Philosophy 1102 Final questions

docx

School

University of British Columbia *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

102

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by MateWrenMaster1988

Philosophy 1102 Final questions Class 8 1. What determines what a word should mean? There is what a word does mean, which is just the way that people use it. What a word should mean in English is different, we want the words to be useful and the use of those words to be ethical. If a word is not ethical or useful, possibly the meaning or definition of the word should be changed. What is useful might trump what is ethical, the harm reduction of calling cubic zirconia a diamond as well, since less people would die mining for real diamonds if the market for each stone was the same. It may be more ethical, but practically these two stones are different according to the periodic table. Like the case of marriage was originally defined as a union between a man and a women, but it was changed to include same sex couples. (ethical example) Another example is the word addiction, people say things like gambling addiction, but many think that these people should not be grouped with people addicted to drugs like heroin who don’t really have that much in common. (use example) What determines what a word should mean: usually just the way that people use it, but we want the definition to be useful as well as ethical. If it is not ethical or useful, the meaning or definition of the word should possibly be changed. 2. What is sex. What is gender? Sex: the biology of one’s body, determined by if you produce eggs or sperm, or if your DNA is biologically female or male. Gender: earlier it used to just refer to someone’s sex, but now it means something different, like the way someone expresses themselves of their personal identity. Gender expression: has to do with someone’s appearance, things like fashion and phenotypic traits and behaviour. Acting either stereotypically female or stereotypically male and looking that way. Gender identity: sometimes said that it is a matter of how you feel, if you feel like a biological female typically feels.

3. Why does Joyce think that transgender women should not automatically be permitted to compete in the women’s category in sport? Why does Ivy disagree? Why Joyce thinks that trans women shouldn’t be in sport: transgender women have an unfair advantage over biological women, if somebody has an unfair advantage in a certain category, they shouldn’t be permitted in that category, trans women shouldn’t compete against biological women. P1; trans women have an unfair advantage over biological women P2: if somebody has an unfair advantage over people in a certain category, they should not be permitted to compete in that category C: trans women should not be permitted to compete against biological women Ivy disagreeing with Joyce on trans women in sports: premise one is false that trans women have an unfair advantage, saying that if there is an advantage, it is not an unfair one. We already permit huge competitive advantages on the basis of natural physical traits and sociological and economic factors. 4. Stock gives two reasons to think that understanding sexual-orientation as a gender-issue is problematic. Identify and describe either one of her reasons. Why understanding sexual orientation as a gender issue is problematic: Stock thinks that believing that sexual orientation is based on gender and not sex can lead people who are same-sex attracted, but who attach a negative stigma of homosexuality, to trade being gay for being transgender. Someone can stop being gay by instead becoming transgender. But who cares, why is it better to be gay than trans? Stock says its not, its not just the fact of being transgender, but the drugs and surgery that it needs that should be avoided. Stocks view says that if someone can live happily as gay without drugs and surgery that should be encouraged. 2) believing that sexual orientation is a matter of gender-gender attraction can lead people to believe that they should be open to having sexual relations with people that they would not and should not be comfortable having sex with.

5. Why does Stock think that prisons, shelters, washrooms etc. should be carved up according to sex as opposed to gender? Why prisons, shelters, washrooms should be based on sex and not gender: males are more likely to commit sexual assault and females are more likely to be sexually assaulted, caused by facts about males biologically being more aggressive. Stock says that these places should be males free where women are particularly vulnerable to sexual assault. Stock also adds that this is not just for the extreme cases of rape and physical attacks, but also exhibitionism and voyeurism. Now many washrooms are gender woman spaces, stock says this defeats the purpose of exclusive spaces to begin with, they were not made to keep gender men out but to keep males out, because males present a threat because they are males. 6. We discussed four objections to Stock’s view that prisons, shelters, washrooms etc. should be carved up according to sex as opposed to gender. Identify and describe any two of those objections. (No need to consider Stock’s responses.) Objections to Stocks view that prisons etc should be about sex and not gender: the predators in shelters and prisons are very often not real transwomen, and cisgender lesbians can be sexual predators too. the predators in shelters and prisons are very often not real transwomen, instead they are just pretending to be trans women in order to gain access to these spaces to use and abuse the women in there. Cisgender women lesbians can also be sexual predators, they are attracted to women and are women so they are allowed in these spaces. The same type of attraction that cisgender straight men feel for women and they are not allowed in women’s washrooms, so if we allow lesbians, then we should also allow transwomen.

