Xue Lin

Philosophy 181-017
8 September 2016
Reading Questions #1: Dewey, Ethics, Chapter 10 (Sections 1-4)
1. Do either of the following: (A.) Identify something from the text that you don't understand
and try to explain it: (B.) Identify something from the text that you disagree with and explain
why you disagree with it; (C.) Identify something important from the text that you agree
with, and explain why it is important.
It has to study the inner process as determined by the outer conditions or as changing
these outer conditions, and the outward behavior or institution as determined by the inner
purpose, or as affecting the inner life. Dewey, 10
Dewey addresses ethics in this statement. Instead of studying specific issue broadly, the
issue is examined in how it affects people or how people affect the subject, and judging
the acts to be good versus bad, or right versus wrong.
2. Explain how Dewey understands the relationship between customary and reflective morality.
One way to describe the relationship is to say that there is a positive aspect and a negative
aspect. Identify each.
The former places the standard and rules of conduct in ancestral habit; the latter appeals
to conscience, reason, or to some principle which includes thought. Dewey, 162
There is a conflict in the process of changing from customary to reflective conduct.
Use reflective to reconstruct new customs. The negative aspect is when there is conflict
between customary and reflective.
3. Explain why, for Dewey, the phenomenon of temptation does not constitute genuine moral
struggle? What, in contrast, does constitute genuine moral struggle?
[] conflict which takes place when an individual is tempted to do something which he
is convinced wrong. Such instances are important practically in the life of an individual,
but they are not the occasion of moral theory. Dewey, 164
The phenomenon of temptation does not constitute genuine moral struggle because it is
dictated by desire, even if the person understands their desire is wrong, they will attempt
to justify their action and allow [] desire to govern his beliefs (Dewey 164).
4. For Dewey, not all actions have direct moral quality. Why is this so? At the same time, any
action can acquire direct moral significance? Why is this so?

We feel that it would be rather morbid if a moral issue were raised in connection with
each act; we should probably suspect some mental disorder with each act if it were, at
least some weakness in power of decision. Dewey, 168
An act must be formed voluntarily by a person for it to have moral quality, not when it
coerced by superior physical power (Dewey 167). The person also needs to have a
stable character in order to make a valid act that has direct moral quality.
A vast number of acts are performed which seem to be trivial in themselves but which in
reality are the supports and buttresses of acts in which definite moral considerations are
present. Dewey, 168
5. Explain how Dewey understands the relation between conduct and character. Specifically,
how does character function to distinguish conduct from a mere succession of acts?
Where there is conduct there is not simply a succession of disconnected acts but each
thing done carries forward an underlying tendency and intent, conducting, leading up, to
further acts and to a final fulfillment or consummation. Dewey, 168
An example given in the text on page 169 is of a person who opens a window for fresh
air but there is a conflict because his co-worker is an invalid. He now faces the issue of
self-fulfillment or accommodating the need of others.
6. Explain the distinction between motive and intention, but also Dewey's view that they cannot
be sharply separated.
The distinction between motive and intention is in correlation to consequences. Good
intention omit motive as shown in the text on page 173-174, where a surgeon who was
unable to save a patient is not considered a morally bad person regardless of his motives
for performing the surgery and the only moral that is relevant is he intended to effect
certain consequences (Dewey 174). Emotions underlie motive, it moves us (Dewey
174) whether it may be a positive or negative emotion, and causes people to commit acts
that potentially lead to undesirable consequences. As Dewey states, The real fact in all
probability was that they took next to no pains to think out the consequences of what they
proposed to do. They kept their minds upon any favorable results [] and glossed over
or kept from view its undesirable consequences (Dewey 174).
When it is recognized that motive is but an abbreviated name for the attitude and
predisposition toward ends which is embodied in action, all ground for making a sharp
separation between motive and intentionforesight of consequencesfalls away.
Dewey, 175
They cannot be sharply separated because they are still interrelated concepts that depend
on analysis made by an individual, depending on whether we look at the emotional or
intellectual side of action.

