Difference between revisions of "NOV 4"

From Alfino
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "==17: NOV 4== ===Assigned Reading=== :*Milligan, Tony. Animal Ethics: the basics. "Introduction and Chapter 1" (1-26) (25) :*Lecture on standard arguments for ethical diets...")
 
m
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==17: NOV 4==
+
==20: NOV 4.==
  
−
===Assigned Reading===
+
===Assigned===
  
−
:*Milligan, Tony. Animal Ethics: the basics. "Introduction and Chapter 1" (1-26) (25)
+
:*Workshop for Position Paper #1: What We Owe Strangers
−
:*Lecture on standard arguments for ethical diets
+
::*Today's class has no reading assignment.
−
:*Writing: Assessing Animal Ethics claims (short writing, peer reviewed, Points)
 
  
−
===A couple of followups from last class===
+
===Philosophical Method Point: How evolutionary approaches change the philosophical problem of justice===
  
−
:*Elitism in food advice.   
+
:*Old model: We need to pursue justice and fairness to overcome a "bad thing" about us.  We are fallen, we are selfish.
−
:*Options for reducing complicity in industrial meat production.  [https://www.forestcattle.com/order-bulk-beef.htm], [http://www.whitakergrassfedbeef.com/] or read labels at your local high end food store.  "Pay more eat less."
+
:*New (evolutionary model): We need to pursue justice because some of the really good, useful, and even beautiful things about us as socially evolved creatures create injustices.   
 +
::*"Actions from love can lead to an unjust world" (from last class)
 +
::*Our evolved (automatic) responses have a bias toward discounting the well-being of outgroups and strangers.
  
−
===The Ethics of Eating Animals===
+
===The "other side" of Justified Partiality: What We Owe Strangers===
  
−
:*How we talk about the ethics of eating animals -- very binary, often people mix different kinds of commitments about eating.  Think about the difference bt being a biblical vegetarian vs. a climate change vegetarian.  Diet ethics discussions trigger strong emotions.
+
:*Last class looked at "justified partiality" at a "first person personal" level with the question,"How big is your "us"?" We looked at how our individual behaviors can create injustices, often by omission.  Now we consider the question from the "first person plural" perspective.  "What do we owe strangers?" "How big is our "us"? To take on this question, we need to round up some resources and take stock of some of the theories we have already been studying.
  
−
:*An Introductory analogy for a better start on the discussion: '''The Bike Commuter Analogy'''
+
:*Theoretical and reflective resources for developing a position on the question, "What do we owe strangers?"
−
::*Think about a co-worker who commutes by bike to work.  We might offer moral praise without feeling a corresponding obligation to become a bike commuter.  Point: Let's separate the moral value of not eating meat from the question of whether you can imagine not eating meat. 
 
  
−
:*Some starting premises and arguments:
+
:*1. '''Which "goods" does justice involve?'''  
−
::*'''There is no innocent eating''' - all eating disrupts intelligent life. Plant intelligence, animal sentience.  Agriculture and town life involves controlling pests. 
 
−
::*The sustainability of a culture's diet depends upon trophic levels of eating, arable land/population ratios, types of inputs (level of industrial and petroleum inputs) and efficiency of the supply chain (0 km). '''Livestock production is one of top 2-3 contributors to climate change.''' There is a research consensus, roughly since 2010 that livestock production accounts for between 14 and 18% of greenhouse gases.  [http://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e.pdf Livestock's Long Shadow] -- mention criticisms of this report.  Browse the main conclusions [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock%27s_Long_Shadow here].
 
−
::*There is a consensus, in both experience and, more recently, research, that '''land mammals like pigs, goats, sheep, and cows, have complex emotional lives and awareness of their conditions.'''  Many "natural behaviors" have been bred out of domesticated animals (another ethical issue - creepy digression).  Mention ''Cowspiracy''.  Ok, time for a cute cow video.  [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBwoPVB3M7I]
 
−
::*The experience of animals in the hyper-slaughter supply chain is much different than anything in the history of agriculture.  Pigs never leave a concrete building until they get on trucks to the slaughterhouse, for example.  Research on the treatment of animals in intensive animal ag is disturbing.
 
