Difference between revisions of "Tem"

From Alfino
Jump to navigationJump to search
m
m
 
(17 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==29: APR 30==
+
==11: OCT 6==
  
 
===Assigned===
 
===Assigned===
  
−
:'''Ethics Day 3'''
+
:*Haidt, Chapter 5, "Beyond WEIRD Morality" (17)
−
:*McPherson, Tristram. "The Ethical Basis for Veganism" 209-221; 229-236
+
:*Writing exercise: How WEIRD is Morality?
−
:*Milligan, Tony. Chapter 4: "Contract Theories", from ''Animal Ethics: the basics'', 61-84.
 
  
−
===McPherson, Tristram. "The Ethical Basis for Veganism"===
+
===Brief Survey on Student Engagement in Hybrid course delivery===
  
−
:*Defining Ethical Veganism
+
:*Please take the following anonymous [https://gonzaga.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3I98g1ecsTe59ZP survey].
−
::*Absolute vs. Modest definitions - absolute position difficult. not all animals suffer. Modest more typical meaning.  
 
−
::*Strength of modest thesis still admits variation, from grave prohibition to supererogatory behavior (beyond duty, like the bike commuter)
 
−
::*Modal (having to do with necessity) fragility -- Is it absolutely wrong to consume animal products or "typically" wrong?  Wrong because of less essential conditions, like the state of animal agriculture or regulatory systems that allow excess suffering?  (Do you admit a range and exceptions?)
 
  
−
:*Sources of Defense for Veganism
+
===Final Stage of Sapolsky Writing Assignment===
  
−
::*Self-interested Reasons -- the positive values of an animal free diet.
+
:*'''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 Points.
−
:::*Doesn't get at non-dietary uses of animals.
 
−
:::*Doesn't support absolute non-consumption.
 
  
−
::*Environmental Reasons -- strong arguments about the unsustainability of high levels of animal agriculture and animal consumption
+
::*Back evaluations are due '''Thursday, October 8, 11:59pm'''.
−
:::*But there may be a non-zero optimal level of animal agriculture (We saw this in Simon Fairlie's argument for "default animal production")
 
  
−
::*Religious Reason -- He doesn't mention Judeo-Christian sources, but you could see from Soler how you might revive a spirituality of non-animal consumption based on God's creation of life and avoidance of taking life. 
+
===Some samples from Henrich's, "The Weirdest People on Earth"===
−
:::*Still not clear this involves an absolute prohibition. 
 
  
−
::*Animal-focused Arguments
+
:*p. 25: "Who Am I?" task.  Show charts
−
:::*This is the avenue McPherson finds most promising, though he is sceptical of applying systematic theories (Like Regan's rights theory).  Too many ways of interpreting them. Highly contested.
+
:*p. 28: sociocentric vs. individualistic
−
:::*'''Principle of non-suffering''': "Other things being equal, it is wrong to cause suffering"
+
:*p. 34: guilt vs. shame
−
:::*But note that our intuitions about killing and suffering might not map onto animals directly: Strong vs. Weak asymmetry. 218.
+
:*p. 44: impersonal honesty research (recall Ariely).   
−
::::*Weak - causing suffering worse than killing (torturing a kitten worse than killing it)  (kitten thought experiment on 2190.
 
−
::::*Strong - wrong to cause suffering to an animal but not wrong to kill it. McPherson sceptical of Strong: it seems wrong to kill an animal gratuituously.   
 
  
−
::::*Still might be "defeasible" -- meaning it might admit of exceptions. 
+
===Haidt, Chapter 5, "Beyond WEIRD Morality"===
−
::::*Complications result from considering the Principle of non-suffering in relation to a prohibition against killing.  A "gap" between these principles and a strong case for veganism still exists.  This is what he means by the section title "Completing the Naive Argument" (221)
 
  
−
::*Proposals for "closing the gap"
+
====WEIRD Morality====
−
:::*Individual Efficacy
+
:*WEIRD morality is the morality of Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic cultures
−
:::*Group Efficacy
+
::*just as likely to be bothered by taboo violations, but more likely to set aside feelings of disgust and allow violations
−
:::*Complicity
+
::*only group with majority allowing chicken story violation.
 +
::*"the weirder you are the more likely you are to see the world in terms of separate objects, rather than relationships"  "sociocentric" moralities vs. individualistic moralities; Enlightenment moralities of Kant and Mill are rationalist, individualist, and universalist. 
 +
::*survey data on East/West differences in sentence completion: "I am..."
 +
::*framed-line task 97
 +
:*Kantian and Millian ethical thought is rationalist, rule based, and universalist.  Just the ethical theory you would expect from the culture. 
  
−
:*Complications for Vegan Arguments
+
====A 3 channel moral matrix====
−
::*aggregation
+
:*Schweder's anthropology: ethics of autonomy, community, divinity 99-100 - gloss each...
−
::*demandingness of principles (It's hard to be vegan)
+
::*claims Schweder's theory predicts responses on taboo violation tests, is descriptively accurate.
−
::*specificity of response
+
::*ethic of divinity: body as temple vs. playground
−
::*methodological burdens -- counter-intuitive.
+
::*vertical dimension to values.  explains reactions to flag desecration, piss Christ, thought exp: desecration of liberal icons.  (Note connection to contemporary conflicts, such as the Charlie Hebdot massacre.)
  