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

7. What are puberty blockers, and why are some people concerned about the fact that they are being prescribed to children with gender dysphoria. Puberty blockers: they are drugs that can be prescribed to children as young as 8 to essentially put a pause or ‘block’ puberty from occurring, or the natural change in hormones according to that person biological sex, until they decide if they identify as male or female and can be given the proper hormones accordingly. Why people are concerned about puberty blockers: concern over whether puberty blockers simply allow kids time to make a decision, or if it puts them on a road they are locked into and otherwise would have not taken. The benefits of the drugs in relieving anxiety, depression and risk of suicide have not been demonstrated. Puberty blockers are not reversible and have long last side effects like decrease in bone density, mental growth issues, and infertility. Because of the natural hormones it blocks may not just be related to sex hormones but can also cause the blocking of other hormones, and they sex hormones also function in the growth of many other parts of the body, this could and has been shown to cause some damage like decreased bone density and mental growth in brain development. 8. Why do Dembroff and Payton think that we should not expand the word ‘black (for example) to extend over people who look or feel a certain way, but that we should expand the word ‘woman’ so as to include people who look or feel a certain way? Dembroff and Payton claim that ‘black’ should not extend to people who identify as such but the word woman should: if the word black is expanded, it is inevitable that people will get more than what they deserve, and some people less, and this is unfair. Thinks that if you are black, it follows that you are entitled to benefit from affirmative action, reparations, certain scholarships, etc. So, only people who are entitled to those things are allowed under the header black, and are people that are currently paying the price for the injustices that have been done to black people in the past. If a white person or someone born to European parents identifies as feeling black, we should not accept their claim to be black.

The struggle that women face however, are not passed down from generation to generation in the same manner, women have it harder than men in some regards, but the challenges are shared by bother cisgender and transgender women. 9. Identify and describe one objection to Dembroff and Payton’s view. Objection to Dembroff and Payton on women being expanded but not the word black: they assume that it is essential to being black that one has suffered the effects of weathering or passed down generational trauma of slavery. This seems to be wrong for the simple reason that not all black people have suffered these effects, thousands of black immigrants are not descendants of slaves. Class 9 1. What’s the difference between saying that something is unethical and saying that something is unhealthy? Difference between unethical and unhealthy: there are things that you shouldn’t do no because they are unethical, but because they are not good for you, which can be psychologically or physically. Its not unethical for you to brush your teeth with maple syrup, but it is unhealthy, so you shouldn’t do it. And its not obviously unethical to watch 6 hours of porn everyday, but it is obviously unhealthy. Normally it’s the case that if you do something unethical, you harm other people. If you do something unhealthy, you harm yourself. 2. According to Mappes, what’s the difference between a threat and an offer? Give a couple of examples to illustrate the difference. Difference between a threat and an offer: Mappes says that to do one is to say if you do this thing, we will give you more than what you are entitled to, and the other is if you don’t do this thing, we will give you less than what you are entitled to. Examples: Manager threatens to fire an employee unless she has sex with him—Threat

A man says that a women can go to the movie with him, but he will expect sex in return—Offer Ms. rich tells another man that he can go to Europe with her, all expenses paid, but he must pay with his body—Offer Proffessor tells a student that although she deserves a B in the class, she will get a D unless she sleeps with him--Threat 3. According to Mappes, what is a coercive offer? Give an example. Coercive offer: Mappes says that this happens when you take advantage of someone’s desperate situation, The desperate person doesn’t just want what she is offered, but they need it, using another person as a means to an end. Example: A guy is very poor and cannot afford to pay his mortgage payments and could loose his house, but a rich women offers to help him with the mortgage payments in exchange for sex, for she is attempting to sexually use him by taking advantage of his desperate situation to keep his house. The persons choice can sometimes be subject to such severe prior constraints that the possibility of voluntary consent to sexual interaction is precluded. 4. Does Mappes think it is ever ok to deceive somebody for the purposes of having sex with them? Why or why not? How might one object to Mappes’ view? Is it ok to deceive somebody for the purpose of sex: Mappes thinks that this is very unethical because you are using them as a means to an end and failing to give them a basic amount of respect and dignity, with holding info about or lying to about something that the prospective partner takes to be relevant. Example: tina loves fred and says she will only sleep with him if he loves her too, fred lies and says he does love her, he has deceived tina as she wouldn’t have consented if she had been fully informed. Object to view that deception for sex is wrong: argues that you have not done anything unethical because it is ok to lie to somebody for sex if either; they want to know something that is none of their business and they expect to be lied to and are ok with that (there are some situations when people don’t want to know the truth)

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

Mappes view seems very extreme, if you are still hung up on your ex and you’re trying to move on, and you have a new potential partner that asks if you are hung up on your ex, if you tell the truth, they will no longer be interested. But if you say no and go on to have sex with this person, you have done something unethical by his standard. 5. What is Scruton’s argument against casual sex? Argument against casual sex: Scruton says that there are two types of sexual desire, carnal, where you see the person as a means to an end or essentially a sex toy, or erotic, where you view someone as a special person you have concerns for and share experiences with which leads to romantic love. Carnal desire displaces romantic love which is an essential part of a good life. Making this type of sex unethical. 6. Does Primoratz think that Scruton shows that casual sex is unethical? Explain. Does Scruton show that casual sex in unethical: Primoratz says no, it could be true that engaging in carnal lust is unethical, it is not true that there is only carnal lust and erotic love, there is an in between, casual but respectful hookups. This is where you have at least a minimal respect for the other person as another person and are interested in their well-being in addition to yours. Even though sex driven by carnal lust is unethical doesn’t mean that casual hookups are also unethical. 7. What does it mean to say that men are more ‘sociosexual’ than women, and what does Perry take the cause of high male sociosexuality to be? Meaning of men being more sociosexual: Perry says that men on average prefer to have more sex and with a larger number of partners, that sex buyers are almost exclusively male and that men watch a lot more porn that women do and the vast majority of women, if given the option prefer a committed relationship rather than sex. Cause of high male sociosexuality: Perry says that this is the result of biology, not culture, a man can produce thousands of children over his lifetime, a woman can produce at the most a dozen, if both men and women are programmed to maximize their potential for reproductive success, we should expect men to naturally want to have more sex with more partners.

