Thursday, May 12, 2011

Endgame for Ethics 111

Reminder: All work must be turned in by 12 noon, Wednesday, May 18th in order to be graded in time for the grade submission deadline on May 19th. Good luck friend and have a restful summer!

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Final Exam for Thurs. May 12th

Essay questions. Answer ANY TWO of the following questions. Your answer should explore as many of the relevant aspects as possible (e.g. moral, legal, political, practical, theoretical, etc.) Use of notes for this in-class exam is allowed.

__________________________

1. When is killing ethically justified?

Use any issues and examples we discussed in class, along with the relevant theories, to answer this question. You may focus your answer on capital punishment, abortion, euthanasia, or another context, or you may address each of these.

2. What do we owe to those in need?

In our rights-based ethical language, we have both negative (e.g. non-interference) and positive (e.g. duties to help others achieve well-being). What are we ethically obligated to do to help those in need around us?

3. What kind of material inequality is justifiable in a just society?

How much material inequality is too much inequality for a society to be considered just? How would the US need to be altered, if at all, in order to make it a just society in terms of the distribution of wealth and social privileges?

4. What kinds of representations, if any, are not ethically justifiable?

In certain discussions of media ethics, images of sex and violence are deemed unethical and seen as toxic for the society. Are there such images which are toxic? If so, in what sense are they toxic and what are the ethical dimensions of allowing, or censoring their expression?

5. How far should acknowledge of fundamental Lockean rights be extended to include the non-human world?

Utilitarians argue that the ability to suffer is the fundamental criterion for considering something as having interests which make an ethical claim on us. The Bolivian government recently called for acknowledgment of rights even for entities considered non-sentient, such as water, air and minerals. Is this extension too much or is it necessary for environmental sustainability? Is so, why? If not, why not?

6. When is one ethically justified in disobeying one’s government?

According to Lockean rights, the institution of civil society requires the alienation of the right to judge and execute the moral “law of nature.” When does the unethical behavior of a government justify civil, or non-civil disobedience to the state?

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Environmental Ethics: Making Sense of the Intrinsic Value of the Earth

Ethical Anthropocentrism: The view that prioritizes those attitudes, values or practices which give exclusive or arbitrarily preferential consideration to human interests as opposed to the interests of other beings or the environment.

Mother Earth To Be Given Rights Equal to Humans In New Bolivian Law

by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY on 04.11.11

pachamama image
Pachamama, the goddess revered by indigenous Andean people as 'Mother World'. Image:Wikipedia.

A brief update on a story from a year ago: Bolivia is about to pass laws granting all of nature equal rights to human beings. The laws were first proposed after the World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth and show the deep differences in zeitgeist between Bolivia and, well, pretty much every other nation-state on the planet.

Rights enshrined into law include:

The right to life and to exist; the right to continue vital cycles and processes free from human alteration; the right to pure water and clean air; the right to balance; the right not to be polluted; and the right to not have cellular structure modified or genetically altered. Controversially, it will also enshrine the right of nature "to not be affected by mega-infrastructure and development projects that affect the balance of ecosystems and the local inhabitant communities".(The Guardian)

The new law goes on to articulate how Mother Earth, Pachamama is, "sacred, fertile and the source of life that feeds and cares for all living beings in her womb. She is in permanent balance, harmony and communication with the cosmos. She is comprised of all ecosystems and living beings, and their self-organization."

That view is rooted in the indigenous beliefs of the Bolivian people and has much in common with the beliefs of indigenous peoples throughout the world--and while described somewhat differently, is roughly similar to traditional Hindu beliefs about all of existence being sacred, worthy of reverence, as well as pre-Christian beliefs of European peoples.

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Ethics of How We Treat Animals

Thursday, April 21, 2011

The Amoral Architecture of Corporate Morality

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Civil Disobedience Against Civilization

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Capitalism & Socialism: Distribution of Income

A new article in Vanity Fair by a famous economist discusses the increasing inequality of wealth in America. Check out Joseph Stieglitz's "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%"

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Peak Oil

Here's the full film that we watched a section of last class. The parts we missed tell the story of the development of suburban living in the US and are a fascinating history of how we became so reliant on cheap oil. Below the film is a link to a recent article of a WikiLeaks cable regarding Saudi Oil.

WikiLeaks cables: Saudi Arabia cannot pump enough oil to keep a lid on prices

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Ethics 111 Take-home quiz on deontology

• Due: Friday, April 1^st by 6 PM via email.

• To be emailed to vood@cummings-good.com.

• You may turn in a hard copy of your quiz at Thursday’s class on 3/31.

Note: You must put these answers in your own words. In the age of Google, Plaigarism is very easy to detect and if you simply cut and paste sections of text you find to answer these questions, I will discover this and you will not receive credit.

