Difference between revisions of "MAR 21"

From Alfino
Jump to navigationJump to search
m
m
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==16: MAR 21. Living in the Matrix / Working with Political Difference 2==
+
==18: MAR 21. ==
  
 
===Assigned===
 
===Assigned===
  
:*Haidt, Chapter 12, "Can't We all Disagree More Constructively?" (276-312) (36)
+
:*Introduction to Capabilities Approach [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZgsFd-huFw], Sabine Alkire [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabina_Alkire]
 +
:*Read, Martha Nussbaum, C2, The Central Capabilities (17-45; 28)
  
 
===In-class===
 
===In-class===
  
 +
:*"From Partiality to Justice - Justice in an Evolutionary Context"
 +
:*"How cultures commit impersonal or structural injustice."
 +
:*A continuum of justice positions (good for thinking about PP1!)
  
===Small Group Exercise: Working with the Moral Foundations in Political Contexts===
+
===Small Group Discussion: Is there a limit to kin partiality?===
  
::*'''Bumper Sticker / Slogan reading'''
+
:*One way to promote altruism is Dillion’s strategy - give your money and maybe a kidney. But another way to assess altruism is at critical junctures in your life, such as between generations.   
::*Extending Haidt's examples of using bumper sticks and slogans to illustrate the moral foundations, please follow these links [http://www.cafepress.com/+political+bumper-stickers] [https://www.zazzle.com/political+bumper+stickers] and browse political bumper stickers together. Keep these questions in mind as you browse:
 
:::*Can you identify specific moral foundations at work in some of the bumper stickers?
 
:::*Do you notice that some are based exclusively in denigrating an opposing view vs. making an affirmation?
 
:::*Why do so many people like to use bumper stickers? Do you? Why or why not?
 
  
===Haidt, Ch 12, "Can't We All Disagree More Constructively?"===
+
:*Imagine three futures for yourself.  In all of them, you grow up to have a successful career, a family with two kids, and a medium size extended family.  You are approaching retirement and your retirement and estate planning recalls a distant memory of an ethics class which talked about "justified partiality." You and your partner are wondering if you should leave all of your estate to your children or not.  Remember, you will have access to this money until you die, so you could cover end of life care for yourself and your partner.  Consider these three scenarios:
  
:*Evidence of polarization in American politics; changes in political culture. compromise less valued. 
+
::*A. You and your partner retire with about 1 million dollars, a paid off house, and good health insurance.
:*Looking for a '''theory of ideologies''', which might be thought to drive political identity formation.
+
::*B. You have all of the conditions in A, but 2 million dollars in net worth.
::*Two senses:
+
::*C. Same as B, but 8 million dollars.
:::*1. Fixing orientation (all of the "big" theories we've studied have focused on evidence of persistent traits, especially in adults.  
 
:::*2. Fixing the specific fusion of issue-position and label acceptance. 
 
:*"right" and "left", simplifications, but basis of study and comparative to Europe in some ways, historical origins in French Assembly of 1789, basis in heritable traits - twins studies.  L/R don't map wealth exclusively. 
 
:*Old answers: people choose ideologies based on interests.  blank-state theories.  
 
  
:*One more time through the modern genetic/epigenetic/phenotype explanation pattern (note what's at stake: if you misunderstand the determinism here, you'll misunderstand the whole theory):
+
:*For all three scenarios, assume that all indications suggest continued growth of your assetsYou are also "aging well"!
::*1: Genes make brains - Australian study: diff responses to new experiences: threat and fear for conservative, dopamine for liberal.  (recall first draft metaphor)
 
::*2: Dispositional traits lead to different experiences, which lead to "characteristic adaptations" (story about how we differentiate ourselves through our first person experience. mention feedback loops).  (Lots of parents would corroborate this.) Does the story of the twins seem plausible?
 
::*3: Life narratives; McAdams study using Moral Foundations Theory to analyze narratives, found MFs in stories people tell about religious experience.  Thesis: different paths to religious faith.  We "map" our moral foundations onto our faith commitment to some extent.
 
:*So, an '''ideology''' can be thought of as the political version of a narrative that fits with a personal narrative you tell about your experience. Note the complexity here.  You can tailor your narrative to you. 
 
