Discussion Question Journal
Chapter 14: The Social Contract Tradition Problems and Prospects
Is it immoral to be a free rider? Is it irrational? Does the existence of free riders raise a serious problem for contractarianism? Why or why not?
Take for instance a borehole constructed in an arid region by villagers. All member are to participate in contributing cash for this purpose. The water will serve the interests of the villagers. If say one or a group of members chose not to contribute but still got to use the water once the borehole was made, they would be referred to as free loaders. Free rider takes advantage of the effort of the masses to benefit more. It is therefore immoral to be a free rider. Is it Irrational to keep your money and still benefit from the collective anyway? No, it makes perfect sense. However, is poses a threat to the norm. Contractarianism is tied to political philosophy. This means, political authority is subscribed to by the governed based on norms that become the basis of morals. It is only viable as long the governed follow this criterion of rational reasoning. It is however threatened by free rider concept which basically “erodes” the core principal that is contractarianism.
Hobbes believes rationality is holistic: encompassing action, benefits and consequences. In a society for instance that is plagued by free rider is comparable to a family of four in which one eats and sleeps while the other work hard to bring in food. The basis of this relationship relies on cooperation. The free rider poses negative consequences.
Some people might object that they never explicitly signed anything like a “social contract,” and therefore cannot be bound by it. How might contractarians respond to such an objection?
Hobbes begins by describing a society without order: in which the strong get to take what they want. He then moves on to describe a society in which the individual members are bound by a a social to prioritize the benefits to the collective over the personal benefits. Any members who object this system of cooperation are free to vacate the confines of this society and join the former: selfish priorities.
Do animals have rights? Do weak and vulnerable human beings? If so, can contractarianism account for this?
Animals do not have rights primarily since they do not possess the ability to rationalize. Consequently, they are not considered to have rights. All human beings can rationalize and are thus assigned rights likewise to their strong counterparts. In contractarianism theory, a society is assigned similar rights for the collective and the collective are bound by rules dictated by their agreement with the political authority.
Chapter 15 Ethical Pluralism
How does ethical pluralism differ from ethical monism? Which view seems more defendable to you, and why?
Take the example of diet. We all need to eat a balanced diet in order to flourish in terms of health. Some diets include foods good for our health while some include foods that our bodies are intolerant to. If we adopted the latter diet, the consequences would be negative. A diet is a guideline on what to eat, like ethics. Any single standard diet is good for everyone’s health, ethical monism. However, it is a fact that one man’s meat is another man’s poison. As such, varying diets that suit different groups of people would be logical, Ethical pluralism. We live in a diverse world of diverse culture, all of which embrace diverse moral value and ethics. As such, ethical monism cannot apply: a more diverse approach, ethical pluralism, is applicable without conflict.
Do you think it would be morally permissible to kill an innocent person to save a thousand
Say a mother’s infant has the blood that can cure cancer. The consequence, in fact, is that millions of terminally ill patients will benefit. However, if this means the death of the child and the mother chooses to save her infant and let the millions die anyway, is she morally justified. Let’s take another instance; a man has an infectious and deadly condition in the midst of 1000 people. Do they kill him, burn him to curb spread of infection or do they uphold moral virtues not to kill and end up all dead anyway. This presents a tragic dilemma: act and be unjust or do not act and die anyway. Morality is assigned based in situations. Who would want to kill an innocent child to save millions of terminally ill patients who know their fate? It is not morally permissible to kill the infant to save those whose fate is sealed but it is morally permissible to kill the infected patient whose fate is sealed to save many.
Why might the view that there are multiple absolute moral rules generate a contradiction? How can ethical pluralists defend their theory against this possibility?
Absolute moral rules dictate that moral rules are absolute and the situation is irrelevant. Take for instance the last question, absolute moral rule dictates that if a man was about to annihilate the while planet with a nuclear payload, it would be morally unacceptable to kill him as a means to prevent such an act. This means that we shouldn’t kill yet we should allow ourselves to be killed: it is contradictory. Nicholas Low believes that ethical pluralists are not bound by this concept since,their theory dictates no absolute manner of approaching moral issues.
Is doing harm always worse than allowing harm? Is it always possible to draw a line between the two?
If a kid aged ten shot someone, he/she would probably be committed for rehabilitation. If however, the mom did the shooting while the kid did not stop her: the kid would probably be treated for shock and committed to foster care. As in seen in this example, doing harm is worse than allowing harm to be done. In terms of the moral virtues, the two concepts constitute the same intention – the death of the dad – and hence no clear distinction. A similar instance; causing pollution and failing to curb the practice, it is a fact that the agent causing harm will suffer the consequences while those who allowed the act will barely feature in the sharing the consequence. Drawing a line between the two is subject to the situation presented.
