QUIZ #2 Flashcards
What does utilitarianism focus on?
Focus on the consequences of action/inaction
Specifically a calculation of increasing the sum total pleasure and/or reducing the pain for the greatest number of people affected.
Whatever causes the maximum aggregate amount of utility (pleasure/less pain) for everyone affected is the right thing!
Greatest good for the greatest number of people (pleasure principle driven)
Thought experiment on utilitarianism. (Know about it)
Morpheus says “You take the blue pill… the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill… you stay inWonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
” The red pill represents an uncertain future, unknown to Neo at the time, he takes the red pill —it would free him from the enslaving control of the machine-generateddream worldand allow him to escape into the real world, but living the “truth of reality” is harsher and more difficult.
On the other hand, the blue pill represents a beautifulprison—it would lead him back to ignorance, living in confined comfort without want or fear within thesimulated realityof the Matrix.
Neo what do you do!
What is the experience machine?
The Experience Machine:“Imagine a machine that could give you any experience (or sequence of experiences) you might desire. When connected to this experience machine, you can have the experience of writing a great poem or bring about world peace or loving someone and being loved in return. You can experience the felt pleasures of these things, how they “feel from the inside”. You can program your experiences for…the rest of your life. If your imagination is impoverished, you can use the library of suggestions extracted from biographies and enhanced by novelists and psychologists. You can live your fondest dreams “from the inside”. Would you choose to do this for the rest of your life?…Upon entering you will not remember having done this; so no pleasures will get ruined by realizing they are machine-produced.”
(Nozick, 1989, p. 104)
Consequentialist theories of ethics ask you to?
Consider the consequences of actions/inactions as the basis for ethical judgment
Good actions are those that cause good outcomes
If you see an outcome going bad for another person, you may not perform that action instead to avoid that outcome.
To display nuanced and complex reasoning from a consequentialist approach you must be able to clearly articulate and judge the?
Consequences, results, outcomes, and/or functions of actions/inactions and be able to articulate why one outcome is more preferrable/just.
EXAMPLE: Consequences, results, outcome and function of continued use of Indigenous mascots in sport…
What is being reproduced??
Single stories of Indigenous people that are reduced down to notions of hypermasculine, aggressiveness, savageness, fighting spirit…
Psychological harm, detriment to bettering relations, normalizing arrogant perception and racism, belonging in sport becomes questioned
Other outcomes discussed are sport tradition, it is ‘fun and games’ for fans, expensive to change a name…are these more ethically justifiable outcomes than human dignity??
Consequentialists do not cared about?
The intent:
E.g., ‘intent’ of indigenous mascots not racism-–not good enough to consequentialists as outcome is perpetuating racism
The act in and of itself:
E.g., outcome of vaccine mandates is provide better public health, lessen severity/risk of infection…taking away ones choice is justifiable given the outcomes of public health and the reduction of suffering.
They don’t care about intent, just outcome.
Utilitarianism developed from?
Hedonism
What is the Hedonistic focus?
Basic premise is that we as people should and do seek pleasure/happiness over pain
Hedonism works on?
the pleasure principle
The outcome we should work toward is increasing sum total pleasure!!
See Utilitarianism slide 8
Hedonic Calculus
Pleasure/Wellbeing/Goodness can be calculated to Utilitarian’s
Utilitarian Spin on Hedonism worked from idea that?
that pleasure and happiness is the highest good of life…
Interest not so much in only individual pleasure though
Spin to be “Other Regarding” is?
Not just my pleasure but maximizing the sum total pleasure of all people in the world
Greatest Good Principle is?
Greatest Good for the Greatest Number of people in world
Hedonic calculus components/questions?
Pleasure/Wellbeing/Goodness or “Best state of affairs” can be calculated to Utilitarian’s
Are there higher order pleasures or state of affairs
Can we do this objectively??
Utilitarian’s say we can and should.
Me eating endless nachos vs. almost any other state of affairs that contributes to greater good
Pretty hedonistic
A utilitarian may wonder at what points can we/I reasonably look to maximize sum total welfare of society
e.g. Could I plan to shovel my icey sidewalk , could I plan to volunteer my time
Could I plan to do more to enhance sum total welfare
A strict Utilitarian is always focused on?
Maximizing the sum total welfare of all beings in the world
To a reasonable degree
Critics of utilitarianism may go too far here
To a utilitarian a decision is a right one, if and only if?