  
−
===Some of standard arguments on the ethics of eating animals===
+
:::*a. '''Promotion of basic subjective well-being''' -- Do we owe any strangers (perhaps those in our social contract) an obligation to promote their basic happiness? I'll bring in some ideas from "happiness economics" here.  Happiness economists critique the use of GDP as a sole goal of public policy. They point to the limited ability of money (after a threshold amount) to improve subjective well-being (SWB). Some argue that the justice society promotes human development and that there are basic goods that at least wealthy societies could provide that would raise SWB.  A typical list includes: child care, education, food security, employment security, health security, and security in meeting the challenges of aging and dying.
−
:*Extensionist arguments from Singer and Regan in the 1980s. 
+
:::*b. '''Economic justice''' -- Are there economic outcomes in a society or in the world that would be fundamentally unfair or unjust? If inequality continued to increase even from normal market behaviors, would it ever be unjust? Should we think of Rawls' "veil of ignorance" on a global level?
−
::*Singer: recall "equal happiness" principle and Principle of Utility. Moral concern about the '''suffering of animals,''' combined with the fact that their consumption is no longer necessary for us, should lead us to reduce or eliminate animal foods, at least from creatures that can suffer (some debate about clams and oysters, for example - notes trophic level)
+
:::*c. '''Promotion of rights and anti-discrimination''' -- Typically, people who feel that "rights promotion" is an international
−
::*Regan: animals are "subjects of a life" - see also age of slaughter information. We should extend rights from humans to animals because they share this important "rights justifying" trait.   
+
:::*d. '''Aid and development''' -- Some argue that valuing human dignity obligates us to provide direct aid in some circumstances, such as disaster relief.  Others go further, and argue that we are obligated to help the "bottom billion" to develop productive economies. Are these just good things to do and not obligatory or are they collective obligations?
−
:*As Tony Milligan points out, there is a "motivation problem" with these arguments. They do not motivative change in behavior. Rates of vegetarianism and veganism are very low (outside of cuisines that are intentionally vegetarian).  Persistence in diet is also low.  
 
−
:*Ecological (and climate change) arguments about sustainable global diets. (See above.)
 
−
:*Agrarian arguments about "default animal production". Treating animal foods like a luxury.  Other agrarians might advocate non-food use of animals or use of animals for food without killing them. (Eggs, milk, etc. - Note practical issues here.
 
−
:*Simon Fairlie's "default animal production" argument: We should think of meat as a luxury.  Like many other luxury foods.  Not sustainable at high levels of production. The relationship between meat production and environmental impact is not linear, according to Fairlie:
 
−
[[Image:Meat_consumption_curve.png]]
 
−
:*Fairlie's ad for his position. [https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-40636196]
 
−
:*Hunter's arguments -- There are some interesting arguments for treating "food hunting" differently from a moral perspective.
 
−
:*Spiritual viewpoints, such as Ahimsa, biblical vegetarianism, life design philosophies
 
−
:*Arguments about the naturalness (evolutionary or cultural) of meat.
 
−
::*It is true that we are omnivores and so adapted to a wide range of foods.  This perspective is important in understanding the difficulty of transitioning from a high meat diet, but it would need other premises to be a strong moral argument.  It was a better argument when we believed (incorrectly) that meat protein was special. (Exceptions: people with plant protein allergies.)
 
−
::*Cultural arguments are significant, again for understanding the depth of the problem.
 
−
:*Speciesist arugments
 
−
::*One might argue that if we are honest with ourselves, we would acknowledge that we are all speciesists. Thought experiments.  This line of thought points out some important inconsistencies in our thinking, but it is not clear how it would justify eating meat, rather than, say try to reduce animal testing in medical research.
 
  
−
===Age of Slaughter vs. Natural Life Span===
+
:*2. '''Which obligations of justice extend to which strangers?''' Strangers in your own community, nation, world -- With any of the "goods" mentioned above, you may decide that they extend to different types of strangers. For example, you may not believe obligations to promote justice go beyond borders, but you might still believe that personal or collective beneficence (charity) is a good thing.  Or, you may address all of these groups with the same theory of obligation if you think obligations of justice apply to all strangers equally.
  