8. In Perry’s view, why do many women believe that casual sex is healthy and liberating? Why do women believe casual sex is healthy and liberating: Perry thinks this is because women are encouraged to mimic male sexuality, because male sexuality is wrongly viewed as what sexual freedom looks like. Women who follow this believe that traditional female sexual conservatism is caused by the patriarchy, but perry says that this is caused by nature and the wanting of lost lasting relationships. Men are more sociosexual than women, or that men prefer to have more sex and with larger number of partners. As well as this being the result of mostly biology and not culture, a man can produce thousands of children over his lifetime, but women usually at most a dozen. In order to maximize their potential for reproductive success, men have more sex with more partners. 9. Perry considers the objection that if women are having sex freely, nobody has the right to criticize them. Identify and describe any one of Perry’s three responses. Perry response to objection that if women are having sex freely, no one has the right to criticize them: it is not obvious that women are in fact having sex ‘freely’ in today’s world, if a woman doesn’t believe in sex before marriage, she will be at a disadvantage because there are women who are willing to have sex on the first date. We are often affected by social trends, and what we take to be our desires may not really be our own. 2 nd response, even if women are having casual sex freely that doesn’t mean it is good, and that sexual repression is often very good. 1O. Why does Catherine MacKinnon claim that what appears to be genuine female consent is often not genuine. Under what conditions would it, hypothetically, be genuine in McKinnon’s view? Claim that what appears to be genuine female consent is often not genuine: Mackinnon says that if a woman only consents because she is trying to please other people, or avoid judgement, or act in a way that she thinks men want her to act, then genuine consent is not present. When women ‘consent’ to sex, their alleged consent has to be put into context of a patriarchal society in which sexuality is a social construct of moral power defined by men, and forced on women.

Under what conditions would consent be genuine: sex is acceptable or good morally, only if it is motivated by the right kind of intrinsic desire, as opposed to some external reason where is would not be properly consensual. Class 10 1. What is the classic liberal approach to offensive or hurtful speech? Liberal approach to offensive or hurtful speech: people should be allowed to say what they like, but excluding extreme cases involving libel, harassment and possibly hate speech. If you don’t agree, you should tell them why they are wrong, and if they won’t listen you should ignore the, don’t run and hide, but you should not do is shut them up. Free speech is the engine of societal progress, it allows us to hear and select new good ideas and to understand why we should eliminate old bad ones. But new good ideas are often offensive and hurtful, where free speech is banned the truth will remain hidden. 2. Why do Lukianoff and Haidt talk about peanuts? Why did they talk about peanuts: Lukianoff and Haidt think the flight/hide response is bad, and exposure to pathogens is often good for us, like when they banned all peanuts and nuts from schools, the amount of children with allergies to peanuts skyrocketed. Which was caused by the kids not being exposed to peanuts that caused the allergies they were trying to prevent. So, we should prevent ourselves from being fragile by exposing ourselves to the very thing that we are afraid of. 3. What are safe spaces, and why are Lukianoff and Haidt critical of them? Safe spaces: is a place where people can go to feel safe and get away from people who may invalidate peoples experiences and people who don’t feel like they are safe or don’t like a speakers ideas. It has things like cookies, colouring books, calming music and pillows/blankets and staff members trained to deal with trauma.

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

Why they are critical of safe rooms: Lukianoff and Haidt says the problem is that protecting people from reminders of their difficult past experiences doesn’t help those people, it makes them more fragile. ‘avoiding triggers is a symptom of PTSD, not a treatment for it.’ The way to treat phobias is to gradually expose them to the thing that they fear, not enable the desire to hide. Learning how to handle the anxiety upon being exposed to a threatening experience helps. 4. Identify any three of the nine cognitive distortions that CBT asks patients to be mindful of. Cognitive distortions that CBT asks patients to be mindful of: emotional reasoning, catastrophizing, and overgeneralizing, they need to be aware of thse mistakes, to catch themselves making these mistakes and use reason to overcome them. Often ones feelings cannot be trusted. 5. What are microaggressions? Microaggressions: brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioural or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, the communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of colour. 6. Wolfe claims that three things have to be in place for Nazi punching to be acceptable. What are they? Three things in place for it to be ok to punch a Nazi: you must know that punching him will prevent harm, you must know that there is no other way to prevent harm, you must know that the harm that you are preventing, supposing that you actually do prevent this harm, is worse than the harm that you’re causing, which is to the Nazi, to free speech, to the power of the rule of law. Must know punching him will prevent harm: the harm is often said to be prevented is more diffused and far away in space and time, but you the private citizen have no idea whether this harm will be caused if you don’t punch him and will be prevented if you do. Must know that there is no other way to prevent harm: its not ok if there are others ways to stop him that don’t involve punching him, violence should be a last resort.

