Ethics Exam 1

Mencius: Humans are inherently good

4th century BCE, confucian philosophy (Plato was a contemporary form of Mencius) Widely regarded as the second most important confucian philosopher. His kind of moral theories were traditional/conservative moral theory. Can either be conservative or radical. Plato's moral theory requires that we reject our ordinary conception of reality, so its radical. Traditional moral theories like Confucianism, require that we formalize our ordinary conception of morality so they are conservative. Mencius emphasizes five traditional confucian doctrines. 1) Happiness in day-to-day life (measures success in small things, defines quality of life) 2) Importance of tradition (it grounds you, allows us a moment to relax and be ourselves, and it shapes our values) 3) Familial relations as central to the good life (taking care of those around us) 4) Importance of rituals (way of preparing ourselves in the church/ethically) 5) Importance of education (values informed to live a good life) Mencius was concerned with human nature, he thought that we don't need to do violence to our natures to become good. Spontaneous Goodness: The child in the well case: in that moment when the child is falling you're not thinking of being good rather than what is right. Tells us why he thinks human nature is good in certain cases. (not due to self interest/guilt) Only talking about emotional reaction, not true action. What he means is disposition to feel moral response to another being. "our nature points us to rightness" To understand how human nature can be naturally good and yet capable of evil, we must think about nature more generally. Its natural for tadpoles to develop into frogs even though most of them fail to do so, for humans to be good then the minds of pity and commiseration, shame and dislike, respectfulness and reverence.." Mencius thinks human nature is good because it supplies us with the "sprouts of rightness" that when cultivated allows us to be good people.

Frederick Douglass

Born 1818-1895, born into slavery in MD. Escaped North in 1838. He was an orator/writer, most known as an abolitionist. Douglass' 4th of July Speech: instead of rejoicing on the 4th of July, Douglass says he must mourn because millions of people are enslaved. the continued fact of slavery, is at odds with the principles endured with the Decl. of Independence Nature of the protests: Douglass insists he will protest the injustice of cont. slavery with "the severest language he can command" He also argues against those who say that he'll be more persuasive if he sweetens his argument. Abolitionist argument: Douglass reviews his anti-slavery argument. 1) slaves are humans 2) humans are entitled to liberty 3) those currently enslaved should be freed Trying to convince people the change their minds. Humanity of slaves: concerning the first premise, Douglass notes that it is already conceded(surrendered) by slave owners. Slaves are punished and fined which only makes sense if one already accepts that they are "moral, intellectual, and responsible beings" Slaves are capable. Entitlement to Liberty: Douglass also mocks the idea that he must persuasively argue that humans are entitled to liberty. That is precisely what the 4th of July purports to stand for. The nature of protest: he rejects the idea of protesting and be able to respond to intellectuals Expose hypocrisy and expose evil of those who support slavery The aim of the protest: responds to significant injustice Claiming that protest is important because it allows him to sanction the US for its unwillingness to free those enslaved. Other reasons for protest: solidarity, to make a change, condemn wrongdoing, and to change behavior. Self-deception and Moral Ignorance: he thinks that everyone already knew that slavery should've ended. At this time millions of americans would've denied this.

Washington-Dubois, Debate

Boxil begins "self respect and protest" by describing the debate between Booker T. Washington and WEB Dubois. debating importance of protest. Washington was born 1856 and died 1915. Was an orator, writer and educator. Best known for his autobiography "Up from Slavery" Sought to increase political and social clout of African Americans in early 20th century. WEB Dubois born 1868 died 1863, sociologist, historian and activist. known for the "souls of black folk and black reconstruction in america" Salls introduced idea of "double consciousness" definition: part of the way blacks are oppressed is because they are forced to have double consciousness. Black reconstruction is the first accurate account of post-civil war america. debate: Washington thought Dubois was too revolutionary in his activism. Dubois thought Washington was too willing to defend the status quo. Differing strategies is due to different beliefs about protest. Protest and servility: Washington argued that if you don't have the power to make a change and you instead protest and complain about injustice done to you, you are being weak. Washington sometimes mentions Frederick Douglass Injustice and Harm This doesn't mean that Washington thought that post-civil war US was just. However, he did argue that the victims of oppression are harmed less than the victimizers. The victims virtues can't be harmed by the oppressors and the victimizers make themselves into bad people. This idea is connected to some stoic (a person who can endure pain or hardship without showing their feelings or complaining) ideas. Self-Respect and Protest Dubois thinks on the flip side that if one is being oppressed, it is important to protest that oppression. Protest can serve a number of functions like, acknowledgement of ones person hood and rights and it can announce ones stand in solidarity with others that are being oppressed and then it can also secure self respect. The nature of protest if protest is morally important as Douglass, Dubois and Boxil are argue then we must determine how to protest. What forms of protest are best? Depends on who the main target is. "best is ambiguous" What forms of protest are most effective at bringing about change? What forms of protest are fitting responses to the injustices done?

