Ethics class guide - post quiz

Lindemann claims that studying ethics "doesn't improve your character." Why does she say this?

B/C if studying ethics could make you good, then the people who have advanced academic degrees in the subject would be paragons of moral uprightness. This doesn't make them any more moral than anyone else.

Lindemann claims that feminist ethics is "normative as well as descriptive." What does she mean by this? In what ways is feminist ethics more descriptive than other approaches to ethics?

Feminism is fundamentally about how things ought to be, while description plays the crucial but secondary role of helping us figure that out.

According to Lindemann, "Many people in the United States think of feminism as a movement that aims to make women the social equals of men..." Why does she reject this characterization? Explain both of the reasons she mentions.

First Problem: which men do women want to be equal to? A woman who is socially well off wouldn't get much from being equal to the men who are poor and lower class Second Problem: Men remain the point of reference. Even if we could figure out which men are the ones to whom women should be equal to, that way of putting it suggests that the point of feminism is somehow to get women to measure up to what men already are. Basically... this system forces women to focus on men and addresses men's conceptions of women rather than creating and developing women's values about themselves. (equal to which men? why equal to any men?)

[Misinterpretation] Singer is a utilitarian and argues from a utilitarian perspective. But utilitarianism is false and so his conclusion that we must give to the point that giving anymore would require giving up something of equal value is false.

He is a utilitarian, but one doesn't have to be a utilitarian to agree with his argument.

Explain what Aristotle means when he says "But this must be agreed upon beforehand, that the whole account of matters of conduct must be given in outline and not precisely...that the accounts we demand must be in accordance with the subject-matter; matters concerned with conduct and questions of what is good for us have no fixity, any more than matters of health." (145)

He means that we should use a guide when making decisions, so it's not to precise but is sensitive to the situation at hand. We shouldn't make decisions blindly without looking at what is happening.

Why does Garcia reject the view that racism is a matter of belief? Be sure to first explain what this view is.

The view: "the dogma that one ethic group is condemned by nature to congenital superiority" Rejects b/c thinks that their proposed preconceptions are themselves inadequate. Racism is about power not prejudice. The view he rejects is the one of a person is only racist if they have racist actions or belief. Garcia believes it is in the desires, wishes, intentions, and the like that racism fundamentally lies.

According to Aristotle, what is the difference between performing virtuous actions and being a virtuous person?

A person might perform the same act as a virtuous person would perform (e.g., visiting their grandmother at the nursing home), but not take pleasure in doing what is right.

According to Garcia, if "race" is not real, then racism cannot exist.

false

Aristotle says we become virtuous primarily through philosophical contemplation about morality.

false

Jorge Garcia says that racism is ultimately a matter of...

volition

According to Garcia, the most basic moral problem with racial hatred is that it...

offends against justice and benevolence

According to Aristotle, ethical decision ultimately rests with ______________.

perception

Lindemann says that feminism is ultimately about...

power

According to Lindemann, relations of unequal power are...

sometimes good, sometimes bad

According to Aristotle, what is a virtue?

state of character

According to Annas, we are often justified in criticizing a person's desires / pleasures.

true

What is the point of the example involving "old-fashioned"racism on p. 38?

"The average white person encountering, say, a black man in the United States, is not just going to see somebody to be classified as "black" with no other associations. Rather, he is going to have in his head a human taxonomy centrally structured around white superiority and black inferiority, so that the categorization brings with it: black man (or, more likely, "n****")/from Africa/brought here as slaves/savage/uncivilized/animal-like, etc. These concepts, these beliefs, will (tendentially) go with the territory; they will all be fused into the perception (which will be a conception as well). To see someone as black is to see someone as inferior; that is just where they are located in the taxonomy." This example shows that this person doesn't have ill will but is still racist because of the superior belief already ingrained in their mind.

According to Aristotle, how do we become a virtuous person? How does Aristotle defend his answer?

"we are adapted by nature to receive them, and are made perfect by habit." So basically, we learn from doing things and we learn how to do them better as time goes on. He defended his answer by saying men become builders by building, so too we become just by doing acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts.

What are Norcross's two replies to the objection that whether we choose to buy factory farmed meat, it makes no difference to the number of animals that suffer?