Must know that the harm that you are preventing to the oppressed groups supposing that you actually do prevent this harm: is worse than the harm that you’re causing to the Nazi himself, to free speech and to the power of the rule of law. 7. According to Douglas Murray, why is forgiveness important? Why is forgiveness important: function in a practical matter, and is a tool that modern liberal democracies depend on, without is, hatred festers and erodes civilization itself. Nothing creates a chilling effect on free expression like the fear that if we screw up, we will never be forgiven. In short genuine freedom and social stability depend on the possibility of this. Class 11 Pt. 1 1. What is Kant’s view about moral luck? Kant’s view of moral luck: when assigning praise and blame, the consequences of the action don’t really matter, the intention and the will alone is what matters, and if a good intention happens by freak chance, to lead to something bas, it is not the person fault. And if a bad intention happens, by freak chance, to lead to something goof, a person should still be blamed and they deserve no credit for the good thing that happened. 2. What is moral luck? Moral luck: where a significant aspect of what someone does depends on factors beyond his control, yet we continue to treat him in that respect as an object of moral judgement, it can be called this. 3. Why is moral luck a problem? Why is moral luck a problem: it seems tremendously unfair to praise people for things that occurred by dumb luck, or blame people for things that

occurred by dumb luck. And yet we do it all the time, it is built into our ordinary judgements about moral accountability, and moral responsibility. 4. What is the dilemma of moral luck? Dilemma of moral luck: either we abandon our ordinary moral judgement which would be unnatural and probably impossible or we keep judging people the way that we do and admit that we are consistently being unfair, both of these choices seems unacceptable and this is a problem 5. What is ‘luck in the way that one’s actions turn out?’ Give an example Luck in the way that ones actions turn out: a person has a particular intention or is preforming some action, and depending on luck, it can turn out really well, or not great, or perhaps horribly. When it turns out horribly, we assign blame, and when it doesn’t we don’t, but this seems to be unfair. An example would be a drunk driver runs a read light and hits nothing, but in another scenario a when he runs a red light a child happens to be crossing, and he hits and kills the child, and we would harshly blame him and take him to be a worse person. 6. What is ‘constitutive luck?’ Give an example. Constitutive luck: is someone has this, they get praise for what they are like, even though what they are like isn’t under their control, not having this would mean you get blamed for everything and the way that they are, even if they didn’t choose to be that way. An example would be Fred who is married with two children, but is conceited, narcissistic and borderline sociopathic, he wants fame and wealth, and wants to leave his life for something more exciting and has merely learned how to act like a normal person. But John is generous and caring, content with a moderate amount of money and loves his wife and kids. Fred didn’t choose to be the way he is any more than John chose to be the way that he is. Knowing the truth about Fred we look at him with contempt, but why, it’s not Freds fault he’s that way. This is the problem of moral luck. 7. What is ‘luck in one’s circumstances?’ Give an example.

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

Luck in ones circumstances: it is simply a matter of being in a time and a place where ones disposition to become bad becomes occurrent (actually occurring or observable) . here we do blame them for the action (as opposed to the disposition) but it was just by luck that they performed that action. Example: Helmut a concentration camp Nazi officer would have been boring but respectable businessman if he had decided to move to Argentina before the war, but he didn’t move so he became a concentration camp officer, we judge him and say that he is a horrible person. In another scenario he moves to Argentina before the war, and becomes businessman instead, we don’t judge him harshly at all for his disposition never became occurrent. 8. What is ‘luck of antecedent circumstances? Give an example. Luck of antecedent circumstances: is to point out that all of our actions are determined by prior circumstances, it appears we, in some sense, have no free will and can never freely choose to do anything. There is no such thing as genuine agency, genuine control, so we should not believe in praise/blame. Example: if you could rewind the clock of time to just before any bad decision that you made and have everything in the exact same circumstances, could you have magically made a decision other than the one that you did make? It seems not, in that sense you are always constrained to prior events, and in fact, the way that the world was when you were born fully determined how you will act throughout your life. Free will seems to disappear and moral responsibility along with it. Pt. 2 1. What is paternalism? Paternalism: the view that the government has the right to protect you from yourself, even if it means that your explicit, manifest choices are not respected. Involves the government ignoring or constraining our choices even in cases in which our choices only affect us. 2. What’s the difference between a choice-based notion of rights and an