22 September 2016
Reading Questions #2: Fundamental of Ethics Chapter 19 & 20
1. Identify an issue in the text that you feel strongly about and explain why you feel strongly.
Women, girl, and sister killed by male in their family for miniscule things such as
showing their bare calves, kissing the wrong man, or having been raped. The reason I feel
strongly about this issue is because these ritual killings are not only a violation of a
persons right but a huge flaw in cultural relativism because cultural relativist might say
that the ritual killings is a morally required act, which conflicts with my moral standards.
2. Explain how the following terms are related to each other: moral skepticism, ethical
objectivism, ethical relativism, and moral nihilism.

Moral skepticism - denial of objective moral knowledge/truth. If a truth is objective,

then it is true universally as opposed to relatively.
Ethical objectivism moral standards are objectively correct and that some moral
claims are objectively true
Ethical relativism (truth is relative to X) - (1) cultural relativism (2) ethical
subjectivism. Some moral rules are correct and it determines which moral claims are
true or false.
Moral nihilism - no moral truth (1) Error Theory - they describe moral conviction as a
sincere truth claim. One is sincere when they say "murder is wrong" but it is an error.
No need for emotions. (2) Expressivism - you intend to make a truth claim but what's
really happening is you're making a truth claim. What is the nature of the moral
conviction?
Amoralist is impossible if expressivism is true.

3. Do you agree that if there are no objective moral truths, moral progress is impossible?
Yes, moral progress is impossible without objective moral truths. Moral progress happens
when our fundamental beliefs change for the better.
(Hypothetical)
Subjectivist and relativist don't believe in objective moral truths.
Example: Slavery --> abolition
o
Moral progress (normative) --> requires objective truth *figure out the nature of
moral truth*
4. How might Dewey respond to the two forms of ethical relativism? Would he endorse one over
the other, reject both entirely, or seek some reconciliation between relativism and objectivism?

Dewey would reject both ideas of cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism because he
understands the value of social norms where every individual hold different beliefs. Some
norms are internalized but they reach reflected capacity at a certain age.

Figure out the nature of moral truth.

Dewey Experience --> Problematic situations --> Reflection --> Claims to moral
knowledge --> Action (Experiment) Does it resolve the problem? Does it consummate
your experience? If truth claim resolves the problem, then there's some knowledge one
has = objectivism. At the same time, the knowledge is relative to the situation.
vs. moral change (factual) - more obvious.

5. Do you agree that all moral claims are factual errors? If so, does that mean moral claims have
no authority? In not, how would you deal with the fact-value problem?

I disagree that all moral claims are factual errors because error theorist do believe that
claiming that murder is wrong is actually true.
Ethical objectivists believe value claims are actual factual claims, so how do you describe
that murder is wrong?
There is no such thing as right or wrong on a factual level.

6. Do you believe Amoralist exist?

Amoralist are people who do not care about living up to the moral views they sincerely
hold (Fundamental of Ethics, p. G-1)
It is likely they exist but I have not encountered one personally. The conflicting issue is
that since they do not concern themselves with issues of right or wrong and they are
neither moral or immoral, do they live by any standards? Humans live by a moral code
whether constructed by society or themselves and without that, what is one to do or live
by? I suppose it would be possible if one is rid of all emotions but that seems unlikely
since we all have emotions of some sort.

18 October 2016
Reading Questions #3: Fundamental of Ethics Chapter 11
1. Explain the difference between, on the one hand, the What if everyone did that? rule and
the golden rule, and, on the other, the principle of universalizability.

Setting a moral law. Are they properly universible? No.

What if everyone did that does not address right and wrong, addresses desire instead.
Disconnection between universalism and, right and wrong. What disconnects? If
everyone gets an abortion, then there will be no kids but some women get it for health
reasons. Consequentialism. Leads to results in actions that should be okay. Thought by
everyone. Only applies when one cares about the outcome, no contradiction unless you
care. According to Kant, in order to be universible, it does not have to do with your cares
and desires.

