Deontology, Rights, and Meat Consumption

In his article, "Vegetarianism, Causation and Ethical Theory", Russ Shafer-Landau argues that consequentialism and deontological ethics both fail to explain why one should not consume meat. He notes the shift from arguments against factory farming practices to ones that argue against meat consumption, but in his opinion, these issues are "separable", and so the latter deserves its own set of arguments (Shafer-Landau, 85). After arguing against the consequentialist view, Shafer-Landau asks: "if we do not tie moral imperatives to benefits or harms, what are they tied to?" (92). For a deontologist, the answer to this may be that moral imperatives are tied to rights. The author states that there are two views as to why this is so. The first view, which Shafer-Landau calls the "interest view" states that our rights exist as protection of our interests, and that rights violations translate to a "setback" of our interests (92). The second view, called the "autonomy view", states that rights allow us to do as we choose, and that violations of our rights is an infringement of our autonomy (92). The author states that if we believe that permanently comatose individuals have rights, then one may have valid doubts about the autonomy view (93). Obviously, this is because these individuals have lost the ability to do as they choose which goes against the definition of the autonomy view.

Ricky Williams: Rusting Talents

In his chapter "The Good Will and the Categorical Imperative," Immanuel Kant demonstrates situations where a maxim, if universalized, would become self-defective.  He also explained the problems with these maxims in regards to the principle of humanity.  One particular scenario that grabbed my attention involved rusting talents.  Kant explained a situation where an individual chooses to, for example, play video games, eat pizza, and drink alcohol all day long (behave worthlessly) without ever being productive.  He goes on to ponder the effects if this behavior became a universal law of nature.  Would our society remain sustainable?  No, Kant proclaims.  Behaving in this manner is only possible if others are working (making the pizza, distilling the alcohol, and manufacturing/programming the video games).  The original individual's behavior is made possible by others behaving in an opposing way.  Additionally, the self-indulging behavior would preserve humanity, but it would do nothing to further it.  Moreover, "it is not enough that the action (self-indulgent behavior) does not conflict with humanity in our person as an end in itself; it must also harmonize with it" (113).  The individual's behavior clearly does not harmonize with the well-being of humanity. 

Vegetarianism on a National and Individual Scale

A recent article published on the Voice of America website revealed that there has been a sharp decrease in the amount of meat consumed in America in recent years, presumably due in part to the spread of vegetarianism. “For the first time on record, U.S. per-capita meat consumption has declined for four consecutive years, according to the most recent figures from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The six percent drop between 2006 and 2010 is the largest sustained decline since recordkeeping began in 1970. (voanews.com)” The article admits that that change is most likely due in part to economic changes in the US, but suggests that it is also has something to do with vegetarians and ‘flexitarians.’ The article notes that there has been a rise in campaigns such as “Meatless Monday”, which is implemented at DePauw, as well as many other schools and organizations around the world. A major reason why more and more people are attempting to eliminate meat from their diets is because it can be unhealthy. Additionally, livestock, especially cattle, are terrible for the environment because they must be given a huge amount of water and grain every day to survive.

            In his article, Shafer-Landau argued that there is little or no reason for an individual to become a vegetarian, even if it is the ethically correct thing to do, because that individual’s contribution on its own would have no impact on the meat industry. Although it doesn’t prove that an individual can influence the meat industry on thir own, it does report that people who abstain from meat have collectively made a difference. Shafer-Landau agrees that this is true, but seems to be greatly underestimating the influence that one person can have on others. For example, the article mentioned Joe Yonan, the food editor for the New York Times, who received numerous letters of praise for his decision to stop eating meat. It seems likely that an influential person such as him could perhaps encourage others to convert as well. Even if someone isn’t as famous as Yonan, they still have some influence of their friends, who in turn influence their friends. There is certainly a possibility that one individual converting could lead to a snowball effect. Additionally, even just a few vegetarians in a small community can have a dramatic effect. In my fraternity, for example, only a small portion of the total house are vegetarians, but because of us, some of the food served for every meal is always meat-free. And since that food is bought locally, (usually from Krogers) it could potentially have a minute effect on the amount of meat products sold by that retailer, which just might be significant enough to eventually cause enough reduction of demand to prevent one or more animals from being hurt or killed, and that is reason enough for me.

Works Cited

Baragona, Steve. "As World Meat Consumption Grows, US Appetite Wanes." Voice of America [Washinton] 3 Apr. 2013: n. pag. Voice of America. Web. 23 Apr. 2013. <http://www.voanews.com/content/as_world_meat_consumption_grows_americas_appetite_wanes/1634222.html>.

Should I Stop Consuming Meat?

In the article "Vegetarianism, Causation, and Ethical Theory" , Russ Shafer-Landau focuses on arguments against meat consumption. One of the main argument's that Shafer-Landau focuses on is the argument made by Consequentialists. Consequentialists believe that meat eating is wrong because it inflicts harm on animals. What Shafer-Landau is arguing in this article is that Consequentialists fail to show that their is an obligation to not consume meat.

False Hope:  Vegetarianism and Animal Cruelty

Animal rights is a very controversial topic especially pertaining to factory farms.  Animals at such facilities are often subjected to harsh treatment during their lives so that they can be slaughtered and sold for human consumption.  In effect, someone must be held responsible for how these animals are treated.  Russ Shafer-Landau explores the various arguments pertaining to animal cruelty in his article "Vegetarianism, Causation, and Ethical Theory".  He critiques two versions of the consequentialists' arguments towards meat eating which he dubbed the "...Inefficacy Argument..." (Shafer-Landau, 1994).

Kant's Vegetarianism

            With vegetarianism becoming a hot trend in today’s society, it is fitting that many philosophers have examined its counterpart, meat eating, and analyzed its morality under different ethical lenses. Shafer-Landau is one of those philosophers. In his paper “Vegetarianism, Causation and Ethical Theory”, Shafer-Landau evaluates which ethical theory produces the strongest argument against meat-eating and animal suffering in factory farms. Although he believes his argument using virtue ethics is by far his strongest, I see his method of Kantian ethics in reference to universalization being the greatest proof to abstain from eating meat.

Can the Golden Rule Test Morality?

The Kantian Perspective of thinking is that if anyone violates the rules then they should be punished. (Shafer-Landau 154) Many different approaches could be taken in order to delve deeper into this idea, but the first two that are brought up by Shafer-Landau are that of fairness and consistency.