interest-based notion of rights? Which notion of rights pretty obviously conflicts with paternalism? Choice based notion of rights: says that we have a basic right to choose whatever we want, as long as we don’t hurt other people, tend to be against paternalism, since it involves the government constraining our explicit choices. Interest based notion of rights: says that our basic right is only to do the things that are in our own best interest, tend to be more sympathetic to paternalism, since they argue that there are cases in which our interests and our manifest choices come apart or contradict one another. Which notion of rights conflicts with paternalism: the choice-based notion of rights since they believe that we have the basic right to choose whatever we want. Example of interest; a man wants to try heroin for the first time but it is not in his interest to do so, the government should ignore our manifest choices in the name of our own self-interest. 3. How does Goodin think that one can hold an interest-based view of rights without totally ignoring what individuals actually want? How one can hold an interest based view of rights without ignoring what they want: Goodin says that we can do this by a way that actually equates our interests to the choices that we will make or would make under the right conditions, and makes for a more plausible and harmless kind of paternalism. 4. According to Goodin, what is one big requirement for paternalistic intervention? Big requirement for paternalistic intervention: according to Goodin, this is only acceptable in the cases in which the stakes are huge and irreversible, when people might make a horrible mistake that they cannot recover from, like dropping out of school or taking an addictive drug. 5. For all cases in which the stakes are huge and the decision is irreversible, what four types of scenarios would each justify paternalistic intervention, according to Goodin? Four types of scenarios that would justify paternalistic intervention: according to Goodin If your manifest preferences are not your relevant

preferences, settled preferences, preferred preferences, or not your own preferences, then the government has the right to ignore your manifest choices. 6. What is a relevant preference, according to Goodin? Why does Goodin claim that Cipollone’s preferences were irrelevant? Relevant preference: if someone has a preference formed on deception, and they would change their mind if they knew the truth, then the government does not have to respect that preference or choice. Is one that a person would still have if they knew the truth. Why Cipollones preferences were irrelevant: Gordon claims this because her preference to smoke was irrelevant because it was formed on false advertising, she plausibly would not have started smoking in the first place if she had known the truth about the risks. 7. What is a settled preference, according to Goodin? Why does Goodin think that Cipollone’s preferences were (at one point in her life), not settled? Settled preference: it is the case that youre not going to change your mind, that its just a phase. Many teens say that they know the risks of smoking and prefer a shorter cooler life, to a longer and less cool one, but this is just a phase. Why Cipollones preferences were not settled: Gordon claims this because her preference was not settled since the decision to smoke knowing the potential consequences to live a shorter and cooler life instead of a longer one, was just a phase. 8. What are preferred preferences, according to Goodin? What was Cipollone’s preferred preference? Preferred preferences: occurs when you have conflicting preferences, but one is better than the other which is/can be harmful to you. Smokers have the preference to smoke but also the preference to not smoke. Cipollones preferred preference: smokers generally have a preference to smoke, but they also have the preference not to smoke, the latter is what this person preference is, a person who smokes but is always trying to stop, so they want to be a non-smoker.

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

9. According to Goodin, what’s the difference between a preference that’s your own and a preference that’s not your own? What does this issue have to do with the government’s right to regulate advertising? Difference between a preference that is or isn’t your own: According to Goodin, to make a choice that is not your own, like if you have been hypnotized or brainwashed, doesn’t mean that we have to respect your choice or that the government should. Like for cult members. Preferences that aren’t your own and governments right to regulate advertising: there is an issue between these two things, as brainwashing is essentially what advertising does, by using subliminal claims and images to bypass judgement. So, the government could potentially regulate or ban advertising on this basis, the government shouldn’t allow advertisers to smuggle those ideas in your head. 1O. If what Goodin says is correct, what are the practical consequences for tobacco regulation? Practical consequences for tobacco regulations based on preferences and Cipollones: the government now has the right to ban the sale of tobacco altogether, or at least to restrict it, make it available by perception to registered users only, or make it difficult and expensive to obtain, since peoples relevant, settled, preferred and your own preferences should be regulated by the government. Class 12 1. What is the AI alignment problem? AI alignment problem: problem of ensuring that AI systems do what their operators intend them to do, and not something else that may be harmful or undesirable. It arises because AI systems may have different goals, values, or preferences than their operators, or may misunderstand or misinterpret their operators instructions, and becomes more dangerous when it becomes more powerful, autonomous and intelligent.

2. What is the AI consciousness problem? AI consciousness problem: problem of determining whether AI systems are conscious or not, and what are the ethical implications of their possible consciousness. It arises because consciousness is a subjective and qualitative phenomenon that is hard to define, measure or verify, it becomes more challenging as AI becomes more interactive, complex and adaptive, and can exhibit behaviours that may resemble or mimic human consciousness. 3. What is the AI misinformation problem? AI misinformation problem: problem of preventing or detecting the creation and dissemination of false or misleading information by AI systems and mitigating the negative consequences of such information on individuals, groups and society. It arises because AI systems can generate realistic and persuasuve tests, images, videos or audio that can deceive or manipulate human audiences, or influence their beliefs opinions, or behaviours. Becomes more challenging as AI systems become more capable, autonomous, and ubiquitous, and as they operate in complex and uncertain environments. 4. What is the AI copyright problem? AI copyright problem: problem of determining who owns the rights to the works created by AI systems, and how to respect and protect those rights in the digital age. Arises because AI systems can generate original and creative works that may resemble or imitate existing human works, or that may be influenced by the data or information that they are trained on. Becomes more challenging as AI systems become more advanced, autonomous, and prolific, and as they operate in diverse and global contexts. 5. What is the AI-caused unemployment problem? AI-caused unemployment problem: problem of preventing or mitigating the negative effects of AI and automation on human workers and labor markets. Arises because AI and automation can perform a wide range of tasks that were previously don by human, and can do the faster, cheaper, and better.