Golden rule:

o Get an individual to rationalize their actions, within their capacity, they need a rule
to tell them how.
o It fails as a procedure for universalization because theres room to make an exception
for yourself.
o So, need a question/procedure that doesnt allow exceptionKant believes he has
that.
2. What does Kant mean when he claims that the inability to universalize a maxim is due to
contradiction?
Maxim of action:
Intention
I intend to do X in order to bring about Y.
Universalize:
Moral law categorical imperative
Moral equality has to be considered
Original maxim depends on everyone having some desire.
Will everyone to share a maxim, e.g., will everyone to rob a bank leads to self-contradiction.
Lying versus lying to save someones life.
3. Both expressivism and Kant reject the view that one can be an Amoralist, but for very different
reasons. Explain this difference.

Expressivist: Says every time we express moral belief we are expressive moral beliefs
whereas Amoralist can separate feelings. They do not believe in moral truth, but believe
in morality.
Kant, motivation: Whats in our control? Intentions and maxim.
Morality should depend on what is in our control. Emotions cannot always be controlled.
If not emotions, then reason. We are rationally in control of our intentions, create goals.
Self-motivation is the strongest.

Amoralist believe that emotions don't have to play a role.

Example: I could have a strong feeling of right/wrong but feel nothing about it. Kant
could accept this since he rejects emotions as a basis of morality, rationally believe in
right/wrong, but Kant does not accept the Amoralist because they seem unmotivated.
The initial assumption is that emotions motivates. If you're not in control of your
emotions, you don't have a true motivation. Reason motivates correctly.
The Amoralist may act perfectly rational but not according to the categorical
imperative.
If the Amoralist believes in right/wrong but is unmotivated, then the so-called
Amoralist is not operating according to the categorical imperative (moral law):
Principal of Universalizability & Principle of Humanity.

Ethical monism vs. Ethical pluralism

1. Virtue ethics
2. Consequentialism
Utilitarianism
Good/bad, desire, emotions
3. Deontology (science of duty)
Kant
Duty comes from social relationships
Law
o Source
a. External: God (moral law derives from).
b. If there is moral law, then there needs to be a new source: internal each
individual being is a source of moral law (reason).
Kant: the moral law is constructive via reasoning, not arbitrary. Morality of intention.
The law of non-contradiction is moral logic and moral law to know duty.
Maxim we know they are wrong when we run into contradiction.
Law of non-contradiction
~(A f ~ A)
Cannot be the case that A and not A is true.

20 October 2016
Reading Questions #4: Fundamental of Ethics Chapter 12
Principle of humanity always treat a human being (yourself included) as an end, and never as a
mere means.
Good will ability to reliably know what your duty is and a steady commitment to doing your
duty for its own sake. We do it because it is our moral duty, no matter how we feel about it
emotionally.
The role of rationality and autonomy these traits justify our special moral status and make us
worthy of respect. Helps us hold others accountable. Keeps us from abandoning hope in people.
Scope of the moral community emphasis on rationality and autonomy forces to draw the lines
of the moral community narrowly. We are in, but infants, animals (example: sharks) and the
mentally ill are out (because they are not autonomous).
Kantian objection to slavery it allows people to be treated as mere things, objects without any
rights, of no importance. It violates their autonomy. Morality requires us to always treat human
beings with the dignity, autonomy, and respect they deserve. Slavery is inherently disrespectful.
In Kants view, your action has moral worth only when you do it because you understand that it
is the right thing to do.
1. What does Kant mean by humanity? How are the concepts of end, means, autonomy, and
respect connected with the concept of humanity?

End = respect people

Means = cant be the final goal because youre using someone to achieve your personal
goal and thus not treating them with respect
If a means helps you achieve the end, then it is acceptable but it cant be separated.
You can treat another rational being as a means, but still respect their autonomy which
means you treat them as an end.