−
:*In thinking about the research on animal awareness and consciousness, we are becoming more sensitive to the idea that animals are indeed aware of their lives, many form friendships, have strong individual preferences, and can understand more about what is going on around them than we used to think.
+
:*3. '''Start with the limits or lessons of justified personal partiality'''  -- For some of you, this earlier work may set a "baseline" for thinking about obligations to strangers.  Consider the positions we outlined during last class: '''Tribalism, Post-tribal Urbanism, Utilitarian Globalism, Extreme Altruism'''.  You may want to use versions of these in your position.
  
−
:*Note that the more symmetrically you see animal and human interests, the more likely this information is to be problematic.
+
:*4. '''Standard moral and political theoretical resources''':
 +
::::*'''Rawls' Theory of Justice''' -- which addresses both rights and economic justice.
 +
::::*'''Duty to an ideal'''.  This could be a Kantian ideal of supporting reason and autonomy in others, or it could be a more traditional ideal about human dignity and the importance of supporting human life and what a decent life entails.  You may certainly draw on values from your faith commitments and life experience, but try to explicate them in ways that might be attractive to those who do not share your particular faith.
 +
::::*'''Virtue Ethics''' -- Promoting human virtues may require specific sorts of aid or support.
 +
::::*'''Utilitarianism''' -- The principle of utility has several theoretical virtues.  For meeting acute human needs, it gives us a way of prioritizing need and calculating benefits. Accepting the "equal happiness" principle allows you to compare goods globally (a latte vs. saving a life). 
 +
::::*'''Libertarianism''' -- A good starting point if you feel very minimal "collective" obligations (such as through taxation), but don't forget that Libertarians answer questions of personal charity and beneficence just like everyone else. A traditional formulation for American cultures would be that collective justice should be focused on "equality and freedom," not outcomes (economic or subjective well being (happiness)).
  
−
:*Pigs: Slaughtered at 6 months young; Natural life span: 6 to 10 years
+
:*5. '''Use your understanding of culturally evolved values''' -- We have been studying the origins and value of cooperation, as well as psychological adaptations of WEIRD culture, such as impersonal prosociality, impartiality in rules, and other traits that seem to orient our obligations away from kin and friends.  There is some evidence that these psychological adaptations facilitate markets and some forms of justice, such as those "impersonal" virtues mentioned above.  If you endorse these aspects of WEIRD culture (if you think humans "survive and thrive" better with these mental adaptations), you may draw on them in thinking about your obligations to strangers.  "Post-tribal Urbanism" is an example of this. We have also studied two theories (Haidt and Hibbing) that help us think about standing challenges we face as a social species. These are all resources you may select from and make use of depending upon your concerns.
−
:*Chickens: Slaughtered at 6 weeks young; Natural life span: 5 to 8 years for those birds bred as "egg layers" such as Rhode Island Reds; 1 to 4 years for factory layer breeds such as leghorns; and 1 to 3 years for "meat" breeds.
 
−
:*Turkeys: Slaughtered at 5 to 6 months young; Natural life span: 2 to 6 years
 
−
:*Ducks/Geese: Slaughtered at 7 to 8 weeks young; Natural life span: domestic ducks: 6 to 8 years; geese from 8 to 15 years.
 
