HW, Chapter 30

1- what's mcpherson´s definition of terrorism?
2- on p. 276 mcpherson makes a point about war deaths and combatants vs. non-combatants. why?
3- then he cits article 51 of the geneva conventions to address what he calls "proportionality principle" and offers two reasons. comment these.
4- what's mcpherson's conclusion regarding the "proportionality principle"?
5- is there a difference between nelson mandela's terrorist activist and the terrorism defended by ISIS? explain your answer.
6- what's mandela's justification of terrorism? do you agree?
7- read mcpherson's last paragraph on p. 279. do you agree? explain your answer.

Exam #2 (Chapter 37)

Bring this test, printed, headed (top, left hand-side) Times New Roman, p. 12,

Heading:

Phi 2604, Test #2
T,R 8:25am
Doe, John

____________________________________

1- What is the main argument of Tom Regan's "The Case for Animal Rigthts"?
2- Mary Anne Warren disagrees with Regan. Why?

person_p= a being with 1. reason, 2. sentience, 3. autonomy, 4. free will?

3- what is the "weak animal rights" position?
4- Mary Anne Warren takes Regan's argument into three stages: mention each one.
5- Take this of the best known animal rights defender utilitarian Peter Singer:

In "Animal Liberation," Singer argues that in assessing the consequences of our actions, it is necessary to take the interests of animals seriously and to weigh any adverse affect on those interests from human actions as part of the consequences of those actions. Humans have failed to do this, Singer argues, because of a species bias, or speciesism, that results in a systematic devaluation of animal interests. Singer claims that speciesism is no more morally defensible than racism, sexism, or other forms of discrimination that arbitrarily exclude humans from the scope of moral concern.

Do you agree with Singer that our treatment of animals shows this kind of species bias? If so, provide one example.

6- What does "inherent value" mean?
7- How does a "perfectionist theory" is adumbrated into the "inherent value" argument according to Regan?
8- What is the "respect principle"?
9- From Regan's perspective, do the trees in a forest have inherent values? why?
10- Do you see a difference between "value" and "right"? Explain.
11- Do you agree with Mary Anne Warren argument in p. 348 of how much is enough?
12- What is Regan's answer to the objection of how far down the biological ladder should we go in granting rights?
13- Do you take the following quote by Mary Ann Warren as a defense of animal rights? If so, what kind?

The weak animal rights position seems an unstable compromise between the bold claim that animals have the same basic moral rights that we do and the common view that animals have no rights at all.

14- Then on p. 352, Mary Ann Warren declares this:

The most plausible alternative to the view that animals have moral rights is that although they do not have rights, we are, however obligated not to be cruel to them.  

 Is she definitely defending this position as a substitute to Regan's? If think not, what is she saying?

HW (Chapter 39)

1. According to Sober, environmentalists have a problem. What is it? 

2. "Widening the ethical circle" according to Sober means including less organisms whose costs and benefits we compare.

3. Is Sober making an argument that species have mental states?

4.  Does he believe that every species is crucial to a balanced eco-system?

5. Does Sober believes that each extinction matters only "a little?"

6. Do you think that Sober takes the environmentalists to be using the slippery slope argument?

7. According to Sober, do environmentalists and animal liberationists differ with respect to wild and domesticated animals?

8. Do environmentalists favor domesticated animals?

9.  Do you think that if a whale is listed as "in danger of extinction" it should count more than another which is not? If so why?

10. What is a slippery slope argument?

11. Do you find any relevant differences between aesthetic and environmental values?

homework, chapter 6 (ethics of duty, part 2)

Dear class: Let's go back to some points in Formalism, now that I have added W.D. Ross's revision of Kant. (Go to page 187. Kantian Heritage).

1. how is acting from duty exemplary?
2. why should morality be impartial?
3. why is respecting others important?
4. why did Kant miss the importance of human inclinations?
5. Kant excluded emotions from his formalism. Why? How could emotions be included wothout betraying our notions of duty?

from my W.D. Ross' post:
1. according to W D Ross, what's the difference between a prima facie duty and an actual duty?
use the example I provided. keeping a promise to A endangers the life of B.   
2. what's my prima facie duty?, what's my actual duty?
3. is "breaking my promise" my actual duty?
4. Ross really doesn't provide a duty hierarchy, yet, "self-improvement" is not at the top of his duties. why?
5. think of a situation where self-improvement becomes a higher ranked duty.

from my self-respect post:
1. explain why dignity is "absolute inner worth" according to Kant?
2. why is dignity intrinsic?
3. Discuss how Paul Dodhson connects time, sex, relations and drugs, with the idea of dignity.

