explain how van den Haag argues that the death penalty cannot be unjust to the guilty criminal. Explain how this argument is consistent with the normative theory of ethical relativism.

- Although penalties can be unwise, repulsive, or inappropriate, and those punished can be pitiable, in a sense the infliction of legal punishment on a guilty person cannot be unjust. By committing the crime, the criminal volunteered to assume the risk of receiving a legal punishment that he could have avoided by not committing the crime. The punishment he suffers is the punishment he voluntarily risked suffering and, therefore, it is no more unjust to him than any other event for which one knowingly volunteer to assume the risk. Thus, the death penalty cannot be unjust to the guilty criminal (24).

Explain how Aleinikoff argues that race makes a difference in society. What does Aleinikoff mean when he says that "Being white...means not having to think about it"?

- Blacks are worse off than whites. Compared to whites, they have higher rates of unemployment, lower family incomes, lower life expectancy, higher rates of crime victimization, and higher rates of teenage preg and single parent households. Less likely to go to college, less likely to graduate. Underrepresented in their professions, in the academy, and in the national gov. - Being white, you don't have to face the struggles black people have to face everyday such as all of those problems above. Whites don't have to worry about being accused of a crime they didn't do, underrepresented in their profession, and discouraged solely off of their race like black people do, they don't have to be as cautious or worried about what will happen to them because they're white.

Explain the objection to race-consciousness that it reinforces racism. Explain how Aleinikoff defends race-consciousness against this objection.

- Blacks remain overwhelmingly in favor of affirmative action. Would we not expect blacks to be the first to recognize such harms and therefore to oppose affirmative action if it produced serious stigmatic injury?

Explain how van den Haag argues that the possibility of miscarriages of justice is not a decisive reason to eliminate the death penalty.

- Despite precautions, nearly all human activities, such as trucking, lighting, or construction, cost the lives of some innocent bystanders. We do not give up these activities, because the advantages, moral or material, outweigh the unintended losses (12). Analogously, for those who think the death penalty just, miscarriages of justice are offset by the moral benefits and the usefulness of doing justice. For those who think death penalty unjust even when it does not miscarry, miscarriages can hardly be determining/conclusive.

What is "reverse discrimination"? Explain Pojman's presentation of the argument for Affirmative Action that he calls "The Two Wrongs Make a Right Thesis." Is this a deontological argument or consequentialist argument?

- Reverse discrimination is a claim that occurs when a member or members of a majority are discriminated against on the basis of a protected factor, such as race or gender. - Pojman argues against strong affirmative action - The Two Wrongs Make a Right Thesis goes like this: Because some Whites once enslaved some Blacks, the decedents of those slaves, some of whom may now enjoy high incomes and social status, have a right to opportunities and offices over better qualified Whites who had nothing to do with either slavery or the oppression of Blacks, and who may even have suffered hardship comparable to that of poor Blacks. In addition, Strong Affirmative Action creates a new Hierarchy of the Oppressed: Blacks get primary preferential treatment, women second, Native Americans third, Hispanics fourth, Handicapped fifth, and Asians sixth and so on until White males, no matter how needy or well qualified, must accept the left-overs. Naturally, combinations of oppressed classes (e.g., a one eyed, Black Hispanic female) trump all single classifications. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment becomes reinterpreted as "Equal protection for all equals, but some equals are more equal than others."

Explain the "diversity argument" for Affirmative Action, and how Pojman critiques this argument.

- Diversity for diversity's sake is moral promiscuity, since it obfuscates rational distinctions, undermines treating individuals as ends, treating them, instead as mere means (to the goals of social engineering), and, furthermore, unless those hired are highly qualified, the diversity factor threatens to become a fetish. - There may be times when diversity may seem to be "crucial" to the well-being of a diverse community, such as a diverse police force. Suppose that White policemen overreact to young Black males and the latter group distrust White policemen. Hiring more less qualified Black policemen, who would relate better to these youth, may have overall utilitarian value. But such a move, while we might make it as a lesser evil, could have serious consequences in allowing the demographic prejudices to dictate social policy. A better strategy would be to hire the best police, that is, those who can perform in disciplined, intelligent manner, regardless of their race. A White policeman must be able to arrest a Black burglar, even as a Black policeman must be able to arrest a White rapist. The quality of the police man or woman, not their race or gender is what counts. *On the other hand, if the Black policeman, though lacking formal skills of the White policeman, really is able to do a better job in the Black community, this might constitute a case of merit, not Affirmative Action. This is similar to the legitimacy of hiring Chinese men to act as undercover agents in Chinatown.7