2. Explain why, for Kant, the good will is the only thing that always adds value, as opposed to
the consequentialist view about the value of consequences.
The good will adds value because we understand what our moral duty is and do it
because it is the right thing to do. Good will is when your intentions are consistent with
the principle of humanity. Acting on good will produces better results but its not
guaranteed. Acting on bad will can also produce good results but done by accident (act is
still immoral). The good will is the cause of your action.
3. Do you think American levels of consumption, if it can only be fulfilled through the poverty
of other people, fails to respect those other peoples' autonomy?

Disrespecting other peoples autonomy because of the ignorance of the poverty. The
outcome of the system and the conditions of system in by participating in it are we
responsible for the conditions and to what degree are we responsible (not entirely
responsible because we are not example: forcing children to work but there is correlation)
4. How does Kant justify punishment and how does it differ from a consequentialist view of
punishment? Which form of punishment do you think is best? Explain.
Page 182, Kants test lex talionis an eye-for-an-eye principle (retributive). Negative: It
does not explain why criminals intentionally hurt their victim. Backward view.
Page 149, Consequentialism looks toward the future rather than backward toward the
crime. For the consequentialist, retributivism is nothing more than a compromise with
revenge, and no punishment can be legitimated without knowing that it will bring forth
good effects. The crime has been committed, so the only thing to do is to look forward.
The act of punishment must be looked at exactly the other things are looked at, does it
maximize the good. Is it going to produce the good?
5. Explain the problem of moral luck with respect to Kant's view of punishment. How would
you address this problem?
The existence for moral luck is a problem for Kant because he thinks the morality of your
actions depend entirely on your intentions, which are in your control. Moral luck occurs
only when the morality of ones action depends on factors outside of ones control. If there
is no outcome, how do you know what the appropriate punishment may be?

Universalization
Autonomy (reason/will) --> respect (dignity)
If you are logical, you are autonomous, and vice versa.
Kant puts these ideas in a particular way that can be an issue.

Subjective: I, as a rational being, value myself as an end-in-itself.

a Value of autonomy. Respect your autonomy/dignity. Status as a rational being.
b Subjective principle (maxim, in a sense)
Not making an exception. Zero difference between you and all other rational being,
therefore all rational beings are morally equal and all make the same claim about
themselves.
Subjective: I, as a rational being, see that all other rational beings also make this claim
(implicitly).
Objective: Moral equality of all rational beings
Objective: Principle of universalization (can't contradict maxim, maintain
universalization)
Kant: If you commit an immoral act, you are willed to the consequence as a rational being.

Equality has to be affirmed, thus understanding moral equality.

3 November 2016
Reading Questions #5: Fundamental of Ethics Chapter 17
Virtue ethics a family of ethical theories that says an act is morally right just because it is one
that a virtuous person, acting in character, would do in that situation.
According to virtue ethics, actions aren't right because of their results or because they follow
from some hard and fast rule. But because they would be done by someone of true virtues.
Virtue ethics
Ancient Greece
Character (from praise & blame)
Education of childcare
Person -->
Virtue ethics
Praise & blame
Character

Act -->
Deontology
Social relations
Right

Consequence
Consequentialism
Desire
Good

Process of forming good character:

1. Rules --> Blame
2. Limits of rules --> Learned in practice
3. Masterful, non-rule based moral understanding --> Learned rules, mastered skills
Virtue and the good life:
The notion of happiness for the Greeks is different from the notion of good for us.
Another way of understanding our happiness is as it is connected to things that are
limited to us. Often times, the good life is the life where you can enjoy yourself, but its
not the definition of virtuous happiness and flourish as said by virtue ethics and by the
Greeks.
You can't be virtuous just because you have virtuous role model.
For virtue ethics, the goal is to develop your character and emotions are part of your
character. Emotions are connected to the virtue and vices.
Having the appropriate feelings require the use of practical reasoning. You try to be
courageous in some situations and you miss the mark: rationalize the situation. How can I
train my emotions to better perceive myself?
Being angry or not being angry can be appropriate or inappropriate. Can't go too far,
won't be able to adequately handle the situation.
There are limits to the exercise of virtues to promote happiness.
Does virtue ethics offer adequate moral guidance? No normative approach can provide
that. There's always going to be conflict and there's no good way to overcome it.