Some ideas about self-respect

DIGNITY IS AN END

self-respect yields the idea of self-worth or human dignity. as autonomous moral agents, we are ends in themselves with the "absolute inner worth" that Kant calls "dignity" (Würde).

Dignity is not a worth that others can give to you, or one has to earn or waive or give up. If you are a person you have DIGNITY, regardless of personal qualities, social status, and accomplishments and failures.

Dignity is intrinsic worth: we all have dignity simply in virtue of having been born with the rational capacities that make us persons. Persons are all equal in dignity, and this gives each person both the moral status of an equal person among persons and an equal set of basic rights, at least some of which are inviolable and inalienable.

now, let's address self respect by applying Kant's second formulation to oneself:

treat yourself as an END never MERELY as a means to an end (taken from Paul Dodsohn A Personal Guide For the Honest)

imagine these: 1. Wasted time, 2. Bad sex, 3. Drugs, 4. Bad companies.  

let's tackle those:

1. Wasted time: time flies. because of its temporal importance, time is the reserve of one's life. I must save my time to become as productive as I possibly can. 

Wasting time is WASTING LIFE. Wasting life is being self-destructive.  

2. Bad sex: clearly, sex is more than sexual pleasure. sex is a vehicle for meaningful relationships -as with romantic love. but there's bad sex when sex turns against one's dignity and self-growth. 

Bad sex leaves us regretful, empty, and emotionally scarred. 

3. Drugs: A drug habit undermines one's dignity by making the person dependent on their worst possible traits. 

Since "under the influence" one is not fully oneself, drugs may make us do regrettable things.  

4. Bad companies: these are bad relations that impede one's flourishing. they waste one's time because very little comes out of it. one shouldn't be friends with people who are disrespectful to themselves or others. 

With bad friends I end up doing what I ought to stop myself from doing.

HW (chapter 25)

1- What's the difference between "active" and "passive" euthanasia?
2- Rachels analyzes the cases of children which Down's syndrome are allowed to die in cases of intestinal obstruction. She then gives an example of Smith's inheritance (p. 229). She asks: Did either men behave better from a moral point of view?  Do you have a counter to Rachels's point on behalf of doctors?
3- Under what circumstances is active euthanasia morally preferable to passive euthanasia?

chapter 35, READING, HIGH VS. LOW

Gans strikes me as a cultural relativist disguised as a perspectivist. why?
he attributes these differences between high and low to "taste." and the taste is given -he would say- by intersubjective norms, but he doesn't press further that the a work is better because notes in the work that elicit notes which become a norm.

in the end we get an "elite" taste and a "commons" taste. the point is that given any subset of "low" you can find we always get a niche of experts, i.e, we get "elites" in each sub common category. but i'm ahead of myself.

in the middle of all this is the history of high/low, which goes back to 18th century. it's a modern thing. then there is cultural evolution: early 20th century, movies were "low" when compared to theater, now it reigns. rock music was attacked by establishment and many jazz players (rock was a competition to earlier swing music from jazz bands, note: charlie parker hated it because it lacked the harmonic complexity of jazz).

... popular art is dominated by a need for familiar forms, an intolerance of ambiguity, a tendency toward easiness and indulgence in stimulated emotion. In spite of all this he thinks there “is a time and place even for popular art. 

who doubts that mcdonald's whooper sandwhich is a masterpiece? 

Novitz defends a form of conventionalism which makes high a product of the elites. but that ignores that opera was popular when it came out (there was opera a opera buffa or comic). jazz was quite popular when it came up in new orleans in the 1920s. now it's a classical form, the chinese and venezuelans take classical music to new hights in their youth symphony orchestras.