Explain how Aleinikoff uses the example of a desegregated junior high school that instituted strong colorblind policies to argue that strong colorblindness is both impossible and undesirable.

- In the desegregated junior HS, it's important to point out the accomplishments that black people have made- its important to note the race of the person who had made such an impact because race was a huge issue at the time. Its impossible to ignore race and have a world in which race doesn't matter

Explain how Aleinikoff argues that racial attitudes cannot be treated simply as "stereotypes" that can be corrected with more information about social groups. Explain how Aleinikoff uses the example of IQ tests to illustrate his point.

- It's an incorrect or unthinking generalization applied indiscriminately to individuals simply on the basis of group membership. From this perspective, stereotypes can be overcome by supplying more info about an individual or the group to which that individual belongs. "Social science research suggests that stereotypes serve as powerful heuristics, supplying explanations for events even when evidence supporting non-stereotypical explanations exists, and leading us to interpret situations and actions differently when the race of the actors varies." - the IQ example displays the testing companies received two sets of data and chose to act on just one- the one that stated black people normally did worse on standardized testing than whites.

What are "just deserts"? Explain how Reiman argues that it is not right to punish assaulters, rapists, or torturers according to the lex talionis even though it might be a wrongdoer's just desert. Explain how this argument is consistent with virtue ethics.

- Just deserts- A punishment or reward that is considered to be what the recipient deserved. It may appear that they're getting ahead by cheating, but they'll get their just deserts in the end. - Rape is a crime that we ought not try to match. This is not merely a matter of imposing an alternative punishment that produces an equivalent amount of suffering, as some number of years in prison that might "add up" to the harm caused by a torturer, it still seems that we ought not torture him even if this were the only way of making him suffer as much as he has made his victim suffer.

What does Aleinikoff mean by "race-consciousness"? What sorts of programs and policies aside from Affirmative Action does Aleinikoff think are part of race-conscious policy?

- Race-consciousness, from this perspective, is disfavored because it assigns a value to what should be a meaningless variable. To categorize on the basis of race is to miss the individual. - Includes: ensuring the presence of persons of color on juries, taking race into account in allocating radio and television licenses, seeking nonwhites to fill positions in social service agencies that deal largely with minority populations, requiring voting rules and districts that improve the chances of electing minority representatives, fostering integration by adopting race-based school assignment plans and housing programs, taking measures to integrate police forces, giving weight to the race of applicants for teaching positions in higher edu. In each of these situations, the race consciousness of the program may be justified in other than remedial (and color blind) terms.

Explain the concepts of retributivism and the lex talonis.

- Retributivism- (as the world itself suggests) is the doctrine that the offender should be paid back with suffering he deserves because of the evil he has done, and the ***lex talonis asserts that injury equivalent to that he imposed is what the offender deserves. - Lex talonis- the law of retaliation, whereby a punishment resembles the offense committed in kind and degree (an eye for an eye)

Explain Aleinikoff's distinction between strong colorblindness and weak colorblindness.

- Strong colorblindness argues that race should truly be an irrelevant, virtually unnoticed, human characteristic. - Weak colorblindness would not outlaw all recognition of race, but would condemn the use of race as a basis for the distribution of scarce resources or opportunities and the imposition of burdens.

Explain Reiman's claim that the lex talionis and the Golden Rule have a striking affinity. What is the common moral inspiration behind both rules?

