Exam Review

docx

School

Brock University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

ERSC2P03

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by BailiffLemur2869

Exam Review – PHIL 1550 Exam Review Examination Details: - April 20 th at 5:00PM – April 25 th at 5:00PM - 3 Hours In Length - 40 Multiple Choice & True and False – 2 Short Answer (400-500 Words) Morality The fundamental “values, virtues, practices, and principles” that govern social existence. From the Latin mores—in Greek, ethos  Morality has a normative , i.e., an action-guiding character. It is concerned “not with what is, but with what ought to be” Moral Philosophy Philosophical reflection on morality. It is “the systematic endeavor to understand moral concepts and justify moral principles and theories,” aka ethics  Moral philosophy analyzes moral concepts like “right, wrong, permissible, ought, good, and evil,” seeks to defend principles and values by argument Meta-Ethics The sub-discipline of moral philosophy that studies the meaning of moral concepts and the nature of moral properties Normative ethics The sub-discipline of moral philosophy that examines and defends standards of right and wrong  It develops general theories about what kinds of things are right and wrong, e.g. whether what makes actions right or wrong are their consequences, the agent's intentions, etc. Applied ethics The sub-discipline of moral philosophy that addresses concrete ethical issues in private and public life  It tries to determine whether a particular set of actions, policies, or practices is right or wrong, e.g. whether legalizing abortion or redistributing income is right or wrong.

Exam Review – PHIL 1550 Robust Realism It is a theory about moral properties. In particular, it claims that these properties exist in the same way that mathematical and geometrical properties exist. It is therefore a meta-ethical theory. Religion Religions also have a normative character. The have a vertical in addition to the horizontal dimension that ground their moral codes in “revelation or divine authority”  Dependence on authority is a limitation of religious morality: “you cannot use reason to convince someone who does not share your religious views.” Law Unlike morality, law is enforceable by “physical and financial sanctions.” For that reason, it only covers external relations between persons  The enforceability of law is a limitation as well: “you can't have a law against every social malady, nor can you enforce every desirable rule” Etiquette Etiquette pertains to “polite behaviour” rather than to “right behaviour in a deeper sense.” However, flouting etiquette can itself be immoral in certain cases  The limitation of etiquette is that it pertains to more or less arbitrary social customs. It is “a cultural invention,” whereas “morality claims to be a discovery” Domains of Ethical Assessment Actions May be right (optional or obligatory) or wrong (impermissible) Consequences May be good, bad or indifferent. Character and/or motive May be good (virtuous), bad (vicious), or neutral Consequentialist Theories Emphasize consequences as what makes actions right or wrong. Also called “teleological,” from the Greek telos

Exam Review – PHIL 1550 Subjectivism Subjectivism is a theory about the meaning of moral concepts. Specifically, it claims that concepts like "good" and "right" don't refer to properties in the world, but express subjective preferences. It is therefore a meta-ethical theory. Deontological Theories Emphasize the nature of certain actions as being inherently right or wrong. From the Greek deon for “duty”  Deontological theories aim to provide standards of right and wrong. In particular, the theory referred to here claims that actions are right when they respect everyone equally and wrong when they do not. It is therefore a normative ethical theory. Virtue Ethics Emphasize virtuous character rather than right action as the most important component of morality Descriptive Judgments Provide an explanation of what the world is like without evaluating it, i.e., without judging whether it is good or bad. In contrast, normative judgments (also called evaluative judgments) serve to evaluate . They are judgments about whether things are good or bad or right or wrong.  In the sentence "Her choice shows remarkable courage," the word "courage" is an evaluative term. It doesn't merely describe the subject's character, but evaluates it as being good . Therefore, the sentence expresses a normative judgment. N ormative Judgments (also called evaluative judgments) serve to evaluate . They are judgments about whether things are good or bad or right or wrong.  In the sentence "The human species is guilty of terrible sins," the word "sin" is an evaluative term. A sin, by definition, is an immoral action. Someone who calls an action a sin is evaluating as being bad . Therefore, the sentence expresses a normative judgment. Consequentialist Theories A family of normative ethical theories that claim that actions are right or wrong because, and only because, of their consequences

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Exam Review – PHIL 1550  Neither the nature of the action nor the character or motives of the agent are what make actions right or wrong: Nothing matters but the results of our actions The Good Refers to what is worth doing or having, to what enhances the life of the person who does or has it  E.g. happiness, friendship, love, pleasure, etc. The Right Refers to what is morally obligatory (and optional), to what actions an agent must perform  E.g. keeping promises, refraining from killing, etc. The Good and the Right Consequentialism claims that the right is determined by the good: the goodness or badness of an action’s consequences determines its rightness or wrongness  It is “a maximizing doctrine.” The right, i.e. obligatory, action is the one that brings about the best overall. This is determined by a cost-benefit analysis Consequentialist theories claim that the consequences and only the consequences of an action make it right or wrong. This means not only that the consequences have an effect on its rightness or wrongness, but that nothing else does. This is what distinguishes consequentialist from deontological ethical theories. Deontological theories argue that there are at least some restrictions on what we can do that do not depend on their consequences. To say that something is intrinsically good is to say that it good for its own sake or good as an end in itself. In contrast, to say that something is instrumentally good is to say that it is good for the sake of something else or good as a means to an end. To say that money is good because it allows us to buy various necessities and luxuries is to say that it is instrumentally good. It is to say that it is good for the sake of acquiring those necessities and luxuries or as a means for acquiring them. The Trolley Problem Suppose there is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track.

Exam Review – PHIL 1550 You have two options: (1) Do nothing, in which case the trolley will kill the five people on the main track; (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Classical Utilitarianism John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)  19th century British philosopher known for his work on logic, political theory, ethics, and economics.  One of the central figures associated with classical utilitarianism in ethics and with liberalism in politics.  Notable works include On Liberty (1859), Utilitarianism (1863), The Subjection of Women (1869). Utilitarianism A normative ethical theory that claims that the right action is the one that maximizes utility  i.e. - that brings about the greatest expected net well-being The Principle of Utility Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness [i.e., well-being] and wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness [i.e., well-being] Hedonism Hedonism is the view that pleasure is the only intrinsic good,  i.e., the only thing that is good as an end in itself or good for its own sake. Everything else—e.g. “personal bonds, knowledge, autonomy”—is only instrumentally good,  i.e. it is good as a means to an end or good for the sake of something else Act-Utilitarianism States that we ought always to perform the action that maximizes utility. We ought to consider available options, predict their outcomes, and select the one that produces the most good.

