More on Sexism in the First World

I touched a little bit about this in my presentation about the way media depicted Hilary Clinton's presidential campaign via the explanation of the male gaze, but I had some more things to add to that. 

Hilary Clinton’s presidential campaign poses an interesting light to the challenges women face in the United States and the rest of the western world. She received a plethora of comments such as being “bossy” or “too sassy” - most of which would have never been

used to describe the speeches of male presidential candidates. These comments are not simply specific to Clinton. John McCain’s conclusion of Hilary being either way too emotional and therefore somehow, unbearably hysterical to be fit for making good

decisions for the country or not emotional enough and therefore not sufficiently fulfilling the gender norms of femininity affect women in general. It is important to understand that these comments are not anti-Democratic or anti-Hillary but inherently sexist - they are symptomatic of decades of oppression against women. This form of sexism exists in American society on a daily basis and it is therefore not a surprise that the United States has not had a single female president in its two hundred and thirty eighty-eight years since independence. Women may be free from sexism in the laws, but the patriarchy present in daily life must be destroyed if women are to meaningfully receive the same rights as men.

Even today, the United States is the only developed country — and, in fact, one of the very few countries in the world — to offer no paid maternity leave. The government leaves it up to individual companies to make decisions regarding this matter, and although some companies do provide paid maternity leaves, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics National Compensation Survey 2013, it is still true that an overwhelming majority of workers in the United States do not obtain this benefit. This greatly undermines women’s rights because it essentially means women are forced to choose between their career and raising children if they are to continue working. The larger implications of this policy is the fact that women are forced to depend on their partners for financial support during the period of maternity leave, or are less likely to continue in their career aspirations, which systematically puts women behind men with regard to purchasing power and economic capacity. Furthermore, if women wish to not have a Caesarian section, doctors in the US can refuse to respect this and thereby violate women’s bodily autonomy and perform the C section anyway if it is deemed that not doing so would undermine “fetal rights”. Such policies put unreasonable expectations on women to be able to ‘do it all’ and inhumanely expect them to make a choice between advancing career aspirations and raising children and thereby treat pregnant women as second-class citizens.

I had some additional thoughts from my presentation on sex negative feminism and Islamic feminism. First, I would like to say a little more about the intersectionality concept I introduced. Intersectionality offers an important lens to reveal the fact that women suffer from societal oppression via complex layers, each of which can bare varying degrees of intensity. Intersectional feminism takes into account the power dynamics that fosters the creation of oppression along these different layers. An example is the portrayal of an HIV positive transgender woman desperately looking to be a sex worker in the movie ‘Dallas Buyers Club’ by Jared Leto. The problem here is not the idea that no one other than a transwoman can meaningfully understand the systematic discrimination faced by transgender individuals, but the greater implication Leto’s role has on mainstream transphobia for offering a disrespectful way of essentializing the lives of transwomen. Leto, being a cis-gendered man, is in a position of privilege to be able carry out this role and the perpetuation of this form of entitlement to display a narrowed version of another individual’s complex life is morally reprehensible because of its reductive, two-dimensional approach. It is therefore very clear that this portrayal of a disadvantaged group carries no empathy but exhibits yet another prism of oppression.Another concept I believe is really important in understand a social movement as interesting and complex like feminism is the idea of cultural appropriation. I wasn't able to get into it during my presentation owing to the time constraints involved, but I would have loved to do so if time had allowed me. Australian pop-singer Iggy Azalea’s recently released music video of her song “Bounce” is a crucial example of how cultural appropriation can also be a feminist issue. The portrayal of Indian culture was not only inconsequential to the overall meaning conveyed by her song, but the fact that it involved the sexualization of the sari and meaningless provocative dancing on an elephant dressed up in a skin-tight outfit of a Hindu goddess is demeaning to Indian people, particularly women. This demonstration of playing “dress up” with that which is vital to the identity of Indian women distorts the mainstream media’s imagery of the Indian woman as someone whose culture is routinely made fun of, turning these women into targets of objectification, otherization and hypersexualization in western communities. It is important to understand how in this way, women of color can be subject to oppression from other women as the exotification of their cultures takes place.Racism has significantly added to the intensity of oppression suffered by women worldwide. A well-known fairness cream sold in South-Asian countries like India, Pakistan and Bangladesh called “Fair and Lovely” has been extensively criticized for being a highlyracist campaign. The advertisement for this product depicts a woman who initially gets rejected after a job interview but later gets accepted after she makes her skin a few shades whiter with the help of the fairness cream. This makes two problematic claims -firstly, women should be judged for the appearance and not for their accomplishments, and secondly that fairness is equivalent to beauty which, in turn, is the path to success. The former claim is demeaning to women because it conforms to patriarchal norms thatdictate the perception of women in society as individuals whose hard work should not be taken seriously. The latter claim is inherently racist because it passes the message that one has to go to the extent to change the color of their skin to be appreciated and considered “better-looking”. The type of racism being discussed here is known as shadeism, which is the discrimination that exists between the lighter-skinned and darker-skinned members of the same community, where the lighter-skinned members are considered “beautiful” because whiteness or fairness is equated with being associated with the West. Therefore, these are different ways in which women are oppressed in these societies with the help of media and the advertisement industry.