It causes the maximum aggregate amount of utility (pleasure/happiness) for everyone affected
Utilitarianism is what type of approach?
Consequentialist approach to Ethical Theory
Meaning…Consequentialists focus on the ends or results of the behavior/decision rather than the intent or means used
Focus is on the ACTUAL not the expected results
The results that utilitarian’s focus on is the Collective Well-being or Pleasure of all beings (i.e., Greatest Good Principle)
Greatest Good for the Greatest Number of people in world
The Two Types of Utilitarianism are?
Traditional/Classic Utilitarianism
Negative Utilitarianism
What is Classic/Traditional utilitarianism?
Advocates for any action that results in the greatest ”goodness”/ pleasure for the greatest number
Rationale is to maximize happiness or well-being.
Total up the pleasures.
The balance indicates the ‘score.’
Whatever action produces the highest score is the one you ought to take.
E.g., Trolley Experiment, –lever, push, family– (Good Place Video)
What is negative Utilitarianism?
To some the reasoning of making decisions to increase sum total pleasure/happiness/well-being seems ‘rosey/fanciful’—an argument with little merit (too hedonistic)
So some turned to idea of:
We should act to minimize suffering first than look to maximize pleasure
The reasoning is that we should put more emphasize in our decisions on reducing pain and suffering first than attend to pleasures of life/society.
What is a Negative Utilitarianism example?
The suffering of people should be attended to first with social welfare dollars than putting the money towards a pleasure driven decision like sports arena
1: Praises/Positives of Utilitarianism?
Orientation to the Future?
Orientation to the Future
Do not base “goodness” on the past or tradition
Based on the results of greatest future ”goodness”
What was good at one time does not need to guide ethical decision making in the present.
Adaptable and fluid to times/shifting ideas of “goodness”
Ex. women’s rights – their voice and experience matters.
2: Praises/Positives of Utilitarianism?
A more objective and scientific understanding of ethics?
A more objective and scientific understanding of ethics
Attempt to measure and operationalize “goodness”/pleasure or suffering
I.e. the Hedonistic calculus
Allows decision-maker person to step back and asses the situation as an observer and make a calculated decision
Everyone’s goods count equally, no persons is more than someone else
3: Praises/Positives of Utilitarianism?
Explicit Concern for the Welfare of the Masses?
Explicit Concern for the Welfare of the Masses
Mantra of “greatest good for the greatest number” explicitly positions the the decision maker’s accountability to the general/mass public and not one’s own self-interest
Outward looking orientation has potential to bring about large amounts of “goodness”
*Most significant praise for Utilitarianism
1: Critiques/Problems with Utilitarianism?
Impossible to Apply?
Can we quantify a concept such as
“goodness/pleasure”??
How do we define higher and lower order pleasures/happiness?? Should we??
What is Decision Paralysis?
How to measure ALL the consequences of our actions
Can we ever accurately predict outcomes/consequences of actions
2: Critiques/Problems with Utilitarianism?
Does Not Consider Social Relations?
Threat to close friends and family
Are we willing to be calculating and detached observers in all our decision making even when we know it may harm those closest to us
May be too demanding and detached to our relations
E.g., Trolley thought experiment…family now involved
3: Critiques/Problems with Utilitarianism?
Do the Ends always justify the Means?
Focus so heavily on the outcomes/consequences that the way in which we get there/the means or process is not considered.
The act itself is neither right nor wrong…is it too permissive??…
…Thought experiment:
Harvesting organs from 1 to save lives of 5 people
So actively and intentionally killing an innocent person could be the ethically correct thing to do if the right consequences apply.
4: Critiques/Problems with Utilitarianism?
Does not consider Equity or Distributive Justice?
Which Society/Outcome would the Utilitarian choose and why???
Utilitarianism Slide 29
5: Critiques/Problems with Utilitarianism?
Does not consider Equity or Distributive Justice?
By prioritizing the Sum Total Welfare decisions can be to the detriment of groups who are on the margins
People can be further marginalized if outside the mainstream/dominant
E.g., less emphasis on sport/rec programming for marginalized
*Most significant critique of Utilitarianism
Motives don’t matter for Utilitarians—all that counts is?
calculating the overall pleasure/pain…the consequences or outcomes.