Exam Review – PHIL 1550 Rule-Utilitarianism States that we ought to act in accordance with a justified moral rule and that moral rules are justified when including them in our moral code maximizes utility Objections To Utilitarianism The Wrong Answers Objection  Utilitarianism, especially act-utilitarianism, “might require us to do something shockingly immoral,”  e.g., torturing a child to maximize utility The Demandingness Objection  Utilitarianism, especially act-utilitarianism, “set too high a standard and demands too much of us.” Maximizing utility at all times demands enormous self-sacrifice Consequentialism A normative ethical theory stating that an action is right or wrong based on their consequences and only on their consequences. It defines the right in terms of the good. Utilitarianism A variety of Consequentialism stating that the only intrinsic good is utility. Classical utilitarianism understands utility as consisting in pleasure. Act-Utilitarianism Claims that an action is right if it maximizes utility. Rule-Utilitarianism claims that an action is right if it corresponds to a system of rules maximizes utility. Deontological Theories A family of normative ethical theories stating that certain rules or duties rest on “considerations other than the amount of good [they] produce”  For deontological theories, the right is independent of the good. As a result, we are “sometimes required not to maximize the good” Rights “Restrictions on the actions of other people” that protect access to benefits or to choices. They determine what we may, may not, can, and cannot do

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Exam Review – PHIL 1550 Negative rights “Rights that others not interfere with the right-holder’s action.” This is how we usually think of rights to life and property Positive rights “rights that others provide something to the right-holder.” This is usually how we usually think of rights resulting from contracts Deontological ethical theories claim that there are at least some duties that are not determined by consequences. This means that there are at least some cases in which we are required not to maximize good consequences. Some deontological theories, arguably including Kantian ethics, may claim that the consequences never make an action right or wrong. However, a theory does not need to claim this in order to count as a deontological theory. The Fat Man Variant Suppose there is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them.  You are standing on a footbridge above the tracks. Next to you, there is a very large man. Moreover, he happens to be heavy enough to stop the trolley.  You have two options: (1) Do nothing, in which case the trolley will kill the five people on the main track; (2) Push the fat man, stopping the trolley and killing him instead of the five Rights and Consequentialism To say that someone has a right is usually to say that “something has priority over consequentialist considerations”  Many argue that “consequentialism cannot provide an adequate account of rights,” since it might be necessary to violate someone’s rights in the name of the greater good  In contrast, “deontological theories seem well-placed to express the importance of rights,” and specifically of “the priority of rights”

Exam Review – PHIL 1550 Immanuel Kant (1806-1873)  18th century German philosopher known for his work metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.  A central figure of the European Enlightenment, which emphasized human rationality in science and ethics.  Notable works include Critique of Pure Reason (1781) and Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) The Categorical Imperative Like all reasoning, moral reasoning is “subject to certain formal constraints,” i.e., to certain rational limits  These can be expressed in the form of the categorical imperative, which is “the ‘supreme principle of morality’” The Formula of Universal Law Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law The Example of Lying Lying presupposes a general culture of truth-telling. “Promising could not exist in a world in which there was a [...] policy of making deceitful promises”  For this reason, willing that everyone lie involves “an implicit contradiction. It involves willing both for everyone to lie and for everyone to tell the truth  Lying therefore cannot be universalized. We can only lie “by making an exception to the general rule of trustworthiness.” This shows that it is wrong The Formula of Humanity Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means The Example of Lying Lying and all other forms of deceit “are objectionable insofar as they attempt to subvert or circumvent, and thus fail to show respect for, people’s autonomy”  It therefore fails to treat people as “ends-in-themselves,” i.e., as autonomous beings capable of making choices for themselves.  Instead, it treats them as means to an end Objections to Kantian Ethics

Exam Review – PHIL 1550 1st Objection Kantian ethics leads to highly counterintuitive results, e.g., “that it would be wrong to lie, even to prevent murder” 2nd Objection Kantian ethics seem to “rule out maxims that are morally permissible” because it is too imprecise, e.g. the maxim of giving more to charity than average Deontological Ethics A family of normative ethical theories stating that certain duties are independent of consequences. This means that the right is at least sometimes independent of the good. Kantian Ethics A variety of deontology. It states that actions are right if they satisfy the categorical imperative, which it takes to be the supreme principle of morality. The first formulation of the categorical imperative states that actions must be universalizable. The second states that they must respect autonomous beings as ends-in-themselves Virtue-Ethical Theories A family of normative ethical theories “focused on the virtues,” i.e., on character traits, or dispositions to feel and act in particular ways  Virtue ethics is character-based rather than action-based.  Its focus is not on developing “a determinate decision procedure” for moral actions Aristotelian Ethics Aristotle (384-322 BC)  Ancient Greek philosopher who wrote on such diverse topics as ethics, physics, biology, logic, and metaphysics.  A central influence on Medieval Islamic and Christian thinkers, including Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and Thomas Aquinas.  Notable works include the Nicomachean Ethics, Metaphysics, Politics, and Prior and Posterior Analytics Eudaimonia  The “chief or highest good” for human beings, often translated as “happiness” or “flourishing.” It denotes an objective standard of well-being or of the good life

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Exam Review – PHIL 1550  Ethics is the science of eudaimonia. Its central question is: “How am I [...] to live happily or well?”  This is distinct from the question of which actions are right or wrong. Eudaimonia and Arete  Eudaimonia is “activity of the soul in accordance with arete (virtue),” i.e., with excellence. Virtue or excellence is the main part of eudaimonia  Virtues are “dispositions to choose well.” The virtuous person will makes right decision “for its own sake,” i.e., because it is the right decision The Theory of the Soul  The soul contains a rational and a non-rational part, which includes the desires. However, these are “not purely non- rational”  The desires can be trained to be “in harmony” with reason.  This is done by habituating oneself to act correctly through practice.  At first one is merely continent, then virtuous The Golden Mean  Virtue as the middle: “To each virtue [...] there corresponds two opposing vices,” an excess and a defect, with virtue “‘lying in a mean’ between them”  Virtue as the centre: “Virtue is a kind of mean insofar as it is effective at hitting upon the mean,” i.e., it hits its target Objections  1st Objection Aristotelian ethics is incapable of providing us with a “determinate decision procedure” to guide our moral choices  2nd Objection Virtues, including those in Aristotelian ethics, are “inherently culturally specific because they are developed within existing traditions and societies” Virtue Ethics is a family of normative ethical theories emphasizing the role of virtues. Virtues are character traits, i.e., dispositions to choose and to feel, that are considered to be good. Aristotelian Ethics is a variety of virtue ethics. It understands ethics as the pursuit of eudaimonia and sees the development of virtue as the central part of human flourishing. Aristotle’s Ethics is characterized by the doctrine of the golden mean: each virtue is a mid-point between an excess and a defect, both of which are vices.

