PHIL 101 EXAM 3

What was the passage from Nietzsche's The Gay Science, about? (In the slide show, but not discussed in lecture?)

"The greatest weight.-- What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: "This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence - even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!" Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus?... Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal?"

What was Nietzsche trying to say with his parable of the madman?

"We have killed God". - The death of God The world is becoming more secular - How do we make meaning of this? He thought the ending of belief in a Divine Being at the societal level could have a profound effect of humans' search for meaning.

What problem is Nozick's "Experience Machine" thought experiment supposed to expose about utilitarianism? (readings)

"Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him -- you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: "What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?"

What are the three main principles of a just society Rawls thinks people would agree to when constructing a social contract from behind a veil of ignorance, and what "lexical priority" does he put them in?

1) The principle of equal liberty: Each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with similar liberties for all. "Lexically prior" to (2) 2) The principle of fair equality of opportunity: Offices and positions are to be open to all under conditions of fair equality and opportunity. "Lexically prior" to (3) 3) The difference principle: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons.

Why does Max claim "all photos are false"?

All photos are false, since life is never paused. We live our lives in moments, but these moments are never static, no matter how brief, they are happening in the flow of time.

How does Nikolai Kuzmich respond to his ever increasing awareness of the passing seconds of his life?

At first Nikolai tries to save time wherever he could ie getting up earlier. Then he eventually gives up, lays on the ground and recites poetry.

Why does Camus think Sisyphus is the absurd hero?

Camus sees Sisyphus as the absurd hero who lives life to the fullest, hates death and is condemned to a meaningless task. Roll your rock defiantly, even joyfully, knowing all along it will roll back down, and your life, in the longest view of things, will ultimately amount to nothing.

Why did Sartre think the question of God's existence was largely irrelevant to the question of how to live?

God or no God, you still have to decide what to believe, how to live your life, what's true. You can't escape responsibility for your life and choices. You are "condemned" to freedom

How does Pablo Ibbieta respond to being spared execution, and why do you think he responds this way?

He starts laughing because even though he was going to die for lying he told them that Gris was in the cemetery when he knew he wasn't then they ended up finding Gris in the cemetery.

What was the passage involving a tale of two Mondays about in the reading? (not covered in the lecture)

How to bring your extended mind back under control( not about monkeys at a buddhist shrine )

What were the issues raised at the end of lecture regarding putting existentialism in a larger social context?

Is this a particular individualistic approach to the meaning of life? Why has it been inhabited mainly by white male philosophers, who are the most privileged people and least likely to experience hindrance form others ( and perhaps more likely to be focused on individual achievement?) Could the meaning of life be to live relationally, connected to others, not taking your individual self as a project in isolation, but as being irrevocably connected to other humans, and a larger non-human, natural world? Was the psychology of hunters and gatherers more "collectivist", seeing the ultimate reality as the larger whole which each individual was just a part? Does existentialism get off the ground only if you focus on your one life in isolation?

Be able to recognize text and its meaning from the transcript for Zenosyne.

It's actually just after you're born that life flashes before your eyes. Entire aeons are lived in those first few months when you feel inseparable from the world itself, with nothing to do but watch it passing by. At first, time is only felt vicariously, as something that happens to other people. You get used to living in the moment, because there's nowhere else to go. But soon enough, life begins to move, and you learn to move with it. And you take it for granted that you're a different person every year, Upgraded with a different body...a different future. You run around so fast, the world around you seems to stand still. Until a summer vacation can stretch on for an eternity. You feel time moving forward, learning its rhythm, but now and then it skips a beat, as if your birthday arrives one day earlier every year. We should consider the idea that youth is not actually wasted on the young. That their dramas are no more grand than they should be. That their emotions make perfect sense, once you adjust for inflation. For someone going through adolescence, life feels epic and tragic simply because it is: every kink in your day could easily warp the arc of your story. Because each year is worth a little less than the last. And with each birthday we circle back, and cross the same point around the sun. We wish each other many happy returns. But soon you feel the circle begin to tighten, and you realize it's a spiral, and you're already halfway through. As more of your day repeats itself, you begin to cast off deadweight, and feel the steady pull toward your center of gravity, the ballast of memories you hold onto, until it all seems to move under its own inertia. So even when you sit still, it feels like you're running somewhere. And even if tomorrow you will run a little faster, and stretch your arms a little farther, you'll still feel the seconds slipping away as you drift around the bend.