Bernard Boxill, Self-Respect and Protest

Boxill rejects seeking-sympathy view: claiming rights is claiming what one can demand and exact, sympathy cannot be demanded. Protester expresses not self-pity but resentment. Protester demands noninterference, not help (negative rights conception?). Protester expresses righteous and self-respecting concern for self. Self-respecting person naturally inclined to protest injuries

Xunzi

He is mainly known for his theory, directly contradicting Mencius, that human nature is evil. His book, unlike those of Confucius and Mencius, is not a record of conversations but a series of essays, each on a single topic. Human nature is evil; goodness derives from conscious activity. Hence, following human nature and indulging human emotions will inevitably lead to contention and strife, causing one to rebel against one=s proper duty, reduce principle to chaos, and revert to violence. Therefore one must be transformed by the example of a teacher and guided by the way of ritual and rightness before one will attain modesty and yielding, accord with refinement and rituaol, and return to order. From this perspective it is apparent that human nature is evil and that its goodness is the result of conscious activity. [3] Mencius said, The fact that human beings learn shows that their nature is good. I say this is not so; this comes of his having neither understood human nature nor perceived the distinction between the nature and conscious activity. The nature is what is given by Heaven: one cannot learn it; one cannot acquire it by effort. Ritual and rightness are created by sages: people learn them and are capable, through effort, of bringing them to completion. What cannot be learned or acquired by effort but is within us is called the nature. What can be learned and, through effort, brought to completion is called conscious activity. [4]

Aims of 1/3 class of humans

Investigate theories of human nature, attempt to explain why humans are prone to engage in serials wrong doing and think about how we should respond to wrong doing.

Mencius v. Xunzi

Is there anyway to reconcile their views? They seem to disagree about our spontaneous reactions, but other than that theres a lot of agreement. Plato explains our propensity for evil in terms of our ignorance. Mencius explains it in terms of our environment. Xunzi explains it in terms of our natural selfishness plus our environment.

Background on Kings Letter

It was written in April 1963, a response to "a call for unity" "we recognize the natural impatience of people who feel..." he's arguing that patience is morally problematic His protests are morally defensible An outside agitator King begins by defending his presence in Birmingham, AL "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" "We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality" Hypocrisy King criticizes the clergy men for being more concerned with the demonstrations than the conditions that brought the demonstrations. King argues that protest is morally defensible if it meets four conditions. 1) A defense of protest and collection of the facts King thinks that its important that the protestors have the facts on their side. Its clear in the case of the protests that landed King in prison. 2) Negotiation King argues that protest is justified if there has been a good-faith effort to negotiate with those in power. King thinks that this is the main point of protest. 3) Self-purification for King, only non-violent protests could work. This required that the participants knew what they were getting into, like getting beat without retaliation or jail time 4) Direct action After these three steps have been satisfied, protest was defensible. Forms of direct action are sit-ins, marches, demonstrations, boycotts, etc. Direct action seeks to create tension in a community that leaders are forced to acknowledge the injustice and negotiate a more just situation. Patience: Sometimes patience is a virtue but King argues that other times it can be a vice and he calls for patience served to reinforce the status quo. "for years now I have heard the word 'wait', this 'wait' has almost meant never" Civil disobedience: "a call for unity" also expressed outrage at Kings willingness to disobey the law How can King justify breaking the law for his aims while also criticizing segregationists for breaking the law for their aims? The laws he broke were unjust but the laws that the segregationists broke were just. Just and Unjust laws: how do we distinguish between just and unjust laws? 1) a just law squares with the moral law or with the law of God, an unjust law is out of harmony with the moral law 2) just laws uplift human personality and unjust laws degrade personality 3) just laws are created by procedurally just means and unjust laws are created by procedurally unjust means 4) just laws have fair applications and unjust laws have unfair applications King concludes by arguing that white moderates have hurt the cause of racial justice. White moderates called kings tactics extreme. Aim of protest has a goal directed aim and its to bring about more just ways.