Exam Review – PHIL 1550 Contractualist Theories A family of deontological theories claiming that moral rules (or laws) are justified if they could be agreed upon “by rational beings for mutual advantage”  They claim that morality (or law) is based on a contract, i.e., an agreement in which each part “hopes to derive a net gain from complying with it” Contractualism vs. Utilitarianism  Utilitarianism adopts the standpoint of an “impartial, benevolent spectator.” This may allow some people’s good to be sacrificed for the sake of the greater good  Contractualism adopts the standpoint of a “rational contractor” to determine what they could agree to, usually from some hypothetical condition of impartiality Hobbes Social Contract Theory Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)  Early Modern English philosopher best known for his work on political philosophy.  An important intellectual figure during the English Civil War and defender of the royalist cause.  Notable works include Elements of Law (1850), Leviathan (1651), and Of Man (1658) The State of Nature  A “philosophical fiction” depicting “a pre-political condition,” i.e., a condition with no laws, no government and no accepted social rules”  In the state of nature, individuals fi ght and kill one another for resources. The result is a war of all against all: life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” The Social Contract  It is therefore rational to leave the state of nature by entering into a social contract. This is done by “agreements of non-violence and respect for possessions”  Contracts must be enforceable. Therefore, it is rational to agree to be “governed by an absolute ruler, who enforces agreements between the rest of us” Objections 1. Objection Hobbes’ social contract theory cannot account for our duties to those weaker than us: “Why then should you concern yourself with the rules in question?” 1. Objection Hobbes’ social contract theory cannot account for our duties to beings who are not fully rational: “the severely mentally [disabled], the senile, new-born babies,” etc.

Exam Review – PHIL 1550 Contractualist theories are a family of normative ethical theories claiming that moral or legal rules are justified if they could be agreed upon by rational, self-interested agents. Hobbes’ social contract theory is a variety of Contractualism. It argues that it is rational for any self-interested being to leave the state of nature and enter into a social contract protecting life and property. Hobbes’ social contract theory is a political theory. It claims that rules protecting life and property need to be enforced byan absolute monarch with a monopoly on violence What is Euthanasia? Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending a life with the intention of relieving suffering.  From the Greek “eu” and “thanatos.”  Euthanasia may be categorized according to whether a patient gives informed consent: voluntary, non-voluntary, involuntary. It may also be active or passive. Euthanasia and Philosophy  Much of the philosophical debate around euthanasia revolves around the distinction between acts and omissions, i.e., between intervention and non-intervention.  It also touches on questions about the scope of individual freedoms, as well as the short-term and long-term social consequences of euthanasia. Rule-Utilitarianism and Euthanasia  Hooker examines the issue of whether euthanasia should be legal from a rule-utilitarian perspective.  He considers the potential benefits and harms of legalizing various categories of euthanasia.  His argument leads him to lean toward legalizing active and passive voluntary euthanasia. Preference-Utilitarianism Utilitarianism “assesses acts and/or rules in terms of nothing but their utility,” i.e. in terms of the well-being they produce Contemporary utilitarian’s Usually see well-being as consisting of in “the satisfaction of preferences,” e.g., preferences for knowledge, autonomy, etc

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Exam Review – PHIL 1550 Rule-utilitarianism “does not assess each act solely by its utility.” Instead, it “assesses acts in terms of rules, and rules in terms of their utility  The utility to be considered is the utility of “their ‘general’ internalization, that is, internalization by the overwhelming majority” Law and Morality It is important to distinguish between law and morality. For a utilitarian, “there may be some moral requirements that the law should not try to enforce”  However, “rule-utilitarianism considers is the consequences of our collective compliance with rules” in both cases. It therefore offers less room for divergence Potential Benefits of Euthanasia Prevention of suffering: it can “prevent the unnecessary elongation of [...] suffering.”  Resource allocation: It can reallocate resources to “increase[ing] average life expectancy and quality of life.”  Increase of authonoy: It can give people more “control over when their lives end” Potential Harms of Voluntary and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia Mistaken diagnoses: Euthanasia may “inappropriately take a life after a mistaken diagnosis”  Intentional abuse: Those who stand to gain from a person’s may pressure them into “unnecessary deaths”  Slippery slope: It might undermine the essential prohibition on “killing the innocent against their will” Rule-utilitarianism is concerned with maximizing utility. A preference-utilitarian approach recognizes that utility includes multiple goods, including autonomy. Active voluntary euthanasia present several benefits, most notably those of reducing suffering and increasing autonomy. Most of its costs can be managed by adequate regulation . The most important objection is that legalizing active euthanasia may lead to a slippery slope undermining our aversion to killing. However, data from the Netherlands appears to suggest it would not.

Exam Review – PHIL 1550 Dignity and Autonomy Debates in medical ethics often make use of the Kantian concepts of dignity and autonomy. Certain illnesses are said to “detain [patients] in an undignified state”  Similarly, it is often argued that to respect patients’ autonomy, we must “respect [their] wishes, including a wish to die.” This involves giving them more options or more control  However, neither concept as used in medical ethics matches its original Kantian meaning. We may ask whether autonomy in this sense is “something worthy of our moral concern The Value of Options There are Kantian reasons for opposing” euthanasia as a protected option for the patient.”  However, there are also consequentialist reasons for the same conclusion  We tend to think that options are never positively harmful.  If we make no mistakes, “having the option must have made us better off than we were before we had it” How Options Can Cause Harm 1. First, “they [can] subject one to various kinds of pressure” that cannot exist in the absence of options, e.g., in negotiation, in robbery 2. Second, they can exclude better outcomes: an option “makes two outcomes possible [...], but neither of them is the outcome that was possible before” 3. Third, an option can be harmful “because of what it expresses.” It may affect someone negatively by indicating that we believe they ought to exercise the option How the Right to Die Can Cause Harm  Having the option of euthanasia can harm patients in all three ways. The most important way it does so is by “deny[ing] them the possibility of staying alive by default”  If a patient cannot justify staying alive, it might be rational for them to choose euthanasia. In this case, “the right to die would become an obligation to die”  This argument “is not paternalistic.” The concern is not that patients may harm themselves by choosing wrongly, but that we harm them by giving them the option