            In order to test fairness and consistency two questions are brought into play, “what if everyone did that and how would you like it if that were done to you?” (Shafer-Landau 155) The golden rule, you shouldn’t do anything to others that you would not done to yourself, is brought up in chapter 11 of The Fundamentals of Ethics, by Russ Shafer-Landau, as a method to explain the second question offered above. 

Kant's Fairness and Justice and Kim Jong Un

While reviewing chapter 11, “The Kantian perspective” in Russ Shafer-Landau’s The Fundamentals of Ethics, I was reminded of the recent threats to the international community and the United States in particular by Kim Jong Un and North Korea.

            A yahoo news article by Foster Klug of the Associated Press describes Kim Jong Un’s ‘against the grain’ behavior in his title, “Pivotal NKorea Question: What is Kim Thinking?” Recently, under Kim’s heavy hand, the United States has faced threats from North Korea of nuclear holocaust with the potential for another Korean War. David Shlapak notes that this particular crisis is different than most because of  “our lack of insight… into Kim’s mind”. If he were to follow in his father’s footsteps, he’d try to push negotiations just as far as he could to receive the maximum amount of foreign aid. Most do believe, however, that Kim’s methods are more closely related to scare tactics but it is hard to be sure as he is such a young leader.

Act Utilitarianism: Fundamentally Flawed

J.J.C. Smart discusses the ideas of extreme and restricted utilitarianism, also known as rule and act utilitarianism.  In a broader sense, utilitarianism refers to the idea of assessing morality (or in this case rationality) by the consequences that result from an action or actions.  Smart eludes that rule and act utilitarianism come into the picture based on our interpretations of these "actions."  If we understand these actions to be "particular individual actions" then we judge them by their individualistic consequences.  This logic is the basis for those who have grown to adopt act utilitarianism.  This belief treats moral rules as mere rules of thumb that, in extenuating circumstances, can be broken if the total well being of the society would be improved.  Contrarily, those who believe in restricted utilitarianism determine whether or not actions fall under specific moral rules.  They are analyzed as a class of actions and if the moral rule is acceptable, so is the action.

The Limitations of Kant's Perspective

          In chapter eleven Russ Shafer-Landau summarizes, and then points out a fatal flaw of Immanuel Kant’s principle of universalizability. Kant was staunchly opposed to utilitarianism. The primary reason for this seems to be that he disagreed with the idea of consequentialism; rather he believed that the morality of an action was largely dependent on its maxim. A maxim, as Shafer-Landau describes it, is “what you are about to do, and why you are about to do it.” (Shafer-Landau 2010, 157-158) This view is perhaps more forgiving in a sense, because it forgives someone whose well-intentioned act produced harmful results. Also, unlike utilitarianism, Kant’s view saves people from having to consider every possible outcome of every decision they make. Kant’s criteria for whether or not an action is morally correct is that it must be universalizable. Kant outlined an easy test to determine if this is the case. First one has to determine their maxim, and imagine a hypothetical world in which everyone accepts and follows that same maxim. If that action could still be successfully carried out in a world where everyone else has the same goals, then that action is universalizible. (Shafer-Landau 2010, 159)

            The principle of universalizabity works well in matters of environmentalism. For example, consider someone who wanted to buy a Hummer. This would fail to pass Kant’s test of universalizabilty, because not everyone on earth could drive a Hummer, unless of course they built a Hummer that works underwater. Or if someone wanted to pollute the water because it was convenient, that would not be universalizable, since it would likely mean that there would be no clean water left, and everyone would die.

Unfortunately, as Shafer-Landau points out, this methodology only seems to address one specific type of immoral action: the kind that is self-serving, and acts as though the person committing the act was superior to others, or at least not bound by the same moral rules. This is neglecting several other genres of unethical actions, including but not limited to actions that seek to harm specific individuals or groups. (Shafer-Landau 2010, 165) I noticed that Kant’s principle would also not prevent systematic, wordwide immoral actions. For example, the maxim ‘I am going to murder people at random because I want to destroy all human life’ is easily universalizible. If everyone shared that maxim, they would need only to commit suicide, and the goal would be completed. However, random murder is pretty easily recognizable as an unethical act.

            Kant’s view, as Shafer-Landau points out, is narrow and idealistic. It fails to recognize the complexities of people’s motives. This is further shown by the fact that Kant praised integrity as being the most important virtue. (Shafer-Landau 2010, 165) This might be the case, if everyone had similar and universalizible intentions, which is obviously not the case. A white supremacist who staunchly adheres to their racist principles is still a white supremacist; if anything, their integrity in that case would make them worse. Kant seems to have an interesting idea of ethics, but one that is limited by his flawed view of human nature.

Works Cited

                    Landau, Russ. "Chapter 11-The Kantian Perspective-Fairness and Justice." In The Fundamentals of Ethics. Second ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. 154-167.

Kant and Contradiction

           Within chapter eleven of, The Fundamentals of Ethics, author Russ Shafer-Landau discusses the “Kantian Perspective.” Immanuel Kant argued against utilitarianism, wherein the ends justify the means and we should do what brings the greatest amount of benefit, by saying that the morality of actions are based on fairness. It is clear throughout this chapter that Shafer-Landau refutes the “Kantian Perspective.” One such account involves a strong argument for Kantian contradiction involving the principle of universalizability as well as Kant’s stance on the presence of some absolute moral duties.

The Imprecise Measurement of Well-Being

In chapter 10 of The Fundamentals of Ethics, Russ Shafer-Landau presents several challenges to consequentialism. Shafer-Landau sets up each of his arguments by first presenting each popular argument against consequentialism, then posing the strongest consequentialist counter argument and ends each argument by evaluating the validity of the argument. Aside from the problem of ignoring justice, one of the strongest objections to consequentialism was the indeterminate measurement system for wellbeing. The argument is that since there is no physical scale to measure the value of an action, utilitarianism is false (Shafer-Landau 136). The counterargument that utilitarians present is that by comparing scenarios that cause harm and benefit, actions can be categorized with respect to one another and this does not require situations to have numerical values. For instance, Shafer-Landau explains how the harm caused by a cholera outbreak is obviously far greater than the harm caused by a husband cursing his wife (Shafer-Landau 136). Even though there is no clear numerical value placed on an action, by comparing actions to one another, we are able to compare our options to determine which action is more favorable than the other.  He ends with the point that although this may be true in some cases, the majority of dilemmas in the real world are not as cut and dry. The most optimific act is usually unclear because we can be dealing with two situations that could similarly produce some benefit at the cost of some harm. In these situations the most optimific result becomes more about interpretation. Since the net optimific act then becomes unclear, this is why it can be argued that utilitarianism does not always give a clear answer and does not explain how we should decide when faced with a multifaceted dilemma. 

