Feminism

a general view of society according to which men have tended to dominate women; women are deserving of equal legal and political standing and deserving of equal pay for equal work of value
1- what are the causes (historically or currently) of women subordination
2- what might be done to address those women's subordinate position within society
(1.)  classical or liberal femenism - social has an obligation to guarentee equality, for all of its citizens specifically equal educational/ occupational oppurtunity
(2.) psychoanhalitic femenism - The causes of women subordination are early childhood socialization
(3) marxist femenist : The causes of women subordination are socio economic by reference to the means of production
production - women will remain subordinate until the enter the workforce in mas
childcare of domestic work have to become socialized
(4) radical femenis : The causes of women subordination are biological and sexual - their sexual and reproduction lives they will remain subordinate
difference feminism80's
many women reported - success in the male dominated andro-centric workplace required them to sacrafice their " feminine" values
do men/women want different things?
Do they value different things and in different ways?
John stewart mill: 1808 - 1873
men and women may have differing abilities and capabilities but both ar equally representing of the human species and deserving of equal respect
difference - doesn't imply deficency
maleness has always benn assumed to be a proxy for being human - male ways of thinking, being and purposive doing are seen as normal and definetive of human kind
female distinct ways of thinking, benig and purposive doing
gilligan
Kholberg - moral development
Heinz Dilema
1- The dilema
2 - 2 kids responses ( jake,amy)
3 - kholbergs interpertation
4- gilligans reinterpertation
and her response to kholberg
heinz is married, his wife is sick
there is medecine available
but heinz cannot afford it
should heinz steal the drug
kholberg:
jake - yes , deals with as a math problem - a competition between principle life vs profit
reason look - universilisibility
Amy
?, emphasizes, relationships, communication, comprimise
Giloigan
Amy: ethic of care, emphasizes a maintanance of relationships
care, communication, comprimise
fe,ale, typical ethic
Jake: ethic of justice: principles, reason, logic, competition
male typical ethic
noddings: emphasizes relationships
natural caring: the reaction which we care for another out of love or natural inclination
ethical caring: arises out of natural caring the relation in which a person encounters another morally
grimshaw : one cannot appeal to a suposed autonomus or distinct realm of female values
1. consider the evil structures inflict law stranctrors
2. determine on a destinct set of values may actually harm woman
grimeshaw - the idea of a femal ethic
1. what does the identified " diff" with difference femanism ( gilligan and nodding) may?
A. gender essentialism the femenism does not imply essentialism about the difference
B. Rather questions about morality are approached from a unspaw commonly "female" in 2 way (p.76) However, grimeshaw raises some important questions for gilligan new
1. differences in how men and women adjudicate moral disputes ( p.88)
2. womens exp. gemerates an Act set of values p. 89-90
there is no such thing as a female ethic contrary to noddings and gilligan
mary midgely
we can only understand our own culture to make judgements about it ( opposes this view) - moral isolationists
moral isolationism is an impossible position
does the isolating barrier - block praise and blame
Grimeshaw : female psyche which might rise like a phonix from the ashes of male - dominated culture and share the world : daily
women participate in activities that devalve themselves
" women are emotional and incapable of reason ( not her view) maybe there is a deficancy in male reasoning which is highlighted by the female reasoning
caring and mothering others could be seen as a virtue compared to the destructive view of men
Nodding: when we do things because we want to we are acting in accord with natural caring like a mother who cares for their child  

crude vs reasoned judgement
crude - made from a position of ignorance
resond judgement - requires intellectual effort
4.) can we even judge ourselves?
pther cultures provide the means of analysis against which we judge ourselves
the difficulty of defining "culture"
sub cultures? - individuals
Hume - morality is based in "sentiment"
all statements capable of being true or false are 1 of 2 types
1.) relations of ideas
2.) matters of fact
1a.) A statement whose truth/fact can be known independent of prior to experience observation
e.g. all bachelors are unmarried men
logically true
a square has 4 equal sides
The negation implies a contradiction
2a.) A posterior
statements whose true/false can be known after experience/obligation
grass is green
cpntingently true/false
they a grounded in sensation
consider moral assertions

murder is wrong
Hume : universality of feeling : truth aplies to relation of ideas and matters of fact
Racheals: moral truths are actually truths of reason: that is a moral judgement might be true if it is backed by better reasons than the alternatives