Chapter 16 Ethical Pluralism
What exactly is prima facie duty? How does an ethic of prima facie duties differ from monistic and absolutist ethical theories?
Prima facie duty is a binding principal. This works by the principle of two halves. The two halves are bound by a promise. Both halves also have to be the same. This binding agreement should only experience change if another duty comes up that is pressing and in need of more attention compared to the former. The term duty is generally used to refer to absolute needs to perform an action and this may be misleading in the phrase prima facie duty, however, the implications are far from it. In a prima facie duty, the emphasis is on the guidelines to be followed for instance, if bound by a promise, then the promise should be delivered upon: there are no absolutes. If the guidelines are not followed, then this constitutes a violation. This is different from a monistic point of view that assigns one standard to all while prima facie duty is accommodative of different situations. Absolutist ethical theories also provide no lee-way for room if the specific theory does not apply to the contemporary situation. Thus, a prima facie duty is different from monistic and absolutist ethicak theories.
Do you think that Ross’s list of prima facie duties is accurate and complete? If not, either
Ross’s list of prima facie duties has managed to capture the essence of the theory in a way that can be understood and easily comprehended by a layman or scholar. What she failed to do, however, was to do extensive research to build on her list: since it is incomplete. This has also been the subject of objections.
Does the phenomenon of regret lend any support to Ross’s theory? Why or why not?
The phenomenon of regret has been discovered to be correlated to rational thinking of most human beings. According to Joumal for the Theoty of Social Behauiour, there is an intimate link in human beings between reason and emotion. Janet Landman, believes that since we are mortal, every human being has experienced regret and it can be used as a motivator to avoid future regrets. According to Ross’s model, this plays a significant role in enforcing prima facie duty.
Ross’s theory provides several ways to do the right thing. They are basically guidelines and provide no absolutes on how to approach and execute a action in any given situation. The first guideline is fidelity: which dictates that we should honor obligations and commit to promises made. We should partake in reparations to address any injuries inflicted on a second party and show gratitude to all benefactors involved in the process. We should also strive not to harm others, the collective, or ourselves. That we should value all life and abide faithfully by all commitments made. Lastly, it dictates that one should be just in distribution of burden, should constantly strive to improve one-self and do good to otheras. I believe all these aspects strengthen the theory since they all guide on to the purpose of remaining faithful to promises and fulfilling them in a way that is just, values cooperation, respect and mutual understanding.
Chapter 17: Virtue Ethics
How might a person do the right thing but still fail to be morally admirable?
We live in a world where actions have consequences. The consequences of an action can be good or bad. Most social systems on the planet share a correlation between actions that have positive consequences and what is right. The world is full of people of diverse principals, beliefs and cultures. What everybody agrees about across all boundaries, is that there is a right way of doing things. If is see a blind man about to cross the busy traffic, I should assist the man safely across. This is the right thing to do: it is also morally justified. However, we live in a world of complexities. Much as we all agree about what’s right, what we may not agree on, is the moral justification. Say, a beautiful girl was nervous about crossing the busy traffic and I chose to assist her and ignore the blind man: this was the right thing to do. However, damsel-in-distress scenario depicts me to harbor a selfish motive: which is why if the blind man got knocked down in traffic, I would fail to be morally admirable.
How does virtue ethics account for this?
Virtue ethics places little attention on the norms or consequences of an action and places emphasis on the character of the person performing the action. Virtue ethics dictate that a person reasons and acts with the right intention at heart. The beautiful damsel-in-distress scenario depicts my intentions to woo the beautiful girl and not primarily, help her cross the road. Therefore, if I reasoned well, I should have assisted both to cross the road.
Aristotle believed that being a virtuous person was essential to one’s life going well. Do you agree? What reasons can be given in support of this position?
Aristotle believed that main goal of living is to flourish. He coined the term eudaimonia: exploring one’s fullest capacity by employing each of our unique functions. For instance, a pen is defined by its ability to write. If a pen can record written works clearly, then it has employed the uniqueness of its functions to full capacity. Humans are for instance unique: that we can converse and evaluate thoughts. As such, if we utilize these unique character traits, we can experience a life going well. I believe this is true, for instance if one is hungry reasons by robbing a bank to get money for purchasing food: yet they could use their ability to speak up and reason with well-wishers to get food, the consequences is grim for the former. That is a life lived by evading the law, hiding and discomfort: it is not well lived.
What are tragic dilemmas? How might they pose a problem for virtue ethics?