Becomes more challenging as AI and automation become more widespread, versatile, and intelligent, and as they displace or eliminate entire occupations or industries. 6. What is the AI-caused ego problem? AI-caused ego problem: problem of dealing with the psychological and emotional effects of AI being better at pretty much everything than humans are. Arises because humans have a natural tendency to seek positive self- image and self-esteem, and to compare themselves to others. Becomes more challenging as AI surpasses human performance and intelligence in various domains and tasks, and as it challenges human identity and dignity. 7. What is the AI-caused social problem? AI-caused social problem: problem of ensuring that AI does not undermine or harm the emotional and social connections between humans and other humans. Arises because humans may develop strong attachments or dependencies on AI systems that can interact with them in natural and engaging ways, such as chatbots and social robots. Becomes more challenging as AI systems become more human-like, empathetic, and persuasive, and as they influence human feelings, attitudes, and behaviours. Class 13 Pt. 1 1. What is (ordinary) blackmail (don’t worry about the exact wording of the formal definition)? Ordinary blackmail: includes the following features, a declaration of intention to act or refrain from acting about something that a person normally has the right to do, that is otherwise legally permissible, and that the blackmailer believes his or her target will find unwelcome and an accompanying offer not to carry out the intention on condition of the blackmailers receiving compensation that is other legally permissible. 2. What is the compositional paradox (regarding blackmail)?

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

Compositional paradox of blackmail: its morally ok to ask for money, to threaten that you will tell a mans wife that hes cheating on her and its olay to not tell someones wife that her husband is cheating, but it is not ok to put these to things together. Or to make the not telling conditional on the money. This is paradoxical because while the two things are fine on their own, when they are combined you have done something wrong and blackmailed that person. 3. What is the comparative paradox (regarding blackmail)? Comparative paradox of blackmail: most agree that blackmail is bad and should be illegal, but there are practices that look just like blackmail but don’t seem that bad, like labor disputes where workers threaten to cease work for higher salaries, divorce proceedings, and hush money, blackmail should be morally okay and legal by these examples, and yet we know that it isn’t. 4. Identify and describe any two of the solutions to the comparative paradox (of blackmail) that Smilansky considers and dismisses. Two possible solutions to the comparative paradox: blackmail is very morally bad because it invades privacy and because it involves a coercive offer, which is why it should be illegal Invades privacy: blackmail is bad because of this, but the objection to it is that we think blackmail is Worse than others things that do this, and in any case there are a lot of other morally bad things that invade privacy that should not be illegal Involves a coercive offer: blackmail is bad because of this, but the objection to it is that there are a lot of things that involve this that should be illegal, like paying off someone’s mortgage if they sleep with you, you have explained why it is morally worse than other activities, but you have not explained what makes it illegal.

5. What is Smilansky’s own solution to the comparative paradox? Smilansky’s solution to the comparative paradox: blackmail is bad, but not in itself ethically worse than those other practices, the reason we view it as morally bad and the reason we think is should be illegal is because virtually no good comes from it. Tabloids are illegal because good things come from free speech, so the good outweighs the bad. But virtually no good every comes from blackmail, that’s why it is illegal and why it should be illegal. 6. What is the paradox of severe non-punishment? Paradox of severe non-punishment: severe punishment for crimes like a 10,000 dollar fine for illegal parking and life in prison for drunk driving, would likely top them from committing the crime in the first place because of the harsh punishment, but we think such a system would be wildly unfair as it threatens punishments that are radically severe and disproportional. We can reach our ultimate goal, no crime no punishment, and yet we don’t want to, this is the problem. Severe punishments wont deter crime in all cases, and there will always be some people who commit crimes no matter how severe the penalty like drug addicts but we could make special allowances. 7. Does Smilansky think that there should be any ethical constraints on acceptable punishment? Explain. Ethical constraints on acceptable punishment: Smilansky thinks that some limits should be placed on this imaginary system of perfect deterrence, like even if it were to deter a crime, the government would never be permitted to threaten to harm a criminals family.

8. Identify and describe any three of the arguments against the perfect deterrence system (as well as Smilansky’s responses to those arguments). Three arguments against perfect deterrence: if someone were to commit a crime the punishment would be unjust, the fear of draconian punishment would haunt our lives, draconian punishment interferes with the freedom of the people If someone commits a crime, the punishment is unjust response: argument against a system where the punishment is so severe, that is a person committed that crime, they would literally have to be mentally ill. Or that innocent people would be punished less in the perfect deterrence system because there would be virtually no crime. The fear of Draconian punishment would haunt our lives response: theres nothing to be afraid of, just don’t commit crimes, and keep in mind, you can today get convicted of a murder that you didn’t commit, and yet the fear of prison doesn’t haunt your life. Draconian punishment interferes with the freedom of people response: what exactly would that freedom be, the freedom to commit crimes? That what punishment is supposed to do, were not supposed to be free to commit crimes, so yes the perfect deterrence interferes with the freedom of the people but that doesn’t make it bad, since we don’t complain that a life sentence interferes with ones freedom to murder. Pt. 2 1. What does it mean to say that something is a religious exemption? Religious exemption: that some people should be legally permitted, on account of their religion, to do things that are normally not legally permitted. 2. Give three examples of religious exemptions in Canada. Examples of religious exemptions in Canada: Sikh men are exempt from wearing helmets on motorcycles even though it’s the law for others, Sikh’s are allowed to carry a small ceremonial dagger in both schools and airplanes, but the law says weapons are banned from these places. ICBC doesn’t allow for the wearing hats or head coverings for driver’s license photos but religious headgear is exempt.