So trying to harm someone and accidentally helping them means you were ethical. (outcome matters)
Vice versa, you may have good intentions but if doesn’t work out or bad consequences occur you are unethical to a utilitarian
Non-consequential approach to ethics involves?
Consequentialist (Utilitarianism) focuses on the ends/results to determine right/wrong actions
Approach that considers the means/intent, principles, or duties as the foundation for right ethical conduct
What is a non-consequentialist?
A non-consequentialist focuses on the the nature of the act in question, and not the results…Is my action right?
Duty or Rule-based ethics is?
action in itself is right/wrong
The Right Act is said to be preferable to the?
Good (Consequence)
“Do the Right thing!”
Numerous types of non-consequential approaches to ethics
Focus on three main bases which are?
1: Theology
2: Social Contract
3: Deontology
Right ethical conduct resides in right actions
What is theology?
Religious doctrine as the basis of a theological orientation to ethics
Less of a focus in this class…however one of more well known (also draws on virtue ethics)
Faith informs what right action is
Two main discussions in the theology approach?
Divine Command Theory
Natural Law Theory
What is Divine Command Theory?
Belief of what is ethical/moral, and what is immoral, originates from the divine
(i.e., God or gods)…tells/guides you how to act/what is right
What is Natural Law Theory?
That we are essentially pre-loaded to know what is good…that is part of who we are and lives in us…more a process of not forgetting this.
St. Thomas Aquinas
Example of theology?
“Golden Rule”
What has the “Golden Rule” been critiqued?
Argued a shift is needed to move from how YOU want to be treated to how THEY they want to be treated (ex. aggressive coaches can motivate but they may not want you to treat them that way)
“Treat others how they wanted to be treated”
Golden rule assumes others want to be treated like I would. Platinum asks that we understand how others want to be treated and go from there.
Attends to subjectivities in how people would like to be treated, not from your own vantage, often called ‘platinum rule’
As with any approach that guides our living always good to inquire/think with as deeply as you can
What is the Social Contract Theory also known as?
Contractualism
Contractualism was developed by?
Developed by Thomas Hobbes
Hobbes developed this approach to ethics by imagining what?
a world with no rules that governed behavior.
View of people that we are deeply self-interested, and generally bad. Egoists
If no rules in place life would be short, nasty, and brutish
Imagine a world with no rules…a land of do as you please— “state of nature”
Tension: Abundance of freedom with no security
Basis in politics, agreeing to be governed, to be part of collective with whatever rules are in place
Example of Contractualism?
Ex. you would not feel much security if there was no laws
But sometimes you have to give up certain freedoms to live in a certain way- willing to be governed.
Has to have a contract for this and must obey contract
Hobbes argued that?
rational people would trade freedom for security as would result in a better quality of life.
Key to everything is a contract.
By obeying rules/contracts/agreements life will be better as a member of the collective, and individual will not live in fear.
As people we have realized there are more benefits to cooperating than not…
Ethics and Morality (those questions of what we ought to do) emerges from the creation of a social contract/shared agreement of rules we should live by
Right Acts are those that?
do not violate the free, rational agreements (social contracts) that we have made
Our social contracts/rules/agreements (laws, policies, handshakes, social norms) establishes right/wrong conduct
Social Contract Theory: One must obey the rules, why?
not just rules are good you should obey them…
Rather, cooperation better—makes life not just survivable but possible
Two types of contracts we step into as people are?
Explicit Contracts
Implicit Contracts
What are Explicit Contracts?
More obvious, straightforward, clear
E.g., Signing a rental lease agreement. You agree to the terms in the contract, could be things like rent, lease length, notice, etc.
Other examples: laws/rules in sport (helmets hockey, body checking), Treaty responsibilities)
What are Implicit Contracts?
Contracts we never actually agree to but still find ourselves operating in. Rules we never explicitly agreed to but still are expected to follow.
E.g., The concept of ‘sportsmanship’ in sports – the unwritten rules of sport!!
In order for contract to be valid contractors must be ?
free, and idea is that both parties, overall, are better off in system than outside of it
Explicit Contract Example?
Curling Canada
Liability waivers
Upkeep facility to certain level…I take responsibility for actions beyond that
Outlining where responsibilities lies and what actions must be taken by provider (of sport/health) and participant
An implicit social contract in sport is?