Use limits to avoid doing moral duty or virtuous duty. Virtuous ethics - no mechanical
line, only know by developing virtuous ethics.

1. Explain the connection between the good life and the good person from the theory of virtue
ethics and how virtue ethics differs from both consequentialism and Kantian deontology.
Balanced life. Virtues balance your life/harmonize/stabilize. Vices disrupt your life.
Virtuous have a unique function of maintaining stability and harmony. Harmony is
happiness.

Virtue is in the good life essential in the good life, but does not guarantee a good
life, necessary but maybe not sufficient.
Original 4: Temperance, courage, wisdom, and justice
What about a vice that would not enable them?
Virtue & vice = character traits, dispositions
Virtue are active ways of interacting in the world.
Vices operate to destabilize ones life of interaction where virtue harmonize it to
bring it to balance and coherence.
Virtues constitute happiness
Virtues are a means to happiness
Courage in one might be coward in another.
Virtue ethics is in some sense consequentialism
There is a notion of good within virtue ethics
The good life is not possible without the virtues.
Person (intentions) --> act --> good (the good life happiness
Deontology is very in touch with intentions

2. Explain the connections among the idea of a moral exemplar, the complexity of morality, and
moral understanding. Trace a logical development starting from the moral exemplar to moral
understanding.
Moral exemplar someone who sets a fine example and serves as a role model for the
rest of us. Function to provide people with a standard. Must develop moral
understanding. Start from a position of moral exemplar. Not to mimic everything a role
model does but rather (how it functions in moral development) through the role model we
see somebody who has developed moral understanding, the use of moral understanding,
how someone operates morally. Someone who has moral understanding has a skilled.
That way, we develop our own moral understanding and in us become a role model.
Moral good sense not just knowing facts but can apply virtues in the correct way.
Theres no rule to give.
Moral complexity Each world situation is unique. Virtue ethics is situational.

Moral understanding species of practical wisdom, e.g., knowing how to fix a car,
playing an instrument, inspiring teammates. This type of knowledge requires an
understanding of certain facts. Moral wisdom requires training and experience, but not
higher intelligence or infinite reading list.
3. Explain why, for Aristotle, the virtuous life can only arise out of the use of reason.
End of human life is to strive for happiness and the basic activity of humans is to reason
for a complete life.

Good character; natural tendencies implanted in humans

Development of good/virtuous humans
Virtues relation to vice
Determine proper mean, between excess and deficiency

One has to have this kind of knowledge practical knowledge. Cant communicate directly
this kind of knowledge, can only learn it through this practical, experience.
4. How might a virtue ethicist respond to the Who are the moral role models? and the Conflict
and Contradiction problems?
"Aristotles idea of virtue ethics relies on the effects role models have on people. He
believed that we learn to be moral (virtuous) by modeling the behavior of moral people.
Through continual modeling we become virtuous out of habit. Moral duty of every
citizen to act as a good role model.
A virtue ethicist might respond to the who are the moral role models by saying
relativismthe idea that appropriate role models will differ from person to person, or
culture to culture. Moral standards will also differ. Different from relativism: We
become morally wiser, we become more insightful in selecting moral exemplars.
Fine tuning in developing role models.
There is no perfectly virtuous person.
Everybody is going to have a certain kind of lack to them and because they are role
models, they may not know.
Contradiction and conflict occurs when many virtuous people disagree about what to do
in a given situation (page 268).
Solution: The first is to insist that there is really only a single truly virtuous person and so
the differences that cause the contradictions would disappear. Or modify the virtue ethical
view of right action (page 270):

An act in a given situation is morally required just because all virtuous people, acting
in character, would perform it.
An act in a given situation is morally permitted just because some but not all virtuous
people, acting in character, would perform it.