−
:*Cattle: “Beef” cattle slaughtered at 18 months young; dairy cows slaughtered at 4 to 5 years young; Natural life span: 18 to 25+ years
 
−
:*Veal Calves: Slaughtered at 16 weeks young; Natural life span: 18 to 25+ years
 
−
:*Goats: Slaughtered at 3 to 5 months young; Natural life span: 12 to 14 years
 
−
:*Rabbits: Slaughtered at 10 to 12 weeks young; Natural life span: 8 to 12+ years
 
−
:*Lambs: Slaughtered at 6 to 8 weeks young for “young lamb” and under 1 year for all other; Natural life span: 12 to 14 years
 
−
:*Horses/Donkeys: Slaughter age varies; Natural life span: 30 to 40 years
 
  
−
===Arguments for reduction of meat consumption vs. Abolition===
+
:*6. '''Consult your moral matrix'''.  Work from your identity, especially as it is reflected in your "moral matrix" But consider also how your "moral personality" is "mapped onto" issues.  Don't forget that there are free market liberals (neo-liberals) and "Norwegian conservatives," who see promoting SWB as a form of social and moral capital.  Also, try to reflect your awareness of where your moral matrix places you in relation to your society.  Are you an outlier? A moderate?  Highly partisan or just a mildly partisan?  Like other things about your personality that you take into account when you integrate with others socially, think about your moral personality.
  
−
:*Tendency toward binary thinking if your moral position is absolute (slavery analogy)
+
===PP1: "What We Owe Strangers" Position Paper: 1000 words===
−
:*Agrarian perspective, define.  Simon Fairlie is one.
 
−
:*Abolitionists argue that gradual approaches to reduction of animal consumption are not sufficient.  Some advocate letting domesticated animals go extinct.
 
  
−
===A Final Argument===
+
:*'''Stage 1''': Please write an 1000 word maximum answer to the following question by '''Wednesday, November 10, 2021 11:59pm.'''
 +
::*'''Topic''': How big is our "Us"? What do we owe strangers, as a matter of morality and justice?  Consider both strangers in your own country and strangers outside your country. Work through the resources and questions above to find your position. Think about the kinds of "goods" (economic, in-kind, human rights) we are or are not obligated to offer strangers, think about the limits of justified partiality, consider standard moral and political theories, the importance of culturally evolved "mental adaptations", as well as your own "moral matrix" to find your position. Your answer should provide well-organized and clear rationales (Logic) reflecting your assessment of relevant course materials (Content) or other resources. It should show awareness of and engagement with the diversity of viewpoint on this question. 
  
−
:*What if the ethical arguments aren't the problem with adopting an ethical diet? What if, like climate change, the evidence and arguments are rationally persuasive, but not motivating.
+
::*'''Keep in mind''': 
 +
:::*You are answering this prompt in the "first person plural" - "we".  This is not just a statement of personally felt obligation, but your view about what we should all accept as our collective obligation.  This should be reflected in the kinds of reasons you provide as well. 
 +
:::*Your readers (5) will not necessarily share your view, so you should say why your position should be acceptable to someone with a different point of view. You will not be assessed on which view (within a wide range) of justice you adopt, but the quality of your writing and reasoning will be important.
  
−
===Milligan, Tony. Animal Ethics: the basics. "Chapter 1"===
+
:*'''Advice about collaboration''': I encourage you to collaborate with other students, but only up to the point of sharing ideas, references to class notes, and your own notes.  Collaboration is part of the academic process and the intellectual world that college courses are based on, so it is important to me that you have the possibility to collaborate.  It's a great way to make sure that a high average level of learning and development occurs.  The best way to avoid plagiarism is to '''NOT''' share text of draft answers or outlines of your answer.  Keep it verbal.  Generate your own examples.   
−
 
 
−
:*Main approaches:
 
−
::*Unifying - focus on key concepts like rights, suffering, sentience
 
−
::*Relational - focus on historical practices
 
−
 
 
−
:*Unifying approaches
 
−
 
 
−
:*Singer — suffering ; Reagan - rights; being “subject of a life” ; Francione — sentience
 
−
:*all three treat “being human” as irrelevant in the discussion of rights and obligations. 
 
−
 
 
−
:*Some general objections to unifying approaches:  based on the parent theories for Singer and Reagan — utilitarianism and rights theory
 
−
::*complexity — these theories oversimplify experience by reducing decisions to a single criterion.  Suffering, for example, is not always morally problematic.  Rights and harms often go together.  rights talk can be thought of as too restrictive.  Maybe we should love animals?  (12)
 
−
::*Separation of justification and motivation — in a live example of intervening to prevent cruelty to an animal, appeals to rights and suffering seem to be more about justifications, but don’t capture our motivations, which might be more direct.  13: problem of motivation in ethics.  Problem if theoretical views that don’t motivate action. 
 