- The golden rule mandates "do unto others as you would have others do unto you," while the lex talionis counsels "do unto others as they have done unto you." - Lex talionis is the law enforcement arm of the golden rule, at least in the sense that if people were actually treated as they treated others, then everyone would necessarily follow the golden rule because then people could only willingly act toward others as they were willing to have others act towards them. - The two share a common moral inspiration: the equality of persons. Treating others as you WOULD have them treat you means treating others as equal to you, because adopting the golden rule as one's guiding principle implies that one counts the suffering of others to be as great a calamity as one's own suffering, that one counts one's right to impose suffering on one, and so on.

Explain the objection to the death penalty that it is excessive and degrading. Explain how van den Haag uses Kant's ethical theory to argue that the death penalty is not degrading to the convicted murderer.

- To regard the death penalty as always excessive, one must believe that no crime-- no matter how heinous-- could possibly justify capital punishment. Such a belief can be neither corroborated nor refuted; it is an article of faith. - Alternatively, or concurrently, one may believe that everybody, the murderer no less than the victim, has an imprescriptible (natural?) right to life. The law therefore should not deprive anyone of life.

Does van den Haag believe that the death penalty is justified by its deterrent effects? Explain.

- Van Den Haag believes because of the finality of the death penalty, it is more feared than imprisonment, and deters some prospective murderers not deterred by the thought of imprisonment. - Sparing the lives of even a few prospective victims by deterring their murderers is more important than preserving the lives of convicted murderers because of the possibility, or even the probability, that executing them would not deter others. Whereas the lives of the victims who might be saved are valuable, that of the murderer has only negative value, because of his crime. Surely the criminal law is meant to protect the lives of potential victims in preference to those of actual murderers.

Explain the "role models" argument for Affirmative Action, and how Pojman critiques this argument.

- We all have need of role models, and it helps to know that others like us can be successful. We learn and are encouraged to strive for excellence by emulating our heroes and "our kind of people" who have succeeded. * Suppose we discovered that tall handsome white males somehow made the best role models for the most people, especially poor people. Suppose even large numbers of minority people somehow found inspiration in their sight. Would we be justified in hiring tall handsome white males over better qualified short Hispanic women, who were deemed less role-model worthy?

Explain Pojman's distinction between Weak Affirmative Action and Strong Affirmative Action, and his stance toward the moral justification of each.

-By Weak Affirmative Action I mean policies that will increase the opportunities of disadvantaged people to attain social goods and offices. It includes the dismantling of segregated institutions, widespread advertisement to groups not previously represented in certain privileged positions, special scholarships for the disadvantaged classes (e.g., the poor, regardless of race or gender), and even using diversity or under representation of groups or history of past discrimination as a tie breaker when candidates for these goods and offices are relatively equal. The goal of Weak Affirmative Action is equal opportunity to compete, not equal results. We seek to provide each citizen regardless of race or gender a fair chance to the most favored positions in society. There is no more moral requirement to guarantee that 12% of professors are Black than to guarantee that 85% of the players in the National Basketball Association are White. - By Strong Affirmative Action I mean preferential treatment on the basis of race, ethnicity or gender (or some other morally irrelevant criterion), discriminating in favor of under-represented groups against over-represented groups, aiming at roughly equal results. Strong Affirmative Action is reverse discrimination. It says it is right to do wrong to correct a wrong. It is the policy that is currently being promoted under the name of Affirmative Action, so it I will use that term or "AA" for short throughout this essay to stand for this version of affirmative action. I will not argue for or against the principle of Weak Affirmative Action. Indeed, I think it has some moral weight. Strong Affirmative Action has none, or so I will argue.

What is distributive justice? Explain how van den Haag argues for the conclusion that maldistribution of the death penalty is irrelevant to the question of the justice or morality of the death penalty.

-Distributive justice concerns the nature of a socially just allocation of goods in a society. A society in which incidental inequalities in outcome do not arise would be considered a society guided by the principles of distributive justice. -Maldistribution of any punishment among those who deserves it is irrelevant to its justice or morality. Even if poor or black convicts guilty of capital offenses suffer capital punishment, and other convicts equally guilty of the same crimes do not, a more equal distribution, however desirable, would merely be more equal. It would not be more just to the convicts under sentence of death.