More on the Index of Dissimilarity

In my presentation on racial integration, I talked about something called the index of dissimilarity as a way of measuring segregation and there seemed to be some confusion about what exactly it represented. I’ll do my best here to explain it a bit better.

At first, the index of dissimilarity can seem like a confusing concept. One simple way to define it is as “a measure of the evenness with which two groups are distributed across the component geographic areas that make up a larger area.” Usually, this means neighborhoods or census tracts within a city. The index is measured between two different groups as the X-Y index of dissimilarity and is given as percentage of people from one ethnic group (either X or Y) that would need to move to other areas in order to create a distribution of people that matches the actual population demographics. For example, a black-white index of dissimilarity of 100 would represent complete apartheid because it would mean that every black person or every white person would need to move to a different neighborhood to create an even distribution of blacks and whites among the neighborhoods in the city. Usually, an index of dissimilarity of 60 is considered the threshold for severe segregation.

Of course the index of dissimilarity isn’t the only way to measure segregation, however. Another measure of segregation that might be easier to grasp is the index of exposure. The X-Y index of exposure represents for the average individual of group X how many people of group Y live in the same neighborhood. For example, a white-white index of exposure of 73% would indicate that in a given city, the average white person lives in a neighborhood that is 73% white. This would be a pretty significant degree of segregation. Oftentimes, the index of exposure and index of dissimilarity are positively correlated, and either one can be used as a fairly reliable indicator of segregation. Personally, I like the index of exposure because its meaning is more obvious, but both essentially measure the same thing.
Hopefully, this clears up some of the confusion. But if you have a question, feel free to ask!

Harm

Insight on “ Should the Ticking Bomb Terrorist Be Tortured?”

Reading the “Ticking Bomb”’ and relating it back to the Transplant Case from class, I found myself in an ironical situation. In the Transplant case, I agreed with the idea that we shouldn’t base our decisions on what will give the best outcome but rather whether the actual decision is moral/just in that it respects rights.   However, if we follow this same line of reasoning to the Ticking Bombing, which is essentially the same, except that in much more massive numbers and the individual to be tortured will not actually be killed and is actually guilty.  It might be easier to diagram:

Case	1		2		3		4
Scenario	*5 Dead *1 Alive	*5 Alive * 1 Killed	*5 Poisoned *1 Alive	*5 Poisoned are Saved *1 Killed	*Millions of Dead Civilians *1 Guilty Individual Not Tortured	*Millions Of Alive Civilians *1 Guilty Individual Tortured	*Millions of Dead Civilians *1 Innocent Child Not Tortured	*Millions of Alive Civilians *1 Innocent Child Tortured
Welfare	Less Welfare	More Welfare	Less welfare	More welfare	Less welfare	More Welfare	Less Welfare	More Welfare
Rights	No violation	1 Violation	5 rights violation	1 rights violation	Millions of violation	1 rights violation or no violation? No violation	Millions of violations	1 Rights Violation
Just	More just	Less just	More just	Less just	Less just	More Just	? No violation of right in your action Unjust	? 1 violation of right Unjust *More Welfare, Less rights violation --More just

Above, I constructed a diagram of my thinking on these cases. The 1st one is the transplant case.  The 2nd case is the modified transplant. The third case is that of the terrorist who plants a bomb in a city to kills millions of civilians and we are trying to answer whether to torture the terrorist or not. The fourth case is that of a terrorist who plants a bomb in the city to kill millions of civilians but torturing the terrorist yields no results and the question  is whether  their innocent child should be tortured in order for the terrorist to confess where the bomb is and how to stop it from going off.  

In the first case I stated that the correct thing to do would be to not kill the innocent person to save the five who are dying of natural causes.  My reasoning is that it is not moral and it is not just to violate the right to life of one individual to save five people who are dying of natural causes. The five people had their chance to live, their right to life was not violated. They were able to live their lives up to their natural deaths and taking away one person’s right to life to save those five is wrong. Imagine, if the person were killed to save the five people.  In the second case, I reasoned that the right to life of the one individual should still be protected and that the individual should not be killed to save the 5 poisoned. It is tragic, that someone violated the right to life of those 5 and it is tragic that there is less welfare overall, however, that does not justify killing an innocent person. Unjust circumstances do occur in life, but that does not mean we should impose other unjust circumstances over some to repair those of others.  Now, what seemed easy to decide in the first two cases suddenly becomes very difficult in the bomb ticking cases. Following the same line of reasoning as before, we should opt for no rights violation even if that means less welfare. However, does a terrorist whose intention is to kill millions of people, have rights? In this case, intervention or restricting the terrorist’s liberty would satisfy the Harm Principle. But is torturing the terrorist justified? To play devil’s advocate, we can also question what exactly is a terrorist? For example, a case brought up in the Ticking Bomb paper is would the Jews in the concentration camps be considered terrorist if they threatened to blow up a German kindergarten if they aren’t released or let free. It seems strange to call the Jews terrorists, it does not seem equite right. In this case, it seems rather as a case of protecting and defending their security, just like a nation defends its security.  

Possible Distinction Between Acts of Terrorism and Acts of Defense (both are acts which may cause harm to innocent lives on massive scale):

terrorist---> someone/group who attacks another for some interest without being attacked first

defense----> someone/group who attacks another as defense to an attack from the other

How to balance the nation’s security with the protection of civil liberty?