−
::*Marginalizing our humanity — unifying theories seem not to track differences bt how we think about animals vs. Humans.  “Speciesism”.
 
−
 
 
−
:*Relational approaches: Often discoursive essays, these approaches explore the lines we draw in our relationships with animals from the care we give pets, how we treat pests and "vermin", to the unspeakably cruel things we do to animals (even primates) in medical research.
 
−
:*Some examples of relational approaches:
 
−
::*work of Cora Diamond: exposing assumptions in categories like “vermin” “pet” “livestock” .  On the positive side, it is a great historical accomplishment to use terms like “human” and “humanity” to capture what we owe or what is due to others.  It seems wrong to Diamond, to treat this as a negative form of “speciesism”.  She argues that we need to be human in a way that reduces harm to animals. 
 
−
::*Derrida’s The Animal That I am.  -  concept of humanity developed in contrast and relation to animals, not in isolation.  Not trying to efface the distinction (as unifiers do), but “multiply its figures”.  Asks how we are seen by the animal.
 
−
 
 
−
===Writing: Assessing Animal Ethics claims (short writing, 600 words, peer reviewed, Points)===
 
−
 
 
−
:*'''Stage 1''': Please write a 600 word maximum answer to the following question by '''November 8, 2020 11:59pm.'''
 
−
 
 
−
::*Topic Prompt: Drawing on both the reading and lecture material from today, as well as your own knowledge and reading, consider the various ethical arguments for reducing or eliminating meat consumption (land mammals and birds). Which, if any, of these arguments do you find persuasive?  Are there other ethical arguments you would advance either for or against meat eating?  Spend about 1/2 your answer on considering the most persuasive arguments, and indicating whether and why they are persuasive to you, then go on to the "motivation problem" - the fact that people are not widely motivated to change their diets in response to these arguments.  This could be because the arguments are weak or in spite of them being strong, so your solution to the motivation problem depends in part on your review of the arguments.  Spend about 1/2 your answer trying to solve the motivation problem. 
 
−
 
 
−
:*'''Advice about collaboration''': I encourage you to collaborate with other students, but only up to the point of sharing ideas, references to class notes and readings, and your own notes.  Collaboration is part of the academic process and the intellectual world that college courses are based on, so it is important to me that you have the possibility to collaborate.  It's a great way to make sure that a high average level of learning and development occurs.  The best way to avoid plagiarism is to '''NOT''' share text of draft answers or outlines of your answer.  Keep it verbal.  Generate your own examples.   
 
  
 
:*Prepare your answer and submit it in the following way:
 
:*Prepare your answer and submit it in the following way:
 
::# '''Do not put your name in the file or filename'''.  You may put your student id number in the file.  Put a word count in the file.
 
::# '''Do not put your name in the file or filename'''.  You may put your student id number in the file.  Put a word count in the file.
−
::# In Word, check "File" and "Options" to make sure your name does not appear as author.  You may want to change this to "anon" for this document.
+
::# In Word, check "File" and "Inspect Documents" to make sure your name does not appear as author.  
 
::# Format your answer in double spaced text in a 12 point font, using normal margins.   
 
::# Format your answer in double spaced text in a 12 point font, using normal margins.   
−
::# Save the file in the ".docx" file format using the file name "EthicsOfEating".
+
::# Save the file in the ".docx" file format using the file name "ObligationsToStrangers".
−
::# Log in to courses.alfino.org.  Upload your file to the '''Points2 dropbox'''.   
+
::# Log in to courses.alfino.org.  Upload your file to the PP1: What We Owe Strangers dropbox'''.   
  