Know the basic idea behind the three ways of understanding time-- Linear, Multi-Active, and Cyclical, grounding them with examples from various cultures. What sorts of issues might these different conceptions of time generate when people from different cultures interact. Be ready to present scenarios involving two different kinds of clashes.

Linear Time (Scientific Time) (North America, Northern Europe, UK) • A precious commodity. If you want to benefit from its passing, you had better move fast with it. Time is money. Efficiency is the ideal. Hard work = success. Punctuality is a virtue. • Metaphors: Life is a "journey" on the "road of time", until you reach "the end of the road." • Recall "objective time" This is clock time, abstract, linear, measurable. Think business planners, and class schedules. Multi-Active Time (Event-relationship related) (Southern Europe, Latin world, Arab world) • Adhering to schedules and punctuality is less important than completing the human transaction. The business we have to do and our human relations are what matters, not "being on time." • "Why are you so angry because I came at 9:30?" "Because it says 9:00 in my planner." "Then why don't you write 9:30, and we'll both be happy!" • Recall "subjective" or "psychological time". Cyclic Time (Some Eastern cultures) • Cyclical time can never be a scarce commodity, for time will always come back around • We live our life in cycles (e.g. seasons, circle of life, moon phases, mensus, sunrise, sunset...) • Instead of tackling problems immediately in sequential fashion, probably more insightful to circle around them for awhile before committing oneself to a course of action.

What was the difference between the Meaning of Life, capital M, and small m?

M: The reason all of us are here. Purpose given to our lives from without. Objective meaning imposed on humanity (The story of most if not all of the world's major religions). m: Finding a sense of purpose, direction, motivation in what one does. Finding meaning in one's life. small m is hopefully findable, no matter what is true about the big M.

What is Pang's distinction between switch tasking and multi tasking?

Most of what passes for multi-tasking is actually switch-tasking, where you are switching between unrelated tasks. Incredibly inefficient (alphabet/number ex.) • Multi-Tasking involves switching between tasks that all work toward one common goal, such as cooking a great multi-course dinner.

What are the differences between objective time, psychological time, and cyclical time?

Objective Time: • regular, and absolutely even • uni-directional (cause and effect goes one direction) • units are arbitrary and indefinitely divisible• commonly conceived of as the "fluid medium" through which objects/events occur-see Newton's definition—p.241 • Marches on, independent of any creature's awareness • runs your life • Relatively new in human history. Four U.S. time zones established in 1883. • Watches for the masses not available until around the Civil War. • Strap watches (as opposed to pocket watches) popularized during WWI for easy reading on the battlefield. Subjective Time: • elastic (can speed up, slow down)—only know this by being able to compare to some outside event in the world that is not elastic. • disappears when we are unconscious or in a non- dreaming state of sleep • up until the advent of time pieces, was the only kind of time we directly experienced. • Could be defined as the individual's experience of the continuum of consciousness. • Starts after our birth. Ends with the cessation of consciousness. • If there were no sentient creatures, this kind of time would not exist. • Unique for every creature. Happens in individual minds. • Can you always only experience the past? (Clarke, p. 241) • Speeds up as we age. (For a 7 year old, 1 day is 1/2555 of her life; for a 57 year old, it is 1/20805) Cyclical Time: • How ancient people experienced time. (So, a kind of psychological time?) The experience of time for most of human existence, before there were time pieces and "hours" and "seconds", etc. • Time is experienced as events that keep coming back and reoccurring. • Examples: Moon phases. Seasons. Animal migrations. Planting and Harvest. Tides. Sunrise and sunset. Menstruation. Cycle of life. naturally enough, emphasizes repetition and is very much influenced by the cycles apparent in the natural world. The day/night cycle regulates our lives, telling us when to sleep and when it is productive (and safe) to go about the business of agriculture or hunting/gathering.