“Sportsmanship”
What is sportsmanship?
Often discussed as actions or behaviors in sport that demonstrate respect for an opponent or the game
Sometimes discussed as virtues (concept for later discussion on virtue ethics and developing good ‘character’
Other times discussed as there are unwritten rules to sport that we should know and follow (social contract theory!!)
Examples of non-sportsmanship?
Running up the score…winning or losing with dignity/grace…showboating
- differences at different levels? (youth to elite sport—e.g. play time)
Sportsmanship and “running up the score”?
Questions?
Is running up the score ethically/morally permissible?
Should we as players, coaches, fans, permit/applaud this type of action?
Should a team with a big lead stop trying/change actions? Why or why not?
Circumstances or situations in which rules are different?
Questioning the act of ‘running up the score involves?
the act in itself is wrong, it violates the unwritten ‘mercy’ rules of sport
Action is degrading, not-needed, takes act of competition too far (win-at-all costs mentality and actions associated with are detrimental to people and society)
Scenario based consideration, youth or children sport even more contentious
Supporting the act of ‘running up the score’ means?
Sports (especially at professional level) is built upon actions of competition, production, winning and losing…
“Perhaps in such an environment (professional/elite), it is unreasonable to expect that participants are fair and generous as they participate. Winning and losing with a spirit of graciousness would seem irrelevant, though it may be a nice façade.” (Pennington, 2017)—different view to youth sport (fallacy of regarding children/youth as professional athletes thus treat actions/environment as such)
Players are there to compete (those are the actions asked), thus placing this unwritten rule there seems contradictory to what it is they are there to do and how they are judged…sure we can praise actions of sportsmanship but it is not an expectation of conduct/behaviour in sport.
Positives of Social Contract Theory?
What we understand to be right actions/ethical behavior is negotiated between people and in society at large
Ethics/morality is a function of coming to a social agreement/contract. Positive in that ethics are not predetermined but created and negotiated by people, and can change over time
Comes from ethical base that we continually negotiate the responsibilities/ agreements we want thus we are all kept and buy into that high standard….also allow for continuity of social contracts (we step into them)
I.e., If we take on contract/agreement we have a duty to keep.
Push for cooperation over self-maximization or marginalization…understanding that giving up certain rights and privileges allows for a better society
Negatives of Social Contract Theory?
Permissive and changing. Social norms and laws can change/do…yet at same time often defer to tradition (in terms of laws/social norms)
Is this applicable in societies where so many strangers, do I really feel like I have a social responsibility/contract to people I barely know?
Power of this approach degrading in some forms? Paper ethics? Push for explicit contracts and rules to govern behavior…must be written
Does it provide too much power to larger institutional bodies (e.g., governments, sporting institutions, IOC) to make laws/actions under the notion of protecting public or creating the conditions to allow sport to exist
Deontology means?
The science of duty
Why do rules matter?
Rules are what bind us to our duty to act rightly; Rules Matter
What if an is not right?
it may not be undertaken, no matter the good it might produce.
Does intent matter in reference to rules?
The INTENT of the action as important as action itself**
can cause issues, will say more (Doctrine of Double Effect)
Ethical actions follow universal moral laws—Interest in creating Universal rules to guide action
E.g. Don’t lie, don’t steal, don’t cheat
Intent to murder vs. accidental murder. Intent matters.
How to come to deciding what actions are ethically in the right?
In order to consider what is Right must use reasoning
Humans unique in that we can reason (Kant)
Kant distinguished between two types of reasonings which are?
Hypothetical Imperatives
Categorical Imperatives
What is a hypothetical imperative?
Are based on our desires—these are not moral/ethical decisions/reasoning
Based in: if-then statement
If I/you want X, then I/you should do Y.
What are categorical imperatives?
These are the commands you must follow, regardless of your desires
There is no way these can be ethically violated
Must always be adhered to
Categorical Imperatives are derived from?
logical reflection and reasoning
Two discussed for this course:
-Way in which you can evaluate your/one’s actions and make an ethical judgment
Categorical Imperative I:
What does “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradictions” mean?
A rule/action that must always be done in similar situations
Act only as if everyone were allowed to do it
Reasoning/logic to rules—Imagine what it would be
like to universalize, or have everyone doing that action…
“The Universalizability Principle”
Any rule or action you do must always be done in the same situation.
