Philosophy 5

This argument reasons from the claim that different cultures do, in fact, have different moral beliefs and practices (descriptive relativism) to the claim that there are no objective standards or truths in ethics (CR).

This kind of argument is invalid because even if people disagree about x, it doesn’t follow that beliefs about x aren’t objectively true.

CR warns us against assuming that various practices are morally bad or wrong just because they differ from our own and we find them disgusting. We should try to distinguish moral disapproval from a more general feeling of disgust. What many people find disgusting might be only disgusting, not morally wrong.

· Because there are no objective standards applicable to all societies, we can’t criticize the practices of other societies. · We can’t criticize the practices of our own society: as long as the majority believes that some practice is right (or morally permissible), it is right (or morally permissible). · The idea that one’s society has made (or even can make) moral progress becomes doubtful.

An action is permissible if and only if its consequences are morally maximally good (i.e., at least as good as those of its feasible alternatives). It requires an action whose consequences are at least as good as those of feasible alternatives.

1. The ends (consequences) often do not justify the means. Examples: Killing an innocent person in order to save other innocent persons or Torturing a child in order to get information from the parent 2. Consequentialism is too demanding. It requires that we choose actions with consequences at least as good as the feasible alternatives. Nobody could do this without making a great many personal sacrifices. Examples: How can you buy DVDs when you might instead donate the money to help end world hunger?How can you spend long hours watching TV when you might instead be working for some worthy cause, or at least improving yourself?

Punzo emphasizes that the human self is not merely physical but "historical": capable of consciously reflecting on the past, planning for the future, and making commitments to share ones future with other

Argues that premarital sexual unions are “morally deficient” because they · Lack “existential integrity” (separate people’s bodily existence from their selfhood as historical beings) · Use the human body as an object or mere instrument no different from any other commodity

· Sex acts must instead be judged according to general moral rules or principles · The central moral principle is not the Kantian principle that forbids treating people merely as a means to one’s own ends · The central moral principle is the Kantian requirement of “reciprocity in human relations”

Defines sexual desire as “desire for contact with another person’s body and for the pleasure which such contact produces” · Sexual activity = any activity that tends to fulfill the agent’s sexual desire-Argues that sexual perversion
· Should not be understood as sexual desire or activity that deviates from the supposed purpose or function of sex (the means-end view) · Should be understood as abnormal only in the statistical sense · Should be understood as immoral only if the activity violates moral principles which apply to nonsexual activities as well

Polygamy, Incest, and Bestiality (PIB) Argument by analogy: Homosexual activity is like PIB If homosexual activity is morally permissible, then PIB is morally permissible PIB is not morally permissible Therefore, homosexual activity is not morally permissible If homosexual activity becomes widely accepted, PIB will also become widely accepted

· The argument simply assumes that PIB is more associated with homosexual activity than heterosexual activity · The argument fails that establish that homosexual activity realizes no goods other than the goods (if any) that PIB does · The argument fails to establish that homosexual activity has drawbacks at least as bad as PIB

Argues that affirmative action · Was designed to benefit and has benefitted disadvantaged groups besides African Americans · Does not give “preferential treatment” to women and minorities · Aims to promote equal opportunity for groups that confront ongoing forms of institutional discrimination · Is better understood as equalizing opportunity than as compensating disadvantaged groups or promoting social utility · Should not be regarded as stigmatizing women and minorities

1. The picture of AA as designed solely to help African Americans (a) is empirically false and (b) makes it easier to cast AA in a negative light 2. Latinos, Asian Americans, women, and working-class people, including working-class men, have benefitted from AA 3. The claim that AA should be based on socioeconomic class instead of race or gender (a) ignores the fact that AA policies have based on class as well as other factors, and (b) ignores evidence that even middle-class Blacks suffer from discrimination 4. The qualifications of women and minorities tend to be undervalued and underappraised. AA doesn’t give them preferential treatment, only tries to level the playing field. Evidence for 3 · Scores on standardized tests for college admissions do not predict equally well for women and men, and these scores have been overweighted. [Latest development: even the College Board doubts the value of SAT tests] · Empirical studies show racial and gender bias based on names on resumes · Other empirical studies show unconscious race and gender bias · 1990 study showing that over 80% of executives get hired through networking, and about 86% of available jobs are never advertised in the classified · Hiring often rests on such subjective factors as “fitting in,” “personality,” etc.

Argues that there are purely epistemic reasons · To believe that we ourselves are racially biased · To make some sort of compensatory adjustment in Black students’ grades · We have an epistemic reason to adjust for known deficiencies in our own cognitive processes. Epistemic reasons, however, should be distinguished from moral ones. · Example: There is epistemic reason for me to compensate in grading for implicit racial bias by awarding Black students some extra points · Argument by analogy: I have an epistemic reason to wear eyeglasses in order to correct for my nearsightedness, so that I can see distant objects more clearly. I also have a moral reason to wear eyeglasses when driving, in order to avoid harming others. But perhaps I have a moral reason not to wear eyeglasses when lecturing – say, because I do a better job of lecturing when I cannot see students doodling or napping.