What is rule-utilitarianism, and why is it generally not considered a satisfactory alternative to act utilitarianism?

Rule-utilitarianism: An act is right if it follows a rule that, if generally followed, would maximize happiness, everyone considered. • Take the rule, do not lie. But what about when doing so will save a life? OK, how about rules, but with exceptions. Do not lie, except when doing so will ... • But once we start down this path, we eventually collapse back in to act utilitarianism. Where do we draw the line with exceptions? And still, there is nothing in the theory inherently committed to rights, duties, justice.

What was the thought experiment Rawls used before generalizing it to the "veil of ignorance" experiment, to ensure fair distribution of goods?

Suppose six hungry people have equal claim to a slice of an uncut pie. We'll draw straws for who gets to do the slicing. How do we ensure fairness? Simple: Make the person cutting get the last choice.

What is the difference between a teleological moral theory and a deontological moral theory?

Teleological is an approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions by examining its consequences while deontological is an approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, instead of examining any other considerations

Compare and contrast Camus and Nagel's views on what gives rise to the feeling of absurdity in human existence.

The clash is not between us and a meaningless world, but between us and any conceivable world that contained us. As long as we are human, our questions will always outrun our answers. The essence of the absurdity of our lives lies in " the collision between the seriousness with which we take our lives and the perpetual possibility of regrading everything about which we are serious as arbitrary, or open to doubt."

What was the point of the slide showing Maslow's hierarchy of needs?

The unpopular question at the center of today's class: In what ways can technology, specifically media technology, make it harder to live a meaningful, fulfilling life? (We don't need to rehearse all the ways in which it supposedly makes life better.)

How does virtue ethics change the focus in discussions about morality?

Virtue ethics focuses on what it is to lead a good life, instead of what it is to do the right thing.

What are some of the possible "virtues" of cultural relativism? What is the main drawback?

Virtues of Cultural Relativism • Promotes tolerance and acceptance of differences, leading to more empathy and compassion. Diffuses belief in the superiority of one's way of doing things. • Counteracts simple dualistic thinking, us vs. them. Good antidote to ethnocentrism. Encourages us to try to understand a culture's beliefs and practices from within that culture's point of view. Challenges for Cultural Relativism • Would seem to deny universal moral truths. Isn't sex trafficking of children wrong, no matter what? Isn't female genital surgery wrong, no matter what? (We may in fact find some universally held values around the world, but Cultural Relativism would say that proves nothing.) • What about the notion of universal human rights? • How can we claim the world has made moral progress, in things like outlawing slavery, giving women the right to vote, protecting workers, etc., if we think morals are just relative to a culture?

What was the central empirical claim of Gilligan's regarding gender differences in moral decision making?

When faced with moral decisions or dilemmas, men tend to think about rights and responsibilities. Women tend to think about compassion and care, about who is involved. Men want justice to be served, women care more about preserving and nurturing relationships (though not at the expense of justice). • Some later studies claimed to find little difference between the sexes in moral reasoning if age differences and educational levels are taken into account. So the jury is still out on Gilligan's original empirical claim about the sexes engaging in moral reasoning differently (and if so, what the causes are).

What was the point of the Bertrand Russell reading "It was a good Play" from A Free Man's Religion?

Why assume God & goodness & your mattering & immortality all go together?

What was the main different between Mill's version of utilitarianism, and Bentham's, and what problems does it generate for Mill?

• "It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognize the fact that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others. It would be absurd that, while in estimating all other things, quality is considered as well as quantity, the estimation of pleasures should be supposed to spend on quantity alone."

Why did Max claim having your data in "the cloud" is a misnomer?