Everyone is expected to do it.
If everyone in the world di it, you’ll be comfortable doing it.
Ex. what if everyone littered? – would you be okay with that? – if no, then that says it’s not universalizable and you shouldn’t do it. – doesn’t matter what youre desire is in the moment.
Categorical Imperative I:
How to test “The Universalizability Principle”?
Test it out…
Should you lie (in any number of situations)?
Test/reasoning: Make it a universal law. Everyone can lie in any circumstance.
Communication is impossible under these circumstances. Conversations full of deception. You should not lie.
Example:
1) Parks Canada
Use this type of reasoning to explain why park visitors should not pick/harvest, or take anything from parks.
If everyone did the parks would no longer remain.
2) Cheating or Doping in sport
Use this type of reasoning to explain issues with acts of cheating in sport or doping
If everyone did these things sport competition would be unfair or even dangerous to health.
Positives for Non-Consequentalism?
Easy to apply, all you must do is follow the rules, these rules are often known to you through your intuition/reasoning (i.e., don’t cheat) and in many of our work situations are given to us (i.e., policies, codes of ethics)
Considers the manner and intent of our actions (i.e., an action can and should be judged) as opposed to allowing the ends justify the means (i.e., all that matters is consequences).
Often tradition and history can inform our understanding of right/wrong actions. Thus, there may be stability in what we deem to be an expression of ethical conduct.
Over time we have come to socially agree certain actions are wrong or at the very least frowned upon.
Issues with Non-Consequentalism?
Individual responsibility is often deferred to rules, religion, doctrine, tradition, policy, law, etc.
*Most significant critique: By deferring to rules/principles many argue that people place blame external to them and do not critically self reflect on own actions/ethical base.
Rule-based ethical theories can be static in nature and very rarely change as society changes.
Rule is a rule…don’t invite questioning/inquiry often
Is it possible to make universal rules that cut across diversity? (i.e., what is a right/wrong act in one place may not be in another)
Can this approach travel with the person?
What is virtue ethics?
Alternative Approach to Ethics
Outside the conversation of consequentialism and non-consequentialism
Both approach ethics of asking “What is the right/good thing to do?”
Consequentialist consider the consequences or results to get answers
Non-Consequentialists consider the act/principles/contracts
Virtue Ethicists says these approaches to ethics are asking the wrong question… What does it ask?
Should not be asking, “What is right/good, or what should I do?”
Virtue Ethics = “What kind of person ought I be”
Shift from “issue” focus to “person/character” focus
Why/how does virtue ethics focus on character?
Ethical theory that focuses on the moral development of virtuous character in people
Not about telling you what to do or giving you guiding principles/rules
Focus on ongoing character development
What is the underlying assumption of Virtue Ethics?
If we can focus our attention on being ‘good/virtuous’ people the right action will easily follow
The virtuous person habitually knows what to do in any given situation
About cultivating virtuous character over time
How does virtue ethics aid in character development?
Asking yourself, “would a good person do what I am doing?”
Ex. practice everyday matters, not just game time moments- every day single actions
If you don’t practice at every moment, you are not constantly bettering your character- when you come up to a sticky situation, you’ll know what to do because you have been practicing
Virtue ethics is a shift from “What should I do?” to…?
“Who Should I be?… Who am I becoming?”
-This is the ethical question to ask-
Why is “Who Should I be?… Who am I becoming?” an ethical question to ask?
Focus of ethics needs to be on the continual development of virtuous character (Who we are and are becoming)–This will lead to ethical behavior and right actions.
I.e., We don’t need a rule book of what to do we need to develop our virtues (ex. we obviously know honesty is a virtue that we should practice and pass on to others)
What does virtue ethics argue?
“An action is right, if and only if, it is what a virtuous person would do in that circumstance.”
Why does virtue ethics argue “An action is right, if and only if, it is what a virtuous person would do in that circumstance.”?
If we develop virtues and act out of them, we will act ethically
Virtues are what keep us from doing immoral/unethical actions
What we need to consider in ethics is discussing what types of virtues/characteristics we ought to develop and pass on
And what virtues live within us, or need to be developed
They develop good character
Virtuous people just seem to know the right thing to do… Why?
Because they are virtuous…meaning they developed and reflected on their character
What does it mean to develop virtues/character? (Excess & Deficiency)
What is a virtue…??