(1) He gives an example involving a more widespread cocoamone industry and argues that most of us think it would be wrong to contribute in any way, even if our not contributing didn't save any puppy lives. (2) A small chance of preventing some suffering may be worth it, and we may also influence others.

Explain how Appiah could be correct about the signs of future condemnation that he identifies but wrong in his assessment of particular examples (e.g., that the USA's treatment of the elderly will be condemned by future generations). [This question is asking you to pry apart important features of the debate that are best kept separate.]

- we don't know what led to the elderly being put in those homes - they may not have any relatives left to care for them

What are the main implications and advantages that Garcia lists of the volitional view?

-It suggests that prejudice, in its strict sense of 'pre-judgement', is not essential to racism, and that some racial prejudice may not be prejudice, strictly speaking. -When racism is conceived, the person with racist feelings, desires, hopes, fears, and dispositions is racist even if she never acts on these attitudes in such a way to harm people designated as member of the hated race. -Race-based preference (favoritism) need not be racist -Racist discrimination need not always be conscious.

As Lindemann sees it, the project of feminist ethics is to...

-understand how gender influences belief and practice -Criticize how gender influences belief and practice -Correct how gender operates on our beliefs and practices

What are the two key methodological assumptions Garcia makes before offering his account of racism?

1)The analysis should fit the ordinary usage of 'racism' 2. It should fit with the idea that racism is always morally wrong.

How does Lindemann define 'gender'?

A set of cultural ideas about how members of different sexes ought to behave. It is important to note that gender, according to Lindemann, is not a statistical observation about how the sexes do tend to behave.

What is the general formula Singer proposes for how much we should give away (236)?

An average household only needs $30,000 a year so the rest above $30,000 should be donated. There is no need for luxuries.

Explain the "Bugatti" example and the point Singer is using it to make.

Bob has invested most of his savings in a rare and valuable car. He takes it for a ride and stops by some unused railway tracks. But then he sees a runaway train headed toward a child. He could flip the switch to save the child, but doing so means destroying his car. Singer thinks he should do it. He thinks that the same reasoning carries over to more everyday choices between buying luxuries (e.g., a $50,000 car rather than a $20,000) and giving excess money to help save lives.

Singer uses the example involving the Bugatti to deliver the central argument of his paper. What is the argument? Provide as much detail as you can, perhaps even attempting to clearly identify each premise using P1, P2, P3...etc. [I will not ask you to number premises on a test, though, but it can be useful for studying].

Bob is close to retirement and has invested most of his savings in a Bugatti that is his pride and joy. One day he could sell it and live happily off retirement. He parks his car by a railroad one day and there's a runaway train. He could throw a switch and it would save a child on the tracks or hit his car. He decides to save his car and the child dies. The argument is that we all think this is gravely wrong, but Peter Singer says we all do this every day by spending money out that we could donate to help save lives.

[Misinterpretation] Lindemann wants to correct power imbalances between men and women. But because the sexes are different biologically, this is a bad idea; we should expect some careers to have more males and others to have more females.

But Lindemann does not say that all power imbalances are bad. She is specifically focused on power imbalances to the extent that they are influenced by problematic cultural norms about gender (e.g., men are more rational and less emotional than women and are thus generally better suited to be leaders).Lindemann thinks that we should remove certain barriers too

Garcia begins with the assumption that racism is always wrong. But Mills says that this is a mistake. According to Mills, why shouldn't we assume from the very start that racism is always wrong(see p. 58-62)?

By moralizing racism, Garcia ties himself to an account with implausible implications and distorts his own investigation and ends up tailoring the description of the phenomena to fit his preferred definition. The moralization of racism has 2 negative set of implications: For the scope of the conception (what will, and what will not, be taken to count) For the explanatory mechanisms posted (what is taken to be driving things)

Describe in detail (approx. 3 sentences) Garcia's volitional view of racism.

Central and most vicious form, it is a hatred, ill-will, directed against a person or persons on account of their assigned race.

Be able to explain the point of the analogy involving Fred and the puppies.