  
:*Political narratives of Republicans and Democrats.
+
:*In your group discussion, pretend you are actually making this estate planning decision. Would you give 100% of your estate to your kids and relatives in each scenario? What considerations come into the discussion? (Note: you could continue the options by imagining an estate with larger value - 16 million -- 16 billion.)
::*Haidt, Graham, and Nosek study: Liberals worse at predicting conservatives responses.   Interesting point: the distortion of seeing things as a liberal makes liberals more likely to believe that conservatives really don't care about harm. But conservatives may be better at understanding (predicting) liberal responses because they use all of the foundations. (File this with Hibbing Chs. 5 and 6)
 
  
:*Muller on difference bt conservative and orthodox.  Post-enlightenment conservatives: want to critique liberalism from Enlightenment premise of promoting human well being. follow conservative description of human nature. 290. - humans imperfect, need accountability, reasoning has flaws so we might do well to give weight to past experience, institutions are social facts that need to be respected, even sacralized.  (Consider countries in which judges are abducted or blown up.)
+
:*[https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/second-quarter-2019/wealth-retired-households Data on household net worth at retirement]
:*Moral and Social Capital -- moral capital: resources that sustain a moral community (including those that promote accountability and authority.).  moral capital not always straightforward good (293), also, less trusting places, like cities, can be more interesting.  Social capital more about the ties we have through our social networks which maintain trust and cooperation relationships. 
 
  
:*Liberals
+
===From Partiality to Justice - Justice in an Evolutionary Context===
::*Blindspot: not valuing moral capital, social capital, tends to over reach, change too many things too quickly.  Bertrand Russell:  tension between ossification and dissolution..
 
::*Strength: 1) regulating super-organisms  (mention theory of "regulatory capture"); 2)solving soluble problems (getting the lead out - might have had big effect on well-being.  note this was a bipartisan push back against a Reagan reversal of Carter's policy).
 
  
:*Libertarians.  Today's political libertarian started out as a "classic liberal" prioritizing limited gov and limited church influence of government.  
+
:*'''A basic definition of Justice''': Matters of justice concern expectations that can be the basis of a claim by others upon us.  
::*Note research suggesting how libertarians diverge from liberals and conservatives on the MFs.
 
::*Libertarian wisdom: 1) markets are powerful -- track details -- often self-organizing, self-policing, entrepreneurial)
 
  
:*Social Conservatives
+
:*Traditional Examples: equal treatment under the law, protection of rights, non-discrimination.  Note that these are largely formal commitments, not commitments to material goods. 
::*wisdom: understanding threats to social capital (can't help bees if you destroy the hive)
 
  
:*Putnam's research on diversity and social capital : bridging and bonding capital both decline with diversitysometimes well intentioned efforts to promote ethnic identity and respect can exacerbate this.
+
:*More recently argued: disaster relief, health care, care for people with disabilities, early childhood care, guaranteed basic income.   
  
===Summarizing Theories of Political Difference===
+
:*You can also make a claim of injustice against someone who defames you or cheats you on a contract. This might be a civil claim rather than a criminal complaint.
  
:*[[Image:Synthesizing Research on Political and Moral Difference.jpg|600px]]
+
:*Approaching justice in an evolutionary ethics context: We are by nature partial to ourselves, our kin, and intimates and friends.  They benefit and support us in many ways.  This is your personal preference network (PPN). You don't really need to justify your partiality to your PPN.  It follows that you should use your resources to support your PPN.  But you might have good reasons (self-interested or duty based) to '''allow claims of justice''' that will cost you resources (usually in the form of taxation).  Here's a short list:
 +
::*A criminal justice system to protect rights and enforce the law.
 +
::*A system of education.
 +
::*A social safety net (disaster relief, but maybe also disability insurance, health care, early childhood care)
 +
::*A duty to promote "material rights," not just formal rights (freedoms that require resources, as in capability theory).
 +
::*A duty to prevent loss of human dignity
  
:*'''Issues'''
+
:*Some quick information on the "cost" of different theories of justice.
::*Issues have lifespans that can range from months to years.  Some issues get settled (e.g. gay marriage) while other remain contested (abortion).  Since issues can get people to vote, political parties sometimes keep issues alive even when polling tells us that most people have moved on (again abortion, gun rights).  Some issues are “live” but untouched by the major political parties (health care, penal reform), sometimes because advocacy would promote more opposing votes than supporting votes.
 