• ALL YOUR DATA (PHOTOS, VIDEOS, TWEETS, SOCIAL MEDIA FEEDS, EMAILS, ETC.) IS HOSTED ON THE GROUND IN HUGE DATA CENTERS OWNED BY FOR PROFIT COMPANIES. • WHEN YOU DELETE SOMETHING ONLINE, IS IT REALLY GONE, EVERYWHERE? THERE'S ALWAYS A SCREENSHOT, AND ARCHIVE SERVICES. COMPANIES HAVE BEEN VAGUE ABOUT WHEN THEY ACTUALLY TRULY DELETE ALL INFORMATION, INCLUDING FROM CLOSED ACCOUNTS. • SHOULD ASSUME EVERYTHING YOU HAVE EVER PUT UP IS ACCESSIBLE BY SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE...

What are the two main criticisms we covered regarding considering ethical egoism as a MORAL theory?

• As an "ethical" theory it would seem to condone evil acts so long as they are in the egoist's best interest. But that's not what an "ethical" theory is about. • You can't preach what you practice. Ethical theories are generally regarded on principles of equality, that equals deserve equal treatment. But it is not in the egoist's interest to try to universalize her theory. The clever egoist will not openly act like one, and will encourage others to act altruistically.

Understand the argument for how judging your virtues might collapse virtue ethics back into an ethics of duty.

• Because having a virtue just is being disposed to act in a certain way, the only way to determine whether one has a certain virtue is to see how they act. • But if all judgments of virtue rest on judgments of action, we can't use virtue to judge the worth of your actions, since we're already determining whether you are virtuous by how you act. • But that puts us squarely back in to the realm of judging actions, and whether you are acting on your moral duties. • Morality (perhaps) requires virtue. But virtue is judged by actions. So maybe being virtuous and acting out of a sense of duty are two sides of the same coin?

What is one of the potential problems for Kant's duty based theory of ethics, illustrated by the overcrowded lifeboat example?

• But what about those thorny moral dilemmas where it seems we have to consider consequences. Don't we have to sometimes treat people as means to end, to avoid the greater evil? If the evil to be avoided is great enough, perhaps no duty is absolutely inviolable.

What objections to a consequentialist based theory of morality can a duty based theory of morality overcome?

• Consequentialism seems to give you the moral obligation to actively make this the best possible world. A "good" person actively promotes good. • Rights based theories mostly tell you what is OK to do, what is morally permissible. (Though they can also include obligations, such as the moral duty to provide for your children) A "good" person respects other's rights and fulfills their duties, whether or not the world becomes a better place.

What is one possible way to resolve the problem presented by cultural relativism? (covered in the slideshow and the readings)

• Cultural practices are not the same thing as moral judgments. We need to understand the larger context within which these practices occur. • Cross-cultural (or even same culture) moral disagreement may lie not in moral principles, but in what are taken to be the particular facts that generate any given moral judgment. • The "logical structure of moral judgements"(perhaps): Moral standard + Factual Beliefs = Moral Judgment. • The "logical structure of moral judgements" (perhaps): Moral standard + Factual Beliefs = Moral Judgment. • Perhaps everyone believes equals should be treated equally, but we disagree on what constitutes being an equal. What differs are our views about the nature of reality, not the nature of morality. • Take for example, the abortion debate and "pro-choice" vs. "pro-life". Both groups believe murdering an innocent person is wrong. That would be the universal "moral standard". But disagree on the "facts"—at what point does a fertilized egg, then a developing fetus, become a "person"?

What is the difference between normative ethics, and descriptive ethics?

• Descriptive Ethics: Describing the principles that people in fact, do use, to make moral judgments. Sciences like psychology, sociology, and anthropology. The researcher is "neutral." Describes what IS the case. • Normative Ethics: The study of how people SHOULD make ethical decisions, regardless of how they actually make them. An attempt to come up with a theory of what actually makes an act right or wrong. A prescriptive task. Describes what OUGHT to be the case. This is what philosophers specialize in.

Explain sociobiology's approach to normative ethics, and be able to describe the fallacy most philosophers believe it commits.

• E.O Wilson (one of the founders of sociobiology): "The empiricist argument holds that if we explore the biological roots of moral behavior, and explain their material origins and biases, we should be able to fashion a wise and enduring ethical consensus." (from Consilience, 1998) • Key idea of sociobiology: Natural selection has determined what kind of social behavior has survival for the species, or at least your clan or tribe. • This commits the naturalistic fallacy, which is to assume we can derive and OUGHT from and IS. Just because something is the case doesn't mean it should be the case.