Exam Review – PHIL 1550 Morality and the Law  Euthanasia is sometimes morally justified. However, “society should at most permit, and never require, health professionals to off er the option of euthanasia”  Yet even this might be sufficient to subject patients to pressure. It might be better to permit euthanasia “by a tacit failure to enforce [...] institutional rules”  Public policy regulating the complicated patient-physician relationship “should be weak and vague by design.” To that extent, “medical ethics itself is a bad idea Issues With Animal Treatment Nonhuman animals refer to any animal that can move voluntarily, that does not belong to the species homosapien.  Humans use nonhuman animals for a number of purposes such as food, clothing, medica experiments and product testing. Animals and Philosophy The debate about the treatment of nonhuman animals raises questions about criteria of moral significance or moral status:  What trait or traits entitle beings to moral status?  One common strategy in the literature on animal treatment is to appeal to marginal cases, e.g., humans with severe cognitive impairments, as support. All Animals Are Equal Singer argues that equality is to be interpreted along utilitarian lines as equal consideration of interests  From this perspective the only relevant criteration of moral status is the sentience – i.e. the ability to feel pain and pleasure  Since nonhuman animals are sentient, singer concludes that we must extend the principle of equality to them The Expanding Circle The 20 th century was marked by liberation movements campaigning for the equality – i.e. Black Liberation, Women’s Suffrage, etc.  Liberation movements have the goal of expanding our circle of moral concern. They campaign for “an extension or reinterpretation of the basic moral principle of equality”  It is now time to extend the basic principle of equality to “members of species other than our own” Factual Equality v Moral Equality Most people in the 20 th /21 st century are egalitarians. This means they believe that all human beings are equal regardless of race, sex and creed.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Exam Review – PHIL 1550  However, human beings are not factually equal; they have different shapes and sizes differing moral capacities differing intellectual abilities.  Consequently, if our egalitarianism were based on the factual equality of human beings’ skill and capacities, it would be an unjustified demand Objection: Egalitarianism is nonetheless based on the actual quality of the different races and sexes; individual differences don’t correlate Reply 1: This argument does not provide any defense against a more sophisticated opponent of equality – i.e. one who wishes to divide society on the bases of IQ status. Reply 2: This argument would not provide a defense if differences in ability did prove after all to have some genetic connection with race and sex Equal Consideration of Interests There is no reason to assume that factual difference justifies a difference in moral consideration  Equality is a moral ideal not a simple description of facts  The interests of every being are to be considered and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being  Equal considerations of interests entails concern for the interests of nonhuman animals – How can possessing a higher degree of intelligence entitle humans for exploit nonhumans  The only relevant criteration of moral significance or moral status is sentience – i.e. the capacity to suffer or experience enjoyment or happiness  The reason for this is that sentience is “a prerequisite for having interests at all”. Speciesism in Society Firstly, our speciesism is evident in our use of nonhuman animals for food – We treat them purely as means to our ends; we not only kill them but inflict suffering upon them  In doing so, we are sacrificing the most important interests of other beings in order to satisfy trivial interests of our own  Avoiding speciesism demands that we stop the practice of inflicting harm on animals to use them as food Secondly, our speciesism is evident in the widespread practice of experimenting on other species – i.e. medical research, product testing and/or psychological research  This simple discrimination is obvious – we would not perform the same experiments on a human with identical abilities Thirdly, our speciesism is evident in attempt to draw the boundary of the sphere of rights so that it runs parallel to the biological boundaries of the species homo sapiens

Exam Review – PHIL 1550  Most philosophers avoid the radical outcome of the principle of equality – i.e. by resorting to the concept of instinct dignity of the human individual The Case for Animal Rights Regan claims that a rights-based approach is the only rationally tenable normative theory.  He argues that the only criterion that can account for human rights also applies to nonhuman animals.  Consequently, nonhuman animals also have rights. This leads him to abolitionism regarding the use of animals as resources. Direct and Indirect Duties Direct duties are duties we have to a being. This means we owe something to that being or that there is something we can do that wrongs it. --------------- Indirect duties are duties that involve a being but that we have because we owe something to someone else or because there are things, we can do to harm someone else. The Rights-Based Approach Human beings have inherent value – i.e. intrinsic value as individuals “My value as an individual is independent of my usefulness to you”. Therefore, they have it equally.  There is rationally the most satisfactory moral theory – it categorically rejects all discrimination and denies that we can justify evil means by a good end Animal Rights All attempts to limit rights to huma beings are unsuccessful. Nonhuman animals lacks many of the abilities humans possess.  However the same is true of many human beings. The only trait that all human beings have in common is that they are experiencing subjects of a life; they have their own well-being that is important to them  Nonhuman animals are also subjects of a life in this sense. They therefore have equal inherent value and are owed equal rights An Abolitionist Position The fundamental issues is not that nonhuman animals are harmed. It is that they are viewed and treated as lacking independent value as resources  The right view is categorically abolitionist regarding the use of nonhuman animals for experiments. This is true both of trivial and potentially crucial research. It is also abolitionist with regard to the use of nonhuman animals for food Summary The principle of equality must be interpreted as a principle of equal consideration of interests.  Like interests are to be given equal weight no matter whose interests they are. The only relevant criterion of moral significance or moral status is sentience.

Exam Review – PHIL 1550  Sentience is a condition of possibility of having interests at all. Since nonhuman animals are sentient, this means that we must count their interests equally.  Failure to do so is speciesism, which is analogous to racism or sexism. Human beings have equal intrinsic value.  The only theory that does justice to this intuition is a rights-based deontological approach – we cannot violate their rights regardless of consequences. The only criterion that can account for the moral status of human beings as having equal intrinsic value that of being subject of a life.  Since nonhuman animals are also subjects of life – they also have equal intrinsic value. Consequently, they have rights, we therefore cannot use them as means to our ends. Abortion The act of purposefully terminating a pregnancy by removing the fetus before its able to survive outside the uterus  In Canada abortion has been legal at all stages of pregnancy since 1988  Due to section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees the security of the person Abortion Rights The view that abortion ought to be legal, i.e. that there should be legal right to abortion, either at all stages or at certain stages of pregnancy Anti-Abortion The view that abortion ought to be illegal either at all times, including cases of rape and danger to the mother’s life, or excluding these cases Moral Questions What is the moral status of the fetus, i.e. is it significant from a moral point of view?  How do the fetus’ right to life relate to the mothers right to bodily integrity?  What is the criterion of moral significance that entitles human beings to a right to life? Judith Jarvis Thomson – Defense of Abortion Thomson argues that abortion is permissible when the woman hasn’t agreed to carry the fetus  She then tries to show that there are many cases in which one can consent to sex without consenting to carry the fetus  Conclusion is that abortion is often, but not necessarily always permissible The Anti-Abortion View  Anti-abortion activists point out that the fetus becomes a human person and that its development is continuous