me - egoism
1.) egoism
2.) benevolant
3.) egoism
* 4.) benecolent
Benevolence others
benevolence
egoism
egoism - state of nature
benevolent
morality + moral rules = the agreements/ rules derived
allowing egoist beings to live socially: The agreements egoistic beings enter into for their mutual self interest into for their mutual self - interest
questions for hobbes social contract
do I have obligations to distant others
Do I have any obligations to non human animals
Animals fall outside the social contract
hobbes: the moral status ( or lack there of )  of non - human animals self - concious I think therfore I am
organic machines
Instrumental
rationality
HUmans  : dualism: mind (soul) /body
Descrates: physical mental/ spiritual
3rd person objectivity variable  : Ist person subjective
describable by physics and mechanics : not describable in idioms of physics
Instrumental - the interest of animals can be sacrifice to almost any interest of humans: medical therapies, drugs, cosmetics testing, safe household cleaners, cheap abundant eggs, resonably priced meds, high profits
abolistionists - opposes meat eating and medical research on animals
reformists- acceps meat eating and some reasearch but sees significant need for reform, oversight and regulation
status quo - 7 billion animals are killed
95% in food production
5% in reasearch, hunters, ferriers etc. every day
150 k cattle are kiulled
350 k pigs 9 k veal
millions of chickens
from factory farming or intensive agriculture
singer : we need to extend our principles to include non human animals failing to do so is specisism - elevating the (perhaps trivial) interests of one's own species over the ( perhaps) more compelling) interests of other species
analogous : racism/sexism
singer - such a view fails to take into account 2 points
(1) - "equality" in this context does not imply literal equal treatment ... what it implies is equal consideration of interests ... and what that implies ( in terms of treatment) will depend on the being in question
(2) what is it that we mean by the ward "equality" e.g. - when we say, For example -- " all men are equal"
consider the racist, sexist
Think about how we would oppose agains - the racist, sexist
They make false generalizations but singer argues those of us " who wish to defend egalitarianism would be demisis in resting the entire case for equality on that pain
Imagine a more "sophisticated ingelaraianism" ... For example one predicated on IQ. Imagine a society leracaly arranged on the basis of I.Q. such that those with a score above 100 their interest will  be sacraficed at every turn : would such a society be just or moral
we are not asserting that all men are equal as ammater of fact
equality is not a statement of fact rather it is a moral ideal : rather than a description of how to trat our fellow humans : an equal consideration of interests
The characteristic impacting moral significance sentence ; The ability to expierence happiness and/ or suffering : a necessary condition for having interest specifically not suffering
cultural relativism: there are no objective or universal values; rather values are the products of a culture and will vary in the ways lectures vary
1-  A culture values reflect its socio-economic, historic and geographic circumstances
2 -  any attempt at cross - cultural valuation is likely to be facile and varroneous
good/bad = normal/abnormal are culturally defined values
contra #1 : The descriptive conclusion ( kluckholn) - no society accepts lying, cheating or violence as an end in itself directed at members within the group
1- a value as absent when it is simply honored in a way with which were not familiar
2. a value may be seen as absent when its subordinate to other values
3. A value may be seen as absent ... when its just not seen as applicable
perspective 2.) no moral values can be universally roccomended to acc
thesis
we should not make cross - cultural statements of value
midgely: trying out ones' new sword"
perspective cultural reletevism - implies a "barrier"
precluding understanding between cultures...
she thinks its nonsense
If applied logically and consistancy
you would be led to moral isolationism
An inability to render any moral judgments
1. Is the barrier ( implied by perspective nirak rekutuvusn) reciplicle?
yes! why? - we can't make judgements about each other because were not part of each others culture
midgely: should outsiders be prevented from judging us? NO! They have an outside perspective about us so they can render judgments 2. would praise as well as blame be blocked also? Yes: positive value judgements are value judgements
much learning would be prevented
midgely: contra perspective cultural relativism
-1- is the barrier reciprocal ?
2- is praise also blocked
- learning ? would it be blocked?
3- what is involved in judging
cultural relativism: assumes all our corss-cultural relativism opinions are crude