Climate Change in the American Mind:  Anthony Leiserowitz

Antony's presentation focused on identifying the key perceptions that American's hold towards global warming.  Most of the global warming information that is presented to people doesn't quite connect well.  For example, imagery of melting glaciers is easily comparable to melting ice in a glass of water.  This is a great way to show a relatively immediate impact of warmer temperatures.  However, this does not get people to buy into the long-term effects that melting glaciers will have.  Also, it limits the sense of urgency that people should take action because a majority of the human population does not live near the poles.  The glaciers are at the poles but we are not.  Therefore, it is difficult for people to feel the impact of melting glaciers on a daily basis.  Anthony offered some possible solutions towards resolving global warming before closing his lecture.

America's Veil of Ignorance and Dr. Norgaard on Climate Change

At Dr. Kari Norgaard’s Climate Change Symposium talk entitled, “Living in Denial, climate change, emotions, and everyday life, I was really interested in Dr. Norgaard’s sociological approach to climate change. I thought her discussion of America’s denial of climate change was incredibly interesting as it is something I’ve have noticed growing up but never thought to put a finger on the fact that it was actually collective denial and not just “the way it is”.

            Opposing the idea that is often present in the media that climate change is fictitious or not a problem that is actually close to home,

Effective Climate Communication

To begin, I was a little confused what the speaker, Kari Norgaard,  was going to be talking about. It turns out it was my favorite speaker that I have attended all year, mainly because I could easily understand all of her points and I really enjoyed all of the points she made and agreed with them. She is a professor at Orgeon University for sociology and environmental studies. I liked how she combined the two studies, because I believe there is a certain way that climate change should be discussed, and the way most people talk about it today is ineffective. She talked about how to effectively and appropriately talk about climate change in the hopes of gaining more people who are willing to aid in the fight against climate change.

Norgaard's first point was to talk about climate change skeptics. The way she described it made me think how ridiculous it is that people don't believe in what is happening to our world and its atmosphere. Then I thought about it more deeply, and realized I'm one of those people. It's not that I don't believe that we are polluting our world, but I do turn away from it and tend to push people away who talk to me about it. She then explained why there are so many people like me, and it relates to cultural relativism. Our culture tends to be lazy and gives up on hope easily. We are resistant to change, and don't like things that threaten our way of life now. It's hard work to make our planet safer environmentally, and we don't like that we have to change the way we even throw away our trash just to fix it.

My favorite point that she brought up was the innappropriate timing of many climate change discussions. When we're in a relaxed setting, closed off from the pressures of the outside world, we don't like to talk about such heavy topics. We want to be able to forget that in 50 years we may not be able to even live on Earth anymore, and forget the struggles of everyday life. That's why when people bring up climate change at a bar, or somewhere relaxed people tend to dismiss the severity of it. I know that when people talk to me about it on a Saturday night out at a frat, I actually walk away from them. So if we change the way we talk about it, more people will join the cause.

The Balance of Emotions and Reason

The title of the lecture given by speaker and DePauw alum Joy Meeker was Facing Discomfort: Engaging Justice, which was particularly interesting, because many of the points that she brought up seemed somewhat unfamiliar or uncomfortable to me. Near the very beginning of the lecture, she mentioned an instance in which someone told her that they believed that the ideal mediator of a conflict would be Mr. Spock from the Star Trek series. I immediately agreed with this before she had a chance to say anything else. Who better to solve a problem than someone who is as impartial and unbiased as he is brilliant? But to my surprise, Meeker went on to say that this is a terrible attitude to have towards disagreement.

Meeker, much like Alison Jaggar, believed that emotions were not only an inevitable part of how we perceive and judge things, but also a beneficial one. We feel the emotions that we do because there are good reasons for us to feel them, and so they should not at all be separate from our decision making process. This is somewhat contrary to the mainstream, somewhat positivist view that emotions should be all but shut down and barred from taking part in any serious ethical decisions. Initially, that is the view that I had aligned myself with, but on further consideration, there may be far more to it than I had initially realized.

If I may go on a somewhat nerdy tangent and return to the earlier Star Trek example, the structure of the Enterprise's leadership is aligned with Jaggar and Meeker's ideas about the dual roles of emotion and logic. Out of the entire crew, Spock possesses probably the most intelligence  and definitely the most (literally) inhuman lack of strong emotions. However, perhaps for that very reason, Spock was not the one in charge of making decisions for the crew. Dr. McCoy was an officer of nearly equal rank as Spock, but with a very different style of decision making. He would usually let reason take a back seat to his strong emotions; and would often end up in trouble because of it. The captain of the Enterprise was James Kirk, who fell somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. He would use a combination of logic and reason to solve problems, relying on mediation from both Spock and McCoy. Because of this, he was able to overcome whatever obstacles he faced.

In Freudian terms, the three characters seem to represent the three parts of the psyche: the id, the ego and the super ego. To the best of my understanding, the id is responsible for our surface-level emotions, the super-ego is the strictly calculating part of the psyche, and the ego is responsible for mediating between the other two to make informed decisions. Meeker's ideas about decision making seem to represent this model: an even balance between logic and emotion to determine the best course of action.

Utilitarianism and Intrinsic Moral Values

Chapter 10 of The Fundamentals of Ethics by Shafer Landau discusses various difficulties of consequentialism, particularly utilitarianism. Some problems include the absence of an accurate measurement of well-being, the demanding nature of utilitarianism, the problem of injustice and the rejection of intrinsic values. Among those challenges, utilitarianism’ denial of an action having intrinsic wrongness of rightness has drawn my attention.