Shorter answer questions (15 points each = 60 points total)

(1) Deontology: Define and explain why Kant focuses on motives rather than consequences

(2) Describe two ways that Kantianism is similar to, and two ways it is different from utilitarianism.

(3) Explain the difference between a hypothetical and categorical imperative, and the significance it has for Kant’s theory of ethics.

(4) Explain John Rawls’ concept of an ‘original position’ as a thought experiment for elucidating rational principles of justice.

Longer answer question (40 points)

(5) Is lying ever ethically justifiable? Use what you know about Kant and utilitarianism to discuss how this question might be answered.

Monday, March 28, 2011

Class on Tues. March 29th

Dear class: I decided on a change of plans regarding the ethics exam originally scheduled for Tuesday. I am going to give you a take-home exam on March 29th, to be due on Thurs., March 31st. For the class itself, we're gonna do something completely different!

Sunday, March 27, 2011

John Rawls: Theory of Justice as Fairness

The ‘original position’

The original position is a hypothetical situation developed by American philosopher John Rawls as a thought experiment to replace the imagery of a savage state of nature of prior political philosophers like Thomas Hobbes. In it, the parties select principles that will determine the basic structure of the society they will live in. This choice is made from behind a veil of ignorance, which would deprive participants of information about their particular characteristics: his or her ethnicity, social status, gender and, crucially, Conception of the Good (an individual's idea of how to lead a good life). This forces participants to select principles impartially and rationally. In social contract theory, persons in the state of nature agree to the provisions of a contract that defines the basic rights and duties of citizens in a civil society. In Rawls's theory, Justice as Fairness, the original position plays the role that the state of nature does in the classical social contract tradition of Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Locke.

As a thought experiment, the original position is a hypothetical position designed accurately to reflect what principles of justice would be manifest in a society premised on free and fair cooperation between citizens, including respect for liberty, and an interest in reciprocity.

The ‘veil of ignorance’

In the state of nature, it might be argued that certain persons (the strong and talented) would be able to coerce others (the weak and disabled) by virtue of the fact that the stronger and more talented would fare better in the state of nature. This coercion is sometimes thought to invalidate any contractual arrangement occurring in the state of nature. In the original position, however, representatives of citizens are placed behind a "veil of ignorance", depriving the representatives of information about the individuating characteristics of the citizens they represent. Thus, the representative parties would be unaware of the talents and abilities, ethnicity and gender, religion or belief system of the citizens they represent. As a result, they lack the information with which to threaten their fellows and thus invalidate the social contract they are attempting to agree to.

Two Principles of Justice

In the social contract, citizens in a state of nature contract with each other to establish a state of civil society. For example, in the Lockean state of nature, the parties agree to establish a civil society in which the government has limited powers and the duty to protect the persons and property of citizens. In the original position, the representative parties select principles of justice that are to govern the basic structure of society. Rawls argues that the representative parties in the original position would select two principles of justice:

1. Each citizen is guaranteed a fully adequate scheme of basic liberties, which is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all others;

2. Social and economic inequalities must satisfy two conditions:

(a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged (maximin rule);

(b) attached to positions and offices open to all. The reason that the least well off member gets benefited is that it is assumed that under the veil of ignorance, under original position, people will be risk averse. This implies that everyone is afraid of being part of the poor members of society, so the social contract is constructed to help the least well off members.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Student Presentation schedule

Hi friends -

Here is the tentative schedule for your presentations. Let me know if there are any conflicts or major objections to the order.

Presentations should be at least 20 min. long. You should be able to explain the issue clearly, present the relevant viewpoints on the issue in a compelling manner, and be able to express your own perspective.

If you would like any help in organizing your presentation, please let me know!

Additional resources are available on the TRCC website at the Points of View Reference Center (Found by logging into http://my.commnet.edu/ , click the “Library” tab, then scroll down to until you see “Opposing Viewpoints” and click on “Points of View Reference Center.” Use any sources you find helpful.

THU 3/31 Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia/Killing & Letting Die

(Megan Davis/Ethan Reith)

TUE 4/5 Capitalism and Socialism

(Lourdy Alphonse-Saintil/Jenean Jourdan/Nathanial Rose)

THU 4/7 Property Rights/World Hunger/Poverty

(Justin Nieves/Nicolas Anderson/Jasmine Fuentes/Jesse Ward)

TUE 4/12 Capital Punishment/Torture

(Heavenly Duerson/Kayla Lane/Philip Landry/Tim Lynch)

THU 4/14 Media Ethics/Internet Ethics

(Rachel Gardiner/Moriah Jensen/)

TUE 4/19 Civil Disobedience/Nationalism & Secession (The Authority of Nations)

(Matthew Stedmans/Charley Shafer/Nathanial Rose