Assuming that any person, who attempts to kill another loses their rights, then torture could be justified. It is interesting to see how being innocent or guilty of the unjust circumstances imposed on others, determines whether it is okay to violate your rights. For example, in the transplant cases it was wrong to violate one person’s right to save the others from unjust circumstances (death and poisoned). In this example, it is okay to violate one person’s right if they are guilty or responsible for the unjust circumstances imposed on others. This seems to be a very retributivist notion. This seems to imply that it is okay to violate someone’s rights if that person does something that deserves such consequence. Although, it also seems to be consequentialist in that excessive punishment of the terrorists would deter others from doing the same harm.  A consequentialist would defend torture if it leads to the best outcome or better world. A retributivist would defend torture if the person deserves to be tortured for some wrongdoing.  It seems that the consequentialist has more focus on preventing harm without regards to whether the person is actually guilty or not and the retributivist notion seem to focus more on desert (guilty/innocent) rather than preventing harm. Does punishment really prevent harm to others?  In this case, it seems that if the millions of lives were not presently at risk, this individual would simply have his/her liberty restricted. But since, something may be done to save the millions of innocent lives, the contemplation of doing more than simply restricting liberty to the individual is considered. In this case, I would say that by deliberately harming others this person and given that something may be done to save the millions, the terrorist should be tortured in order to save the millions of lives.   

If the terrorist already killed the millions of civilians, that person has already given up all their rights then it seems that there is no point in torturing them  because there is no longer no way of preventing their harm or obtaining information to prevent the death of the millions of civilians. Torturing them in this case would just be an act of vengeance. But then the question arises of whether the terrorist should simply be locked up in prison or whether the terrorist should be given the death penalty?  I guess the answer to this would depend on the magnitude of danger the terrorist represents to the rest of society.

This cases are very complicated. It really depends, in some cases torture is justified and in other cases it is not. Torture is always bad no matter what, it is always a harm, but some harms its seems that we justify and other harms we cannot justify. For example, simply torturing someone for torturing them (sadism), has no justification. On the other hand, torturing a guilty person to prevent harm to the people he/she tried to harm is justified.  The harm is the same: torture, but one is deemed as justified and another is not. But now, what about the case of torturing an innocent to prevent harm.   The Harm Principle would say that this is justified. If the  Harm Principle, is read as saying  we should restrict someone’s liberty or punish someone only to prevent harm to others”, then torturing the innocent to prevent harm would satisfy the Harm Principle and would permit  laws to be implemented knowing before hand that innocents will be unjustly condemned (as is the current case).  If the harm principle, is read as saying that we should restrict someone’s liberty or punish someone only to prevent that individual from harming others, then torturing the innocent would not be preventing harming to others because the innocent has not harmed others thus torture would not be justified. The Harm Principle is read as in the first definition and thus torturing the innocent child to save the millions of innocent lives would result in the violation of rights in the child but it would result in the protection of the rights of the millions of innocent lives and would result in the most welfare. Does the end justify the means?  It seems that in this case it may. You action to torture the child was bad, but it resulted in the better world. In contrast, not torturing the child,would result in your action not being bad (you are not harming the child and technically you aren’t killing the millions of individuals because you didn’t plant the bomb) but the result would be a worse world.   The problem here, is that it seems to problematic to say that the end justifies the means. It seems problematic to prevent harm to others when causing harm to one or to some in order to achieve the prevention of harm to others. On the other hand, it seems problematic to leave the millions of innocent lives perish, have their right to life violated. There seems to be a forced situation in which we are forced to choose between bad, worse, and worst situations. The problem with this is that how do we know in the long run what will the the best outcome?  And not only that but how much does the way in which that best outcome is achieved matter?

More On the Distinction between Racism and Prejudice

After monday's class, I followed up with Professor Tresan about the distinction I attempted to make in class about prejudices and racist attitudes. He advised that I share the discussion with the blog (better late than never, right?!)

The distinction I was trying to draw was about differences between racism and prejudice/stereotyping. Racism has to do with a belief(which can be expanded to include imbedded tendencies we are unaware of) in value(inferiority/superiority) of races in virtue of the prejudices/stereotypes we perscribe to them. 

"Belief" may be a bit strong.  Research suggests that people can harbor racist attitudes without actually having racist beliefs.  For instance, if you gave me an exam and asked me various questions about the superiority or inferiority of certain races, I would give non-racist answers.  And that's not just to look good -- it's what I really believe.  If my life depended on getting objectively the right answers, I would still give those.  Nevertheless, that's consistent with my having racist attitudes, as revealed by my behaviors and reactions.  For instance, suppose I become afraid when I see a black person.  That suggests racism but needn't be a matter of belief.  The situation would as with other cases of fear without belief in danger.  For instance, if I look down from a very tall height it can induce fear in me even though I don't believe I'm in any danger.  It's a fascinating phenomenon in general, and might be akin to racism without the sorts of beliefs you mention.

Perhaps this isn't racism though?  I'm not sure.  It may require more than just the sort of fear I mention.  Perhaps other attitudes or reactions are necessary as well, e.g., tendencies to reject, find fault, avoid, feel indifferent to suffering and injustice, and so on.  Notice that none of these things require the sorts of beliefs you mention.  The fault-finding tendency may be a tendency to find faults which are actually there, but to a greater degree than one does with other races.  This seems like racism, although it's a subtle matter (and also partly a matter for stipulation).  