Summarize Rawl's two principles of justice, the liberty principle and the difference principle. ******How is each principle ethically framed?

-The difference principle: only those social and economic inequalities are permitted that work to the benefit of the least advantaged members of society The difference principle represents an agreement to regard the distribution of natural talents as a common asset and to share in the benefits of this distribution whatever it turns out to be. -Each person has an equal right to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties which is compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for all. "fully adequate" = fully adequate for the development and full and informed exercise of the two moral powers. "the equal basic liberties" = "freedom of thought and liberty of conscience; the [fair value of the] political liberties and freedom of association, as well as the freedoms specified by the liberty and integrity of the person; and finally, the rights and liberties covered by the rule of law." One of the liberties of the person "is the right to hold and to have the exclusive use of personal property."

Summarize Rawl's distinction between moral desert and entitlement. Explain how the distinction between games of change and games of skill illustrate this distinction. Definitions subject to change.

-Unlike a desert claim, an entitlement can arise only once certain rules of the game are in place. It can't tell us how to set up the rules in the first place. ***Moral desert- We say that effort deserves success, wrongdoing deserves punishment, innocent suffering deserves sympathy or compensation, virtue deserves happiness, and so on. ***Entitlement- The fact of having a right to something. -Play the lottery, and number comes up= entitled to my winnings. Can't say I deserved to win because lottery is a game of chance. Winning/losing has nothing to do with my virtue or skill in playing the game. Boston Red Sox winning the world series= entitled to the trophy. Deserved to win due to skill of the game -With a game of skill, unlike a game of chance, there can be a difference between who is entitled to the winnings and who is deserved to win. This is because games of skill reward the exercise and display of certain virtues.

Summarize the three rival theories of justice, including how the second improves on the first, and the third improves on the second. What is the common flaw in the second and third theories?

1. Feudal or caste system: fixed hierarchy based on birth. 2. Libertarian: free market with formal equality of opportunity 3. Meritocratic: free market with fair equality of opportunity. *Rawl's says the three theories bases distributive shares on factors that are arbitrary from a moral point of view-whether accident or birth, or social and economic advantage, or natural talents and abilities. Only the diff principle avoids basing the distribution of income and wealth on these contingencies.

How according to Sandel does John Rawl's thought experiment depict a "perfect contract"?

Imagine a contract among parties who were equal in power and knowledge, rather than unequal; who were identically situated, not differently situated. And imagine that the object of this contract was not plumbing or any ordinary deal, but the principles to govern our lives together, to assign our rights and duties as citizens. A contract like this, among parties like these, would leave no room for coercion or deception or other unfair advantages. Its terms would be just, whatever they were, by virtue of their agreement alone. If you can imagine a contract like this, you have arrived at Rawl's idea of a hypothetical agreement in an initial situation of equality. The veil of ignorance ensures the equality of power and knowledge that the original position requires. By ensuring that no one knows his or her place in society, his strengths or weaknesses, his values or ends, his veil of ignorance ensures that no one can take advantage, even unwittingly, of a favorable bargaining position.

Explain how Rawl's Difference Principle describe an alternative to the three rival theories of justice, the egalitarian theory, and how Rawls argues that it more fully realizes the ideal of distributive justice.

Objections: Incentives and effort.

Why according to Sandel is the fact that both parties to a contract have consented to it not enough to make it a fair contract? Discuss the evidence Sandel offers to support this claim.

The fact of an agreement does not guarantee the fairness of the agreement. Second, consent is not enough to create a binding moral claim. Ex. The lady that paid a plumber $50,000

Explain the second reason that Rawls rejects moral desert as the basis of distributive justice.

The qualities that a society happens to value at any given time also morally arbitrary(unpredictable) Even if I had sole, unproblematic claim to my talents, it would still be the case that the regards these talents reap will depend on the contingencies of supply and demand.

Explain how according to John Rawls inequalities present a challenge to forming a "social contract".

We would find it difficult to agree- different people favor different principles, reflecting their various interests, moral and religious beliefs, and social positions. Some rich, some poor, some powerful and well connected and others less so. Some are members of racial, ethnic, or religious minorities, others not.