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Exam Review – PHIL 1550  Any line distinguishing when it is from when it isn’t a person would be arbitrary and so it is a person  An acorns development into an oak tree is also continuous. Yet an acorn is not already an oak tree  It’s obvious that the fetus isn’t a human person at the moment of conception. Its like an acorn is to an oak tree.  It’s also obvious that it is a human person before birth. By the tenth week, it has a face, arms, legs, fingers and toes. The Standard Anti-Abortion Argument 1. P.1 All human persons have a right to life 2. P.2 The fetus is a human person – therefore has the right to life 3. P.3 The mother has a right to bodily integrity 4. P.4 The right to life trumps the right to bodily integrity 5. Therefore abortion is morally impermissible The Violinist Thought Experiment  You wake up and find yourself in bed with an unconscious famous violinist  He has a fatal kidney ailment. You are the only one with the blood type to save him  Unplugging yourself will kill him. You need to stay plugged in for 9 months.  Are you morally obligated to keep yourself plugged in? The Extreme Anti-Abortion View Abortion is always morally impermissible, including if the mother’s life is in danger - It is impossible to reach this conclusion on the basis of the standard anti-abortion argument Certain premises need to be added about the innocence of the fetus or about the distinction between killing and letting die; 1. Directly killing an innocent person is always impermissible 2. Killing an innocent person amounts to murder and murder is always impermissible 3. The duty to refrain from killing is more stringent than the duty not to let die All three premises are false. Its implausible to say any of these things in the violinist thought experiment  The violinist is an innocent person, but so are you. Killing the violinist to save yourself is a form of self-defence  Saying that the mother can’t have an abortion when her life is in danger amounts to denying her the right to life  This shows that the extreme anti-abortion view is incorrect

Exam Review – PHIL 1550 The Moderate Anti-Abortion View Abortion is impermissible except when necessary to save the mother’s life and in the case of rape - This assumes that the right to life is unproblematic – although it’s not Positive Rights Rights to have others provide something to the right-holder Negative Rights Rights not to have others interfere with the right-holder’s actions The right to life is a positive right involving the right to be given the minimum needed for continued existence – but what if what you need is something that you have no right to be given – i.e. the violinist thought experiment  No one has a positive right to you unless you have previously agreed to give it to them  The question is: Has the mother agreed to give the fetus the right to her body by engaging in sexual intercourse? The right to life as a negative right is the right not to be killed by others – the right not to be killed does not seem to include the right to use another person’s body  The right to life should be interpreted as the right not to be killed unjustly  The question is whether abortion kills the fetus unjustly – i.e. refusing to give it something to which it has a right The Burglar Thought-Experiment  The room is stuffy, so you open a window to let in some fresh air, and a burglar gets in  You knew there were burglars in the area, so you are partially responsible for letting them get in  Have you given the burglar the right to your belongings by opening the window? The People-Seeds Thought Experiment  We encounter an alien species that reproduces by releasing seeds into the air  You open a window and seeds float in the window and takes root in your upholstery  Have you given the seed the right to your upholstery by opening your window? Moral and Legal Studies of Abortion – Mary Anne Warren Warren argues that only personhood, not humanity is the relevant criteration of moral significance – she proposes a list of traits that make someone a person and shows that the fetus has none of them.  From this, she concludes that the fetus has no strong right to life and so that abortion is always permissible Two Abortion Rights Arguments

Exam Review – PHIL 1550 1. Abortion should be legal because of women’s right to bodily integrity 2. Abortion should be legal because of the negative consequences of keeping it illegal Neither of these arguments is effective – they won’t sway anyone who is already convinced that abortion is murder. The only way to establish that abortion is morally permissible is to deny that the fetus has a right to life. The Standard Anti-Abortion Argument 1. All human beings have a right to life 2. The Fetus is a human being – The fetus has a right to life 3. The mother has a right to bodily integrity 4. The right to life trumps right to bodily integrity Abortion is then considered morally impermissible Two Senses of Human-Being Moral Sense Someone who is a full-fledged member of the moral community, who also happens to belong to the human species Genetic Sense Someone who is a member of the species homo sapiens – i.e. the human species Concept of Personhood Being an autonomous individual with their own sense of self. Persons are entitled to equal rights. Five Traits of Personhood 1. Sentience The ability to feel physical and emotion pain/pleasure 1. Reason The ability to think, understand and to form coherent judgements 1. Communication The ability to exchange information with others 1. Self-Awareness The ability to understand oneself as an individual with a stable identity 1. Moral Agency The ability to reason about what is right and wrong and to act accordingly The Moral Status of the Fetus Being genetically human is neither a necessary condition nor a sufficient condition for being human

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Exam Review – PHIL 1550  Since it isn’t necessary – it’s possible to be a person without being a human being – possibly great apes  Since its sufficient – it’s also possible to be human without being a person – example: a fetus  Persons are the ones who invent and respect moral rights – they should not give non- persons rights that conflict with their own Might the fetus have strong moral rights to the degree that it resembles a person?  Even a late-term fetus has less of the traits associated with personhood than some non- human animals - Therefore it may have some right to life, but it must be a weak one Does the fetus’ potential to become a person give it the right to life?  The fetus’ potential to become a person might give us some reason not to destroy it  However this cannot outweigh the woman’s right to bodily integrity; the rights of a person always outweigh those of a non-person The Cloning Thought-Experiment  You fall into the hands of an alien civilization that has developed the ability to clone peoples cells  They plan to clone you. At the end of the process they will have cloned each of your cells into a new human being  Are you morally justified in escaping and preventing them from cloning you? The Infanticide Objection Objection This argument would justify infanticide. A newborn infant is no different from a late-term fetus Reply Once the child is born, the mothers right to bodily integrity becomes irrelevant and there is no good reason to kill it  The moment of birth marks the end of the mothers right to determine the fetus fate An Argument that Abortion is Wrong - Don Marquis Marquis asks what makes it wrong to kill an adult human being. He is looking for a criterion of moral significance.  According to him, killing an adult is wrong because it deprives them of a future of value.  Since killing the fetus robs it of a future of value too, it is just as wrong as killing an adult.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Exam Review – PHIL 1550  This is an argument from potential. A Stand Off Between Rights In a stand-off like this, the right to life must win out. The right to life is stronger than the right to bodily integrity.  The question must be: Does the fetus have a right to life? This will decide the abortion debate.  We need a general criterion of moral significance to determine whether the fetus has a right to life. Humanity and Personhood The criterion of humanity is arbitrary. Why should members of the human species have the right to life? Personhood falls prey to scope issues. It excludes beings that should be included – i.e. children What Makes Killing Wrong? The wrongness of killing can’t primarily be explained in terms of loss to the victim’s family and friends – nor can it primarily be explained by the brutalization of the killer  The wrongness of killing is explained by the misfortune of premature death. It deprives someone of future life.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Exam Review – PHIL 1550 What is Meant By “Life”? Biological life Carrying out certain processes that allow one to sustain oneself. Being deprived of biological life isn’t what makes dying a misfortune. Conscious life Having an awareness of the world that is experienced from a first-person perspective. This doesn’t explain what makes dying a misfortune either. A Future of Value Having a future that includes the goods of consciousness. This explains what makes dying a misfortune. The Goodness of Future Goods Some would say that being deprived of goods can only be bad for someone if they have an interest in them.  Yet the explanation for what makes future goods good can’t be that we have an interest in them now.  This can’t account for the things we now believe we will value but actually won’t, nor those that we now believe we won’t value, but actually will The Future Like Ours Account Premature death is bad for someone because it deprives them of a future of value, i.e. a future that is valuable independently of their interests.  Killing someone deprives them of a future like ours, i.e. a future that contains the goods of conscious human existence. This is what makes it wrong.  The fetus has a future like ours. As a result, abortion is seriously wrong except in certain rare cases, e.g. rape or when the mother’s life is in danger 1. First argument : The future like ours account fits with our considered judgments about the misfortune of death. 2. Second argument : It explains why we think that killing is the worst crime. 3. Third argument : It corroborates our intuitions about when it’s right and when it’s wrong to end a life. 4. Fourth argument : It avoids relying on any arbitrary criteria. Two Objections to the Future Like Ours Account