Plato's Republic, Book IV

Justice in the individual, as in the city, involves the correct power relationship among parts, with each part occupying its appropriate role. In the individual, the "parts" are not classes of society; instead, they are aspects of the soul—or sources of desire. In order to make the case that individual justice parallels political justice, Socrates must claim that there are precisely three parts of the soul. By cataloging the various human desires, he identifies a rational part of the soul that lusts after truth, a spirited part of the soul that lusts after honor, and an appetitive part of the soul that lusts after everything else, including food, drink, sex, and especially money. These three parts of the soul correspond to the three classes in the just city. The appetite, or money-loving part, is the aspect of the soul most prominent among the producing class; the spirit or honor-loving part is most prominent among the auxiliaries; and reason, or the knowledge-loving part, is dominant in the guardians.

Xunzi: the badness of nature

Lived in 3rd century BCE, devoted to Confucian but disagreed significantly with Mencius. Just like Plato, he believed human nature was evil and we are naturally inclined to self interest (we are inclined towards aggressiveness, greed, envy and hate) but he doesn't deny that we can be good. It is only possible to be good by conscious exertion so goodness is not natural for humans. Becoming Good: since human nature is naturally evil, it can only become good instruction - law and regulations are external way in which our character and wills can be "bent" into a good shape. Ex: law, norms, friendship (how we'll learn good) Mencius thought that humans ability to learn good showed that we are naturally good. Xunzi argues that this is a mistake because what is natural will flow from you spontaneously. Learning is evidence that something isn't natural. A straight board does not require any external pressure to be straight. If we're naturally good, why would we need moral education. Xunzi further argues that our nature must be evil because we long to do good. Ex: poor people want to be rich, ugly want to be beautiful, bad people want to be good. The problem with this argument is Environment and Goodness: Xunzi concludes by arguing that our environment's are crucial for our goodness. "If you do not know your son, look at his friends; if you do not know your Lord, look to his attendance." Our peers influence us.

Mackie and Hampton's view

Mackie: -believes that retribution is a "feeling" which has evolved in our species and much like the "bite back" response (example: dogs who bite when being hurt, humans tend to hits) -mackie argues that this emotional response exists within us because it encourages cooperation among humans by introducing a negative sanction for non cooperation, so that it has been refined in our highly social species. -the instinct itself isn't teleological, but its existence in the human being is explained by the fact that it furthers this creature's efforts at survival. -Murphy and Jean disagree with Mackie because the theory implicitly denies to retribution any cognitive content and a non-cognitivist approach. -Mackie= the sentiment itself doesn't justify the harm Hampton's view: (against murphy) -retribution is NOT a term of hatred at all, so that (as Jesus might have been trying to say) the claims of love need not be validated by the claims of justice or vice versa ( he doesn't believe that retribution is fundamental) -argues that there is a hidden goal in victim's call to retribution 1.) retributive idea: punishment as a defeat (ex: victim of a bully wanting to beat the bully to prove that the bully is neither more valuable than him or anyone else) in this case, the victim=retributivist. -proposes that retributive punishment is defeat of the wrongdoer at the hands of the victim that symbolizes correct relative value of wrongdoer and victim.