Utilitarianism and Impartiality

Russ Shafer-Landau argues that the notion of impartiality is both good and bad for the theory of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism holds that well-being “is the only thing that is intrinsically valuable”, and that “an action us morally required just because it does more to improve overall well-being than any other action you could have done in the circumstances” (Shafer-Landau, 120). In part, this sub-theory is constructed around the idea of impartiality in how we treat all others. As Shafer-Landau argues, it seems right that we favor those closest to us over those that we do not know. Still, he makes an argument about the flaw in this notion in an example about slavery. Shafer-Landau argues that, since utilitarianism considers everyone's well-being equally, if enough people in a society held onto the idea of slavery it could be “required” that the society continue the practice. It seems that, upon weighing all of the harms to slaves and benefits to slave owners with one another, if more benefits seem to come from the act, then the act is required by utilitarianism. This shows a major drawback to the theory as a whole.

The Obligation to Education in a Consequentialist Lens

In a recent Oklahoma legislature meeting, Republican representative Mike Reynolds asserted "they have no responsibility to ensure access to college education."

The discussion arose in the midst of the ongoing debate of whether or not to expand Oklahoma's Promise. This program provides funding to low-income students for their secondary education. One side believes that it is the state government's job to ensure bright, qualified students get a chance to receive higher education. According to Democratic representative James Lockhart, these students are imperative to help because of their potential future value; it is this type of student "that will cure cancer, create the next big invention or possibly become a great leader."

Reynolds', on the opposition, denied society's responsibility to fund any one else's education and, regardless of how bright a student may be, "their potential benefit is irrelevant." Just to clarify though, Reynolds is not opposed to funding public K-12 education. His support towards providing financial assistance simply stops at the 12th grade level.

Emotions as Cognitive Functions: The Similar Views of Meeker and Jaggar

On Wednesday, April 3, Ms. Joy Meeker came to DePauw University to give a lecture entitled Facing Discomfort: Engaging Justice. After listening to Ms. Meeker’s stance on emotion as it relates to conflict in our society, many parallels could be derived from our study of Alison Jaggar’s Love and Knowledge: Emotion in Feminist Epistemology. Much like Jaggar, Meeker disagrees with the positivist view that emotions are an uncontrollable venting of feelings; rather, she believes that emotions should be considered and cognitively processed because it is an unavoidable factor in our thinking processes. Both Meeker and Jaggar agree that it is dangerous to rely on the social constructs that our society has created in regards to emotion. Meeker then proceeds to look at emotion through a positional lens and relate it to a more complete understanding of other viewpoints throughout the conflict resolution process.

Utilitarianism: The Problem With the View of Actual Results

In The Fundamentals of Ethics, Russ Shafer-Landau spends a chapter focusing on act utilitarianism, a version of consequentialism. In the chapter he discusses the structure of act utilitarianism and its principle of maximizing goodness. He also provides some of the attractions of Utilitarianism and the scope of Utilitarianism. What I plan to focus on however is the Utilitarian view of moral knowledge and the problem of using expected results over actual results when committing moral actions.

Jody Williams and International Ethics

Jody Williams, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient for her work to stop the use of landmines recently spoke at DePauw to discuss her international humanitarian work. I was lucky enough to be able to attend her lecture as well as participate my Humanitarian Intervention class where she was present to tell us her story as well as some Q&A.
After hearing her speak I remain fascinated by her rise to activism. She describes the primary driving force in activism as “righteous indignation” or the discovery of a rightful emotional disgust, not quite broaching on the ventings of “anger”, that she felt at a young age towards the injustices that her deaf brother experienced at school as a child. She recalls this feeling of righteous indignation as her

Lindemann's Feminist Ethics

Lindemann's ideas were a new concept to me that I had not even thought about. As Vlad said in his earlier post, if before this unit I were to give a definition to feminist ethics, I would have said the battle to give women the equality to men.

The Greens

Hey everyone,

One of my friends back home is making a very interesting documentary that I think fits in well with what we have been talking about in class. He only has the preview for it ready so far but you should check it out!

What Is Feminist Ethics?

What Is Feminist Ethics? This is both the title of the essay Hilde Lindemann contributes to Russ Shafer-Landau's The Ethical Life and the question she tries to answer within it. Lindemann starts out by defining feminism as both a social and political movement and as a body of theory from which feminist ethics stems from.

Busting the Myth That Women Aren't As Ambitious As Men

Link to article:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/kathycaprino/2011/11/28/busting-the-myth-that-women-arent-as-ambitious-as-men/

This article serves as an extension of the thought introduced in class pertaining to women in the workforce.  As women continue to join the corporate world, I am curious as to why there are very few female CEOs leading large firms.  This is the 21st century and it appears that women have not completely broken through the glass ceiling.  On the contrary, I am not sure if women have even cracked it.  One of the ideas proposed to scarce female leadership is attributed to women lacking as much ambition as the male counterpart.  I am not completely convinced that women lack ambition but they certainly could face different trade-offs for being driven professionally as compared to men.  This article highlights some of the costs for ambitious women as well as the connotations of "ambition" when applied to women and men.

Steubenville and its Relation to Feminist Ethics

Link to the article: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/cnn-steubenville-rape-poppy-harlow-144458279.html

As we begin our discussions into feminist ethics, it is eerily fitting that the Steubenville rape case has become a highlight in the news. If you have not heard the story yet, two sixteen-year old football superstars from Steubenville, Ohio were charged with raping an unconscious, blacked out sixteen-year old girl. They were caught from their posting of pictures and videos of them taking advantage of the girl on social media sites. The article “CNN criticized for Steubenville verdict coverage” by Dylan Stableford of Yahoo News describes the public outcry over CNN’s coverage of the boys being sentenced with rape.

Gender Boundaries

In Hilde Lindeman’s opinion, gender is not factually based. Gender is a norm established by society. In her essay “What is Feminist Ethics?” she details the effects that a prescriptive gender identity can bear on the interactions and relationships between men and women. According to Lindeman, “it’s a power relation, so it tells men that they’re entitled to things that women aren’t supposed to have and it tells women that they are supposed to defer to men and serve them” (155). Society’s construction of gender spurs the sole delegation of power positions to men over women and the unequal distribution of resources, such as money.

The potential effects of defined gender are clearly identified by Lindeman in her essay. However, what she points out is not so clear, is how we as a society actually discern these definitions and draw a black-and-white line between male and female. She points to cases like those with Klinefelter’s syndrome, with three sex chromosomes, and the gray scale of gender that enters in cases of transgender or gender neutrality.