 

While both are problematic in their own ways, my point was to demonstrate how you can have prejudice without racism(which are often conflated). A more useful example than the one I attempted to give in class would be a prejudice that assumes black people listen to rap music while white people listen to country music. This seems to be a clear case of stereotyping and prejudice however it doesn't imply that either of those traits and or races is superior to one another(although one could certainly form a racist viewpoint from these stereotypes). This seemed like an important distinction to point out because as the conversation went on, the terms became more and more conflated with one another. 

The clarification question had to do with the nature of microaggressions. Are microaggressions phrases that within them contain derogatory connotations which are inseparable from the phrase itself(as is most evident in the "you are a credit to your race" example). Or can any phrase be a microaggression under specific circumstances? Because the way the chart lays it out, the "message" column seems to imply that those are the underlying suggestions of the "microaggressions", although it seems clear that the messages listed are not the only possible implications these questions could have. 

As I mentioned in class, I don't see how a phrase itself could suffice for microaggression.  Not even "you are a credit to your race".  For instance, imagine it being said ironically, in great jest, between two good friends of the same race.  A form of words can never itself suffice for performing an action, which is what a microaggression is, I would think.

The reason I began to make this point in class is because of the question which revolved around an assumption that racism necessarily involves hatred towards another group. But it seems consistent and quite probable that there are racists who don't hate other races, but still find them inferior in some regard. While I agree that we have subconscious value judgements attached to many of the stereotypes we are making, I don't think that it is true in every case. 

Scarce Resources vs Promises

This is an important topic related to scarce resources that I thought we would touch on- especially considering some of the major social/political problems at large today- but didn't.

The questions I'm considering is these: What happens when we promise resources to a group of people or peoples and then come about scarce resources and can no longer keep that promise? Also: What happens when we promise resources to a group of people or peoples when those resources are already scarce?

One at a time, then.
The first question is very clearly tied to the Social Security problem the U.S. is facing. The government made promises (and in some cases, deals) for Social Security when citizens reach a certain age. Now, due to economy, debt, and financial problems, that promise for Social Security benefits is threatening to be taken from the citizens it was promised to (and- it's important to consider- citizens who may have made major decisions based around that promise). The question here is what the right thing to do is. What is the government morally obligated to do, if anything? If they're obligated to keep their promise, then how? What if the means to keep this promise leads to suffering of others?

Now, from a realistic point of view, this doesn't seem to be too much of a problem. Though I have limited knowledge on the workings of government spending and funding, it seems as if some of the unnecessary surplus of money that's given to military defense spending can be cut back and given to Social Security. I don't know if that's enough, but it's something. I'm quite sure there are some other less relevant and less important areas receiving funding that could share with Social Security as well, but the overarching question still stands. What is one to do when a promise is made of granting resources, then over time those resources become scarce to the point where keeping that promise becomes difficult?

The second question I posed is one relevant to the Syrian Refugee (and in fact, immigration in general) problem our country is facing. I subscribe to the argument that although I think people in worse-off countries should be allowed to move to better countries, the U.S. should limit immigration purely because of our already limited resources. The general thought is "how can we help others when we ourselves are in need of help?" A common response is "Well, even in our not so great state of affairs, our country is still doing better than theirs and therefore we should let them in." The problem with that argument is that it's only true for so long. We can only continue to accept so many immigrants (and continue to put our already scarce resources towards helping them) until we have no resources left. Furthermore, we have people in our country suffering from some of the same things they are suffering from in their countries (hunger, homelessness, etc.). By donating resources to immigrants, we take away those resources for the people already living here- and not even just the people suffering. By dedicating these resources to immigrants, citizens who were previously above the poverty line can be struck down to below it.

Consider Singers argument, perhaps the argument most concerned with welfare of others. Even he says we should give to others until it causes comparable moral harm to ourselves to do so. With immigration and with the refugees, we are giving to others, but in doing so causing a great deal of harm to people who are already part of the country, thus bringing the benefits for everyone in the country down and causing more suffering overall.

Now I don't think merely being born in the U.S. entitles us to anything more than another country- which is something we discussed while on the immigration topic. It seems though that there's a difference between this thought and the conclusion that we should accept everyone into the United States and give resources to anyone that wants to come here. Often the people suffering from increasingly scarce resources are people that were at one point working peoples who earned the resources they were given and that are slowly becoming more scarce. Immigrants didn't have the opportunity to do this, no, but that doesn't change the fact that something was earned and is now not being granted.

I suppose the larger idea here is that the U.S. has limited resources, so limited that it can't (or fails to) provide for everyone already under its care. To take on more people (as the promise of accepting thousands of Syrian refugees would do) would only create more suffering. We can't help until we are in a position to do so, and currently, we are not. So now, what's to be done? What do we do now that a promise of resources has been made to a group of people at the cost of those resources being given to people who the resources were already going to? It seems heavily problematic, and I'm interested in hearing other thoughts.