paternalism - fully healthy ( we would intervine in judicial attempts)
autonomy
illness + pain and suffering
paternalism
brain dead
 cognitive capacity
e.g. severely deffective new borns
intervention to stop pain and suffering
derflinger
slippery slopes - what appears to be " free - autonomous choice maybresult of subtle
1. psychological voulnerability coercion of elderly/ infirm " in our achievment / youth oriented society the elderly are practically invited to see themselves as a burden on more youthful generations
  in such a society if active euthenasia comes to be seen as irrational selfish or ecentric
a shift in the " burden of proof" onto patients
2.) healthcare costs - 28% of medicare in the last year of their life 50% pf that in las 2 months of their life
there is a societal impetus to control healthcare cost- government, insures, hospitals, PhD
families
If active euthenasia comes to be seen as a rational cost effective option there is a shift in a buden of proof
the right to die can easily become a duty to die ( cost effective) slippery slopes ( cont.)
dooflinger
solietau prejudice against the disabled
the long standing bias against those with disabilities will make them more likely to experience "forced choice" * = quality of life judgments
slippery slope
making the option of death available without making the means available by which the disable child life lives of meaning becomes forced choice
social contract theory
hobbes
psychological egoism - for every voulentary action, the object to self-interest altuism?
I can sacrifice my interests of ethics, but if it is in my interests fo others, but if it is in my interest to do so i.e. - apparent altuism
social contract theory
blind egoism - the unfettered pursuit of self - interest
imagine each  but ... rational faculty will come into play: each person is an egooistic individual - the result : a state of nature : a war of every man against every man 1- we have equivelant needs
2- what we need doesn't occur naturally in great abundance ( it requires significant labor)
3- no one is so smart or so strong that they could dominate others indefinetly
1. we have a natural right to pursue self- interest
2. rational faculty compells me to do that which is in my self- interest ( e.g. preserving my life" " my well- being")
3. my pursuit of self interest ( my egoism) is rationally groundedA)
4. my use of any means including violence to secure my self interest in justified
5. rational facculty points out to me that others are similarly motivate and justified
egoism and rational and others
6. if we pursue are interest - blindly the result is a state of nature
7. it is not in my self-interest to live in a state of nature
8. It is in my interest to mitigate my pursuit of self-interest
9. only on the assumption that others are willing to do the same ( social contract)
prisoners dilema
you should confess
if mith confesses, then I should confess 5>10
If smith doesn't confess Then I should confess 0>10
smith is also an egois
egoistically motivated
rational
so he will likely confess too\
5 years in jail each
imagine we talk to each other ( analagous to a state of nature)
appeal to his rational self - interest
If neither confess we'll each get 1 yea 1>5 ( social contract)

kant
1.) consequences are irrelevant to an assesment fo the moral status of an action
2.) a "good" action is one that flows from a rational recognition of obligation (duty)
dieontology
any rule, principle, or duty based ethic
will  = reason
1. rational beings alone have the capacity to ac to principles
2.)  the will ( reason) conceives of these principles as obligations
3.) reason concieves of these principles ( obligations). As objectively necessary ( it is an objective fact of being rational, an aspect of our rationaly human nature)
4.) however acting in accord with the objective recognition of obligation is subjectivley contingent
5.) we can be motivated by things other than the rational recognition of obligation
principle - obligation - comand - imperative
imperatives
hypothetical - directed at the attainment of some desired end
catagorical - act as if by your your actions the principles that underlies your action were therby to make a universal law
if a then b
if you can get some reward then lend a moral assistance
universability
practical : promising with no: intention  of keeping said promise is not universialisable
logical - promising implies keeping the promise
questions/ problems for kants deontology
might the principle motivating an actor be consieved in difering ways
e.g. - fee hungry children or stealing food
what about when competing principles are both in accord with the categorical imperative
3.) sometimes principle which violate the categorical imperative appear o be the right thing to e.g. lying

euthenasia
eu - good or happy
thanatos - death
passive : allowing someone to die
(with holding tratment)
active: a positive action resulting in death ( a lethal injection)
voulentary passive - is legally acceptable as ethical dnp, living wills
active unassisted coulentary_ suicide
active assisted voulentary - physicion assisted suicide ... legal in oregon , washington, ( murder possibly for assistant)
non- coulentary passive - legal in some contexts proxy - decisions requiring legal approval
non voulentary active assisted - possibly murder for both patient assistant: sverly defective newborns
life is sanctified
life is often viewed from a religious perspective as a gift from god
therfore its wishful disposable to god seen as an afront
the right to die
life is not " a gift" but as property... autonomous decision making self determination and the quality of life
kant an the "value of life"
"treat rational humanity always as an end in itself, never as a means to some other end
mere things - have a price : their value can be negotiated/calculated, etc. rational beings - have a dgnity they are beyond all calculations of price / value
" life is priceless'
costs
societally - 28% of medicare expenditures go to people in the last year of their lives
50% of that go to people in the last 2 months of life
individually- 60 % of persona bankrupcies caused by medical costs
what about people who can afford their own healthcare
james rachels
active/passive euthenasia
is there a distraction (deontologically) between killing/ letting die
consequentialist: In passive eutenasia what justifies allowing someone to die/ discontinuing treatement - e.g. terminally ill who is suffering ...
the individuals death is seen as the preffered consequence ... allowing someone to die can be a long, slow and painful process
smith/ jones
kill their nephews who inherit a small fortune smith drowns a kind and holds him under rhen jones was going to do the sam thing but the kid slipped and fell into the tub and jones doesn't do anything ( same intention, to bring death to the child)
with regard to passive v active  euthenasia
acting v not acting
linguistically usage: letting die: medical killing: negative
battin
argument from merly
two component duties
1- not to cause further suffering
2- act to end currently occuring suffering
argument from autonomy ( self determination )
currently accepted with regard to passive euthenasia
i.e. a right to die - should also justify a right to be killed
battin considers an objection to autonomy
sometimes the request for euthenasia may result in cognative imparment
paternalism their thinking may be impaired
depression, fear drug therapies, intimidation
concern financially, emotionally anxiety
paternalism - intervening in a persons choices ( contrast to autonamy)  for the persons sake ( e.g. when those choices result from impaired thinking)
1 - it would only show that some requests for euthenasia should be denied
2- occasionally even if made in an irrational fashipn may be the "correct" choice
3- we would have to "weigh" the pain and suffering those we deny active euthenasia to whether we're arguing in favor of an expansion or againstin favor of paternalism in either instance we're trying to determine what is in the persons interest
can we do this ( objectively)
battin's reply is yes
1.) if there is no indication of pain and suffering of the sort that would preclude beneficial experience, and there is no indication of cognitive imparment ... this persons life would to her
2.) If there is every indication or pain and suffering of that preclude the possibility of future beneficial experience this person's life can be easily be seen as a disbenefit to her