Explain emotivism, and the theory of meaning that generated it. What are the standard criticisms of this theory?

• Emotivism: The doctrine that moral utterances are simply expressions of emotions, and have no truth value, for they are not making any real claims about the world. • For example, saying cheating on a test is wrong is actually equivalent to saying, "Cheating? Boo!!" • Arose out of the verifiability theory of meaning popular in the mid part of the 20th century, championed by a school of thought called logical positivism: If a sentence cannot be verified (if there is no way to determine what would make it true or false), then it is cognitively meaningless—- that is, neither true nor false.

What is Sartre's famous existential dictum, and what does it mean?

• Existence precedes essence. Sartre's famous dictum. There is only the present moment, and how you will respond to it. You are not bound by past conditioning, or "human nature". (Looks like a quiz question to me)

What are Kant's two formulations of the categorial imperative?

• Formulation one: An action is right if it meets two conditions, universalizability and reversibility. • Formulation two: An action if right if it treats people as ends in themselves and not merely as means to an end.

What did Max mean by saying "humans have a history because of technology"?

• Genetically we are little or no different than our hunting and gathering ancestors. We left the Savannah yesterday on an evolutionary timeframe. • Animals have no "history" in the sense that humans do. They adapt to their environment, or parish. Looked at one way, the story of humanity just is the story of changing our environment, which is the story of technology.

What was Gilligan's critique of Kohlberg's research on the stages of moral development?

• Gilligan was a developmental psychologist and colleague of Kohlberg's who claimed from her research that women tend to make ethical decisions differently (Kohlberg's system was based entirely off interviews with boys and men). • Women often don't "advance to stage 5 or 6" of moral development (social contract and universal ethical principles). Why is this?

What was the main problem that motivated Rawls to come up with his contractarian approach to ethics?

• How do we distribute society's benefits and burdens IN THE MOST FAIR WAY? • There are not enough goods—jobs, food, housing, medical care, educational opportunity, etc—to go around. • Given the scarcity of goods, what is the fairest arrangement?

What is the difference between a categorical and hypothetical imperative?

• Hypothetical imperatives demand you do certain things only if there is a certain end or goal you desire. For example, if you want to be a good student, study diligently. • A categorical imperative is one that must be obeyed under any circumstances.

How might one respond to the claim we are all hardwired to be egoists?

• If psychological egoism is true, then we might as well all adopt ethical egoism, because a moral theory should only ask of us what's possible. • If it is a claim about the nature of human psychology, that we can only do things that we think will make us happy, then it should be an empirically testable claim. • But if the theory is not falsifiable, if it is consistent with any state of affairs (no matter WHAT you do, you are being selfish if you act voluntarily), then it does not tell us anything interesting about the world or human psychology. It has become true by definition • If it's true by definition, it masks an important ordinary language distinction we want to make between selfish and unselfish behavior. For example, pick the "selfish person" you would rather be around—Mother Theresa or Hitler? • So, psychological egoism is either uninterestingly true by definition (voluntary acts = "selfish" acts), or it is interestingly

What paradox does thinking about the present generate when you approach it from the perspective of objective time?

• If the past no longer exists, and the future hasn't happened yet, isn't the only "real" time the present? Isn't it always "now"? But how do you define that "moment"? • Is it a duration-less point? A timeless boundary between the past and the future? Not a part of time itself, but a boundary? Then we seem to have a paradox, for there is no present, even though the present is all there is, objectively speaking. • In a way, all statements of fact about when something happened are false, since time never stops, and events unfold, are always happening in the flow of time. If there were no matter in motion, would it make sense to even talk about (objective) time?

What problems do we run into when we try to apply the concept of being a virtuous person to Utilitarianism or Kantianism?

• In obeying the categorical imperative, Kantianism requires us to always act out of a sense of duty. But that isn't always enough. • A virtuous person will perform their duties, but not simply out of a sense of duty, but also for reasons of love, empathy, and compassion. So mapping Virtue Ethics onto Kantian theories of duty asks too little, or at least ignores the proper motivations.