The Button

If anyone recalls in yesterday's class, Professor Tresan proposed a question regarding saving someone's life and how the distance may or may not play into how someone makes a decision in saving another's life. The question proposed was that if there were a button that could save the life of someone that I can visibly and perceptually witness suffering(from lack of food, shelter, or medical care) and there was a button that could save their life, would I do it? The other question was that if there were someone whom we are aware of their suffering(from lack of food, shelter, or medical care), would I press the button? In principle it seems to be that we are morally required to do so when taking into account the Peter Singer's argument that was discussed during Kyle Zhang's presentation. What would bring us to not press the button in the case of someone that is not visibly suffering? Is it merely because it is not visible and we are not in proximity to them? It clearly brings about some psychological concerns that arise from the initial question. In other words, we are more inclined or it is argued that we are more inclined to save a person in proximity to us as opposed to someone who is distant. In this post I seek to spark discussion. I believe that some people refuse to give to those suffering from lack of food, shelter, or medical care because they think the benefits will only be temporary and not lasting. I also argue that in many cases say if we dedicate to those suffering across the globe, that there has to be a strong sense of trust that the help offered is received to those whom are suffering.

Unfolding Anti Islamic Event

In my presentation I quoted the man who is credited with creating the Anti Islamic rallies.  Well recently, he has been in the news for all the wrong reasons.  Specifically, by threatening a Muslim community near NYC in a video.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2015/11/armed_man_threatens_upstate_ny_islamic_community_report_says.html

And the response I saw on my Facebook page from one of the other people I quoted.  Vulgar language censored by me.

"1 hr · Edited · 

THIS MESSAGE IS FOR FACEBOOK ADMINS, THE FBI, CIA, ATF, AND ALL THE OTHER ALPHABET SOUP GROUPS........CAREFUL HOW YOU DEAL WITH JON RITZHIEMER ..........MAKE SURE THAT YOU HANDLE THINGS TO THE LETTER OF THE LAW (PUN INTENDED) BECAUSE YOU HAVE ABOUT 10.1 MILLION LICENSED DEER HUNTERS, 250 MILLION AMERICANS THAT OWN GUNS, THE NRA, NOT TO MENTION THE ONES THAT ARENT SO LAW BIDING ALL WATCHING...........YOU THINK JON IS A PROBLEM? TAKE YOUR A** TO DEERBOURNE MI. AND CHECK THAT OUT..........F*** WITH THIS PATRIOT AND SEE WHAT THAT SPARKS!!!!!!! I AM SURE THAT THIS WILL AT THE VERY LEAST GET ME IN FB JAIL BUT SOMEONE HAD TO SAY IT............. "

When Video Games Make Us Question Reality

So this isn't specifically Political philosophy, but it's definitely philosophy.  Stephen Colbert had the creator of this game on recently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqeN6hj4dZU

The idea that a universe can be created with the relative scale of our own universe is mind blowing.  The fact that everything is proceduraly generated (created on demand for the viewer) with only a relatively small set of rules to follow, is even more mind blowing.  Is it possible that our own universe was constructed in a similar fashion?

A Study on Dothraki

This is a post I originally planned to be on my personal blog, but never actually put up. I modified it to fit this class.

For those who don't know, the Dothraki (pronounced Dawth-rocky) are a clan of peoples from the show Game of Thrones. Generally, the culture of the Dothraki are stereotypical, tribalistic, uncivilized, and violent. It is a warrior based culture, where honor is earned through skill in battle.

Through a lot of questions we touch on in philosophy however, this culture becomes very interesting. More specifically, looking at it related to our discussion in class about cultural relativism, this culture raises a lot of questions.

First I'll go a little more in-depth with some of their cultural practices. The Dothraki are a conquering culture; they do a lot of battling, even with each other. You gain rank in the tribe by winning more in battle. The physical sign of this status is the length of their hair, which stays in a braid; a battle is lost when your braid is cut off, so (obviously) those with longer hair have gone longer without losing a battle (Often having your braid cut off is irrelevant, because you're almost always killed directly after; however in the few moments of life you have without your braid, its considered a massive dishonor).

Weddings are the other relevant part of the Dothraki culture. They're spontaneous. They happen in a matter of minutes, and are largely random. When a man wants a woman (yes, it is a largely male-dominated culture) they have this highly sexualized dance (they may even be having sex during it, I don't actually know). If another male had his eyes on the same woman, he will push the man off and they will fight to the death. The woman marries the victor. The wedding is that dance and that battle. Afterwards, the wedding is complete and they're married.

I find thinking about this culture interesting because- very simply- this is just the way it is in that culture. Every member of the Dothraki grow up and learn these customs and live by and embrace these customs. It is just accepted that the price of losing a battle is death. It is seen by all as perfectly okay, including the loser. The loser does not fight after their braid has been cut off, because- through their own customs- this means their life has lost its honor and they are deserving of death. They are simply okay with it. Similarly, the women marry the victor because that's how it is. They agree to it, they have (presumably) no desire otherwise (for being the wife of a great warrior is a great honor itself) and side with the victor simply because they won and because their culture says so.

Now most of us deem murder (I will define this as murder- it isn't necessary that the loser dies after their braid is cut, yet the victor kills them anyway) and this sort of limit on women's freedom morally wrong. Most of us would say that a more civilized society or culture would not hold these practices, and a more civilized society would encourage the Dothraki to leave behind these barbaric customs.

