Difference between revisions of "OCT 27"

From Alfino
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "==17: OCT 27== ===Assigned=== :*Haidt, Chapter 8: The Conservative Advantage (34) ===Fair Contract Writing De-brief and Stage 4=== :*General comments -- ambiguity in the c...")
 
m
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==17: OCT 27==
+
==18: OCT 27==
  
 
===Assigned===
 
===Assigned===
  
−
:*Haidt, Chapter 8: The Conservative Advantage (34)
+
:*Tribe, Lawrence. "Deconstructing Dobbs" (1st half, 1-9)
 +
:*Supreme Court of the US, "Excerpts from the Dobbs Decision," (13-29) (recommended)
  
−
===Fair Contract Writing De-brief and Stage 4===
+
===Tribe, “Deconstructing Dobbs”===  
  
−
:*General comments -- ambiguity in the case.  how it would go down. 
+
:*Concerns: 10 year old rape victim in Ohio; criminal penalties for doctors, no IVF, Texas style enforcement, criminalizing abortion seeking?
−
:*One more contract example: painting contract for four rooms.  very specified.  2 days for work (but no remedy)?  still ambiguous.  What if the paint estimate is off.  Point: you can imagine lots of "fair contract cultures" that "make" various arrangements fair, in part, because they are expected.  Paint example, but not racism, which might also be "expected".  Finding fairness in contracts requires a lot of cultural understanding as "tacit knowledge and expectation" often structure baseline assumptions (which get used in negotiations). 
 
  
−
:*'''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/1kD1wkd1G0UuLIvtSPhEw4RUxZuJtLQJ31ZWkKA63WU4/edit].  '''Fill out the form for each reviewer, but not Alfino.'''  You will receive 5 points for doing the back-evaluation and up to 5 points from your back evaluators.  Due '''Thursday, October 29th, 2020, 11:59pm'''.
+
:*The jurisprudence:
 +
::*Majority makes Roe and Casey look like isolated precents, but not so.   
  
−
===Haidt, Chapter 8: The Conservative Advantage===
+
::*”Eggregiously wrong”? In what sense?  (Mention interpretive difference.)
  
−
:*Hadit's critique of Dems: Dems offer sugar (Care) and salt (Fairness), conservatives appeal to all five receptors.  Imagine the value of "rewriting" our own or opposing ideologies as Haidt imagined doing.  Dems should appeal to loyalty and authority more.  Neglect may be ommission and underrepresent Dems (recall discussion of labels and issues.  We could add "values".)  
+
::*9th amendment: enumeration of rights isn’t exhaustive.   
  
−
:*Republicans seemed to Haidt to understand moral psych better, not bec. they were fear mongering, but triggering all of the moral moral foundations.  Equalizer metaphor.
+
::*Is limiting the option of pregnant women a form of sex-based discrimination?
  
−
:*'''The MFQ''': consistency across cultures; large n; tracks preferences in dogs, church (content analysis of different denominations sermons), brainwaves (dissonance, "fingerprint", first .5 seconds)  see chart 8.1 self-identified liberals split emphasis  8.2 convergence of equal weight as you move toward conservative.  
+
::*Jurisprudence on Roe recognized states interest in protecting fetal life, contrary to Dissent’s view.
  
−
:*'''Mill vs. Durkheim''' - note the abstraction involved in Millian Liberty -- just like the MFQ data for very liberal. (supports a range of positions including liberatarianism, just is considered a conservative position.)
+
===Group Discussion: New liberties: Determining Unenumerated Rights over Time===
  
−
:*162: Correlations of pol orientation with dog breeds, training, sermon styles.  You can catch liberal and conservative "surprise" in the EEG and fMRI.
+
:*How should we decide on unenumerated rights?
  
−
:*164: Haidt's argument for replacing "old story" of political difference: read p. 164.  Note reactions to his essay: some libs/conserv found it hard to establish a positive view of their "opponents".  Haidt has implicit critique of Libs by saying that organic society can't just be about 2 foundations.  Experience with his essay.  follow.
+
===Some details from Dobbs===
  
−
::*'''6th Moral foundation:''' liberty and oppression: taking the "fairness as equality" from Fairness and considering it in terms of Lib/Opp.
+
:*What was wrong with Plessy v Ferguson?  Segregation ''was'' deeply rooted in our tradition.  Other decisions: treatment of women, tolerance of non-cis-gendered identity.  
  