:*'''Labels'''
 
::*Labels can apply to parties and people.  Democrats were “centrists” when Clinton was president, but now there are more progressive voices.  Parties manage labels to avoid losing adherents, but parties can also be “taken over.” Some would says Republicans have been taken over by right wind authoritarianism.  Dems are less centrist now. Polarization rules.
 
:*'''Political Parties'''
 
::*In a two party system, political parties have to reach 51% to win.  They do this by trying to map labels onto people.  If you are cynical, you might say they “manage” opinion by tracking trends and testing out issues to see “what sells”. 
 
:*'''People'''
 
::*People are obviously at the heart of moral life.  We have our own “moral matrix” and beliefs about “basic social dilemmas” (how society works best).  We have to figure out who to ally with, who to tolerate, and who to avoid.  Sometimes we actively oppose others’ views by protesting or contributing to causes.
 
:*'''Culture'''
 
::*Culture is a vector for transmitting moral views, so it shapes us, but we also shape it by the way we live our lives.  This happens intentionally, but also passively through imitation.
 
:*'''Orientations''' - Evolved Psychology
 
::*This is the level at which Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) and responses to basic social dilemmas describe our relatively stable “values orientation”. 
 
:*'''Nature''' - Evolutionary Challenges - Ancestral to Contemporary
 
::*Evolutionary challenges are well known: how to behave, whom to trust, how to raise kids, when to go along with things, and when to resist others’ values and actions. Any existential problem that can be addressed by values is an evolutionary challenge, from avoiding disease to responding to aggression to facing climate change.
 
  
===Note on "Social Epistemology"===
+
===How Cultures commit "impersonal or structural injustice"===
  
:*'''Philosophical Method point:''' The following line of thought is also example of philosophical speculation. We are venturing a bit beyond the research itself to extract significance and insight.
+
:*Our discussion of PPNs (personal preference networks) like the Alumni Association might help us think about another category of injustice, one supported by cultural processes.  
 +
:*Main Claim: Cultures allow humans to "normalize" claims that legitimate conduct not perceived as unjust, but later determined to be unjust.
  
:*"Social Epistemology" means a variety of things in philosophy.  Here, the idea is 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. In other words, we are not all seeing the same social reality due to our different orientations and experiences.  These differences might be persistent, not something we can talk each other out of.  But making constructive use of differences might product better decisions.
+
:*Think of examples of cultural ideas related to justice that were considered normal, but have since been shown to be incorrect:
  
:*Think about evidence from Haidt and Hibbing about divergences in cognitive style, problem solving (BeanFest!), perception, and moral matrices. Evidence from Haidt on MFs.
+
::*Some races are superior to others.
 +
::*Some cultures are superior to others.
 +
::*Race is not just a political category, but biologically real.
 +
::*The US can't compete at soccer. Well...
 +
::*Women can't do math and science.
 +
::*Women shouldn't do strenuous exercise.  Etc....
  
:*Speculative questions about such traits (I am not aware of a theory about this yet): Are there are DETs?  Would human populations with some optimal variation in DETs do better than ones with more or less than an optimal range?  There is a research literature on diversity of perspective in workgroupsIt is often a benefit.
+
:*What's interesting about "cultural impersonal injustice" is that it involves a "normalization" a set of beliefs that support practices that, from hindsight, we don't just say that we have different beliefs, but that our predecessors were mistaken(Something we wouldn't say, for example, about other cultural beliefs, like attractive clothing styles or art.)
  