But... Should they? It should be known I am largely against cultural relativism- Hitler and slavery are in the right under this theory. But in this case it seems somewhat different. EVERY MEMBER has agreed to a sort of social/cultural contract in which these are the ways things are. I would use the phrase "these are the rules," but it's stronger than that; these practices are the beliefs each member of the culture holds. So if a member loses a battle and concedes to death- even believes themselves that they should in fact die, why should we say otherwise? This is a topic we touched on in class- self harm related to cultural relativism (there may have been an exact term but I don't remember it), and it seems as if one is completely content with the consequences- even death as in this case- intervening is unnecessary. In fact, it may even be wrong to intervene based on an argument stemming from the idea that the best death is the one you choose.

I suppose the larger point of this is that while cultural relativism as a whole can't work, cultures in which everyone is 100% content with the customs and roles (and these customs aren't forced on anyone outside the culture)- as in the case of the Dothraki- make it questionable whether there is anything morally wrong going on with their practices. If someone were against the practices but forced into it by the culture, that's different and an easy question to answer. But more difficult is this one in which no one is against what's happening despite it being against what most people outside the culture consider moral, and whether or not those practices are then morally wrong. I say they are not, but it's intriguing and interesting to think about, and I'd be interested in hearing other reasonings.

What's Right vs. What Is

Before I begin this post, I want to put up a disclaimer: By my own beliefs and arguments and logic, it is wrong for someone's private pictures to be hacked, then mass distributed. It is morally wrong and in no way is this subject of these pictures (or e-mails, or texts, or videos, or whatever medium is at hand) giving consent. This is important to realize: I DO NOT think they gave consent.

What I am doing is asking questions, and we must ask all questions- not only the ones that give answers we want to hear. The question came up of whether one should be careful and perhaps not take these kind of photos.

It is here that I want to make an important distinction: between what's RIGHT and what IS. I also want to bring in a principle, and then apply these things to the case from class.

What's RIGHT is a goal; it is something we strive towards and a concept of how things SHOULD be in the world. What's right is what policies should reflect and what changes should be made based off of, in hopes of coming closer to having reality reflect what is right.

What IS is just that; it's how the world IS. It's the reality of a situation; it's what we see every day. This is not necessarily the same as what is RIGHT. These are two different things, and we hope for them to align, but more often than not it seems they don't.

In making decisions, there is a smart decision here. That smart decision is to base our decisions (decisions for actions that have no bearing on any change and will not matter past the cause and effect pairing they have) off of what IS. To act and react (in this way that the actions will have no effect on progress or change- this is important) based on what is RIGHT is to often act and react to a imaginary world. It's to act on principles- which is fine when we are making a statement or trying to make a change- but in everyday life is naive. Acting on what IS is just the best way to ensure the most desirable outcomes for yourself in the real world.

Applying this to the case discussed in class, it is not RIGHT for hackers to take these pictures distribute them tall over the internet. The hacker is to blame, but whether people should take these pictures or not? Well, maybe not. The reality of what IS is that hackers are looking to take information- especially from famous or highly desired people- and spread them. The reality of what IS is that if I am a celebrity, my information is much more targeted than anyone else's. So then the reality of what IS is that if I put naked pictures of myself somewhere where hackers can get them, the risk is much higher of those pictures being leaked than anyone else's. So then the reality of what IS is that it is the smart decision to NOT send those pictures.

Again, I want to make the distinction that it should not be the case that the smart decision is to not take those pictures; one should be free to take those pictures and share them with whomever they trust without consequence (setting the questionable morality of this action aside). However is is the case that the smart decision is to not take those pictures and share them where hackers can get to them.

Another example: I do not use Google Drive, nor do I use iCloud. I purposely do not use these things because I do not trust them, and I do not trust them because they are HIGHLY susceptible to being (and have already been) hacked. I do not put any of my information there because I do not want any of my information being taken. Similarly, I do not save passwords for things like my bank accounts or anything in which I will ever put in Credit Card or personal information- even on my own computer because they can be hacked. Should I have to worry about this? No. Do I have to worry about this? Yes. And because I do have to worry about it, that worry is important to consider in decision making. To act as if it shouldn't would be to ignore the realities and consciously increase the risk of information I want kept private being shared publicly.

The point of all this is there is a smart decision to be made, and that is based on what is. that Regardless of what is right, the smart decision is to not take these pictures.

Blaming the victim

Last year in Uganda an artist was a victim of revenge porn. The country's minister of ethics and integrity (yah apparently the country has one) came out suggesting that the artist should be arrested. Here is the link to the story:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30011166

Intrinsic Value

Hey all,

I am unsure about this concept, and I was hoping others might give me a better understanding of it:

Can one really have more than one intrinsically valuable thing in a moral worldview?

In my mind, intrinsically valuable and ultimate are more or less synonymous - they are the end goal and are to be striven for or protected without relation to anything else. Examples include: happiness, utility, humanity, virtue, fulfilling of desires, etc. Many ethical views base their conclusions on intrinsic values.

But can you truly have more than one thing that is ultimate? What happens when two things which are supposedly both ultimate conflict with each other, say privacy and well-being/safety of others? The natural stance is that one must be compromised for the sake of the other, and to decide which one, and to what extent, we utilize a model of scale and relation with which to evaluate the "level" of each "ultimate" with respect to other "ultimates."