Fred is a great lover of chocolate and loses his ability to experience chocolate. So he tortures puppies in order to get the hormone to taste chocolate. When Fred is caught he says in his trial that he is blameless because he had no malicious intent towards the puppies and just wanted the hormone. The puppies will still be harmed and this is like what we do when we torture animals/eat them.

Why does Fred torture the puppies and how is this supposed to be analogous to the modern factory farming system?

Fred tortures the puppies for his own pleasure. Norcross believes that the factory farming system is also mainly for our pleasure. The factory farming system also involves significant pain and suffering.

At one point, Schafer-Landau mentions the possibility of a hybrid view which blends Ross's theory and particularism. Describe this view.

If morality is really like this, where many features that are morally important are not always so, then we have a hybrid view. Some types of action possess permanent moral importance, as Ross said. Others do not.

What is Norcross's argument from marginal cases?

If we shouldn't treat humans with severe mental handicaps in a cruel way, then we should be unwilling to do the same to animals. And we shouldn't be cruel to such humans.

What is the "argument from marginal cases" and what is it supposed to show?

If we shouldn't treat humans with severe mental handicaps in a cruel way, then we should be unwilling to do the same to animals. And we shouldn't be cruel to such humans.

How does ethical particularism differ from Ross's ethic of prima facie duties?

In ethical pluralism, there is no absolute rules, nothing has a fixed moral relevance. Ethical pluralism rejects absolutism & monism. The moral value of things depends entirely on the details of the case.

Another disanalogy between Fred's behavior and that of most meat-eaters is that Fred intends to make the puppies suffer, while most consumers of meat don't intend to make any animals suffer. Does this disanalogy undermine Norcross's argument? Explain Norcross's answer.

It doesn't matter that there is no malicious intent, the animals are still being harmed. Fred says he is blameless too.

Does Aristotle believe that virtue is accordance with our nature, contrary to it, or neither? Explain.

It is neither. If virtue were contrary to our nature, becoming virtuous would be impossible. But by the same token, if we were naturally virtuous then we could not help but be virtuous. So it must be neither.

On p. 159, Lindeman says that feminism is ultimately about "power" rather than "difference." What exactly does she mean, especially given that Lindemann agrees that it is still important to understand the differences between men and women.

It's not about differences because "men's differences from women are equal to women's differences from men".

What are the three problems that Schafer-Landau identifies for ethical particularism? Describe each in several sentences (~9 sentences total). Does Shafer-Landau believe that any of these problems undermine the theory? Explain.

Its Lack of Unity: the moral realm is hugely complex, and there are no moral rules at all to help guide us on our way. This cannot be a decisive criticism of pluralism. Whether the moral realm is neatly oared or not, it is a matter that can be settled only after a great deal of further moral debate. Accounting for Moral Knowledge: The particularists view provides us with no guidance for gaining moral knowledge. There is no way to know in advance how things are going to play out. We don't have any rules to tell us what's morally important. Con only offer very broad tips. (take careful note of details, etc.) Some things possess permanent moral importance: to undermine particularism we would have to provide examples of features that are always morally important. There are at least some prima facie moral rules. Whether there are any absolute rules depends on whether there are any features that are morally decisive in every context.

[Misinterpretation] Lindemann says that gender is culturally constructed, but this argument requires that there are no biological differences between men and women. But obviously there are such differences.

Lindemann doesn't deny that some differences between men and women may be rooted in biology. Her point is that society also enforces norms of its own which are a non-biological influence on power relations between the sexes.

[Misinterpretation] Lindemann's view actually limits women. It tells them that they have to pursue "powerful" roles in society and cannot pursue traditional feminine lifestyles.

Lindemann thinks that we should remove certain barriers rooted in cultural ideas about gender. But she does not say that pursuing traditional lifestyles is bad.

What is the difference between a moral agent and a moral patient.

Moral patients deserve moral consideration from moral agents. Moral agents are subject to moral obligations and can be praised/blamed for their choices.

What is the difference between being a moral agent and being a moral patient? Why does Norcross think that nonhuman animals are moral patients?

Moral patients deserve moral consideration from moral agents. Moral agents are subject to moral obligations and can be praised/blamed for their choices.