What were some of the results Max reported from running a one week media fast experiment for over 25 years with adult learners?

• Increased productivity (school, work, home) • Better mood-ignorance is bliss • Connect more with family, friends • Rediscovered hobbies • Pursued creative projects • Slept better • Had time for reflecting on life goals, the journey we are all on.

What is the basic difference between individual and cultural relativism?

• Individual Relativism: Nothing is absolutely right or wrong, it just depends on the individual. Whenever someone says an action is right, what that means is, it is right for them. • Cultural Relativism: Moral rights and wrongs are relative to a culture (or even a subgroup in a society). • Basic lessons of anthropology: As a descriptive claim, as a statement of fact about practices around the world, it IS true. But what about as a normative claim, a claim about what is right and wrong?

What were some of the metrics Bentham felt should be taken into consideration in employing his "hedonic calculus"?

• Intensity • Duration • Probability • Propinquity (nearness in time) • Fecundity (probability it will produce more happiness in the future) • impurity (probability that it will produce less happiness in the future.

What is the main objection to using a moral code to decide right from wrong?

• Moral codes can offer guidance, but they can't function as full blown theories of what makes an act right or wrong, for they are often too general or specific to solve a moral problem, and they can offer conflicting advice. • E.g. what if my parents tell me to steal? What if the only way to save a bunch of people is to kill one?

Know the major philosophical objections to relying on Divine Command Theory.

• Morally right actions are those decreed by God. What makes an action right is that God approves of it. God created morality. No God, no moral truths • Would seem to imply that morality has an inescapable arbitrary element to it. If God had decreed that murder was OK, then would it be? • On the other hand, if murder is wrong regardless of what God says, then God must not be the ultimate creator of morality (though he may be the ultimate enforcer). • Assumes there is a God. • Which God? Which Religion? • Still leaves us the task of figuring out what God decrees. How can you know? How do we settle disagreements? For that it seems we need an additional theory telling us how to figure it out (or we need to use our own moral reasoning, so we're back to where we started). • Even if there is no God, isn't murder still wrong? Would imply morality ultimately does not rest on there being a supernatural being.

What did Max mean by making the claim that this could also be characterized as the age of missing information?

• Most information you will never "know". Of the tiny amount of stuff you can know, what is most worth knowing to "self- actualize"? • Sports scores? Celebrity's lives? Friend's social media feeds? The latest human disaster? Pet videos? • Information ≠ knowledge. • This is not (just) the information age. It's the age of missing information. Do you know how to grow food? Read the weather? Sew your own clothes? Recognize the flora and fauna in your region? Our ancestors knew tons of things we have lost. What kinds of knowledge are most worth having?

What distinguishes an Ethics of Care from all the other moral theories we examined?

• Not a full blown ethical theory because it doesn't offer a decision procedure for how to solve ethical problems. Unless further developed, knowing we should factor our commitments and relationships into our ethical decisions does not by itself tell us what to do. (Not that any of the theories we have examined so far, have!) • An ethics of care simply emphasizes an aspect of our moral lives that the traditional (male philosopher created) moral theories tend to overlook—namely that our relationships matter in deciding what is the morally right thing to do. So maybe we should add it to the recipe for making moral decisions.

What are some of the things about humans and culture that seem to have led our species to create technology?

• Our ability to use language and conceptualize, and to communicate so as to work together cooperatively. • Our curiosity and creative impulse, and the desire to live more comfortably, or better, or different. • Our creation of symbol systems to capture meaning and measure the world, including mathematics. • Opposable thumbs (and being bipedal). • Worldview that the planet is ours to manipulate and control. (Carolyn Merchant— The Death of Nature) • Capitalism (reward for innovation)

What are some of the issues raised by the movie, "The Social Dilemma?"