An outdated perspective

                 The article White Privilege and Male Privilege by Peggy McIntosh describes a very accurate image on the 1980's and earlier than that. Upon closer examination of the notes section at the end of the paper it can be seen that McIntosh referenced a piece from 1949, thats 64 years ago. This paper was published in 1988 making it a quarter of a decade old. This particular piece doesn't apply 25 years down the road. Although the white male is very much "privileged" in today's society our culture has taken major steps in leveling the playing field of race and gender. There are now laws that prevent unfair hiring practices according to race and gender and other discriminatory practices. Times have changed but that doesn't mean everything is better there are still many things wrong with society but grievance numbers 24, 10, and 6. But also find number 9 oddly funny as that McIntosh's paper was published but I sincerely doubt that an editor will turn down a top notch paper written by a person of color or a woman than a lesser peper by a white man.
               I grew up in a school district where I, a white male, was the minority and then I came to DePauw. There was a huge difference going from the minority to the majority but the only real difference was the amount of white people and their dominating opinions. I find it funny to hear people talk about minorities and stereotypes, while I sit back and laugh to myself. I find this funny because they themselves are fulfilling a stereotype of a rich white college kid. In my opinion stereotypes come from experiences that stick with them, whether it be a personal interaction or media portrayal of a race. The reason why it sticks with people is because generally the loudest and most annoying people are recognized despite their race. But once the loudest and most annoying person is recognized the person observing the situation then associates the person's actions with the race of the loud and annoying person. All the while everybody else that is keeping to themselves and carrying on with their business in a less loud, rude, or annoying fashion are not seen. Once a person creates these stereotypes they will start to look for them in their surroundings. Someone once told me that once you get your first car all you will see are cars like yours. The same goes for behavior in a social setting.
               The only way to break these stereotypes and to end Macintosh's 40 some grievances against the white male is to recognize this and see it for what it truly is. That those who stick out are noticed just like a car going 120mph in a 40mph zone will attract the attention of a police officer more so than a car going 45mph. Once we recognize this we can start to mend the stereotypes in our society so no one is perceived as lower or higher in status because of race, creed, religion, looks, or gender.

The Young and Obese

The food production industry replies to the demands of consumers, but are they still to blame in the childhood obesity epidemic? Is it possible that consumers are not always fully aware of the psychological and scientific manipulation that food companies use in order to even marginally increase their sales? On February 20, 2013, Michael Moss of the New York Times published an article titled, “The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food,” in which he gives several small case studies that show the reasoning behind food production and its sales due to the perspective of an insider from that specific industry. After dealing with some of Moss’s listed case studies, we must each ask ourselves the question: Who is to blame for childhood obesity?

Can There Be Humor In White Guilt?
Austin Fry

In her article, White Privilege and Male Privilege, Peggy McIntosh both analyzes gives detailed accounts of how Caucasians have an easier time in modern society.  She describes white privilege as an “invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, assurances, tools, maps, guides, codebooks, passports, visas, clothes, compass, emergency gear, and blank checks.” (McIntosh 1988, 95) After discussing what white guilt means in society, McIntosh lists off forty six privileges that are given to Caucasians simply because they were born with a specific skin tone.  These reason range from not being hassled by security guards

A White Male on White Male Priveledge

After reading White Privilege and Male Privilege A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences through Work in Women’s Studies, by Peggy McIntosh, I have to admit that I was a little taken aback and I felt almost attacked.  It was interesting how towards the beginning of the paper she said, “I think whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege, as males are taught not to recognize male privilege.” (McIntosh 1998, 95) I must be one of the males taught not to believe that I had any sort of privilege here in the United States because I certainly in no way believe that.  At first the writing as a whole offended me, but then I kept referring back to that quote and thinking that maybe she was right.  It’s probably true that most white people take for advantage the fact that he list of 46 things is actually true and all of those are very applicable. I personally just struggle to agree, and therefore support her theory, that males really have that much of an upper hand in the work place.  She states that “Virtually all men deny that male over-reward alone can explain men’s centrality in all the inner sanctums of our most powerful institutions.” (McIntosh 1998, 96)

The Societal Impact of Outlaw Emotions

           One focus in Alison Jaggar’s article entitled, Love and Knowledge: Emotion in Feminist Epistemology, is the effect of emotions on our moral judgments. Positivists believe that emotions are irrational. This means that the less emotional and biased group of individuals has a claim to power. However, Jaggar offers the audience an altruistic view that claims emotion as an inevitable part of the human construct: “The alternative epistemological model that I suggest displays the continuous interaction between how we understand the world and who we are as people. It shows how our emotional responses to the world change as we conceptualize it differently and how our changing emotional responses then stimulate us to new insights.” (Jaggar, 184) The author claims that emotions are social constructs, but also to some extent active. The keyword here is active, and I believe that this premise can be explained by outlaw emotions described to the audience using feminist examples.

Are Emotions Really Fully Socially Constructed?

Are Emotions Really Fully Socially Constructed?

In my opinion, the most engaging part of Jaggar’s article Love and Knowledge: Emotion in Feminist Epistemology was his section titled “Emotions as Social Constructs.”  Jaggar begins by introducing the possibility that emotions may be instinctive and biologically determined.  This idea claims that we all feel emotions, and these feelings are individually independent of any other person’s emotional experiences.  Next, Jaggar refutes this position and reveals his belief that emotions are actually socially constructed.  He gives several reasons for his belief.  First, he explains that children are “deliberately” taught appropriate responses to various situations (Jaggar 171).  Jaggar continues by explaining how children also are taught appropriate and inappropriate ways to express their emotions to these specific situations.  These responses and emotional expressions can also vary across cultures; similar to the cultural relativist view in ethics.  Jaggar also deduces that emotions involve judgments, which necessarily require concepts (171).  This framework, he declares, can be seen as socially constructed ways of organizing and making sense of the world (171).  This leads Jaggar to conclude that “individual experience is simultaneously social experience” and, inevitably, emotions are social constructs of cultural experience (172).  While reading this section, several things came to mind.  First, I agreed with both viewpoints.  The biological instinctive reactions vary between people, but also most of us channel those feelings into socially (and culturally) accepted actions.  I agree with all of what Jaggar has to say about emotions being socially constructed, except for when he says that the first view is “quite mistaken” (171).  I started thinking about individuals who suffer from emotional and social disorders.  For instance, someone with Bipolar Disorder has a difficult time absorbing cultural norms when reacting emotionally.  Their genetic makeup is different and causes them to experience the severity of emotions in different ways than you and I.  Additionally, people struggling with anger management seem to experience non-socially constructed emotions.  These people have been brought up in a culture similar to anyone else and thus have been taught the appropriate responses to different actions and appropriate ways to express their emotions.  However, they fail to comply with these socially accepted standards.  I am not sure if my analysis on these people is correct or not; maybe the only difference is that people with anger management have a lack of self-control.  Nevertheless, their intense emotional feelings could be a product of their biologically instinctive makeup.  In conclusion, I believe that our emotional feelings are a direct result of our biological genetics mixed with social construction.  I find it hard to believe that someone such as James Holmes (killed people in the Colorado movie theatre) could be the product of socially constructed emotional expressions and reactions.

