The following slides are mostly Marks lecture slides

The following slides are mostly Mark’s lecture slides that may be relevant to the questions in the study guide. Please note that studying these slides alone won’t be enough to be well-prepared for the exam. You will also want to review the lecture slides overall and the main points/arguments of the assigned readings.

General Things You Should Know

Empirical vs. Normative • Empirical claims: – Are concerned with how the world is. – Subject to observational or scientific investigation. • Normative claims: – Are concerned with how the world should be, or how people should behave. – In short, values rather than facts. – Not subject to observational or scientific investigation. – Key words: Good, Bad, Right, Wrong, Should, Ought, Proper, Appropriate. . .

Theoretical Interlude: Moral Theory • A moral theory is a set of general principles that: 1. Identifies what features all morally good (or bad) actions have in common. • A moral theory explains our shared intuitions about what is right and wrong. 2. Gives us guidance in tough cases where people disagree (animals, abortion, sexual morality, etc. )

Theoretical Interlude 2 • 3 main kinds of ethical theory: – Consequentialism – Acts are right or wrong depending on their consequences. • Utilitarianism (Bentham, Mill, Singer) – Kantianism/Deontology – Acts are right or wrong depending on whether they respect moral rules. (Kant, Arthur) – Virtue Ethics – The basis of morality is moral character or moral virtue; we should evaluate moral agents rather than moral actions. (Aristotle, Slote)

Theoretical Interlude: Moral Theories • 3 types of moral theory – Consequentialist/Utilitarian – Deontological/Kantian – Virtue ethics

Consequentialism/Utilitarianism • Roots in Bentham/Mill • Q: “What should we do? ” • A: “Bring about the outcome with the most total pleasure and the least total pain. ”

Utilitarianism: Motivations • Equal weight to everyone’s interests • Aims for “best possible outcome”

Utilitarianism: Problems • Unwieldy? • Troubles with ‘utils’ • Tramples individuals’ rights? – “Ends justify the means” – “Bad” desires?

Deontological/Kantian Theory • Morality based on rules • Includes contractualist theories – Rawls, Scanlon – Rules are based on a hypothetical agreement among rational agents.

Virtue Ethics • Roots in Aristotle • The basis of morality is moral character or moral virtue – Emphasis on virtues like: kindness, compassion, loyalty, honesty. . . • Good/bad actions are those that exhibit good/bad moral character

Policy Argument P 1. The only justification for state interference with an individual’s liberty is if the exercise of that liberty causes demonstrable harm to others. “Harm Principle” P 2. Pornography, as Longino defines it, does cause demonstrable harm. C. Therefore, the state is justified in interfering with individuals’ liberty to produce, distribute & consume pornography.

Wicclair: Free Speech Argument Wicclair concedes Harm Principle: It is justifiable to restrict liberty when exercise of liberty would cause substantial and demonstrable harm. How do we know when harm is sufficient to justify censorship?

Theoretical Interlude 1 • Philosophers divide actions into several categories: ▫ Morally Prohibited. Actions that are not prohibited are: ▫ Morally Permitted. Actions that are permitted are either: �Morally Neutral Or �Morally Obligatory Or �Supererogatory • An action that is morally obligatory is called a moral duty or moral obligation. • Another way of saying this is that it is morally prohibited to fail to perform an obligatory action.

• Morally impermissible/prohibited action : it is morally wrong to do it. e. g. ) torturing a baby for fun • Morally permissible/permitted action : it is not morally wrong to do it o Morally neutral action e. g. ) eating ice cream o Morally obligatory action : it is morally wrong not to do it e. g. ) saving a drowning child when no risk is involved. o Supererogatory action : not obligatory(it is not morally wrong not to do it), but morally good e. g. ) risking your life to save a drowning child

Self-determination/autonomy What is self-determination/autonomy? Very roughly, it is the capacity to be able to recognize and choose among courses of action; the capacity to make decisions about how one’s life goes. Why is self-determination/autonomy valuable? Very roughly, there is an ancient (Aristotelian) idea that people’s lives go best when they are able to exercise their distinctive capacities.

Argument from Autonomy P 1. Given the value of being able to make important decisions about one’s life in accordance with one’s own values, individuals have a moral right to make such decisions for themselves. P 2. A decision about how and when to die is an important decision that reflects a person’s deepest values. P 3. Therefore, individuals have a moral right to make decisions about the time and manner of their death. C. Therefore, PAS and VAE are morally permissible.