• POWERFUL MEDIA COMPANIES DEVELOP ALGORITHMS THAT SUPPLY YOUR "FEED" WITH THE GOAL OF KEEPING YOU ON THE APP. "ADDICTION" IS THE AIM. WHY? • THE ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO MAKE MONEY THROUGH ADVERTISING. YOU ARE THE PRODUCT BEING SOLD. IN A SENSE, THESE COMPANIES ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER COMPANY. THEY ARE "MACHINES" BUILT TO MAXIMIZE PROFIT. • IN THE END, IT HARDLY MATTERS WHO RUNS THEM. THEIR BEHAVIOR IS DICTATED BY THEIR CORPORATE STRUCTURE AND THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM THEY OPERATE UNDER, NOT THE INDIVIDUALS IN CHARGE.

What is the difference between psychological egoism (hedonism) and ethical egoism?

• Psychological egoism (hedonism): We can't help but act in our own self-interest. To act voluntarily, to act on a desire, just is to act in our own self-interest. We can't help but be "selfish". • Ethical egoism: What makes an action right for an ethical egoist is that it promotes one's own best interests.

What is the Extended Mind Thesis?

• The extended mind thesis (EMT) claims that our mind and associated cognitive processes are neither skull-bound nor even body-bound, but extend into the surrounding environment via objects and technologies that help us negotiate reality.

What makes the Malagasy experience of time different from all the others we discussed?

• The future is unknowable (not just unknown). • The past is "in front of my eyes" because it is visible, known, and influential. • Situations trigger events as they occur. So the bus leaves when it is full. The filling stations order more gas when they run dry. Hordes of would- be passengers all show up at the airport and are THEN assigned seats once check-in starts, whatever it says on the ticket. Everyone is in a sense on standby. The plane will depart when it is full.

What is Pang's concept of the monkey mind?

• The monkey mind leaps about and never stays in one place, it is undisciplined and jittery. • It flits about, "attracted to today's infinite and ever- changing buffet of information choices and devices. It thrives on overload, is drawn to shiny and blinky things, and doesn't distinguish between good and bad technologies or choices."

What was Rawls' "veil of ignorance" thought experiment, and what was it designed to show?

• The parties to the social contract are in an original position of being behind a "veil of ignorance" with regards to their natures or position in society. • This means they are bargaining on a social contract for how to set up society, while not knowing anything about who they will be in terms of their race, age, sex, religion, social position, income, sexual orientation, talents, abilities, physical aptitudes, health, etc. • So, Bargain on the assumption that for all you know, you will come into the world poor, or part of a historically underprivileged group, handicapped, with one parent, few talents, limited IQ, etc.

What circumstances would make sociobiology more plausible as an approach to moral decisions?

• The sociobiology argument might have more force if we were bound by our biology and couldn't do otherwise. But the history of moral progress would indicate that's not true. We have eliminated slavery, for example. • Would also have more force if we could prove humans are happiest and most harmonious when they let their biological instincts guide their life. (So the argument would become, living by the values we have been biologically programmed to hold makes for the best lives). But that is highly debatable and takes a lot of empirical research.

What is one possible philosophical response to the question of why we can't all agree on a theory about the right way to do ethics?

• This is just the latest instance of a philosophical problem we've covered in class on which there is no universal agreement. This is the nature of philosophical inquiry. The questions that continue to be the domain of philosophers remain unsettled and complex (It's not rocket science, it's harder—it's philosophy). • Regarding this particular problem—ethics—Perhaps our moral life is too complex for any one theory to capture all situations. Sometimes rights matter most; sometimes the common good. Sometimes justice. Sometimes care. That may be a virtue, not a weakness of how we do ethics. • Why we can't agree on the answers to philosophical problems is itself an interesting philosophical question. One we won't explore, but I encourage you to mull over.

Describe the two thought experiments that lead to Kant's first formulation of the categorical imperative.

• Thought experiment 1: To determine whether a particular action is moral, imagine what the world would be like if everyone acted on that principle. If such a world is conceivable, and you would be willing to live in it, then it is morally permissible to act on that principle. (This is universalizability) • Thought experiment 2: Put yourself in the other person's shoes and decide whether you would let them do to you what you are about to do to them. If not, refrain from performing the action. (This is reversibility)—like the golden rule, except focuses on the principle in question, not the people involved.

What is traditional utilitarianism (act-utilitarianism)?