This strikes me as implying that one is "more ultimate" than the other, as if something is truly ultimate, it would not need to have its worth be defined with respect to another concept at any time. Indeed, it is my impression that what is truly the basic, and fundamental, intrinsically valuable quantity is actually revealed by our chosen system of relation. For example, should we use utilitarianism to evaluate the relative levels of two ultimates in a given case, then it is, I believe, implied that utility is the final, true ultimate.

I would greatly appreciate any thoughts and comments on this topic!

Why We Shouldn't Say "Abortion Accounts for only 3% of Planed Parenthood Services"

This post is based off of several articles that made the rounds over the summer concerning the investigation on Planned Parenthood's Services by the House of Representatives over the last few months, and is meant to be a response in part to Kasia's presentation "Evaluating Restrictions on Access to Abortion".

In Rachael Larimore's ""The Most Meaningless Abortion Statistic Ever", the author argues against the idea that abortion makes up only about 3% of the services provided by Planned Parenthood, as Planned Parenthood does not "separate" their services provide, as well as the fact that abortions count for about 1/3 on PP's revenue. However, I would argue that in arguments against defunding PP, this number should not even matter.

By emphasizing the fact that abortion makes up such a small percentage of the services provided by PP, I think activists are sort of implying that the fewer abortions that occur, the better. Activists are very quick to discuss all of the women's health services provided by PP that they often ignore the central issue at hand: PP provides safe and inexpensive abortions. Republicans are not attempting to defund PP because it provides cheap pap smears or breast health exams, but because it is the easiest and safest way to get access to abortion, which they find morally reprehensible. By shifting the argument away from abortion, activists for PP essentially concede to the notion accepted by Republicans and other pro-life groups that abortion is morally reprehensible and should be either completely prevented or drastically reduced, which is not what these activists believe.

It is with this in mind that that I argue that advocates for Planned Parenthood should instead embrace the fact that PP provides a safe and accessible space to get an abortion, mainly because of the activists' central argument that abortion is morally permissible.  If I thought that everyone had a moral right to play video games, I would not base my argument for keeping the local GameStop open at the mall around the statistical fact that only %20 of sales come from actual purchases of consoles, and abortion activists should not use this type of argument either. If PP advocates actually cared as little as they seemed to about access to abortion, they would be fine with the government continuing to fund PP provided that abortion services are no longer provided. However, I think that if this compromise was brought to the table, very few advocates would find it satisfactory. Advocates should not care either if PP performs 20 or 200,000 abortions a year, because to them, women have the right to an abortion. In summary, the emphasis on the statistics concerning abortion and PP removes the argument from moral debates, and therefore must be refocused.

The Social Contract

My topic for presentation (and also for my final paper for the course) is going to be on the idea of a social contract. I've thought about this concept in depth for years and feel it's extraordinarily important for people to be aware of and understand. For that reason, I wanted to put up a post explaining my thoughts and perhaps get other people's thoughts. I apologize in advance for the length of this post.

Also, it should be noted that I haven't done research into this as of yet. I have a line of research set up, but I wanted to do a post on here before hand with just my thoughts on it. I learned about it only briefly, but built on the basic concept myself to determine how I think it should work and what I think is right, and what its role is, etc. So, the following (as I already said) is a composition of my own thoughts exclusively.

It should be understood that the social contract is an implicit contract signed by two parties: the people of a society (society being defined as a group of people living under one government) and the government. Using the terms "ruler" and "ruled" would work, but I don't prefer them; they carry a connotation of one (ruler) being much more powerful than the other (ruled), and the social contract necessarily requires that this is not the case. This contract is expansive and means a lot, but I will try to compact it into a few central ideas and leave the rest to potential discussion/to be brought up later.

It needs to also be noted that just because this contract is implicit does not mean it is optional. Anyone part of either role is obligated to oblige by the contract.

So what is the contract exactly? The goal of the contract is to create a well-functioning, healthy society. Each role has very specific responsibilities to perform in order to make this happen. Each side has responsibilities to the society itself and to the other role. Without getting into too much detail, citizens stay involved in political processes and work to help the economy flourish and stay obedient to the laws set fourth by the government. The government listens to the people and responds to their demands/requests and works on building a better country in whatever ways they can; they are also responsible for creating just laws.

The contract gets more complicated as other real life situations are applied, and the responsibilities of each side are far more lengthy than what might be immediately evident above, but the general idea is as described. 

A lot of questions are raised from this, and I think the obvious one is what happens when someone breaks the contract? Well there are a few things that happen depending on how the contract is broken. The contract doesn't dissolve, it just sort of loses its equilibrium. Again, the contract always exists and is always obligatory. When a member of society breaks the contract by law, they face jail time. (This gets tricky when other transgressions are made, but I'll get into that later.) The other major consequence for members of the society is to have to be part of a society that isn't what it's supposed to be. For example many people complain about the state of the U.S., but political efficacy has been declining and is lower than its ever been. Our lack of involvement is a major reason why the state of affairs is as it is, and this is our consequence for not doing out duty or completing our responsibilities.

The consequence for a government is a little more radical, but a government that creates unjust laws and refuses to change or listen to its people can only be re-aligned through radical ways. The solution, of course, is revolution (this can happen at any degree of extremism, either simple political revolution or one that resembles the American one more).