An act in a given situation is morally forbidden just because no virtuous person would
perform it.

5. How would you respond to the priority problem as the author explains it, using the example of
rape? Is this problem fatal to virtue ethics?

Putting virtue over duty

Virtue ethics would be based whether on virtuous people do it. Not based on the action.
Moral exemplar learn that rape is wrong through experience.
The person who does or doesnt do it

8 November 2016
Reading Questions #6: Aristotles Ethics
Virtue behavior showing high moral standards
1. Explain why, for Aristotle, happiness is the ultimate goal of the human being. Then, explain
why happiness requires the use of reason and what the function of reason is in terms of
happiness.
Happiness depends on ourselves, that we desire for the sake of itself and never for the
sake of anything else. Aristotle believed that a happy life required fulfillment of a broad
range of conditions, including physical as well as mean well-being. Virtue is achieved by
maintaining the Mean, which is the balance between two excesses. Final end or goal that
encompasses the totality of ones life. The use of reasoning prevents us from destructive
behavior, which is why it needs to be developed in childhood.

Everything operates according to a means and relationship --> must be some ultimate
purpose
Continence, incontinence, and vice. End in itself. It is not desirable for anything else.
All other goods are a means to it.
The function of reason: cant just be virtuous without reason. Everything has a
function. Human being discovers purpose.
Humans --> non-human animals --> plants (divided life, certain divisions)
Separation from living thing to non-living thing. Living things have a soul. The soul
is the animating factor of life. Its what animates material. All living things have
different kinds of souls. Nutritive of soul (plants). Locomotive soul + nutritive soul
(animals). Rational soul + locomotive soul + nutritive soul (humans).
We can survive through the use of reason. Animals operate according to instinct.
The absent of instinct is the opening for reason. Reason is what we use to organize
our life and direct our behavior towards happiness. The rational soul/reason is what
brings about behavior (instinct). Humans --> virtues and vices.
Virtue is aiming towards the mean (the middle), e.g., courage. Coward is the
deficiency of courage. Every virtue admits the 3-part structure.

2. How would Aristotle respond to the claim that in many instances a person would be happier
if he or she did the vicious thing? (Page 4)

You have the capacity because you have the rational soul.
Virtues: Ends that are permanent, unifying, balanced. Maintain stability overtime.
Vices: Ends that are momentary. Conflicted soul. Not stable because your vices are
leading you to all sorts of conflict. Not much of a need for reason.

Not naturally virtuous

One way of defining happiness is having a balanced soul in which reason is in
control of your soul.

3. Explain how, for Aristotle, virtue is necessary for happiness, but not always sufficient. Give
an example to illustrate how a person may fail to be happy despite developing the virtues.

Virtue as necessary for happiness

Virtue constitutes happiness
Something can be sufficient but not necessary because there could be multiple things
that suffice. Something can be necessary but not sufficient.
External goods (aid the happiness and virtues): Wealth, health, looks, etc. There are
factors that are product of moral look. Born in certain class or look a certain way.
Dumb luck: born with a disease, did not do anything to deserve it but you were just
born with it. If you dont have the virtues, you wont be happy even with the external
goods. Opens possibilities for virtue. These create either burdens or benefits. Product
of luck
If you have too good of a life, you might turn to vices.
Virtue is internal luck: you dont get virtue just by luck.

4. Explain the process of developing the virtues and the specific role of reason in this
development. Do the latter by starting with a virtue, understood as a mean between excess
and deficiency, and apply it to a concrete example.

Child need to be trained because they need to develop virtues and training certain
habits --> reason (adult)
Virtues is a mean between excess and deficiency.
Coward in one situation may be courageous reason.
Cant keep at mechanical habits. Pure habits dont direct you in the proper way. Moral
complexity --> every situation is different.
One can only become virtuous by being virtuous.
Act out the virtues
Develop a disposition to have appropriate feelings, right emotions.