• Traditional utilitarianism ("Act-utilitarianism"): The right action is one that maximizes happiness for everyone affected by the act. Basic intuition: Seek to maximize the total amount of good or happiness in the world (and minimize suffering).

What basic fact about how we make moral judgments in every day life do all the theories considered so far seem to ignore?

• Utilitarian and Kantian approaches to ethics both emphasize impartiality in cranking out moral decisions, making them blind to any special obligations to caring relationships. Rawls' Veil of Ignorance makes the same assumptions. • Shouldn't we prioritize family and loved ones in our moral lives? Don't parents have special obligations to their children over obligations to others, in addition to maximizing the general good or carrying out their duties to society in general? Isn't going for total impartiality, wrong?

What is Williams James' solution for using psychological time to get out of that paradox talked about in the previous question?

• Way out of paradox? William James (a pragmatist!): "The present" is a psychological event, rather than a mathematical or real event. And it has a duration. • If we define time as the experience of the duration of our consciousness, then "the present" is just the perceptual time- span of that duration. • How long the "present" moment lasts depends in part on the sensory stimuli that are perceived as a unitary event. Rarely longer than 5 seconds, often less than .5 seconds.

What are some of the main problems for utilitarianism in general, as illustrated by the thought experiments from the textbook covered in the lecture slideshow?

• What about animals? Bentham believed what made a being worthy of moral consideration was not whether it could reason, but whether it could suffer. Do animals need to be factored in to the utilitarian's calculations? • What maximizes happiness may fundamentally violate someone's rights. (e.g. Brandt's Utilitarian Heir—p. 360) • Same goes for not following through on our duties. Don't I have certain duties no matter whether they maximize happiness? E.g. The duty to keep my promises. Parents' duties toward their children. • Does not take into account the importance of distributive justice. What if we maximize happiness by distributing it unequally (e.g. Ewing's Utilitarian Torture—p. 362)? • Can thwart retributive justice. We will punish you for your crime only if it maximizes utility? Or we will punish the innocent if it maximizes happiness. What about the law being impartial, about treating equals equally (Ewing's Innocent Criminal—p. 362)?

What was "philosophical probe #4" about in the lecture?

• Wisdom, reflection and life lessons cannot be rushed, are not contained in some app or YouTube video. They take down time, processing time, not having our consciousness always on the surface with media stimulation. How often are you alone with yourself? • As a species, and as individuals, we can have access to ever more information, yet be increasingly shallow people.

What are some of the "bizarre consequences" of Individual Relativism?

• You can never be wrong, (assuming you fully know the situation and have thought it through). You are morally infallible by definition. • You make an action right (for you) simply by agreeing with it. • Moral disagreement is reduced to persuasion and matters of opinion, nothing objective. • Most importantly, if taken to its logical conclusion, it leads to judgments no one would accept. E.g. If Hitler thought that murdering Jews was right, then for him it was right.

Understand the idea that technology does not give you more choices, just different choices.

• You can't live in a world with no cars (and all that implies). • You can't live in a world where a grade school education is enough. • You can't live in a world without time pieces. • You can't live in a world free of the threat of nuclear annihilation. • You can't live in a world where the only way to communicate is face-to-face. • You can't live in a world free of toxic chemicals. • You can't live in a world free of social media. • You can't live in a world where you never saw an image of yourself (or anyone else). • You can't live in a world where you only know what's going on in your immediate neighborhood.

What did Max mean in claiming that the "advance" of technology is not a democratic process?

• You may experience technology as some abstract force, because over 99% of humans have no say, no involvement, in the "advance" of technology. It is NOT A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. • The everyday experience: "Technology happens..." You expect things to keep changing, the world to keep "advancing". "What will they think of next?" This is NEW in human history. The vast majority of generations of humans died living the same way they did when they were born. • We do not debate as a society what to create next, we do not vote. • The people and organizations (universities, corporations, inventors, wealthy investors...) involved in advancing technology put something new into the world, and we accept it, learning only gradually what its overall effects will be. • Voting with your pocketbook is not the same as a public debate beforehand.