• absolute wealth - after taking care of needs ( food, shelter, clothing, health care, education) there is still money left over to spend on luxuries 
• if you can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing something of comporable moral significance you ought to do so 
• acts / omisions  : is there a difference between acting and omitting to act 
• how much 
• individually
• marginal utility - the point of which if I were to give anymore to be as bad off as those Im trying to help 
• a theological fair share - I'm no more absolutely wealth than others 
• should my obligation be limited to some theological fair share 
• 200 million 
• 3 billion 
• 300 billion 
• If everyone who lives in absolute wealth were giving the amount any of us would be far less but not everyone is giving so you are beyond some theological fair share 
• societally - government obligation 
• un .7% gnp 
• .31-.30 great brittan franc etc. 
• .1% usa 
• societally - we live in a capatialistic consumer society i.e : our economy is predicated on consumption
• if we stop doing so, and instead give it - we could seriously damage the economy 
• 
  

• psycological, social) our real self - interest is defined by reference to these 
• 1b,) the brutes activities
• eg.)capitalist in mindless pursuit of profit 
• 2a.) all ethical questions get reduced to a single question: the beneficiary 
• criterion - who benefits from a possible action. If it is others than the action is good, if it is me than the action is bad 
• such a view disregards the true value of the individuals life 
• symbiosis between the misdefenition of selfishness which is due to and reinforces the ethics of altruism 
• questions for rand - 1. what differenciates the industialists pursuit of self-interest vs the robbers pursuit of self-interest : robbers don't pursue self-interest because he can go to jail 
• 1a.) the robbers pursuit is illegitimate ( by reference0 to his objective needs) 
• 2.) what about when legitimate self interests collide? People who live in america giving to starving children in Africa 
• 3.) does rand commit an analogous error of the type she accuses the altruist of commiting 
• does she misdefine "altuism" 
• utilitarianism
• benthom 
• j.g. mill 
• your interes count but more than any other 
• benthom: our rational faculty is what allows for the possibility, of 
• a.) others are similarly hedonistically motivated 
• b.) there is no objective justification wherby my interests can be considered above the interests of others 
• morality quantitatively 
• hedonistic calculus 
• 7 categories of analysis 
• 1.) intensity 
• 2.) certanty 
• 3.) duration 
• 4.) depinquity ( how soon?) 
• fecundity: HOw many more pleasure can be gained? 
• purity: free form pain 
• extent: to how many people does the likely result extend 
• principle utility: the correct course of action is that which maximizes banefit ( pleasure, avoidance of pain) for the greatese number ( even in it brings mostly misery to me ) 
• jg mill 
• quantitative + intrinsic quality 
• how much pleasure is produced 
• some pleasures are intrinsicaly qualitatively better 
• he higher pleasures 
• those pursuits which tax our intellects, our emotions, our imaginations 
• how is quality to be established? 
• ask people who have exoerienced both and are competantly acquainted with both 
• mill is confident those competantly acquainted with both will assert preference for the " higher pleasures" 
• what justifies his confidence for those competantly acquainted wil chose the "higher pleasures" 
• questions for milll ... for utilitarianism ( generally) 
• elitism? abandonds hedonism? 
• mill wants everyone to be elites 
• consequentialism 
• the likely results of an action determines its value 
• rule/act utilitarianism 
• act utilitarianism: individual acts are judged according to their rightness and wrongness 
• rule utilitarianism : general rules of society of behavior are judged according to the principle of utility, and then individual acts are judged according to these rules 
• acts, geberak rukes if sicuety , utility 
• world health organization 
• peter singer 
• 700+ million who dont get enough adequate nutrition to sustain their health 
• 10 million die from starvation 
• 20 million low birth weight babies are born anually ( protein energy defficency) 
• 5 million who die are children under the age of 5 
• 90% is due to poverty relative vs absolut poverty 
• absolute poverty _ live on less than $1 per day ( 1.25 billion people)