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Exam Review – PHIL 1550 First objection The future like ours account implies that contraception and abstinence are just as wrong as abortion. They also result in fewer futures of value.  Reply: The question was what makes it wrong to kill an individual. Prior to conception, there is no individual to be harmed, i.e. that has a future like ours. Second objection There are individuals deprived of a future of value by contraception or abstinence, namely the sperm and the ovum.  Reply: Prior to conception, there is no determinate individual. Identifying one would be completely arbitrary. Summary Consensually engaging in sexual intercourse is not the same thing as consenting to carry the fetus. At most, we might say that there are some instances where the mother has given the fetus the right to her body.  It is also important to draw a distinction between what is desirable and what is required.  It may be compassionate or considerate to carry the fetus to term, but that isn’t the same as saying it’s required. Thomson points out that the standard anti-abortion view claims that the right to life is more important than the right to bodily integrity.  She argues that this is false when one hasn’t given another the right to use their body.  She then argues that consenting to sex doesn’t necessarily give the fetus this right.  She leaves the question open as to whether there are any cases when the mother gives the fetus the right to her body Warren wants to deny the premise that all human beings have a right to life. According to Warren, only persons are full members of the moral community with a right to life.  Persons have some combination of sentience, reason, communication, self-awareness and moral agency.  Since the fetus possesses none of these, it is not a person.  Warren says that, although the late-term fetus may have some weak right to life, it will not outweigh the mother’s right to bodily integrity. Marquis says that neither the anti-abortion argument nor the abortion rights argument is convincing. We need a different criterion of moral significance.  According to Marquis, this criterion is having a future like ours. Killing is wrong because it deprives someone of the future goods of consciousness.  Since the fetus has a future like ours, killing it is just as wrong as killing an adult human.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Exam Review – PHIL 1550 What Are Races? Races are groupings of human beings based on shared physical or social qualities into categories that are viewed as distinct by society  Races are distinct from ethnicities. Ethnicities are groups of human beings based on a sense of common heritage – incl culture, language and religion  A single racial identity may encompass several ethnic identities – Similarly a single ethnic identity may include several different racial identities Philosophical Questions Around Race The debate about race revolves around how we should conceptualize them – Some realists about races, others anti-realists.  Many philosophers think we should understand races as social constructs; they do not codify something deeply obvious about human diversity  One reason is that racial typologies precede the scientific enterprise and change in response to sociopolitical expediency Racism Racism is defined as the belief that members of certain races are inherently superior to member of others because of their membership in those races  It is also often used in such a way as to include prejudice, discrimination or antagonism against people because of their race  Racism may be individual, in which case it pertains to individual beliefs or actions, or else it may be institutional, in which case it pertains to institutions policies and practices Philosophical Questions Around Racism Much of the debate about racism revolves around what racism is – what it is about an action, person, policy and/or institution that makes it racist  Another aspect of the debate about racism revolves around what makes it wrong  Both of these entail questions about whether racism is primarily or even exclusively and individual or institutional phenomenon which has logical priority over the other Philosophical Analysis and the Moral Concept of Racism Garcia argues that doctrinal accounts of racism fail to explain what it is, especially its negative connotations  He proposes a volitional account of what racism that better accounts for what makes it wrong  His volitional account entails that we must understand institutional racism as logically secondary to individual racism Defining Racism

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Exam Review – PHIL 1550 Theorists across various disciplines make several claims about racism. However, they do not say what racism is, they say what it does and what it is not.  Yet, without an explanation of what racism is, we are unlikely to find ourselves able to assess some of the claims social theorists make about racism  Some claim that racism is an ideology; it is a matter of beliefs and attitudes – others claim that it has to do with institutionalizing forms of inequality Doctrinal Conception of Racism Certain theorists believe racism is essentially a doctrine. With this view, racism is an individual phenomenon, and it is a matter of holding certain beliefs.  It involves believing in biologically distinguishable groups ranking them in terms of superiority and inferiority – and holding these rankings to be intrinsic or innate.  On this view racism does not have to do with volitional states, i.e. states pertaining to what one wants or hopes for, chooses, aims or does Certain defenders of the doctrinal conception say that we must treat racism as an opinion, a point of view that should be argued with and not suppressed  They must also deny the existence or even the coherence of institutional racism. On the doctrinal conception the very concept may be a “nonsense phase”. Against the Doctrinal Conception The considerations listed by doctrinal conceptions of racism as neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for someone to be racist  They are not necessary because someone who hates members of a particular race but never troubles to rationalize his or her hatred would generally be considered racist.  They are not sufficient because racism is by definition, pejorative. Yet one can satisfy all three conditions and not be blameworthy A Volitional Conception At root, racism is racial disregard or even ill-will. It has to do with what a person does or does not wish, will and want for others in light of their race  This explains the range of possible racist phenomena. This includes actions, beliefs, projects, hopes, wishes, institutions and practices  It also explains why the term racist is properly pejorative. It is inherently contrary to the moral virtues of benevolence and justice and other to others as well Implications of the Volitional Conception I. It implies that someone can hold innocent beliefs about racial superiority. In this case their racist beliefs do not make them racist persons II. Implies that one can be racist without acting on it. Unlike structural accounts a race- hater who controls their hatred is still racist III. Implies that discriminating on the basis of race is not always racist. “Racist discrimination is a subset of racial discrimination”