Lots of character traits,
are they all just virtues?… No
Certain character traits are virtues
Aristotle argued that virtues sit at the golden mean…the midpoint
I.e., between two vices-–excess and deficiency
Too much or too little of anything virtue not good, about balance
Many argue there is no agreement on virtues/character traits. Why?
That is part of the power of virtue ethics. That virtues are relative to time and place. No need to standardize.
Example of Excess/Deficiency: Virtues: The Honest Coach
Overly Restrained – Honest – Brutally Honest
Imagine a Coach:
The Overly Restrained Coach:
Not willing to tell hard truths to team and players. Does not want to hurt, and thus may never push/get best.
The Brutally Honest Coach:
Soul-crushing honesty to the point of degrading. Every moment is a teachable moment gone too far. Unrealistic
The Honest Coach:
Ability to offer criticisms in a way that gets best from team/players. Respond. In the right moment, the right way, etc.
Explain sport as developing virtue or moral character?
Common claim that practicing or participating in a sport improves your moral character…sport as a virtue teacher…sport build character
Experiences in sport…think…share?
Perseverance in sport
Willingness and ability to keep trying in the face of difficulty
Between vices of ‘giving up’ and ‘stubborn over commitment’
Ex. win at all costs in any level of sport is living in excess
Does sport participation inherently promote virtuous character development?
Or do some of our sports or health promoting practices ask/push us to live at the extremes/vices and not at the ‘golden mean’
Experiences in sport where character development is at the extremes?
Vice of win-at-all costs may be one example
How does one learn to become virtuous?
Requires “Practical Wisdom”
What did Aristotle argue about becoming virtuous?
Aristotle argued not a type of book/conceptual/abstract learning
Aristotle did argue one can learn to be virtuous though
Why does being virtuous require “practical wisdom”?
Virtue is a skill, a way of living, can only really be learned through experience
i.e., we don’t expect children to be virtuous
About having ‘street smarts’, the ability to separate the important factors in a situation from the lesser ones
Virtuous people have this sense of understanding what matters, what is important, and know how to proceed
What does it mean to learn “practical wisdom”?
Developing virtues/character is not a solitary battle/undertaking
Turn to “Moral Exemplars”
What are “moral exemplars”?
Moral exemplars are people who already posses virtue.
That person(s) who lives a well life in such an effortless way. They are virtuous.
Consult them “What would ____ do”
Aristotle stated we are built with the ability to recognize these people and desire to emulate them
You watch “moral exemplars” than you do as those watched.
Why become virtuous?
“Eudamonia”
What is “Eudamonia”?
Is the Aristotelian word for a life well lived
About ‘Flourishing as a human’
Like a plant but your not a plant (but you are)
Not just a simple live well, feel well–happy
About this sense that we/you as a person are “always becoming”
Not a feeling of, wow, I am such a good/virtuous person. I should pat myself on the back.
Rather, a feeling of I am always attempting to be the best person I can be at all times, this process of becoming is continuous
Aristotle argues this person, the virtuous person, will do good things
Character (Virtue) is developed through?
habituation –
By doing something (i.e., acting virtuous) over and over,
Eventually it will become part of your character.
By attending to your moral character development you will know what to do in any situation.
Utility of this approach is far reaching…
What is the positives of virtue ethics?
Changes the dominant narrative in ethics that focus more on what to do (the issue) and less the development of an individuals capacity (the person)
Full weight of decision rests upon the decision maker. There is no deferral of critique. Thus, may be one of the few frameworks that asks individual to inquire into themselves and how they are living.
Consequentialist defer to cost-benefit analysis of what best/greatest outcome
Non-consequentialist defer to rules/principals to guide actions
Both allow to go about decisions without questioning self
No more deferral of responsibility!
Critique of Virtue Ethics: No clear action-guidance?
This is what many claim, that focus is just on character. Framework provides no guide to making decisions just says become a better person
However, if we try to be virtuous and avoid vices, is this action-guiding enough?
Critique of Virtue Ethics: Too individual focused?
Critics argue when in difficult situations our virtues are fragile and we often don’t follow through. We try but hard.
Critics thus state that if we are to consider virtue it shouldn’t be on developing people, rather, we should develop institutions to be virtuous, so the virtuous response is easy for the individual.