Animals

Common Objections 1. Vegetarian/vegan diets are unhealthy. a. No real evidence for this.

Common Objections 2. Animals eat other animals. Like, all the time. – Behavior of non-humans is not subject to moral evaluation.

Common Objections 2. Animals eat other animals. Like, all the time. – Behavior of non-humans is not subject to moral evaluation. – Do we really want to take our cues from other animals’ behavior?

Common Objections 3. Humans are evolved/designed to eat meat.

Common Objections 3. Humans are evolved/designed to eat meat. “If humans are evolved/designed to do something, it’s morally ok for them to do it. ” • It has been claimed that. . . – Humans are evolved/designed to make war on neighboring groups; – Men are evolved/designed to rape women.

Common Objections = Empirical 3. Humans are evolved/designed to eat meat. “If humans are evolved/designed to do something, it’s morally ok for them to do it. ” • It has been claimed that. . . – Humans are evolved/designed to make war on neighboring groups; – Men are evolved/designed to rape women.

Common Objections 4. Vegetarian/vegan food is expensive; most people can’t afford to eat that way.

Common Objections 4. Vegetarian/vegan food is expensive; most people can’t afford to eat that way.

Common Objections Wrap-up • Is being vegetarian or vegan unhealthy and/or prohibitively expensive? – Apparently, no. . . if you’re willing to expend a little effort and make a few sacrifices. • What about what other animals do? What about our evolutionary adaptations? – We are capable of “rising above” the behavior of other animals and of our evolutionary forebears.

Pornography

Attitudes & Behavior 2002 Study “It is important to recognize that the proposed process does not require a participant to dislike African Americans, or to hold any explicit prejudice against them, nor does it require that the participant endorse the stereotype; it simply requires that, at some level, the participant associates the two concepts “African American” and “violent. ”

Putting it Together: Attitudes & Behavior Psychological research tells us: Our unconscious minds are constantly picking up cues from our environments. We develop associations based on these cues that affect how we process incoming information. These associations can affect how we behave, in subtle ways. These processes work even when we are not aware of them. We can exert influence on these processes by choosing the environments we’re exposed to.

But. . . But we do need to ask why it is we find certain materials erotic and arousing. Why are these materials rewarding? And we do need to ask what effect, if any, the “mainstream” nature of certain types of pornography is having on our ideas of sexuality.

Sex vs. Sexuality Sex is indeed a biological phenomenon, in which instinct does play a role. But sexuality—the ways we understand ourselves as sexual beings, and what we find erotic and sexual—is (at least partially) culturally constructed.

Sex vs. Sexuality Looners Furries Literotica. com categories: • Erotic Couplings: 40, 521 • Incest: 29, 888 • Group Sex: 17, 209 • Exhibitionist & Voyeur: 13, 534 • Gay Male/Lesbian: ~11, 000 each • Fetish (feet, panties, food): 9, 499

Sex vs. Sexuality Plausibly, expressions of sexuality in pornography both reflect and shape notions of sexuality in broader culture. If aspects of our culture’s sexuality are problematic, perhaps pornography plays a role (along with many, many other things). Sexual violence Double standards “Keeping up with the Jamesons”

Cameron & Frazer: Main Points 1. Causal accounts of sexual violence—and human behavior generally—are both inadequate and miss the point. 2. But pornography is related to sexual violence: pornography makes sexual violence intelligible by making certain contributions to the space of reasons.

Explaining Human Behavior Philosophers distinguish 2 ways of answering the question, ‘Why did Ted do X? ’ 1. Because neurons in region 5 of Ted’s brain were firing in such-and-such pattern. (Reductive, causal explanation. ) 2. Because Ted wanted A and he believed that doing X was the best way to get A. (Reason explanation. )

Reasons are a way of making sense of people’s actions—our own and those of others. The set of available reasons does not exist in a vacuum—it is constantly shaped and re-formed by culture. “When Ted Bundy tells us he was corrupted by pornography, we need to ask not whether he is lying but where he got the story. ” -Pg. 246

Cameron & Frazer reject 2 “causal” models The “copycat” model of pornography’s effects: you see it, you do it. • Humans are not mere stimulus-response machines, and The “addiction” model of pornography’s effects: start with something mild, and then need more and more intense experiences, a need that results in actually acting. • A person needs to “interpret” representations in order to find them erotic.