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Exam Review – PHIL 1550 IV. Implies that people of any race can be racist against people of any other race – “Black racism is in principle every bit as vicious as white racism” Implications for Institutional Racism The volitional conception implies that today’s effects of past racism are not themselves racism, just as continuing effects of past welfare are not the continuation of welfare  Racism can move from individual hearts to infect institutions and the resulting policies can endure even in the absence of any racist Heart Attack – A Critique of Jorge Garcia Mills objects to Garcia’s volitional conception of racism as falling to capture our ordinary use of the term  In his view racism does involve a doctrinal or doxastic dimension involve belief in racial superiority or inferiority  He defends a social systemic account: institutional racism has logical priority over individual racist beliefs A Non-Doxastic Account Garcia presents his view as a non-revisionist and non-doxastic account: belief is not essential to racism since racism is a matter of ill-will  However, without a specification more detailed than ill-will, we cannot apply the label of racism at all, and being more specific requires reference to beliefs Critique of the Non-Doxastic Account Either Garcia’s definition does not provide us with sufficient conditions for racisms or else it does so through illicitly invoke the doxastic  Suppose a historical example of a person of colour who is a victim of one of the many structures of domination that made the modern world what it is  If any one of these individuals harboured feelings of antipathy, hatred and ill-will toward white people because of their race, would we call it racism? It depends I. All white people (at all times and all places) are bad II. Most white people (at this time and place) are bad III. White people (at all times and all places) are bad because of their intrinsic nature IV. White people (at this time and place) tend to be bad because of their racist socialization V. White people should be made to suffer indiscriminately VI. White people guilty of racist crimes should be punished An ill-Will Account Garcia’s account does not give us necessary conditions for racism either. People can have goodwill toward others because of their race and it can still be racist.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Exam Review – PHIL 1550  The example of paternalistic racism; feelings of benevolence  Linked to belief in the inferiority to whites, whether biological and/or cultural  Racism is more like sexism than it is like xenophobia, misogyny, or religious hostility. Historically most men have been sexists despite not hating women A Moralized Account Garcia’s account assumes that racism must be morally wrong, i.e. it is a vice, a sin. This commits him to a dubious sociology and political economy  The most important kind of racism is social-systemic. How a society is organized has logical priority and largely determines peoples beliefs and moral psychologies Summary Doctrinal accounts of racism fail to do justice to our linguistic institutions; one can be racist without specific beliefs and one can have the beliefs without being racist A volitional account of racism better captures these institutions. It explains why racism is always morally wrong. It also allows for the possibility of innocent beliefs in racial superiority. The volitional account implies that institutions can only be called racist with reference to individual intentions. Outcomes cannot in and of themselves be called racist The Problem of Economic Justice Distributive Justice The area of social justice pertaining to the distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation (also called distributive justice).  Different theories may seek to distribute different goods. These may include wealth, opportunities, and well-being (utility).  Different theories may also propose different criteria for distribution. These include equality, equity, and need among others. “A Theory of Justice” - John Rawls Rawls proposes a theory of justice as fairness: the basic principles of justice must be selected in an initial situation that is fair.  He argues that this would lead to two principles of justice. The first demands equal liberty for each citizen.  The second permits inequalities, but demands that they be to everyone’s advantage, including the worst off