Situationism

Moral responsibility: ordinarily we think of ourselves as free and responsible agents. ex: we blame people when they do bad and praise when they do good but some things can undermine peoples responsibility. Responsibility control - ex: but if what I do is a result of factors outside of my control then it seems that perhaps I am not morally responsible. This thought is true through a seizure. First case was within the agents control but the second was without the agents control. Neurological device, since he lack control we feel different about him due to the chip inserted in his brain. What about our circumstances? Situationism is the view that our behavior is largely if not entirely explained by the features of the situations we find ourselves in. Milgram (come back)******* Stanford Prison experiment, good samaritan, Israeli Judge Study Our behavior is responsive to features in our situation that we don't know about and are out of our control. Responsibility and situation. If what you do is explained by features of this situation and the situation is outside of your control then it seems you are not responsible for what you do. Atrocity, if everyone deserves to be blamed for their actions its people that do really awful stuff. ex: My Lai massacre, combat situations are very stressful and soldiers are constantly under distress. they are often making decisions in a split second, are often sleep deprived and are running on adrenaline and fear. So any of these seem to mitigate responsibility. Exculpation(to prove that someone is not guilty for doing something wrong) for wartimes? Doris and Murphy think so. Note: this doesn't mean Doris and Murphy think that atrocities like my lai were good, they just don't think the soldiers were responsible for it. They have the Abu Ghraib Prisch scandal, the american military and security personnel perpetrated all manner of degradations and tortures including threatening detainees with rape, terrorizing with military dogs, beating them with broom handles, and sodomizing with chemical light. These atrocities were photographed by the perpetrators as trophy shots and were shared with their friends. "Perpetrators of atrocity typically occupy excusing conditions and are therefore not morally responsible." Many actually have cognitive impairments which degrade their capacity for moral judgment. ARGUEMENT FOR NON RESPONSIBILITY Two sorts of considerations: 1) philosophical commonplaces about excusing conditions/circumstances in which normal adults are not morally responsible. Morally appropriate behavior requires cognitive skills. 2)fears are perceptual, interpretive, deliberative, and cognitively degrading circumstance prevent their achievement. 3) empirical observations on moral psychology, military culture and wartime behavior supporting the contention that warfare is very often cognitively degrading enough to prevent achieving relevant cognitive fears The moral psychology of atrocity: Premise 1: when individuals are cognitively degraded, they are not morally responsible for behavior Premise 2: individuals in combat are typically cognitively degraded. Conclusion: the individual in combat is not morally responsible for their behavior because Argument doesn't establish that any specific individual is cognitively degraded to a degree that vitals responsibility. Instead the argument = general presumption. Conclusion doesn't entail exculpation. Moral responsibility and criminal liability are detachable. If they're right, how should we respond to war crimes? What might be wrong with their argument? An agent is not morally responsible for her action and that is the result of forces beyond control. Paired with the situationist discoveries, this principle puts pressure on the idea that we're ever morally responsible for our actions. What is agential competence? it seems that you are a competent agent if you know what you're doing and its what you meant to do. you are able to appreciate the reasons both for and against the actions. But a puzzle emerges if we think that agents must be able to appreciate the reasons for and against their action if they're going to be morally responsible. It's not clear that some of the worst among us are really sensitive to reasons in this way.

Doris and Murphy, The Moral Psychology of Atrocity

Perpetrators of atrocity typically occupy excusing conditions and are therefore not morally responsible for their conduct While nothing justifies atrocity, many perpetrators manifest cognitive impairments that profoundly degrade their capacity for moral judgment, and such impairments, we shall argue, preclude the attribution of moral responsibility. philosophical commonplaces about excusing conditions, or circumstances in which normally competent adults are not morally responsible. As we shall say, morally appropriate behavior requires cognitive feats--perceptual, interpretive, and deliberative--and cognitively degrading circumstances prevent their achievement; so individuals acting in such circumstances should, very often, occupy excusing conditions. Second, we offer empirical observations on moral psychology, military culture, and wartime behavior supporting the contention that warfare is very often cognitively degrading enough to prevent achieving the relevant cognitive feats Situationism Control behavior: only taking blame if you're in control of your behavior

The Republic

Plato's theory of justice in the individual and in the polis aka city structured around the question, Why should we be justice if injustice is more profitable? ex: someone drops money, take it or not, overall its not profitable. Socrates answers, a just person lives a life they are happy with. Socrates: human propensity for evil comes from our appetitive natures This aspect of our psychology keeps us ignorant of the good because it convinces us that things that our apparently good are really good. Plato: human nature is essentially bad

Radzik and atonement (reparation for a wrong "fixing your wrongdoing)

Repentance as Atonement: a problem with this view is that "changing ones heart" seems insufficient to cancel out the message communicated by your act of wrongdoing. Repentance can be a private act but because wrongdoing communicates something about wrongdoers, it is a public act. Radzik concludes that only a public act can serve to atone for acts of wrongdoing. Atonement as self punishment: another theory of self punishment, we atone for our wrongdoing by causing ourselves to suffer. In this we must be penitent (feeling or showing sorrow and regret for having done wrong)(example: going to church). Right theory- one that will be able to correct retributive punishment with the immortality of conduct being punished. Atonement of self punishment might take the form of serious guilt but there are other ways to make ourselves suffer. This seems self indulgent. Its focused exclusively on the wrongdoer and doesn't seem to communicate the right message to/about the victim. Atonement as reconciliation: Radzik notes that nothing we do can actually change the past. But the past can be "righted" in the way that a ship thats tossing can be righted. This means that its possible to restore the social balance that was upset by an act of wrongdoing. Reconciliation is the goal of atonement because it is only possible if the wrongdoer has publicly repudiated the hurtful attitudes expressed in acts of wrongdoing. Broader social implications Interpersonal implications The process of atonement: probably includes guilt. Includes a repudiation (apology/explanation) of ones motives. Public apology (what makes for a good apology?) Reparations: If you cause material harm, how can you make it up to them if you don't pay some material recompense?