Pornography’s Connection to Sexual Violence • Pornography does not cause sexual violence, but. . . • The presence of violent pornography does provide us with a “story” to use in interpreting and explaining, for example, Bundy’s actions. • What other “stories” might pornography give us about other facets of human sexuality? Could it change our ideas about what kinds of sexuality are “normal”? Could it shape our ideas about masculinity and femininity?

Global Poverty

Theoretical Interlude 2 • 3 main kinds of ethical theory: – Consequentialism – Acts are right or wrong depending on their consequences. • Utilitarianism (Bentham, Mill, Singer) – Kantianism/Deontology – Acts are right or wrong depending on whether they respect moral rules. (Kant, Arthur, Carruthers) – Virtue Ethics – The basis of morality is moral character or moral virtue; we should evaluate moral agents rather than moral actions. (Aristotle, Slote)

Singer’s Argument: • P 1: Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care bad. • P 2: If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so. • P 3: By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important. • C: Therefore, if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong.

= Empirical Singer’s Argument: = Normative • P 1: Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care bad. • P 2: If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so. • P 3: By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important. • C: Therefore, if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong.

Arthur: Closing Thought “It seems…that a reasonable code would require people to help when there is no substantial cost to themselves…when what they are sacrificing would not mean significant reduction in their own or their families’ level of happiness. ” Arthur -pg. 145 “If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so. ” Singer -pg. 15

“ At the very least, then, even if Singer exaggerates what morality demands of us, it may nonetheless be true that many of us should give a good deal more for the relief of famine or disease around the world than we actually do. ” -Michael Slote, pg. 153

Theoretical Interlude Less Demanding More Demanding Obligatory Supererogatory Singer

Theoretical Interlude • Why would we want a less demanding moral theory? What happens if our theory is too demanding? – People may stop caring about morality altogether. – We may lose important distinctions among moral agents. Depraved Sociopaths Moral Saints

Theoretical Interlude • Why would we want a moral theory that’s more demanding? What happens if our moral theory is too weak? – Well, if the best arguments support a demanding moral theory. . . – People tend to rise (and fall) to the expectations that are set for them.

Euthanasia

Material distinction between killing and letting die : what we actively do (an act resulting in death) vs. what we omit to do (an omission resulting in death).

Rachels • No moral difference between killing and letting die in end-of-life situations. • Is someone who “allows to die” morally better than someone who kills? (Smith/Jones) • Isn’t “letting die” an action in its own right? (It isn’t “doing nothing. ”)

Callahan: Killing vs. Letting Die �In passive euthanasia, the doctor’s action is not a direct physical cause of death. �Therefore, passive euthanasia—voluntary or otherwise —should not be called “killing. ” �Thus, there is a distinction between killing and letting die. �Therefore, arguments (Rachels, Brock) that deny a difference between killing and letting die are mistaken. �VAE can be wrong even if VPE isn’t.

Callahan • Arguments for VAE: – Choosing VAE is an expression of autonomy. • Callahan: Autonomy doesn’t justify VAE.

Callahan • Objections to VAE: 1. Killing (VAE) is different from letting-die (VPE). • • VAE Proponents: No it isn’t Callahan: Yes it is. 2. Allowing VAE will have negative consequences. • • VAE Proponents: No evidence for this Callahan: Yes there is. 3. VAE inherently conflicts with the aims of the medical profession. • • VAE Proponents: No it doesn’t. Callahan: Yes it does.

Callahan Again “There is, in short, no reasonable or logical stopping point once the turn has been made down the road to euthanasia, which could soon turn into a convenient and commodious expressway. ” -Pg. 138

What have we learned? • Conditions S and A are not the only considerations. • But if S and A aren’t really the criteria we want to use for determining who can choose to die, what could they be? – Can we consistently grant VAE/PAS to some of our test cases, but not others? – Can we afford for our decisions about who can die to be arbitrary?

What have we learned? • We need an answer to the question: How much suffering is too much? – But suffering is not an objectively-measurable category. – We will have to make choices (value judgments) about which conditions are “really bad, ” or when people can “legitimately” end their lives.

What have we learned? • We will have to make choices (value judgments) about which conditions are “really bad, ” or when people can “legitimately” end their lives. – Won’t these be judgments about which lives are—and aren’t—worth living? – Consider the message we are sending to Alex, Ben, etc. – Would you want to tell Stephen Hawking that perhaps his life isn’t worth living?

Final Question • If we aren’t willing to offer VAE/PAS to everyone who wants it (meeting conditions of autonomy and suffering), can we be justified in offering it to anyone?