−
:*'''Stage 2''': Please evaluate '''four''' student answers and provide brief comments and a score. Review the [[Assignment Rubric]] for this exercise.  We will only be using the Flow and Content areas of the rubric for this assignment. Complete your evaluations and scoring by '''November 15, 2020, 11:59pm.'''   
+
:*'''Stage 2''': Please evaluate '''four''' student answers and provide brief comments and a score. Review the [[Assignment Rubric]] for this exercise.  We will be using the Flow, Content, and Insight areas of the rubric for this assignment. Complete your evaluations and scoring by '''Wednesday, November 17, 2020, 11:59pm.'''   
−
::*Use [https://goo.gl/forms/xmcavup2FZ4QYWW42 this Google Form] to evaluate four peer papers. The papers will be on the Sharepoint site under Student Writing, but please do not edit these files or add comments directly on them. This will compromise your anonymity.
+
::*Use [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf1_WeGn0XsNxLPgHixmA88gbNp4lLcYxvxIs0bSEVLgHvP8A/viewform?usp=sf_link this Google Form] to evaluate '''four''' peer papers. The papers will be in our shared folder, but please '''do not''' edit or add comments to the papers directly. This will compromise your anonymity.
−
::*To determine the papers you need to peer review, I will send you a key with animal names in alphabetically order, along with saint names.  You will find your animal name and review the next four (4) animals' work.   
+
::*To determine the papers you need to peer review, I will send you a key with animal names in alphabetical order, along with saint names.  You will find the line with your saint name / animal name pair, and review the next four (4) animals' work below that line.   
−
::*Some papers may arrive late.  If you are in line to review a missing paper, allow a day or two for it to show up.  If it does not show up, go ahead and review enough papers to get to four reviews.  This assures that you will get enough "back evaluations" of your work to get a good average for your peer review credit. (You will also have an opportunity to challenge a back evaluation score of your reviewing that is out of line with the others.)
+
::*Some papers may arrive late.  If you are in line to review a missing paper, allow a day or two for it to show up.  If it does not show up, go ahead and review the next animal in the list until you have four reviews.  This assures that you will get enough "back evaluations" of your work to get a good average for your peer review credit. You will receive an additional 10 points for completing your peer reviews.
  
−
:*'''Stage 3''': I will grade and briefly comment on your writing using the peer scores as an initial ranking. Assuming the process works normally, I will give you the higher of the two grades.  Up to 28 points in Points.
+
:*'''Stage 3''': I will grade and briefly comment on your writing using the peer scores as an initial ranking. Up to 28 points.
  
−
:*'''Stage 4''': Back-evaluation: After you receive your peer comments and my evaluation, take a few minutes to fill out this quick "back evaluation" rating form: [https://goo.gl/forms/cqLWi07kzo9WSpPf2].  '''Fill out the form for each reviewer, but not Alfino.'''  Up to 10 points, in Q&W.
+
:*'''Stage 4''': Back-evaluation: After you receive your peer comments and my evaluation, take a few minutes to fill out this quick "back evaluation" rating form: [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdgKCYITDTSOOHcvC3TAVNK-EZDsP4jiiyPj-7jdpRoNUsLPA/viewform?usp=sf_link].  '''Fill out the form for each reviewer, but not Alfino.'''  Up to 10 points, in Q&W.
  
−
::*Back evaluations are due '''TBD, 11:59pm'''.
+
::*Back evaluations are due '''Tuesday, November 23, 11:59pm'''.

Revision as of 20:07, 4 November 2021

20: NOV 4.

Assigned

  • Workshop for Position Paper #1: What We Owe Strangers
  • Today's class has no reading assignment.

Philosophical Method Point: How evolutionary approaches change the philosophical problem of justice

  • Old model: We need to pursue justice and fairness to overcome a "bad thing" about us. We are fallen, we are selfish.
  • New (evolutionary model): We need to pursue justice because some of the really good, useful, and even beautiful things about us as socially evolved creatures create injustices.
  • "Actions from love can lead to an unjust world" (from last class)
  • Our evolved (automatic) responses have a bias toward discounting the well-being of outgroups and strangers.