:*Related literature: Wisdom of Crowds [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds] and research on group decision making under conditions of cognitive diversity.
+
:*An obvious example for US culture would be structural injustice against ethnic minorities that experience discrimination.  If you are a formal rights theorist about justice, you might overlook or minimize the impacts on opportunity and success that come from “impersonal injustice”.  Maybe an easier example to see this comes from Italian culture and the “problem of the south”.  Overview of Italian attitudes toward the south, which still experiences lower socio-economic success.  Northern Italians still normalize attitudes toward southerners that we now explain through culture and history. This allows them to explain lower SES in Sicily as a condition that contemporary Sicilians are responsible for.  Likewise, we may underestimate the effect of disruptions of culture that come from slavery and discrimination in US history.
 +
 
 +
:*Now we have better ways of understanding different outcomes for culturally distinct groups. Compare for example Sicilian cultural experience and the cultural disruption that comes from slavery and discrimination.
 +
 
 +
===Martha Nussbaum, C2, The Central Capabilities===
 +
 
 +
:*note on the references to Vasanti from the previous chapter.
 +
 
 +
:*Capabilities Theory - approach to social justice that focuses on what people in a society can do or be.  (This a short of material freedom - Sen's major work was Development as Freedom. Note how a development economist looks at things.) Rather than thinking about justice as fairness in the distribution of economic goods, capabilities theory sees the measure of social justice in a society in terms of how well they support basic human capabilities.
 +
 
 +
:*20: Capabilities are kinds of freedoms. They are both internal and external.  (Example: Internal: Ability to ride a bike vs. External: having a bike and a place to ride it. "Combined capabilities" are both internal and external.
 +
 
 +
:*People don't only deserve to have their capabilities realized if they are smart or can afford it.  Capabilities theory takes in the range of "innate capabilities" that people have, including cognitive and other disabilities. 
 +
 
 +
:*Capabilities theory isn't about "making" people function, but rather about giving people real options.  A real option includes both the internal and external conditions for the capabilities.
 +
 
 +
:*26: problem of how to treat "options" that people might choose that damage their own capabilities: risky sports, drugs, selling organs. 
 +
 
 +
:*29: Nussbaum adds a duty of dignity to the theory.  This might help justify restricting options that are self-abasing (allowing oneself to be servile or live in squalor). With treatment of animals it might eliminate breeding of dogs against health, or banning cock fights or dog racing.
 +
 
 +
:*33: The List -- Health, Safety, Education, Social connection, Absence of fear or stress (note upcoming Sapolsky chapter on Stress and SES), Affiliation, recreation, autonomy. 
 +
::*Note how abstract this list is, but also how it would allow a social justice critique that wouldn't just be about income transfer (Rawls).

Latest revision as of 17:49, 21 March 2024

18: MAR 21.

Assigned

  • Introduction to Capabilities Approach [1], Sabine Alkire [2]
  • Read, Martha Nussbaum, C2, The Central Capabilities (17-45; 28)

In-class

  • "From Partiality to Justice - Justice in an Evolutionary Context"
  • "How cultures commit impersonal or structural injustice."
  • A continuum of justice positions (good for thinking about PP1!)

Small Group Discussion: Is there a limit to kin partiality?

  • One way to promote altruism is Dillion’s strategy - give your money and maybe a kidney. But another way to assess altruism is at critical junctures in your life, such as between generations.
  • Imagine three futures for yourself. In all of them, you grow up to have a successful career, a family with two kids, and a medium size extended family. You are approaching retirement and your retirement and estate planning recalls a distant memory of an ethics class which talked about "justified partiality." You and your partner are wondering if you should leave all of your estate to your children or not. Remember, you will have access to this money until you die, so you could cover end of life care for yourself and your partner. Consider these three scenarios:
  • A. You and your partner retire with about 1 million dollars, a paid off house, and good health insurance.
  • B. You have all of the conditions in A, but 2 million dollars in net worth.
  • C. Same as B, but 8 million dollars.
  • For all three scenarios, assume that all indications suggest continued growth of your assets. You are also "aging well"!
  • In your group discussion, pretend you are actually making this estate planning decision. Would you give 100% of your estate to your kids and relatives in each scenario? What considerations come into the discussion? (Note: you could continue the options by imagining an estate with larger value - 16 million -- 16 billion.)