What does Norcross say about the idea that puppies deserve greater moral consideration because they are loyal and loving toward humans? (Or, if you prefer, how does Norcross respond to the idea that puppies deserve greater moral consideration because they are smarter than farm animals?)

Most of us wouldn't let Fred off the hook if he took pains to acquire disloyal and unloving puppies. (In response to the second point, Norcross says that what really matters is the capacity for suffering, and in any case it's not true that puppies are smarter than, say, pigs, at least not by most measures of animal intelligence.)

Explain why Mill's thinks that paternalistic racism is a problem for the volitional theory of racism.

Paternalistic racism doesn't involve ill-will, or so it seems.

Explain Mills's point about paternalistic racism and how it supposedly creates trouble for Garcia's analysis of racism (p. 51-55).

Paternalistic racism: a white racism has feelings of good-will toward Native Americans (whom he wants to see successfully assimilate) to black slaves (whom he wants to take care of, since they are incapable of taking care of themselves etc. this feelings of benevolence seem real, but in each case they are predicated on his belief in the inferiority of whites of the non white racial groups. Major problem for Garcia because he doesn't think this still counts as racism. "Not all hatred is wishing another ill for its own sake."

According to Lindemann, what is the difference between sex and gender? Make sure to explain why Lindemann thinks that gender is about power.

Sex is either male (XY) or female (XX). Gender is the complicated set of cultural meanings that are constructed around the two sexes. Gender is a power relation intertwined with others in a complex social system that distinguishes your betters from your inferiors in all kinds of ways and for all kinds of purposes. It tells men that they're entitled to things that women aren't supposed to have and it tells women that they are supposed to defer to men and serve them.

[Misinterpretation] Singer's argument fails. Human nature is such that people just won't live up to his demanding ethical theory.

Singer is offering an ethical argument. Even if nearly everyone, Singer included, fails to live up to the ethical ideal, it doesn't follow that it's not the ideal. Ethics is about how we ought to behave, not how we do behave.

One objection to Singer's argument is that it requires us to do more than our "fair share." If everyone donated, then I wouldn't have to give so much. So it's unfair to demand that I give up all luxuries. How does Singer answer this objection?

Singer thinks that this is taking the idea of fairness too far. Fairness matters, and perhaps it is a bit unfair that I give while others don't. But the lives at stake matter more than my fussing about fairness.

What is the point of Mills comparison of racism and speciesism?

Speciesism is the belief that animals have no moral standing, or at least so little moral standing that we needn't worry much about their welfare. Traditional speciesist were not blameworthy for their speciesism, for it would have been so difficult for them to see past such basic cultural assumptions. Yet if Norcross, Singer, etc. are right, speciesism has led to awful results. The point of this example is that even if racism has bad results, we shouldn't assume all historical racists are morally blameworthy.

What point is Mills making about sexism on p. 34?

That we do not think of sexism as involving ill-will. So while claiming to be giving a non-revisionist account that matches everyday usage, he is omitting the phenomenon most commonly compared to racism.

What is the difference, according to Aristotle, between performing virtuous actions and being a virtuous person?

The agent must be in a certain condition when he does them; in the first place he must have knowledge, secondly he must choose the acts, and choose them for their own sakes, and thirdly his action must proceed from a firm and unchangeable character.

What is the volitional theory of racism?

The basic idea is that racism consists in having ill-will or negative feelings toward someone on account of their race.

Why does Garcia reject the view that racism is a socioeconomic system of oppression? Again, be sure to first explain what this view is.

The socioeconomic system of oppression is when people believe they are superior to a certain race because of their economic/wealth status. He rejects that because it is not thinking that you are superior is racist, but in the thinking that motivates you to act with ill-will.

Singer asks the following question: "In the end, what is the ethical distinction between a Brazilian who sells a homeless child to organ peddlers and an American who already has a TV and upgrades to a better one - knowing that the money could be donated to an organization that would use it to save the lives of kids in need" (232). What moral theory does Singer rely upon to argue that "in some sense" the Brazilian and the American are just as bad? Does he think that you have to ascribe to this theory to arrive at that conclusion?