Too high a standard, can we really all become virtuous people?
What is the ethics triangle?
Ethics triangle pulls from bases discussed to say ethical decision may be formulated through following considerations:
1) Does the decision accomplish the best end for the greatest number? (Consequentialism – Results)
Consider the consequences/results!!
2) Is the decision consistent with intuitive, organizational, socio-cultural, and universal norms? (Non-consequential – Rules)
Consider social contracts, rules, and norms
3) Is this authentic and virtuous behavior? How does this particular decision impact on oneself? And on others who will feel the impact? (Character – Virtue)
Consider good character
Do not limit to only one area
Why have feminists have critiqued dominant frameworks?
Have shown less of a concern for women’s issues
Overrate masculine traits while undermining feminine
Imply that women are less morally mature
**Favour male ways of moralizing (rules, rights, universality, impartial) over female ways of engaging (care, connection and maintaining relationships)
Carol Gilligan critiqued Kohlberg’s model on basis that women approach ethics from an “ethics of care” not and “ethics of justice”
What is Care-Based Feminist Ethics?
Women can speak language of rational, universal rules, or self chosen principles (Kohlberg) but Gilligan argued this should not guide societies framework
What is Carol Gilligan’s Stages of Moral Development?
1) Overemphasize self interests (turn to ourselves for decision making)
2) Overemphasize others’ interests (Goodness is to self-sacrifice)
3) Weave together self and others’ interests relationally. (Both cared for)
No differentiation of my interests/living as separate from yours. Rather our lives and worlds are relationally composed. (Lugones develops upon this)
These moral stages of development are changes in understanding what?
Self-in-relation, instead of Kohlberg’s discussion of cognitive capability/critical thinking
For Care-Based Ethicists nurturing caring relationships should be fostered and what guides your actions… ask yourself:
“What is the responsible thing to do when you find yourself in a situation of relationship—where there seems to be no way of acting that will not cause hurt”
Am I being relationally responsive as an individual. Always act so as to establish, maintain or enhance caring relations as best as I can.
What shifts does care-based feminist ethics brings to traditional ethics?
1) The center of attention is no longer about considering independent actors—this is replaced by a web of interrelated individuals. (Ethics is not about me and you; it’s about us.)
2) The impartial application of abstract principles (Utilitarianism & Deontology) is replaced by the maintenance and harmonizing of human relationships. (Ethics is less about the fair imposition of rules and more about crafting social integration.)
3) Tensions between the rights of individuals get replaced by conflicts of responsibility to others in established relationships. (Ethical tensions aren’t my rights versus yours; it’s me being torn between those I care for—ethical reasoning is an explanation of these relational tensions.)
What is Status-Oriented Feminist Ethics?
Shift from the caring relation in feminist ethics to the ways in which society has been structured to actively marginalize specific groups of people over time in specific ways. (think Joseph & Kriger reading)
What is central for discussion in Status-Oriented Feminist Ethics?
For Status-Oriented Feminists power is central to discussion and no discussion of ethics can occur without discussing power dynamics.
Need to change dominant power systems that privilege men, while at the same time disempowering females—These systems also disempower men but in different ways (limit their relation to ones self and others)
Interest in deconstructing the interlocking systems of oppression (i.e., not based on gender alone but aspects such as race, socioeconomic, ableism, eurocentrism, etc.) – Challenge things that limit peoples possibility.
Ethical behavior for Status-Oriented Feminist Ethics is?
“Right actions are those that challenge
interlocking systems of oppressions”
Focus on doing actions that empower people who have disempowered
Status-Oriented Feminist Ethics example: Canada Sport System and Indigenous peoples?
Canada sport system has created a sport system that is focused on Long-Term-Athlete-Development. Transfers this approach to working with Indigenous communities
Meaning support for sport (whether that be facilities, coach development, athlete development) largely must reside in notion of creating better elite athletes in western sense
Aboriginal Sport Circle and many people have discussed sport system with Indigenous communities has different values, purposes, and definitions—the support being provided is limited to a specific conception of athlete development and sport
Limits type of activities, how funding is given, and how communities may develop what “sport” may look like within their community
E.g., where do traditional games/practices fit in? (e.g., snow snake)
Strengths of feminist ethics:
Care-based feminist ethics is descriptive of what matters (i.e., the caring relation) as opposed to prescriptive in approach (i.e, this is the right/good thing to do)
This description of what matters often reflects the tensions people experience when trying to figure out what to do in any given situation. Respects this aspect that we want to be cared-for and are natural caring/attentive to relations
What we actually want and ought to do aligns more to this than turning to rules/abstract prescriptions.