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

3. What four conditions does Vallier say need to be in place for a religious exemption to be legitimate? (No need to describe them. Just list them.) Four conditions that need to be in place for a religious exemption to be legitimate: Vallier says that the citizen who wants the exemption must have sufficient intelligible reason to oppose the law, the law imposes unique and substantial burdens on the citizen, the large majority of citizens has sufficient reason to endorse the law, and the exemption does not impose significant costs on other parties. 3. What is Vallier getting at when he says that a citizen who wants an exemption must have sufficient intelligible reason to oppose the law? What’s an objection to Vallier’s view here? Meaning of the citizen who wants the exemption must have sufficient intelligible reason to oppose the law: Vallier thinks that there are some beliefs that you personally don’t take to be rational, but you can see how another person would view those beliefs as rational given their religion. Objection to citizen who wants the exemption must have reason to oppose the law: many religious beliefs are undermined by plain, common-sense facts, like that people cannot walk on water like Jesus, many religious claims are irrational and thus cannot serve as reason to be exempt from the law. A belief may not be rational from your point of view but you can appreciate that there is a point of view from which it is rational, like an atheist can look at a belief of a Muslim and say it is in some weak sense rational, meaning that the Qur’an generates reasons for the Muslim but non for the atheist. 4. What does it mean (according to Vallier) to say that a law imposes unique and substantial burdens on the citizen? Meaning of saying that a law imposes unique and substantial burdens on the citizen: is to say that in following that law, that person is compromising their integrity, which means fidelity to those project’s and principles that are constitutive of one’s core identity. Is any form of legal coercion that significantly sets back an individuals ability to live out her faith. A substantial burden: is “any form of legal coercion that significantly sets back and individual’s ability to live out her faith, either by direct compulsion or an ex post (after the act) legal penalty.”

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

Integrity: “Integrity means fidelity to those projects and principles that are constitutive of one’s core identity. A principle here would be something like a worldview. A project lasts a long time and is central to one’s life insofar as other smaller tasks and goals depend on it. And a project gives structure to one’s life – it unites things, making for a kind of stability in life.” 5. What is Vallier getting at when he says that an exemption must not impose significant costs on other parties? A religious exemption must not impose significant costs on other parties: Here Vallier is talking about exemptions being allowed as long as they don’t effect anyone else, like in the case of the Sikh man that doesn’t have to wear a helmet on a motorcycle, this doesn’t effect anyone else so it is fine, but vaccine exemptions do put other people into possible danger because maintaining herd immunity would be lost and put everyone at risk, and it is also unfair to the majority. 6. Vallier claims that a religious exemption can still be granted even if it does impose significant costs on others, as long as any of three conditions are in place. What are those conditions? Conditions where a religious exemption can be allowed even if is does impose significant costs on others: those costs are compensated for by the government since they are the ones allowing it, the cost of the exemption is neutralized like the Amish not paying taxing but they don’t get social security, the majority doesn’t mind that they have to pay a cost like making up past injustices directed towards a religion. 7. Identify and describe any two of the ‘broad objections’ to Vallier’s account that we discussed. How does Vallier respond to those objections? Broad objections to Valliers religious exemption thoughts: one is that religious exemptions are a slippery slope, granting them will lead to anarchy since anybody will be able to claim an exemption to the law, and second one is that religious exemptions will undermine the rule of law, where laws only work insofar as everyone accepts that they are universal and without

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

exception, if not all laws are universal then people will questions the legitimacy of the law. Valliers response to religious exemptions being a slippery slope: he says that this objection is nonsense, and judges will be able to make distinctions between legit cases of religious exemptions and illegitimate cases, on a case by case basis Valliers response to religious exemption will undermine the rule of law: he says that questioning the legitimacy of laws isn’t a bad thing, there might be cases in which by granting religious exemptions, we go on to realize the law itself never made any sense. 8. Does Vallier think that religion is special (insofar as it legitimately serves as the basis of exemptions whereas secular beliefs do not)? What three reasons might someone give to make a case for the claim that religion is special? Is religion special: Vallier thinks that religion is not special because there is no reason these alleged differences mean that religious exemptions should be allowed but secular (non-religious) exemptions are not allowed, as long as the four conditions are met: reason to oppose law, imposes substantial burden, majority endorses the law, and no significant costs on others. The three reasons people use to say religion is special: it gives judges a measure to determine whether someone is sincere, there is a tradition of giving religion special status, and the stakes are higher when it comes to religious belief, b/c they believe they will be punished by God if they contradict their beliefs. Class 14 Will not be on the final exam the questions for review He will be choosing 7 questions and you choose 5 for 10 marks each for 50% The essay question is worth the other 50%, should be able to write for about 1 hour and use all the time you have, relate your answer to what we talked about and did across the course and the articles 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