From Partiality to Justice - Justice in an Evolutionary Context

  • A basic definition of Justice: Matters of justice concern expectations that can be the basis of a claim by others upon us.
  • Traditional Examples: equal treatment under the law, protection of rights, non-discrimination. Note that these are largely formal commitments, not commitments to material goods.
  • More recently argued: disaster relief, health care, care for people with disabilities, early childhood care, guaranteed basic income.
  • You can also make a claim of injustice against someone who defames you or cheats you on a contract. This might be a civil claim rather than a criminal complaint.
  • Approaching justice in an evolutionary ethics context: We are by nature partial to ourselves, our kin, and intimates and friends. They benefit and support us in many ways. This is your personal preference network (PPN). You don't really need to justify your partiality to your PPN. It follows that you should use your resources to support your PPN. But you might have good reasons (self-interested or duty based) to allow claims of justice that will cost you resources (usually in the form of taxation). Here's a short list:
  • A criminal justice system to protect rights and enforce the law.
  • A system of education.
  • A social safety net (disaster relief, but maybe also disability insurance, health care, early childhood care)
  • A duty to promote "material rights," not just formal rights (freedoms that require resources, as in capability theory).
  • A duty to prevent loss of human dignity
  • Some quick information on the "cost" of different theories of justice.

How Cultures commit "impersonal or structural injustice"

  • Our discussion of PPNs (personal preference networks) like the Alumni Association might help us think about another category of injustice, one supported by cultural processes.
  • Main Claim: Cultures allow humans to "normalize" claims that legitimate conduct not perceived as unjust, but later determined to be unjust.
  • Think of examples of cultural ideas related to justice that were considered normal, but have since been shown to be incorrect:
  • Some races are superior to others.
  • Some cultures are superior to others.
  • Race is not just a political category, but biologically real.
  • The US can't compete at soccer. Well...
  • Women can't do math and science.
  • Women shouldn't do strenuous exercise. Etc....
  • What's interesting about "cultural impersonal injustice" is that it involves a "normalization" a set of beliefs that support practices that, from hindsight, we don't just say that we have different beliefs, but that our predecessors were mistaken. (Something we wouldn't say, for example, about other cultural beliefs, like attractive clothing styles or art.)
  • An obvious example for US culture would be structural injustice against ethnic minorities that experience discrimination. If you are a formal rights theorist about justice, you might overlook or minimize the impacts on opportunity and success that come from “impersonal injustice”. Maybe an easier example to see this comes from Italian culture and the “problem of the south”. Overview of Italian attitudes toward the south, which still experiences lower socio-economic success. Northern Italians still normalize attitudes toward southerners that we now explain through culture and history. This allows them to explain lower SES in Sicily as a condition that contemporary Sicilians are responsible for. Likewise, we may underestimate the effect of disruptions of culture that come from slavery and discrimination in US history.
  • Now we have better ways of understanding different outcomes for culturally distinct groups. Compare for example Sicilian cultural experience and the cultural disruption that comes from slavery and discrimination.

Martha Nussbaum, C2, The Central Capabilities

  • note on the references to Vasanti from the previous chapter.
  • Capabilities Theory - approach to social justice that focuses on what people in a society can do or be. (This a short of material freedom - Sen's major work was Development as Freedom. Note how a development economist looks at things.) Rather than thinking about justice as fairness in the distribution of economic goods, capabilities theory sees the measure of social justice in a society in terms of how well they support basic human capabilities.
  • 20: Capabilities are kinds of freedoms. They are both internal and external. (Example: Internal: Ability to ride a bike vs. External: having a bike and a place to ride it. "Combined capabilities" are both internal and external.
  • People don't only deserve to have their capabilities realized if they are smart or can afford it. Capabilities theory takes in the range of "innate capabilities" that people have, including cognitive and other disabilities.
  • Capabilities theory isn't about "making" people function, but rather about giving people real options. A real option includes both the internal and external conditions for the capabilities.
  • 26: problem of how to treat "options" that people might choose that damage their own capabilities: risky sports, drugs, selling organs.
  • 29: Nussbaum adds a duty of dignity to the theory. This might help justify restricting options that are self-abasing (allowing oneself to be servile or live in squalor). With treatment of animals it might eliminate breeding of dogs against health, or banning cock fights or dog racing.
  • 33: The List -- Health, Safety, Education, Social connection, Absence of fear or stress (note upcoming Sapolsky chapter on Stress and SES), Affiliation, recreation, autonomy.
  • Note how abstract this list is, but also how it would allow a social justice critique that wouldn't just be about income transfer (Rawls).