White Male Privilege: Will It Ever End?

In Peggy McIntosh's, White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences through Work in Women's Studies, she discusses the issues surrounding racial stereotypes and how they interfere with all aspects of life. She first focuses on how white privileges aid some and hinder others. She explains how this racism is dealt with between cultures, and the levels of denial that are in play. In some cultures it is widely talked about with angry voices, whereas others know it's going on, and pretend it does not exist. Next, because she has difficulty studying racial profiling in her own life, she finds this problem parallels male privilege in the workplace. McIntosh then goes on to list forty-six different ways white privilege plays a role in her life at work.

First, McIntosh goes on a rant about men ignoring their privileges. Those that do acknowledge it believe that it won't come to an end. McIntosh writes, 

"Virtually all men deny that male overreward alone can explain men's centrality in all the inner sanctums of our most powerful institutions. Moreover, those few who will acknowledge that male privilege systems have overempowered them usually end up doubting that we could dismantle these privilege systems. they may say they will work to improve women's status...but they can't or won't support the idea of lessening men's."

My first reaction to this statement was denial, and that there have to be some men who agree that sometimes, male privilege is exactly the reason why certain men are in power, and not because they are qualified. When I revisited the thought, however, I fell in accordance with McIntosh. What man would be willing to say that another man of power is only holding that power because he is male? At the same time, isn't a fair accusation. There is no way for us to know if a man of power would still be in his position if there was no male privilege. He could be perfectly qualified for his job. McIntosh goes on to explain how most of men's oppressive is unconscious. The notion that women are less than men has been engrained into the minds of men everywhere. Even in daily conversation between my male friends and I, there are hints made about how they think women are less capable of doing certain things as they are.

McIntosh notes the parallel between male privilege, and white privilege, and how, similar to men's unconscious oppressiveness, white people can be oppressive too. She comments:

"whites are taught to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative, and average and also ideal, so that when we work to benefit others, this is seen as work that will allow 'them' to be more like 'us'"

Being a white person myself, I can agree with this. It is an uncomfortable topic, but one that needs to be discussed. When I think of an average lifestyle, I think of the one I am living now, except for the fact I go to a very expensive, private school. I grew up in a white collar neighborhood, attended public schools and have a mother, a father, and two pets. I view my life as an average one, where I get to enjoy a few luxuries and can live comfortably. When I think about people in poverty, I want to help them to be able to live a life like mine, but this isn't right. What I fail to recognize is how privileged my life is. I'm white, so I don't have to deal with racial profiling at work, or by the police or by my teachers at school. Because I am a white girl, with parents who make a comfortable amount of money, my teachers have automatically assumed that I am a good student. Police officers don't give me a second look if I drive by in my car late at night. My employers think that I am a person worthy of their trust, simply because of my skin color. I agree that this is privilege, and that it benefits me, but I wish it didn't have to exist this way.

Lucky for me, my eyes have already been opened to this issue of white privilege. I have become very close with a male friend on campus who explained to me his difficulties with racial profiling. I even have experienced it myself. We were driving late at night, not speeding or disobeying any laws, when he was pulled over. The officer asked him to get out of the car, and followed by asking him a series of questions. Then, he told my friend to get back in the car, as we waited, a very long time, for him to write a ticket. It turns out that they pulled him over because one of the lights illuminating the license plate had gone out. I can't help but think that he was pulled over because of his skin color. While I wish white and male privileges to come to an end, I am not sure they ever will. Whites and males have been privileged since the beginning of time, and has been engraved into our society. Hopefully, years from now this way of thinking will come to an end, but I believe it will take a very long time. 

Technology in Ethics: Surrogacy

Surrogacy is definitely a practice that is becoming more and more relevant.  I believe Professor Molly Shanley said that experts have yet to collect significant information on surrogate children because most of them are younger than 6 years old.  As Nick already touched on, surrogacy introduces a wave of new ethically controversial ideas.  Pro-choice/Exploiting underprivileged wombs is one of the most prominent.  Nick also discussed how families searching for a surrogate would most likely be against abortion.  We discussed this idea and it is based on the notion that surrogate-seeking families have obviously tried, unsuccessfully, to have children.  They decided to find a surrogate because the idea of a human life that would be theirs is something they have always wanted.  Using this logic they should find the idea of abortion repulsive, right?  Nick also discussed how this is contradictory because these families are pro-life on one topic (abortion) and pro-choice on another (surrogacy).  This has lead me to think about the role of technology in ethics.  Without technology, surrogacy would be impossible and this contradiction would have been prevented.  Does anyone have any opinion on the role of technology in ethics and what role it will likely assume as it continues to become a more integral part of our lives?

Surrogacy and Abortion

In her lecture entitled, Fertility Tourism and the Ethics of Intercountry Surrogacy: Renting Wombs in the Global Marketplace, Professor Molly Shanley discussed the morality of surrogacy agreements that span across the world. Much like our current discussions in class, Professor Shanley presented the opposing argument of the exploitation of women’s bodies in foreign countries for cheap surrogacy, and then refuted it with a pro-choice argument wherein women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. After hearing her argument, I could not help but to draw comparisons to another debate involving a pro-choice argument: abortion.

Ethics Behind Surrogacy: Lyndon Presentation

Lee Renshaw
Everett

Ethics Behind International Surrogacy

   Mary Lyndon (or Molly Shanley; not entirely sure how that works) spoke about the ethical conflicts revolving around the practice of surrogacy, meaning when a a couple is socially and/or physically incapable of having a baby and so they decide to "use" the womb of a woman who is able to bear a child.  She used the example of Indian women doing this for people in the U.S., but her focus was on the issue itself, not necessarily on certain nations or cultures.  She brought to light the opposing views on the subject are and then inserted her own two cents.  She obviously has her own opinion and is therefore biased to one side, but she presented both arguments quite fairly, which is something we have learned to do and are practicing in class now.  