22 November 2016
Reading Questions #7: Fundamental of Ethics Chapter 18
1. Do you think the fact that Western ethics and ethical theory is almost entirely told and
produced by men, who held (and still hold?) low opinions of women, biases ethics toward
men and against women? Explain.
Yes, because Western philosophy have been around for a while dating back to the 16th
century where it was predominantly male philosophers who held low opinions of women
and even right up to the 20th century, womens experiences were not widely regarded by
philosophers. Feminist ethics only emerged in the 1980s, which is fairly recent.
2. What is the significance for ethics of Carol Gilligan's conflict with Kohlberg over moral
development? How is the nature/nurture debate implicated in this debate?

Carol Gilligen's conflict with Kohlberg: Kohlberg came up with a stage

development (studied only boys in a patriarchal society), where everyone follows
the same model and not everyone reaches the top level. Her view and general
critique is that you cannot abstract some moral development not relative to the
social context to what you're studying e.g., sex or other features of society. There is
a developmental model but there's multiple instead of just one. Kohlberg wanted to
say it's the model to apply to anyone, in any society.
For example, two peoples reaction and judgement to a criminal case (murder). One
person may say send them to jail regardless of the circumstances. What if a woman
murders a man who was abusive? There's no such thing as abstract murder, it has to
be in context. Rarely appeals to abstract moral principle. Kohlberg has an abstract
model. People experience the world differently, which gives different ways of
development. She accepts the basic idea of ways (at least two) but there could be
more.
From Gilligan's research, found that girls have greater respect for views that are
different from their own, see other peoples perspective to maintain harmony
whereas a man goes to a workplace where there's a hierarchy and directions are
already given. The idea is that shapes how we think of the world.

3. What is the significance of including the experience of dependence and vulnerability in how
we understand ethics? Contrast this to Kantianism, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics.

Claim: the reason these theories focus so much on independence, rationality,

autonomy is because they are the product of certain kinds of experiences, mainly of
men who in their social role are much more independent/have more autonomy
Theory is the product of these experiences
Feminist say theory is the product of our experience

The significance is that if we take the idea seriously, take seriously needing moral
theory, broaden the range of the experience = what moral theory will look like will be
very different.
Women are more dependent on men. Such as women being more inclined to be a
caregiver but someone else is dependent on them. With the mother, there is a more
direct dependence such as caring for children. The dependence a male feel does not
require constant attention.

4. What moral theory, utilitarianism, Kantianism, or virtue ethics, is care ethics most akin to?
Explain.

Virtue ethics. Emphasis on not only what we do, but how we do it. Theories such as
utilitarianism and Kantianism are set based on strict rules or an ultimate rule, which is
unlike virtue ethics and care ethics where different circumstances and situations are taken
into consideration before making a decision or conclusion. They dont place much value
on emotions.
Feminist philosophers argue that care and its associated emotions are central to moral
motivation and moral discovery (Shafer-Landau, 282)

29 November 2016
Reading Questions #8: Feminist Social Epistemology
1. Explain the difference between the atomistic model of knowers and epistemology based on
situated knowers. Also, how does the latter differ from Dewey's situationist or contextualist
view that every moral situation has its own moral solution?

Difference between the two models of atomistic model of knowers people

understand things individually, self-sufficient, not depend on others for either
knowledge or some kind of support in your own knowledge. For example, in
school you open a textbook to knowledge that has been built up for 100+ years.
Epistemic agents are generic or interchangeable. Social location is irrelevant from
this view. Since society is structured in a certain way hierarchy of power
those who have more power have greater interest in taking on the atomistic view.
Situated knowledge interactive. Looking at the clock, you see what time it is.
How is this interactive? Someone teaches you how to read time, need this
relationship to help you grow and learn. Depend on others knowledge of the clock
itself. Social location.
Deweys view: every situation is unique, theyre not interchangeable.
Where does the uniqueness lie in this view as opposed to Deweys view?
Interaction might be unique depending on what it is. Your particular social
location is going to matter, in addition to the knowledge you can gain. That person
is also a unique part of that situation

2. In elaborating on standpoint theory, the author says that epistemically relevant experiential
differences along the lines of social location are not random or idiosyncratic, but are socially
structured and systematic (2). Explain the difference between these two features of social
location.
The differences in knowers that feminists attend to are not random or idiosyncratic,
but are socially structured and systematic, with the potential to be major influences on
peoples lives. The feminist arguments that gender is an epistemically relevant
category of social location apply only as long as the society under consideration is
structured along the lines of gender (page 2).