−
::*Evolutionary story about hierarchy, p. 170.  original triggers: bullies and tyrants, current triggers: illegit. restraint on liberty.  Evolutionary/Arch. story about emergence of pre-ag dominance strategies -- 500,000ya weapons for human conflict take off.  Parallel in Chimps:  revolutions "reverse dominance hierarchies" are possible.  Claims that some societies make transition to some form of political egalitarianism (equality of citizenship or civic equality). Mentions possibility of gene/culture co-evolution (as in dairying).  We've had time to select for people who can tolerate political equality and surrender violence to the state.  Timothy McVeigh, but now right wing militias (though I'm not sure if their argument is about political equality).  "Self-domestication".
+
:*Roberts’ alternative (11): judicial restraint.
  
−
::*Tea Party (Santelli) is really talking about a conservative kind of fairness, which shares some features of the "reciprocal altruism", such as necessity of punishment.  As seen in public goods games.
+
:*Dissent:  opening claim at 13,
 +
::*Concerns:
 +
:::*prohibition of travel, possibility of Federal ban
 +
::*Basic liberties: 17 “protecting autonomous decision making over the most personal of life decisions.”
 +
::*Historical record:  19th century criminalization of abortion was short term change, common law not so harsh on “pre-quickening” abortion.  21.  
 +
::*On interpretation:  24; response to conservative concerns 25. 
 +
::*Tough issues not decided:  When does a women’s right to her life “kick in” 28
  
−
::*'''Public Goods games''' (again).  Setup.  1.6 multiplier.  Still, best strategy is not to contribute.  altruistic punishment can be stimulated (84% do)  even without immediate reward.  cooperation increases. 
+
===1st Small group discussion of basic liberties===
  
−
:*Summary: Liberals have emphasize C, F, Lib while conservatives balance all six.  Libs construe Fairness in more egalitarian ways and have diff emphasis for Liberty/Oppression.  Many liberals and conservatives have a hard time forming a positive image of each other, but when you think about this, it sounds like something to work on.  In light of this research and theorizing, one could see that as a character flaw or unsupported bias.
+
:*Body, Bodily Autonomy, and Physical Intimacy:
 +
::*In a free society, you should expect to have a great deal of control and decision-making about your body, your health, and intimacy.  Some of these liberties are covered by your due process rights, which place rules on the condition under which you can be incarcerated, especially prior to a trial.  But many other bodily autonomy rights are not specifically enumerated as basic liberties.  Which of the following hypothetical laws would you not want a simple majority to make actual?
  
−
===Note on "Social Epistemology"===
+
::*Examples: Which of these laws would violate a "basic liberty" (something that should not be decided by majority rule?)  Can you think of more examples? More "maybe not" examples?
−
 
+
:::*A law allowing discrimination against women for hiring to jobs deemed too hard for women.
−
:*Method point: The follow line of thought is also example of philosophical speculation. We are venturing a bit beyond the research itself to extract significance and insight.
+
:::*Pumping a person’s stomach for drugs as part of a criminal investigation.   
−
 