    In her speech, Lyndon explained that the surrogate mothers in India are paid between five and seven thousand dollars.  However, at the end, during the question-answer period, an inquiry was raised regarding how exactly women were paid, meaning how the money was distributed periodically in case of a miscarriage or other accident were to happen.  That way, the women didn't get paid in full until the baby was actually born.  She also raised a point in her speech about how the Indian doctors told them that they were merely vessels for rent; that they sever no purpose in the process of pregnancy, except for being the womb to grow their baby in and then give to them  over to the intending parents, without developing any kind of attachment.  Those on the side of for the Indian women being surrogates would argue, on the other hand, that this surrogate processes develop relationships between the American families and those of the Indian women who gave birth to their child.  Another question was raised, however, and it was one of a rather interesting perspective but a valid and important point nonetheless.  The audience member made a connecting comment before her question.  Her comment was that there are some Indian women who do not want any kind of relationship with the intending parents or their family.  As was mentioned towards the beginning of her speech, Lyndon mentioned the notion that the Indian women would not do this if they had any better opportunity to make money.  So, there are of course at least a few of them who only do it for the money and do not desire any communication outside of that which is necessary during the surrogacy.  The question that followed the comment was the obvious one concerning this group of women and how their situations would be handled.  

     In my opinion, the concept of international surrogacy is a highly debatable subject that isn't solved easily.  From my point of view, the overarching question is: is it fair to the Indian women?  Is it right to give the option of carrying someone else's child and putting herself at great physical and emotional risk to a woman who has virtually no other economic option?  Yes, they are paid nearly ten years annual income for a successful birth, which would help their families enormously.  However, there are several possible dangers that come with pregnancy, ranging from the physical perils that are always a risk to the possibility of the women becoming emotionally attached to the baby inside them.  Women who go through pregnancy naturally form some form of bond with their babies, even though they may not be their own.  For me, it comes down to weighing out the fairness of the whole practice; to comparing the benefits and the detriments of surrogacy in general.  In my view, the risks outweigh the financial gains, but that is the opinion of a complete stranger to the entire concept.  The main opinion that should be taken into account is that of the Indian women.  As long as everyone involved gives wholehearted consent and cooperation, then it is a win-win situation.

Fertility Tourism, Do the Ends Justify the Means?

When listening to Molly Shanley's March 10th lecture on Fertility Tourism and the Ethics of Inter-country Surrogacy, I was surprised to learn that Professor Shanley believes that fertility tourism is ethical. While Shanley notes that surrogacy often creates an unnatural hierarchy of humans (and often social classes), can created a skewed vision of family, and seems outright exploitative (and potentially reminiscent of Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, a dystopian novel where

Fertility Tourism and the Ethics of Intercountry Surrogacy

Intercountry surrogacy: an opportunity for economic improvement in the lives of the poor or a new, exploitative practice that exerts patriarchal control over women's bodies? This is one of the fundamental questions that speaker Molly Shanley explored in her topic, "Fertility Tourism and the Ethics of Intercountry Surrogacy: Renting Wombs in the Global Marketplace". For her, intercountry surrogacy has many positive aspects to it, including that the woman is able to exercise personal agency in that she has control over the decision to do with her body what she chooses. In this case, she chooses to "rent" out her womb in the hopes of improving her economic situation. Since many surrogates are chosen from the Global South to become surrogates for people of the Global North, there is this opportunity for them to make a substantial amount of money that has the potential to change their lives. This is also helpful for many families and individuals of the Global North that cannot afford, or are unwilling to pay the much higher costs for surrogacy within their own countries. Shanley admits that more work needs to be done to study whether or not these surrogates' lives are actually improved after they have performed these services. As of right now, it is unclear.

What is truth, anyway?

Thought you might enjoy today's edition of The Stone - a Philosophy column on the New York Times.  I'm wondering whether Lynch's pluralist account of 'truth' might alleviate some doubts about the viability of objectivism.  Enjoy.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/05/of-flies-and-philosophers-wittgenstein-and-philosophy/

Response to Collin Henry's Response

I must agree with both Collin and Nick, fairly representing the opposing side of an argument is a vital part of writing an argumentative paper.  It is better for both sides, for it allows the writer to defend his views all the more,and gives proper credit where it is due to the other side.  It was difficult to find anything in the selected pages of They Say I Say, but I thought you did a nice job finding a possible improvement.  I agree with your criticism, too.  The idea that representing an opposing view accurately in an argumentative paper really does help strengthen your paper very much.  Your mention of this made it seem like an obvious point that would have naturally been expanded on in the book, but I hadn't thought of it until your mention.
In my experience, providing a clear and accurate representation of your opposition is a tough task, especially when it's an argument which you feel passionately about.  You do an excellent job of underlining why it is so important and beneficial to do it, though.  It is a point that is often looked over and not emphasized as much as it should be by instructors who are teaching beginning writers how to correctly and effectively write an argumentative piece.

The Importance of Luxury Needs

In the book The Ethical Life, Shafer-Landau introduces an essay by Peter Singer (229-236) on a solution to eradicate world poverty. Singer’s main point is that people should stop spending on non-essential needs. Instead, anyone who believes that helping a starving child is morally right is morally obliged to donating his extraneous income to foreign aid organizations. Singer’s argument can be summarized in argument form as follow:

The Proof: Morality Dominating Society

Morality plays a role in all aspects of our society, especially science. Chapter 21 in Shafer-Landeau’s “The Ethical Life” is an excerpt from the book Moral Scepticism and Moral Knowledge, by Renford Bambrough. Bambrough begins with the example of a child given anesthetics before a painful surgery and explains how this scenario places a moral obligation to make sure that the child is not in unnecessary pain. Next, by establishing the existence of moral knowledge, Bambrough tries to refute popular arguments made against the reality of moral knowledge (Bambrough 217). He places focus on five objections.

Respecting the Naysayer

Is it really that important to represent the other side of an argument fairly when writing your own argumentative paper? Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein happen to think so, and make a sound argument for it in their book They Say I Say: The Moves that Matter in Academic Writing. In their chapter on introducing a naysayer to your argumentative paper, Graff and Birkenstein assert that even though it is appealing to make little space and support for opposing views to your argument, it is your duty as the author of the paper to represent them fairly (Graff and Birkenstein 2010, 86).