Random vs socially structured and systematic

The meaning of random and idiosyncratic is the lack of a strong influence on the
way a person experiences their world, in terms of how they know that world.
Some features just dont play that big of a role or a role at all.
In a society where a society is structured based eye color/skin color, that would
affect an individuals experiences of that world.
Dramatically alter the social structure, which in hand alters the way the person
experiences the world, thus based on ones social location.
Socially structured and systematic:

a. Class, race, gender, sex, and sexuality is very significant in our world is
socially structured
b. The structure and distribution of power (people who have a greater interest
in power goes back to atomistic model, they cant imagine a world in
which society is structured in the way like the former)
3. Explain the idea of greater epistemic reliability from the Marxist perspective and the feminist
alteration of it.
Feminist standpoint theory has done the most to articulate the importance of perspectival
differences stemming from social location (page 2).
Taking from Marxist theory, the feminist standpoint theory attempts to ground
epistemology and it connects social location, arguing that social locations not only vary
from an epistemological point of view, but that some social locations offer the potential to
be more epistemically reliable than others.
According to strands of Marxist materialism developed by Georg Lukacs, ones social
position with respect to material labor is inversely related to ones epistemic position.
Society is structured primarily along the lines of two classes, the working class
(proletariat) and the capitalists (the bourgeoisie) who owns the mean of production. The
working class [] can achieve a richer understanding of social relations; they not only
have a motivation to understand the true nature of the exploitation to which they are
subject [] but their position offers the potential for a dual vision. Feminist standpoint
theory draws on these ideas, but rests on a sexual division of labor rather than class
divisions.

Class based. Greater epistemic: the claim is that those on the bottom run of power
have a greater access to knowledge, greater ability to know based on their
particular social location. Greatest interest in understanding the overall situation
in order to increase their power.
Those with greater power have an interest in a claim that their greater power
shut down that knowledge to maintain power.

4. How might a defender of standpoint theory respond to the following criticisms (3)?
a. Differing epistemic locations makes it difficult or impossible to share knowledge
across social locations.
Social locations of knowledge make it difficult or impossible to share knowledge
across social locations. I cant know what its like to be that person, how can we share
knowledge? We cant share knowledge. < how might a feminist respond to this?
I can to some degree achieve some understanding.
b. Some women have internalized their oppression, making their perspective unreliable.

Some people who are oppressed take on the view point of their oppressor. Women are
resisting their oppression. It is possible making their perspective unreliable and you
would not want to differ to them but these are small numbers.
c. Women experience oppression in different ways, eliminating the possibility of a
coherent feminist position of epistemic privilege.
The feminist view assumes we have a unitary view of the world. How can we
understand feminism in a unified position if all women are different? Maybe theres
still commonality despite differences, which are likely to be accessed upon to
understand the privilege of oppressed groups.
5. Explain how differential social locations can adversely affect the results of scientific research
(4).

Feminist science study, scientific practice.

How can someones sex affect knowledge production of science? Power
dynamics. In a science community, everyone comes together to produce
knowledge but there can also be a hierarchy and power dynamics. It is common
that males will be more dominant in this field.
Epistemic privilege: one cannot trust ones own perspective. The higher one is
that the moral thing to do is to be less trustful of your own perspective. Have less
and less trust of your own perspective, which means then you can practice what
we call epistemic deference. Based on social location can have greater access to
knowledge, should defer to your knowledge. It doesnt mean they have greater
knowledge idea brought it by epistemic deference.