+
:::*Forced sterilization, forced reproduction.
−
:*"Social Epistemology" means a variety of things in philosophy.  Here, the idea that some traits relevant to group problem solving are distributed in a population (call this a "demographic epistemic trait" AND that this variation might play a role in optimizing group decision-making.
+
:::*A law prohibiting vasectomies or requiring men to reverse them.
−
:*Think about evidence from Haidt and Hibbing about divergences in cognitive style and problem solving (BeanFest!) and perception from pol. orientatio. They might be "epistemic demographic traits". EDTs
+
:::*A law allowing anyone doubting a student athlete’s eligibility for a team sport to demand “genital inspection” (actual proposed law).
−
:*Speculative questions about such traits (I am not aware of a theory about this yet): Are there are EDTs?  Maybe just DTs. Would human populations with some optimal variation in EDTs do better than ones with more or less than an optimal range?  Think workgroups for examples, also.
+
:::*A law prohibiting you from receiving gender affirming care from a physician.
 +
:::*A law prohibiting tattoos.  
 +
:::*A law forcing a person to get an abortion.
 +
:::*A law requiring end of life medical care against a person’s wishes.
 +
:::*A law requiring blood donations.
 +
:::*Laws prohibiting same sex marriage and intimacy, and contraception.
 +
:::*A law requiring you to notify the government when you travel or restricting travel.
 +
:::*A law requiring cis-gender conforming dress and behavior in public.
 +
:::*But maybe not: A law prohibiting sex with minors or non-human animals.

Latest revision as of 20:28, 27 October 2022

18: OCT 27

Assigned

  • Tribe, Lawrence. "Deconstructing Dobbs" (1st half, 1-9)
  • Supreme Court of the US, "Excerpts from the Dobbs Decision," (13-29) (recommended)

Tribe, “Deconstructing Dobbs”

  • Concerns: 10 year old rape victim in Ohio; criminal penalties for doctors, no IVF, Texas style enforcement, criminalizing abortion seeking?
  • The jurisprudence:
  • Majority makes Roe and Casey look like isolated precents, but not so.
  • ”Eggregiously wrong”? In what sense? (Mention interpretive difference.)
  • 9th amendment: enumeration of rights isn’t exhaustive.
  • Is limiting the option of pregnant women a form of sex-based discrimination?
  • Jurisprudence on Roe recognized states interest in protecting fetal life, contrary to Dissent’s view.

Group Discussion: New liberties: Determining Unenumerated Rights over Time

  • How should we decide on unenumerated rights?

Some details from Dobbs

  • What was wrong with Plessy v Ferguson? Segregation was deeply rooted in our tradition. Other decisions: treatment of women, tolerance of non-cis-gendered identity.
  • Roberts’ alternative (11): judicial restraint.
  • Dissent: opening claim at 13,
  • Concerns:
  • prohibition of travel, possibility of Federal ban
  • Basic liberties: 17 “protecting autonomous decision making over the most personal of life decisions.”
  • Historical record: 19th century criminalization of abortion was short term change, common law not so harsh on “pre-quickening” abortion. 21.
  • On interpretation: 24; response to conservative concerns 25.
  • Tough issues not decided: When does a women’s right to her life “kick in” 28

1st Small group discussion of basic liberties

  • Body, Bodily Autonomy, and Physical Intimacy:
  • In a free society, you should expect to have a great deal of control and decision-making about your body, your health, and intimacy. Some of these liberties are covered by your due process rights, which place rules on the condition under which you can be incarcerated, especially prior to a trial. But many other bodily autonomy rights are not specifically enumerated as basic liberties. Which of the following hypothetical laws would you not want a simple majority to make actual?
  • Examples: Which of these laws would violate a "basic liberty" (something that should not be decided by majority rule?) Can you think of more examples? More "maybe not" examples?
  • A law allowing discrimination against women for hiring to jobs deemed too hard for women.
  • Pumping a person’s stomach for drugs as part of a criminal investigation.
  • Forced sterilization, forced reproduction.
  • A law prohibiting vasectomies or requiring men to reverse them.
  • A law allowing anyone doubting a student athlete’s eligibility for a team sport to demand “genital inspection” (actual proposed law).
  • A law prohibiting you from receiving gender affirming care from a physician.
  • A law prohibiting tattoos.
  • A law forcing a person to get an abortion.
  • A law requiring end of life medical care against a person’s wishes.
  • A law requiring blood donations.
  • Laws prohibiting same sex marriage and intimacy, and contraception.
  • A law requiring you to notify the government when you travel or restricting travel.
  • A law requiring cis-gender conforming dress and behavior in public.
  • But maybe not: A law prohibiting sex with minors or non-human animals.
Retrieved from "http://wiki.gonzaga.edu/alfino/index.php?title=OCT_27&oldid=25983"