Carroll (1998) seems to defend a sort of objectivist position. he argues that the key theoretical concept is not that of popular art but of "mass art" that is to say, art that is mass-produced and distributed in multiple quantities as a species of popular art, which he defines as the art of the commons. what makes this possible?

the commons? or the media? (many argue with the advent of social media that it's both)

1. massification. to appeal the mass work must gravitate "toward the lowest level of taste, sensitivity, and intelligence".
2. passivity. genuine art should require active spectatorship, yet mass art abets passive reception. it's easy and safe.
3. formulaic. a common complaint is that popular or mass art is formulaic,whereas real art is original in its conception and in its goals.

this has three points:

1. multiples
2. produced and distributed by a mass technology
3. intentionally designed to gravitate in its structural choices (for example, its narrative forms, symbolism, intended affect, and even its content) toward those choices that promise accessibility with minimum effort. . . for the largest number of untutored (or relatively untutored) audiences."

since Carroll bites the bullet, we should think through his points: 

point 1. lowest means saleable. that's definitely a concern of producers today. 2. passivity? how does one define that? techno is repetitive. but so is minimalism in contemporary music. how is mass music being distributed in the radio more "passive" than a more challenging music form? 3. formulaic. definitely! main stream reggeton is a good example.

homework #6, chapter 6

this homework is based on our textbook, chapter 6,

and my two lectures: on this lecture and this lecture.

1. Why is keeping a promise a duty? In your defense, bring to bear Kant's first formulation. 

2. Do you have duties to yourself? Explain why.   

3. What does it mean to say that an action is universal and reversible? 

4. What's Kant's idea of respect? Bring an example from your own life to apply this idea.

5. Explain the difference between treating a person "as a mean to," and "merely as a mean to and end"?

6. How do you apply the second principle to yourself? Explain.

Questions stressed in yellow require at least 30 words.

HW 9 (chapter 43)

This chapter explores the idea of consensual sex on campus

Be aware of each of the three stories of Joan (p. 410-411).

1- In light of freedoms of adult students and teachers to pursue their relationships, is there a possibility of a policy limiting sexual relationships on campus?
2- Do you agree with Wesley College's policy that sexual relationships constitute "an intolerable invasion of
privacy?" If yes or no, why?

We need the following definitions:
Paternalism: A policy or practice of treating or governing people in a fatherly manner, especially by providing for their needs without giving them rights or responsibilities.
Conflict of interests: the circumstance of a public officeholder, corporate officer, etc., whose personal interests might benefit from his or her official actions or influence.
Autonomy: The condition or quality of being autonomous; independence.

3- Explain the paternalist position concerning sexual relationships (p. 413).
4- Do you agree that the paternalist view affects women unequally? If so, why? (keep in mind that right now there are more male professors than female professors in our universities and colleges).
5- What would a more permissive policy regarding sexual relationships on campus may look like? Elaborate.
6- Let's go over the different problems of consensual relationship on campus (p. 414)
7- What is the most likely conflict of interests at universities? Give examples. (p. 414)
8-  What is impaired consent? (hint: a "yes doesn't mean a "yes") Explain.
9-  Define "informed consent"?

HW 8 (chapter 35)

Let's start this second text with an analysis that is often postponed or not addressed at all. the issue of Animal Rights on Chapter 35. 

1- What are the animal goals that philosopher Tom Regan is committed to at the beginning of the essay?
2- In the second paragraph we get a look at a second possible position which is still sympathetic to animals, though Tom Regan would not support it. make a hypothetical list of that second less radical position?
3- What is Regan's "fundamental wrong"?
4- Regarding animals, what's an "indirect duty"? in the dog example, what is Regan trying to show? p. 328
5-  Contractarianism is the view of a social contract between parties that agree to a set of rules which maximize their interests. The result for ethics is that moral actions follow the rule, immoral actions disobey the rule. 
Explain why Regan doesn't think Contractarianism makes sense in the case of animal rights.
7- Is Contractarianism an indirect view of justice according to Regan?
8- Comment the "cruelty/kindness view." Why is it no better according to Regan?  p.330
9- Explain this sentence: "What has value for the utilitarian is the satisfaction of an individual's interests, not the individual whose interests they are." . 332
10- Define Speciesism? p. 331
11- Do you agree with Regan's example of Aunt Bea?
12- What does it mean being "the subject of a life?
13- Do you believe that animals have inherent value? If not, why not?
14- If you answer to 13 is "No," are you then a speciesist?
15- Do you agree with this?

Some believe animals have less inherent value than we have. What is the reason? Lack of reason, intellect? Only if we're willing to make the same judgment in the case of humans that are similarly deficient.