This is the other transgression that makes everything tricky. There has to be an understanding laid out here that is taken without biases: We must understand perspective, and we must understand motive. The government will seek to have its rule obeyed; the people will seek to have their freedoms and rights honored. Both must be understood and accepted, and actions must not only be expected, but it is important that each side play their part and contribute to their role, even in the face of the consequences.

Now referring back to the jailing situation, let me expand. One might find a law unjust and choose to ignore it, whether in public to make a statement or just in their own life hoping to not get caught. There are PLENTY of laws in the U.S. that are unreasonable and upon closer examination should be gotten rid of. Some people move to get rid of them, others live as if they don't exist. The important thing to acknowledge its this: if you break the law, you are breaking the contract and must understand that the government will react as they are supposed and allowed to. That does not, however, mean you should not act out against wrongful laws, as the contract also entails a government that makes just laws. In this case, it's our job to make sure that when these unjust laws are made and not repealed, we stand against them until they are.

This will (and has in history) lead to jail and other consequences, but to fix an unjust society, acting justly is seen as wrong by the government, and thus we must work to set the society back to equilibrium.

The Social Contract is forever present and forever relevant in a society, and it seems as if a lot of things people are upset with today stem from a result of them breaking the contract in some way, and this is why I think it's so important. If more people understood the contract and held themselves and the government to it, then more political action would be taken and it seems we would be led (through a massive amount of changes, as this idea has implications that would force change across many, many aspects of society) to a better society, one more like what a modern day leading nation in the world should be.

The Heart of the Abortion Debate?

I am surprised no one has posted about abortion here yet, so I guess I will start, feel free to reply with anything, even if it's not directly related to the things I say :)

The example I gave in class involved a scenario in the distant future, in which there exists a machine, an "advanced incubator" as Steven coined it, which has the ability to fully develop an embryo to an infant state. In this case, an embryo can be extracted from the body with negligible impact upon the mother and embryo. Now, it is my assumption that in this "utopian" future, most people would deem it morally impermissible to kill the embryo after it was harmlessly extracted from the mother, or pursue an alternate plan in which the mother is also harmlessly rid of the embryo, but the embryo dies as a consequence of extraction.

So, it seems to me that what separates this utopian future from the present is that in the future, the embryo can be saved with negligible harm to the mother, so it should be saved. Since saving it doesn't harm anyone in any way, we are not permitted to kill it/let it die, even if pursuing an alternate abortion process, assuming the ideal method is readily available. So, it is my impression that, in the present, letting the embryo die is permissible because it causes harm/requires cost, and in the future, it is not permissible because it does not cause harm/require cost.

Thus, I am wondering if a purely consequentialist (utilitarian) approach might avoid a lot of the complexities with rights and personhood, getting to the heart of the debate more readily.

In the present, many people argue that abortion is permissible, especially in certain circumstances (rape, incest, etc.), because it causes trauma to the mother and infringes upon her rights to her body.

But are discussions on rights and personhood really necessary? What if the embryo can be saved with minimal impact on the mother? What if the mother arbitrarily decided that this still infringed upon her rights, and that the embryo must die? Well, you'll say that our rational society would never believe that, but then where do our "rights" come from and where are they based? Raith made the good point that many rights are based on a spectrum cemented in consequences and net utility. But then that would mean rights come from consequences, and thus a "simple" calculation of utility lies at the heart of the debate, not abstract notions of absolute rights.

Take the good Samaritan example - if I can save someone by simply letting them tap my nose, am I not morally obliged to let them do so? Contrast this with someone needing me to sacrifice my life to save theirs. One might argue these invoke the same concepts of rights, but I think most people would feel there is an intrinsic difference between these two cases in terms of morality. What is the root of this intuition? It seems obvious to me that it's the net consequences and costs in the two scenarios.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I recall that Kantian ethics, which is, in many ways, the foundation of rights-based ethics, describes that rights are absolute and have no regards to consequences. For example, according to Kant, it is never okay to lie or steal, no matter the consequences. The notion of treating "human beings" with respect and as ends is a specific case of this "universality" principle. However, I also seem to recall that the proofs for these maxims actually involved considerations of their ultimate consequences.

Thus, due to all the facts I have been exposed to, it is my impression that the true heart of the matter of abortion is net utility, and not some convoluted, multi-level, and possibly arbitrary logic game of rights. After all, the more specific and complex we make the system of rights, the more they approach rule consequentialism. This is not surprising, as the rights or "rules" themselves are often based on notions of net utility.

-- End of text wall --

Morality vs Freedom

A thought has been prevalent in my mind for a long, long time, and has been the source of some internal debate. I finally figured out how to phrase the problem, and I think it's a good question to ask, especially in relation to Humanity. It hasn't come up too explicitly in what we've read so far, but I think it will come up in the later parts.

My question is this:

Should the government be allowed to make laws outlawing things that morally corrupt a society or do moral damage to its peoples if it means infringing on their freedom?

It seems like from a law standpoint, this is overstepping boundaries. What, then, could keep people away from things that are morally corrupting (it does seem important to try to preserve morality.)? The problem with that is often things that corrupt our morality are addictive or pleasureful, so it seems as if an association or organization would be too weak and not hold enough authority to effectively keep us from them; people would ignore them. So, law? If not, then what?