The "other side" of Justified Partiality: What We Owe Strangers

  • Last class looked at "justified partiality" at a "first person personal" level with the question,"How big is your "us"?" We looked at how our individual behaviors can create injustices, often by omission. Now we consider the question from the "first person plural" perspective. "What do we owe strangers?" "How big is our "us"? To take on this question, we need to round up some resources and take stock of some of the theories we have already been studying.
  • Theoretical and reflective resources for developing a position on the question, "What do we owe strangers?"
  • 1. Which "goods" does justice involve?
  • a. Promotion of basic subjective well-being -- Do we owe any strangers (perhaps those in our social contract) an obligation to promote their basic happiness? I'll bring in some ideas from "happiness economics" here. Happiness economists critique the use of GDP as a sole goal of public policy. They point to the limited ability of money (after a threshold amount) to improve subjective well-being (SWB). Some argue that the justice society promotes human development and that there are basic goods that at least wealthy societies could provide that would raise SWB. A typical list includes: child care, education, food security, employment security, health security, and security in meeting the challenges of aging and dying.
  • b. Economic justice -- Are there economic outcomes in a society or in the world that would be fundamentally unfair or unjust? If inequality continued to increase even from normal market behaviors, would it ever be unjust? Should we think of Rawls' "veil of ignorance" on a global level?
  • c. Promotion of rights and anti-discrimination -- Typically, people who feel that "rights promotion" is an international
  • d. Aid and development -- Some argue that valuing human dignity obligates us to provide direct aid in some circumstances, such as disaster relief. Others go further, and argue that we are obligated to help the "bottom billion" to develop productive economies. Are these just good things to do and not obligatory or are they collective obligations?
  • 2. Which obligations of justice extend to which strangers? Strangers in your own community, nation, world -- With any of the "goods" mentioned above, you may decide that they extend to different types of strangers. For example, you may not believe obligations to promote justice go beyond borders, but you might still believe that personal or collective beneficence (charity) is a good thing. Or, you may address all of these groups with the same theory of obligation if you think obligations of justice apply to all strangers equally.
  • 3. Start with the limits or lessons of justified personal partiality -- For some of you, this earlier work may set a "baseline" for thinking about obligations to strangers. Consider the positions we outlined during last class: Tribalism, Post-tribal Urbanism, Utilitarian Globalism, Extreme Altruism. You may want to use versions of these in your position.
  • 4. Standard moral and political theoretical resources:
  • Rawls' Theory of Justice -- which addresses both rights and economic justice.
  • Duty to an ideal. This could be a Kantian ideal of supporting reason and autonomy in others, or it could be a more traditional ideal about human dignity and the importance of supporting human life and what a decent life entails. You may certainly draw on values from your faith commitments and life experience, but try to explicate them in ways that might be attractive to those who do not share your particular faith.
  • Virtue Ethics -- Promoting human virtues may require specific sorts of aid or support.
  • Utilitarianism -- The principle of utility has several theoretical virtues. For meeting acute human needs, it gives us a way of prioritizing need and calculating benefits. Accepting the "equal happiness" principle allows you to compare goods globally (a latte vs. saving a life).
  • Libertarianism -- A good starting point if you feel very minimal "collective" obligations (such as through taxation), but don't forget that Libertarians answer questions of personal charity and beneficence just like everyone else. A traditional formulation for American cultures would be that collective justice should be focused on "equality and freedom," not outcomes (economic or subjective well being (happiness)).
  • 5. Use your understanding of culturally evolved values -- We have been studying the origins and value of cooperation, as well as psychological adaptations of WEIRD culture, such as impersonal prosociality, impartiality in rules, and other traits that seem to orient our obligations away from kin and friends. There is some evidence that these psychological adaptations facilitate markets and some forms of justice, such as those "impersonal" virtues mentioned above. If you endorse these aspects of WEIRD culture (if you think humans "survive and thrive" better with these mental adaptations), you may draw on them in thinking about your obligations to strangers. "Post-tribal Urbanism" is an example of this. We have also studied two theories (Haidt and Hibbing) that help us think about standing challenges we face as a social species. These are all resources you may select from and make use of depending upon your concerns.
  • 6. Consult your moral matrix. Work from your identity, especially as it is reflected in your "moral matrix" But consider also how your "moral personality" is "mapped onto" issues. Don't forget that there are free market liberals (neo-liberals) and "Norwegian conservatives," who see promoting SWB as a form of social and moral capital. Also, try to reflect your awareness of where your moral matrix places you in relation to your society. Are you an outlier? A moderate? Highly partisan or just a mildly partisan? Like other things about your personality that you take into account when you integrate with others socially, think about your moral personality.