−
===Milligan, Tony. "Contract Theories"===
+
====Making Sense of Moral/Cultural Difference====
 +
:*'''Haidt's Bhubaneswar experience''': diverse (intense) continua of moral values related to purity. (opposite of disgust). Confusing at first, but notice that he started to like his hosts (elephant) and then started to think about how their values might work. Stop and think about how a mind might create this.  Detail about airline passenger.
 +
:*Theorizing with Paul Rozin on the right model for thinking about moral foundations: "Our theory, in brief" (103)
 +
:*American politics often about sense of "sacrilege", not just about defining rights (autonomy).  Not just harm, but types of moral disgust.
 +
:*'''Stepping out of the Matrix''':  H's metaphor for seeing his own cultural moral values as more "contingent" than before, when it felt like the natural advocacy of what seem true and right.  Reports growing self awareness of liberal orientation of intellectual culture in relation to Shweder's view.  Social conservatives made more sense to him after studying in India.
  
−
:*Reviews some basic positions.  Regan is more of a natural rights theorist, but contemp. animal rights isn't nec.  Might be more about interests or rationally defensible social conventions.
+
===Small Group Discussion===
−
:*This might lead you to embrace a contractarian approach to animal rights, since it is more relational (unlike nat'l right)
+
:*Discussion questions:
−
:*notion of "original position" -- describes situations in which we should infer a rational agreement.  (example of emergency aid, 69)
+
::*Does it make sense to talk about "stepping out of a matrix"? Is this a temporary thing?  What value might it have in your experience?
−
:*'''Big problem with using contract theory in animal ethics:'''  animal can't be parties to a contract.  Rawls excludes them.
+
::*Do you have a parallel story to Haidt's?  (Mention travel experiences.)
−
:*71: review of Rawls.  Does it makes sense to ask the question: If you were behind the veil of ignorance and didn't know whether you would be a food animal or not, what principle of justice would you agree to?
 
−
:*Problems: You might not care what happens if you turn out to be a pig.  Or only care about pain.  Human excellences not being available.
 
−
:*More problems: Do we abstract from concrete aspect of our identity (like being carnivores?)
 
−
:*Milligan: Maybe it helps to think of animals like marginal humans. They need our advocacy, but they might not be parties to the contract. 
 
−
:*Some efforts (Scanlon) to think of contract rights without the Rawlsian machinery of deliberation.  Just rational or reasonable agreement. 
 
−
:*Domestication as a Contract
 
−
::*very popular justification for meat eating: it's part of the deal that is domestication.  Animal gets: existence ("'''opportunity of life'''") and care  Human gets: meat. Ironically, though, if you accept this, then curtailment of meat production is against the interests of animals.  Something seems to have gone wrong. Still, '''extinctionism''' is also an odd way of advocating for animals.
 
−
:*Conclusion: Death is an extreme kind of payment in a contract.  Even if parties could agree to a contract covering domestic animal consumption, would we allow it?  (Like consensual cannabalism contracts.  Yikes.)
 

Latest revision as of 19:51, 6 October 2020

11: OCT 6

Assigned

  • Haidt, Chapter 5, "Beyond WEIRD Morality" (17)
  • Writing exercise: How WEIRD is Morality?

Brief Survey on Student Engagement in Hybrid course delivery

  • Please take the following anonymous survey.

Final Stage of Sapolsky Writing Assignment

  • 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 Points.
  • Back evaluations are due Thursday, October 8, 11:59pm.

Some samples from Henrich's, "The Weirdest People on Earth"

  • p. 25: "Who Am I?" task. Show charts
  • p. 28: sociocentric vs. individualistic
  • p. 34: guilt vs. shame
  • p. 44: impersonal honesty research (recall Ariely).

Haidt, Chapter 5, "Beyond WEIRD Morality"

WEIRD Morality

  • WEIRD morality is the morality of Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic cultures
  • just as likely to be bothered by taboo violations, but more likely to set aside feelings of disgust and allow violations
  • only group with majority allowing chicken story violation.
  • "the weirder you are the more likely you are to see the world in terms of separate objects, rather than relationships" "sociocentric" moralities vs. individualistic moralities; Enlightenment moralities of Kant and Mill are rationalist, individualist, and universalist.
  • survey data on East/West differences in sentence completion: "I am..."
  • framed-line task 97
  • Kantian and Millian ethical thought is rationalist, rule based, and universalist. Just the ethical theory you would expect from the culture.

A 3 channel moral matrix

  • Schweder's anthropology: ethics of autonomy, community, divinity 99-100 - gloss each...
  • claims Schweder's theory predicts responses on taboo violation tests, is descriptively accurate.
  • ethic of divinity: body as temple vs. playground
  • vertical dimension to values. explains reactions to flag desecration, piss Christ, thought exp: desecration of liberal icons. (Note connection to contemporary conflicts, such as the Charlie Hebdot massacre.)

Making Sense of Moral/Cultural Difference

  • Haidt's Bhubaneswar experience: diverse (intense) continua of moral values related to purity. (opposite of disgust). Confusing at first, but notice that he started to like his hosts (elephant) and then started to think about how their values might work. Stop and think about how a mind might create this. Detail about airline passenger.
  • Theorizing with Paul Rozin on the right model for thinking about moral foundations: "Our theory, in brief" (103)
  • American politics often about sense of "sacrilege", not just about defining rights (autonomy). Not just harm, but types of moral disgust.
  • Stepping out of the Matrix: H's metaphor for seeing his own cultural moral values as more "contingent" than before, when it felt like the natural advocacy of what seem true and right. Reports growing self awareness of liberal orientation of intellectual culture in relation to Shweder's view. Social conservatives made more sense to him after studying in India.

Small Group Discussion

  • Discussion questions:
  • Does it make sense to talk about "stepping out of a matrix"? Is this a temporary thing? What value might it have in your experience?
  • Do you have a parallel story to Haidt's? (Mention travel experiences.)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.gonzaga.edu/alfino/index.php?title=Tem&oldid=22223"