Strengths of feminist ethics:
Humanizes ethics by focusing on real people, and the real ways in which relationships may be enhanced, maintained, and/or shifted
Like virtue ethics—no deferral to abstract rules or principles but a clear attention in this case to ripples in relationships.
Status-based, explicit discussion of power, ethics is about deconstructing power for those disempowered
Other approaches have very little to say about this (Does race matter to a utilitarian calculator?)
Critiques of feminist ethics:
Is it dangerously close to tribalism?
Tribalism is when we act/develop deep loyalties to our close social relationships and groups and thus create an us (my group) vs. them (those I am not connected with) mentality
Feminists argue this is a surface level critique – reducing and forgetting that basis of feminist ethics is in these notions of not seeing oneself as separate but as relationally composed and open to relation.
Critiques of feminist ethics:
Ambiguous? Not action guiding enough
Does not tell one how to act
Other critiques of feminist ethics?
Some argue that care ethics reduce to virtue ethics—just care is the primary virtue instead of something like “practical wisdom”
Can I care for all? Is this too demanding…Can I understand my life as woven and deeply tied to each person
What are rhetorical strategies?
In ethical conversations we are often asking people to consider a different perspective–at times we are even trying to persuade people.
Aristotle argued that “Rhetorical Strategies” are needed if we are to be able to properly persuade, or at very least open the possibility for a different consideration…
What are the 4 rhetorical strategies?
1) Pathos
2) Logos
3) Ethos
4) Kairos
What is the Lagos strategy?
Appeal using logics and facts that support perspective
Appeal that pulls on the audiences logical sense making (Appeal to the head). Often done through using data and or facts to support claims
American Psychological Association, has identified that the repeated use of stereotypical images has a negative impact on peoples self identities…or a survey conducted at McGill University identified that 75% of students who voted deemed the use of Indigenous mascots to be racist and oppressive and should be changed.
What is the Pathos strategy?
Appeal to the audiences emotions
Appeal that pulls on the audiences capacity for empathy (Appeal to the heart). Often done in conjunction with logos, but draws on storytelling to exemplify logical appeal.
E.g., Thomas Jirousek, McGill, sharing a story of feeling less-than heritage as a caricature/cartoon, hard to play when getting mocked…Wilton Littlechild (this morning discussions, story on train tracks, holding hands)
What is the Ethos strategy?
Appeal using the authority, credibility, or character of the presenter
Can be done through a demonstration of why your voice on issue matters…you can/are an authority/expert on issue
E.g., I worked in inner city for 5+ years, understanding of issue as lived…society of stereotypes and judgments.
Can be done through tone and showing of ‘good character’ in public debate, such as showing more than one side of an issue before arguing for a position. –so that your arguments/counter arguments are in conversation with/effective
E.g., Indigenous mascots lecture brought up fandom, intent, etc. than moved to provide counter arguments
What is the Kairos strategy?
Appeal at the right/critical/opportune moment
Appeal at the right moment, your appeal is “timely” and appropriate to audiences, understand timeliness as leverage
E.g., TRC report 2015, “Nothing about us, without us”, set within wider policy/political importance and change
What is Call Out Culture?
Is an approach to engaging with others where people publicly and collectively reprimand (or shame/call-out) a behavior or view
What is the purpose of Call Out Culture?
Purpose is to alter unwanted behavior and make known what behavior is acceptable or unacceptable
How is Call Out Culture Effective?
Effective form of pushing for social accountability in society
E.g., University of Regina
“You Belong Here” campaign
Way to push for inclusion and
publicly call out racism, bullying,
And violence
What is Call In Culture?
Is an approach to engaging with others where people look to meet person where they are at and then educate/share a different perspective
What is the purpose Call In Culture?
Purpose is to open a space where people can reflect on behaviors through individualized reflection on limited understandings to support change
How is Call In Culture effective?
Effective form of pushing for social accountability without punishment
E.g., Blanket exercise
Way of teaching about the impacts of colonization and residential schools in Canada.
Participatory way of learning/becoming more educated.