PP1: "What We Owe Strangers" Position Paper: 1000 words

  • Stage 1: Please write an 1000 word maximum answer to the following question by Wednesday, November 10, 2021 11:59pm.
  • Topic: How big is our "Us"? What do we owe strangers, as a matter of morality and justice? Consider both strangers in your own country and strangers outside your country. Work through the resources and questions above to find your position. Think about the kinds of "goods" (economic, in-kind, human rights) we are or are not obligated to offer strangers, think about the limits of justified partiality, consider standard moral and political theories, the importance of culturally evolved "mental adaptations", as well as your own "moral matrix" to find your position. Your answer should provide well-organized and clear rationales (Logic) reflecting your assessment of relevant course materials (Content) or other resources. It should show awareness of and engagement with the diversity of viewpoint on this question.
  • Keep in mind:
  • You are answering this prompt in the "first person plural" - "we". This is not just a statement of personally felt obligation, but your view about what we should all accept as our collective obligation. This should be reflected in the kinds of reasons you provide as well.
  • Your readers (5) will not necessarily share your view, so you should say why your position should be acceptable to someone with a different point of view. You will not be assessed on which view (within a wide range) of justice you adopt, but the quality of your writing and reasoning will be important.
  • Advice about collaboration: I encourage you to collaborate with other students, but only up to the point of sharing ideas, references to class notes, and your own notes. Collaboration is part of the academic process and the intellectual world that college courses are based on, so it is important to me that you have the possibility to collaborate. It's a great way to make sure that a high average level of learning and development occurs. The best way to avoid plagiarism is to NOT share text of draft answers or outlines of your answer. Keep it verbal. Generate your own examples.
  • Prepare your answer and submit it in the following way:
  1. Do not put your name in the file or filename. You may put your student id number in the file. Put a word count in the file.
  2. In Word, check "File" and "Inspect Documents" to make sure your name does not appear as author.
  3. Format your answer in double spaced text in a 12 point font, using normal margins.
  4. Save the file in the ".docx" file format using the file name "ObligationsToStrangers".
  5. Log in to courses.alfino.org. Upload your file to the PP1: What We Owe Strangers dropbox.
  • Stage 2: Please evaluate four student answers and provide brief comments and a score. Review the Assignment Rubric for this exercise. We will be using the Flow, Content, and Insight areas of the rubric for this assignment. Complete your evaluations and scoring by Wednesday, November 17, 2020, 11:59pm.
  • Use this Google Form to evaluate four peer papers. The papers will be in our shared folder, but please do not edit or add comments to the papers directly. This will compromise your anonymity.
  • To determine the papers you need to peer review, I will send you a key with animal names in alphabetical order, along with saint names. You will find the line with your saint name / animal name pair, and review the next four (4) animals' work below that line.
  • Some papers may arrive late. If you are in line to review a missing paper, allow a day or two for it to show up. If it does not show up, go ahead and review the next animal in the list until you have four reviews. This assures that you will get enough "back evaluations" of your work to get a good average for your peer review credit. You will receive an additional 10 points for completing your peer reviews.
  • Stage 3: I will grade and briefly comment on your writing using the peer scores as an initial ranking. Up to 28 points.
  • Stage 4: Back-evaluation: After you receive your peer comments and my evaluation, take a few minutes to fill out this quick "back evaluation" rating form: [1]. Fill out the form for each reviewer, but not Alfino. Up to 10 points, in Q&W.
  • Back evaluations are due Tuesday, November 23, 11:59pm.
Retrieved from "http://wiki.gonzaga.edu/alfino/index.php?title=NOV_4&oldid=24202"