Essay question for Final You know more about ethics than you did at the beginning of this course, Are you a better person? Does studying ethics make you a better person? Why or why not? Don’t have to say yes, just be honest. - I think it has taught me to not be so critical or quick to jump to conclusions about certain views because once you start to look at other arguments you can pick out the ones that have some backing to them and disregard others if they don’t or they have faults in their reasoning. It has made me a better critical thinker and open minded to others ideas. - If that makes me a better person, which I think it does than yes it has made me slightly a better person - But I don’t think this applies to everyone in the class, I came to the class with an already open mind to what I was about to hear, others came closed minded and only to sprea what they thought was right while telling everyone else how wrong they were, with no backing to why they were doing so, these students did not become better people from this class and remain closed minded - OR There has been much disagreement among people in this class over the ethical issues that we’ve considered, Does the knowledge that this kind of disagreement exists make you doubt that there are objective ethical facts? If not, and you believe that there are objective ethical facts, how do you account for the fact that people seem to disagree so deeply? If so, and you believe that there are no objective ethical facts, does that mean that its irrational for you to criticize or argue against people who disagree with your view? -religion plays a big influence on what people consider objective -use the different types of morality rules already discussed ie golden rule is to treat others as how you would want to be treated, something is right if and only if you have no problem with it being done to you and bad is you would not want it done to you, only case where this is an exception is with the masochist, but even narcissist and psychopaths can imagine not wanting to be treated in a certain way and how they would not want that done to them, they just have ways of manipulating others and have a more egoistic view of morals (that its ok for them to do it cause they are special) which coincidentally is how many cults start. -the humanity formulation and human rights based theory are both good sounding theories, even though they might be a bit vague, don’t use people, don’t treat people in a way that a rational and fully informed person would object to, and respect basic human rights. What being rational means here and what basic human rights are is vague and needs to be better well defined. But I think that a simple definition for basic human rights is the right to not be harmed by another person, the right to do as you wish as long as you are not harming anyone in the process etc. For the humanity formulation, I think it is more important to focus on the fully informed portion than the rational, humans are not for never being fully rational beings, but

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

fully informed is a little different, well educated and understanding exactly what is happening and what you are doing is more applicable, the well educated in north America tend to be more leftist but also in the middle as they are open to multiple policies and can see the flaws in others, close-minded and not informed people cannot do this, and end up on the political extreme. -how cultures and countries have differences in what is seen as moral or right Like in Afganistan the Taliban belives that women and girls shouldn’t be allowed in school and must be married off by a certain age as child brides, most of the other world sees this as objectively horrifying, but there was once a time a while ago where this practice was very common, as the spreading of objective moral facts became clear, like women have rights too as they are also human beings. -doing something that you someone deems morally right and be a lot different than being morally good, god says to stone someone for infidelity, yet this never happens (at least in north America) because although religious people may say its morally right by their bible, it is not morally good to torture someone like that, people don’t normally get satisfaction from that things (aside from sociopaths and group mentality) -(for the fact that people disagree so deeply ) I think that there are some objective ethical facts but things tend to sway people away from wanting to follow or believe those, like religion saying otherwise based on a fictional being that someone made a book and was most likely done by a man that just wanted his way to be followed, that people are inherently selfish and if something goes against what they think they deserve they start to try and change those objective moral facts, some people are born more empathetic than others women are biologically wired like this in particular and men are the ones that go against typical object moral rules and are the cause of most violent acts and genocides against other people that differ from them - and this idea gets carried on through generations by religion, parents believing in certain roles (like in gender) and passing down that belief system onto their children generating an endless cycle -the disagreement that occurs doesn’t make me doubt that there are objective moral facts because everyone has the feeling deep inside like heavy weight on their chest or a pit in their stomach when something morally bad occurs, but we excuse the action with things to try and make it more justified or to place blame. Like with school shotters, often news networks will cite that the boy got turned down by a girl when he asked her out, making it sound like its her fault for the shooting, because women are more likely to be the one blamed than the one that actually commited the act of violence reference; Texas school shooter killed girl who turned down his advances and embarrassed him in class, where 10 students were killed. People are quick to jump to putting blame on the girl, saying things like she should of just said yes, because people believe that men have a more of a right to a woman than a woman has the right to say no. These acts of blaming are obviously morally wrong, yet the American culture does this anyway because of a belief system put in place that white men can rarely do any wrong. And murders usually have ‘mommy issues’ and the mothers get blamed for raising such a terrible human being. The person in the wrong here is the one who committed the morally wrong act, the murder but societal, religious and culture play a big role in how people view moral facts, and can sway them away from the objective ones in hope to make life a little easier for the ones who disobeyed these moral wrongs.

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

-you shouldn’t need religion to stop yourself from hurting other people, many religious people use the saying, “if you don’t have religion, how are you supposed to differentiate between right and wrong?” and the answer is quite simple, don’t harm people, thou shall not murder is not something just God can come up with, it’s a intrinsic part of human morality and humanity in general, you want your species to thrive, and that means other people.

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

Philosophy 1102 Final questions

Related Documents