Obedience Test Video

Shows group pressure and social pressure. Also suggests that if we want to explain peoples' bad behavior, we should look at the situation externally. Situation (not in your control) = you're not responsible for bad behavior. Psychology experiment Shows the need to show more willpower - weakness was on display and its seen in the teachers (person electrocuting) body language

Republic Book VII

Socrates and Glaucon are discussing the human condition. Socrates' big point: without a certain kind of moral education, we are ignorant of the good. This suggests that for Socrates our propensity for wrongdoing is due to our untutored ignorance of whats really good. How does Socrates argue for the claims that our propensity for wrongdoing is due to our untutored ignorance of whats really good? He argues this through the Allegory of the Cave 1) the prisoners are able to see shadows and projections of images 2) they have varying degrees of skill at determining what the shadows appear to be 3)the skill seems worthless once you've been exposed to the sun How is this an allegory? It appears we are enlightened, but if we're like the prisoners what keeps us chained? According to socrates, we are imprisoned by our own non rational desires and fears (appetite: desires for food, sex, companionship, love, material, wealth, power, prestige, success, etc.) Our desires keep us ignorant from the good. These desires mistakenly present their objects as being good. By comparison, something that is really good is something that is worth pursing in all context. 1) its goodness will be stable 2) it is something that doesn't distort or bias ones thinking

Differences between Mencius and Xunzi

This passage holds the key to the disagreement between Mencius and Xunzi: they have different understandings of the general concept of the nature of a thing (xing). Recall that Mencius= implicit understanding of the nature of a thing seemed to be that it is something that is innate and unique to that species. Since moral inclinations or moral potential fits those criteria, that constitutes human nature. But Xunzi defines the term as that which is innate and does not require effort to complete. They both acknowledge that human beings have both bad or selfish emotions and good ones. And more importantly, they both believe in the moral perfectibility of human beings. The difference between them on this score is that for Mencius it is a matter of cultivation or nourishment, while for Xunzi it is a matter of transformation. Without the external influence of sages and teachers to effect that transformation, human beings continue to indulge their selfish and violent emotions. Thus, for Xunzi, education is even more important than it is for Mencius; it is the only counterforce to the natural tendencies that lead to competition, strife, and aggression. Xunzi does not give an explanation of the difference between the sage and the ordinary person, the crucial factor that allowed sages -- particularly the first sages -- to overcome their evil natures. This is a serious weakness in his theory. A good environment would suffice to explain how later people could become good, but not how goodness (ritual and rightness, etc.) originated.

Must a person protest his wrongs? Is futile protest self-respecting? Booker T. Washington / W. E. B. Dubois debate

Washington: protesting injustice not self-respecting when one cannot right it. "advertising his wrongs" betrays weakness for relying on sympathy of others Dubois: protest not an appeal for sympathy; failing to protest eventually leads to loss of self-respect, requires "persistent demand for essential equality" Boxill's claim: following Dubois, people have reason to protest their wrongs not only to stop injustice but also to show self-respect and to know themselves as self-respecting

The allegory of the cave: Plato

greek athenian philosopher and mathematician. Wrote about the nature of reality, knowledge, goodness, beauty and injustice. 1) Dialogues (due to a way of getting people interested - The Republic) 2) Socrates (he's the protagonist in early dialogues) 3) Elenchus (its the socratic method - a way of teasing all the philosophical beliefs through questions that overall fail to capture the essence of beauty, justice, goodness...) In Book 7 of the Republic you don't see a lot of the socratic method

Ethics is

moral philosophy, branch that includes right and wrong, good and bad, moral judgement (motivation, virtues/good life, responsibility, praise and blame). Ethicists might simply formulate rules/guidelines for behavior (rules we accept). Ex: contract. You must read/accept ethical standards in place to prevent from getting sued

The practice of ethics

we might be concerned with doing right not fear of punishment but for its own sake. The aim is to investigate our most cherished beliefs. Goals is to evaluate why we think/accept (reasons).