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Exam Review – PHIL 1550 Rethinking Social Contract Theory Rawls builds on the social contract tradition of the 17th and 18th century thinkers like Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Kant.  Traditional Social Contract Theory seeks to explain the rationality of entering into society. Similarly, Rawls seeks to explain the rationality of core principles of justice.  By this, he means the principles that govern the basic structure of society, i.e. its judiciary system, political constitution, and economic structure  The core principles of justice determine how the benefits and burdens of social cooperation are distributed among citizens, i.e. who gets what and why.  A theory of justice as fairness: A society is just if its core principles of justice could be agreed upon by self- interested citizens in an initial situation that is fair.  In justice as fairness, the concept of the State of Nature is replaced by the device of the original position, which ensures fair conditions for the selection of principles. The Original Position The 1st characteristic Citizens in the original position select principles from behind a veil of ignorance depriving them of knowledge of their place in society. The 2nd characteristic Citizens in the original position are represented as having a conception of the good (interests) and a sense of justice (moral agency). 1. Constraint: It seems reasonable that no one should be advantaged or disadvantaged, either by natural fortune or social circumstances, in the choice of principles. 2. Constraint: It seems reasonable that it should be impossible to tailor the principles of justice to one’s own particular circumstances. 3. Constraint: Third, it seems reasonable that citizens’ particular preferences and conceptions of the good should not affect the principles adopted. Two Principles of Justice Greatest Equal Liberty Principle: Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. Difference Principle: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both reasonably expected to benefit the least well off and attached to positions and offices open to all.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Exam Review – PHIL 1550 The Maximin Rule When choosing under uncertain conditions, maximizing minimum gain by selecting the alternative where the worst possible outcome is least bad.  The features of the original position make the maximin rule rational to follow. Choosing according to it in the original position will generate the two principles of justice. 1. First, citizens in the original position do not know the likelihood of each outcome. 2. Second, the design of the position guarantees a satisfactory minimum. 3. Third, any other conception than justice as fairness could lead to intolerable outcomes (e.g. Utilitarianism). Implications of Justice as Fairness A justification of redistribution: Any inequalities not in the interest of the least well off should be eliminated, e.g. by social benefits and redistribution. A justification of equality of opportunity: Any inequalities must be attached to positions open to all. Social mobility is possible. An Argument Against Utilitarianism: The Principle of Utility cannot rationally be selected from behind the veil of ignorance, since one might end up being sacrificed. Economic Justice “The Entitlement Theory of Justice” - Robert Nozick Nozick argues that a distribution of goods is just if everyone is entitled to their holdings (belongings)  He argues that whether people are entitled to their holdings depends on historical questions about how they acquired them.  This leads his to oppose redistributive theories that take away people’s holdings by taxation.  He compares this to forced labour A Theory of Justice in Holdings Talking about distributive justice like Rawls is misleading. It implies a central power distributing goods that do not yet belong to anyone.  This is what occurs when a parent needs to split a birthday cake between 10 children. The only relevant question is what proportion is fair.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Exam Review – PHIL 1550  This is inappropriate in the context of social justice. Goods do not appear out of nowhere. They already belong to someone. It is better to talk about justice in holdings. Justice in acquisition: How upheld things may legitimately come to be held, what kinds of things may come to be held Justice in transfer: How a person may legitimately transfer their holdings to another person, e.g. by selling, giving gifts, etc. Justice in rectification: How past injustices that affect holdings are to be corrected, how far back we must go to correct past injustices, etc. If your holdings have been acquired or transferred according to just principles, then you are entitled to them.  The entitlement theory of justice : The total distribution of goods in a society is just if all members are entitled to their holdings.  This theory is historical. Whether a distribution is just depends on how it came about, i.e. whether goods have been justly acquired and transferred. Against End-Result Theories End-result theories determine what is fair only by looking at who ends up with what, e.g. Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness.  They require that a distribution be patterned, i.e. that it be organized to reflect some set of criteria, e.g. equality, equity, need, etc.  End-result theories are ahistorical. They do not ask about whether people deserve to have their holdings because of the way they came to hold them.  Justice in holdings does not require that a distribution be patterned. Patterning treats goods as if they appeared out of nowhere.  The principle of justice in holding requires instead that goods are transferred only with the consent of those entitled to them: From each as they choose, to each as they are chosen.  The Wilt Chamberlain thought-experiment shows that any end-state distributive pattern will be disrupted by the free actions of people who are entitled to their holdings.  As a result, an end-state principle or patterning principle can only be realized and maintained by continuously interfering in other people’s lives.  This interference must either be to prevent people from using their holdings as they see fit, or else by taking holdings to which they are entitled from them.  This shows that distributive theories must be redistributive. Since redistribution by taxation takes away holdings to which people are entitled, it is a violation of their rights.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Exam Review – PHIL 1550  Taxing earnings is equivalent to forced labour. Taking 10% of your earnings on 40 hours of work is the same as forcing you to work 4 hours for the good of others.  In this way, patterning principles make other people your part-time owners: they force you to work and decide what ends this work serves. The Wilt Chamberlain Thought- Experiment  Begin with and end-result distributive pattern you think is just.  Now suppose Wilt Chamberlain makes a contract to receive 25 cents from the price of each ticket sold to games he plays.  In one season, he makes $250,000, which is much higher than the average income.  Is the new distribution unjust? If so, why? Economic Justice “Against Capitalism” - G.A. Cohen Cohen considers two arguments in favour of capitalism: one from entitlement and one from consequences.  He rejects both arguments. He denies that capitalists are entitled to their wealth and that capitalism is beneficial.  He proposes a socialist organization of the economy permitting democratic control over production. On the History of Capitalism Capitalism An economic system characterized by the private ownership of the means of production, which are operated for profit.  Under this system, the vast majority, who do not own means of production, must sell their labour power in the form of wage labour.  The distribution of means of production creates an unfair bargaining situation in which workers depend more on capitalists than vice-versa, allowing exploitation.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Exam Review – PHIL 1550 The Argument from Entitlement Advocates for “pure capitalism” (e.g. Nozick) think of it as a system of free exchange. Goods are exchanged consensually between contracting parties.  They maintain that differences in assets (holdings) between capitalists and wage- workers are due to capitalists’ own fair dealings and hard work.  The point is that capitalists are entitled to their holdings, either due to their legitimate acquisitions or due to their legitimate transfers. Counterargument 1. All wealth consists in entitlement to raw or transformed natural resources. 2. All natural resources once belonged to no one – they were a common stock of goods. 3. A capitalist’s entitlement to their wealth depends on its being transferred by someone who was also entitled to it. 4. This leads to a regress to the first person to transform natural resources in question into that private property. 5. Nothing justifies the original transformation of commonly owned natural resources into private property. Therefore, nothing entitles capitalists to their private property. The Argument from Consequences Others (e.g. Rawls) say that whatever the history of capitalism, it is an excellent system: even the worst off do better under capitalism than under any other system.  Capitalist firms do not directly aim to satisfy people. They aim to make profit. However, they cannot do this without satisfying needs.  Moreover, the need to prevail in competition against other firms ensures that they satisfy needs as efficiently as possible

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Exam Review – PHIL 1550 Counterargument against Consequences 1. Capitalist firms aim to maximize profit. 2. If capitalist firms aim to maximize profit, they must increase productivity. 3. If capitalist firms increase productivity, they can either reduce labour and keep output the same or keep labour the same and increase output. 4. Reducing labour and keeping output the same is often more beneficial. 5. If capitalist firms aim to maximize profit, then they will be biased in favour of keeping labour the same and increasing output even when it is less beneficial. Therefore, capitalist firms lead to sub-optimal consequences overall. Consumption and Leisure If the goal of capitalist firms were to satisfy needs, there would be less consumption and production, and therefore more leisure time.  Human beings have other needs beyond needs for material goods: they have a need to develop and exercise their talents, i.e. to flourish.  However, education in a capitalist society aims at preparing workers for labour markets, not at enabling them to flourish. Historical Materialism The means of production have a tendency to develop throughout history, which determines a society’s legal and political institutions.  Capitalism once played a progressive historical role. It raised us over pre-capitalist scarcity and eroded superstitions that upheld prior forms of society.  However, it is now reactionary: “It can’t realize the possibilities of liberation it creates” for freedom, democracy, human flourishing.  Socialism: An economic system characterized by joint ownership of and democratic control over the means of production.  Capitalism has made possible the creation of a new socialist society. This society would be an economic as well as a political democracy.  This society would be characterized by the absence of class divisions, i.e., divisions between “those who control its resources” and “those who have only their labour.” Summary A society is just if its principles could be selected by rational self-interested agents from within an initial situation that is fair.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Exam Review – PHIL 1550 This is the original position, which imagines citizens as having a conception of the good and a sense of justice and as selecting principles behind a veil of ignorance. Citizens would select two principles guarantee freedom to all and ensuring that inequalities benefit the worst off. This justifies redistribution. According to the entitlement theory of justice, a distribution is just if everyone is entitled to their holdings. This depends on whether they obtained them by just acquisitions and transfers. This is opposed to all patterned distributions. In fact, patterned distributions undermine themselves, since they will always be disrupted by people’s free transactions. As a result, patterned distributions always require redistribution. This makes them unjust, since they take away holdings to which people are entitled. Cohen argues that capitalists are not entitled to their wealth. Nothing justifies the transformation of common resources into private property. He further maintains that capitalism leads to sub- optimal consequences. It makes liberation possible but fails to actualize this potential. He therefore advocates for a socialist society. This involves a fundamental redistribution of resources, which become common property.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Exam Review

Related Documents