Tragic dilemmas depict situations on which one has to choose between two actions: both of which present tragic consequences. For instance, Peris slept with the Dad and got pregnant. She can either keep the baby or abort it. Either way, the consequences are not favorable to her. Virtue ethics dictate that Peris’ intention is all that matters, however, conceiving your father’s offspring is irreconcilable with the basis of moral virtues. The same applies to aborting.
Does virtue ethics demand too much of us? Why or why not?
In an ideal world, I believe virtue ethics would flourish. However, this world is filled with diverse cultures: all of which advocate for diverse and conflicting moral virtues. As human beings, we are faced with tragic dilemmas almost on a daily basis and if virtue ethics was the operating principle, the world would be paralyzed, literally. Therefore, virtue ethics demand too much
Chapter 18
What distinctively “female” experiences do feminists claim are neglected by traditional ethical theories? Do you agree that moral philosophy should be more attentive to these experiences? If so, how should our ethical theories incorporate them?
Traditional theories have been established over time to dictate morality. Feminists however believe that they fail to capture the difference between men and women in terms of morality. For instance, the relationship between a mother and her infant as used previously above in the cure for cancer: feminist theory dictates that the mother is morally right to save her infant and let the thousands die. Women are emotional and their emotions impact their reasoning of morality: an aspect traditional theory failed to capture. Traditional theories are also flawed because they hold universal absolutes of morality and over emphasis political and economic relations in a sovereign people whilst neglecting the role their interpersonal relationships play in moral judgment. I believe feminists address key flaws on human nature that were not captured by traditional theories. These flaws have however, been addressed by ethical pluralism that is flexible to accommodate the various complexities in morality.
Most ethical theories stress that impartiality is important to acting ethically. Why do feminist ethicists deny this? Do you think they are correct to do so?
Take for instance of the cancer cure baby and the mother again in this example. Stressing impartiality would mean the death of the infant. This is the root cause of friction. Feminists believe that interpersonal relationships and caring for one another is integral to all human being and cannot be cast aside since they influence morality: and I believe they are right. Cjhoosing to kill an infant to guarantee the lives of scores who die every day represents a moral decay
Like Ross’s pluralism, feminist ethics rejects the notion of a single supreme principle of morality. What are the advantages of this approach? What are the disadvantages?
The major advantage of this approach is that it is inclusive of emotional influence on the psyche of individuals dispensing moral judgment. However, providing several ways of interpretation opens up a world of complexities and flawed interpretations. Take for instance that the mother just gave birth, she is flooded with hormones and invested significant emotional attachment to a babe that has an infectious disease. By application of feminism theories, she is right to keep her babe while millions die on account of her capacity to care and the emotional bond established.
Given that feminism is often associated with the idea of women’s rights, it might seem strange that feminist ethics downplay the importance of rights. What are the reasons feminist ethicists give for doing so? Do you find this an attractive feature of the feminist approach to ethics?
If say a woman felt sexually violated for having her sex-video uploaded to a porn site and watched by the masses, then the ideal feminist theory dictates that freedom to be restricted. However, it is also fundamentally the right of the masses to access the media. In restricting this freedom for one or a few women, the fundamental rights of the many is curtailed. As such, feminist ethical theories downplay the issue of women rights for this particular reason. I believe this is necessary for the co-existence of people in a society that pays attention to its diversity. I also believe that is very considerate of feminist ethical theorists.
Works Cited
Dr Garret, Jan. Virtue Ethics. Essay. Kentucky: Western Kentucky University , 2005.
Fincke, Daniel. "Phylosophical Ethics: Hobbes on the Source of authority." Patheos Press (2009): 1-6.
Garret, Jan. A Simple and Usable (Although Incomplete) Ethical Theory Based on the Ethics of W. D. Ross. 10 August 2004. 07 May 2016. <http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/ethics/rossethc.htm>.
Jan, Narveson. "The Contractarian Theory of Morals:." Sonderhef (2003): 100-122.
Jha, Shefali. Western Political Thought: From Plato to Marx. Delhi: Pearson Education India, 2010.
Landman, Janet. "Regret: A Theoretical and Conceptual Analysis." Joumal for the Theoty of Social Behauiour (1987): 0021-8308.
Low, Nicholas. Global Ethics and Environment. London: Taylor and Francis Group, 1999.
Nobis, Nathan. "FEMINIST ETHICS WITHOUT FEMINIST ETHICAL THEORY." Philosophy Documentation Center (2005): 213–225.
Olsen, Francis. "Statutory Rape: A feminist Critique of Rights Analysis." Texas Law Review (1984): 387-389.