Utilitarianism. No, he thinks that there is "a troubling incongruity in being so quick to condemn Dora for taking the child to the organ peddlers while, at the same time, not regarding the American consumer's behavior as raising a serious moral issue."

According to Aristotle, in what sense are virtues a "mean"?

Virtues are a kind of middle-ground between two extremes, one of excess and one of deficiency. For instance, the excess of courage is rashness and the deficiency is cowardliness.

What does Aristotle mean when he says that "virtue is a kind of mean" (149)? In answering this question, be sure to also explain why the mean is "relative to us" despite the fact that to "succeed is possible only in one way" (149)

Virtues are a kind of middle-ground between two extremes, one of excess and one of deficiency. For instance, the excess of courage is rashness and the deficiency is cowardliness.

Some might claim that eating meat from factory farms is relevantly different from Fred's behavior because individual consumers are powerless to change the factory-farming system, whereas Fred is fully in control of the puppies. How does Norcross respond to this claim?

We are funding others to do the dirty work for us. Although we aren't directly harming the animals, they are still being harmed because of our actions.

How does Singer answer the objection that money sent overseas will not do what is advertised and thus we shouldn't bother giving?

We have empirical evidence about the efficacy of different aid organizations. The fact that some are sketchy only means that we need to educate ourselves and not give to them. It only takes one or two effective agencies to make Singer's argument go through (and according to him there are many more than one or two).

According to Aristotle, how do we become virtuous (and at what point has a person truly become virtuous?)

We need to habituate ourselves. A person must act as the virtuous person would act until they develop a stable disposition to act in the right way and take pleasure in doing so.

How does Aristotle define the "incontinent" person.

Weakness of will (makes the correct judgment but is overwhelmed by pleasure/pain to do otherwise)

Aristotle describes several examples of virtues as a mean. Describe on of his examples in a few sentences.

With regard to feelings of fear and confidence - courage is the mean; of the people who exceed, he who exceeds in fearlessness has no name, while the man who exceeds in fearlessness has no name, while the man who exceeds in confidence is rash, and he who exceeds in fear and falls short in confidence is a coward.

How does Lindemann define 'sex'?

XX or XY. In some cases this can be more complicated.

Singer considers several objections to his conclusion that many of us are morally required to donate our money to save lives: a. The "practical uncertainty" objection (233) b. The "other people could also give" objection (234) c. The "one need not give more than their fair share" objection (235-6) d. The "it would be too difficult to do what Singer's conclusion demands" objection (236). Explain each of these objections and Singer's reply.

a. "practical uncertainty" objection: will the aid really reach the people who need it? Reply: Unger's figure of $200 to save a child's life was reached after he had made conservative assumptions about the proportion of the money donated that will actually reach its target. b. "other people could also give" objection: Most people aren't donating their money, so is it okay for you to not donate either? Reply: To confirm that it's okay, you would be using the follow-the-crowd kind of ethics (the kind of ethics that led many Germans to look away from the Nazis) We do not excuse them because others were behaving no better. c. "one need not give more than their fair share" objection: Is it counterproductive to ask people to do so much? Don't we run the risk that many will shrug their shoulders and say that morality, so conceived, is fine for saints but not for them? Reply: We tend to use a standard that is relative to some conception of normal behavior. He doesn't want to chastise people who are donating, but is saying that everyone could probably give more than what they do. If other people aren't doing their fair share, then others would have to do more than their fair share? This would be taking fairness to far. d. "it would be too difficult to do what Singer's conclusion demands" reply: this theory is about what we OUGHT to do

According to Annas, happiness is _____________.

achievement

Appiah identifies three signs that a particular practice will be condemned in the future. Explain these signs.

contemporary arguments (the case against slavery didn't emerge in a blinding moment of moral clarity, for instance; it had been around for centuries) defenders use appeals(as in, "we've always had slaves, and how could we ever grow cotton without them?") strategic ignorance (those who ate the sugar or wore the cotton that the slaves grew simply didn't think about what made these goods possible)

Aristotle says that virtue is neither part of our nature nor contrary to it.

true

Singer's Central Argument

we all think killing someone/not saving someone's life is inherently wrong, but we do that everyday by not donating money & living lavishly