What If the Anesthesia Put Others at Risk?

In “Proof”, written by Renford Bambrough, a scenario is proposed in support of the existence of moral knowledge. Bambrough poses that there is a child in need of surgery that would be painful for him in the absence of anesthesia, and as Bambrough sees it, there is not doubt that this child should receive it (as cited in Shafer-Landau, 2012, p.218). As someone with beliefs more aligned with moral skepticism, I wondered whether or not this really was objective proof of moral truths. As risky as it may be, I thought that I would at least enter the conversation on this matter.

Just today I found an article about the health risks to recovery room hospital staff associated with exposure to waste anesthetic gas exhaled by recovering patients (Cook, 2013). “Beware the Hidden Dangers of Anesthesia” starts off by stating that anesthesia in the operating room isn't the only area where these gases can cause harm, and that even nurses in the recovery room may be at risk of exposure to these gases which have potentially harmful health effects (Cook, 2013). These effects include mild problems such as nausea and headaches, but also more serious complications like sterility, miscarriages, cancer, and liver disease (Cook, 2013). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health claims that this problem is even more pronounced in facilities that lack proper ventilation, and the organization also suggests that systems be developed that monitor the concentration level of anesthetic gases in breathing zones (Cook, 2013).

Do Movies Play a Role in Motivating us to Act Morally?

This past weekend the Oscars took place and while awards were being given out for best picture, best actor/actress, and a number of other things; one of the undertones of the awards was the underlying message in some of the movies. Movies such as Lincoln, Argo, Zero Dark Thirty, and Django Unchained, were all up for the award of best picture along with other candidates, but what all of these films had in common were that they each focused on key principles of morality that we have been discussing as of late in my Ethical Theory class. The movie Lincoln had the moral undertone of oppression and how the enslavement of others is objectively wrong; the same goes for the movie Django Unchained. Zero Dark Thirty focused on the moral undertone of torture and despite its benefits is it still morally right to do. The movie Argo focused on the moral undertone of dogmatic approaches by two powerful institutions during the 1980’s which was the American movie industry and the Central Intelligence Agency.

Bambrough's Evaluation of Typical Argument Against Moral Knowledge

Shafer-Landau's compilation of ethical readings, The Ethical Life, contains an excerpt from Renford Bambrough's 1979 book Moral Skepticism and Moral Knowledge in which Bambrough presents and tries to debunk five typical arguments moral skeptics use to deny the possibility of moral knowledge. In addition he also offers his own argument for the existence of moral knowledge.

Cultural Relativism is Objective Truth

In the analog The Ethical Life, by Russ Shafer Landau, a piece by Renford Bambrough is presented in support of objective truth. Bambrough brings up common arguments against universal objective truths and tries to disprove them. One point is the argument is “our moral opinions are conditioned by our environment and upbringing” (Bambrough 1979). The argument he brings up is of cultural relativism and whether or not relativists have a strong arguments. He brings up two arguments that moral skeptics use when trying to prove cultural relativism and disproves them. The first argument is one from the ancient historian Herodotus, when he wrote about two tribes in the Persian Empire. Two tribes differed in the way that they dispose of bodies. One tribe burned bodies and the other buried their dead. Bambrough says that moral progress in this field of burying dead versus burning the dead does not require that there be one universal truth for the issue (Bambrough 1979). I disagree with his conclusion. Maybe some people do not care about what happens to them when they die, but other cultures think it is very important. Ancient Greeks had an entire ritual for burying their dead. In the war with Troy, the two sides stopped fighting for a week so the Trojans could bury Prince Hector properly within the Trojan traditions. In the modern day, most people have a funeral that is important in the grieving process for family members of the dead. Most cultures have a funeral process for their dead, but they differ among cultures making the objective morality of dealing with dead bodies depend on the cultural truth. The next argument Bambrough makes is one about marriage. He says that in some societies, where women outnumber men, it is ok to marry more than one woman. Bambrough goes on to say that a moralist who says that monogamy is right no matter the circumstances, which is wrong. He compares it to someone in the Northern Hemisphere who would say that it is cold everywhere during Christmas, or a person from the Southern Hemisphere saying that it is warm everywhere during Christmas (Bambrough 1979). This means that some people do not take into account the circumstances of other people,and think that they are right. These people do not acknowledge that other cultures have different circumstances that change their truth. I disagree with Bambrough and think it is possible for cultures to acknowledge other cultures. Going back to his example with the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, I do not see how someone could say that during Christmas the whole world is cold or warm. Christmas is not supposed to be associated with weather but rather a day which is one of darkest of the year, sunlight wise. Jesus is supposed to resemble the light during this dark day. It is an objective truth that the Southern Hemisphere is warmer, on average, than the Northern Hemisphere during the month of December, and this cannot be disputed. I believe that most people know this and are capable of acknowledging this and believing in it.

Common Sense Tells Us...

Bambrough's argument against moral skepticism is highlighted in The Ethical Life.  He argues five main points made by skeptics towards moral objectivity.  Overall, Bambrough relates that his argument is similar to that of G.E. Moore's.  Moore's argument consisted of proving the existence of an external world by pointing out he obvious.  He had two hands, these are both material objects.  Since there are at least 2 material objects; there is a materialistic, external world.

Obligation to Do What's Right?

Link to article: Apathy towards injured kid

This article reports an accident in China, where a 2-year-old girl was hit twice by two vans one after another. The little girl was left bleeding on the road side for over 15 minutes and eventually died in the hospital. During the time she lied bleeding on the road, 18 people walked by, saw her injured body, but chose to do nothing to help the kid. Millions of people around the world have decried this “lack of morals” in the Chinese society.

Similarities in Criticisms Against Moral Objectivism and Religion

The last chapter we read from Shafer-Landau's The Fundamentals of Ethics was about the division of moral skepticism that completely denies the existence of any objective moral truths called nihilism. This week's chapter is centered on the criticisms moral skeptics such as nihilists and ethical relativists use to attack moral objectivism. One group of people that Shafer-Landau mentions in both chapters that I found to be a particularly interesting example is atheists. In the chapter on nihilism he relates them to nihilists by saying that "Atheists are, in fact, error theorists about religion" (Shafer-Landau 2013, 308). In the next chapter he looks into the criticism some atheists have against moral objectivism which can be summarized into: Morality cannot be objective because God does not exist (Shafer-Landau 2013, 329). This follows the reasoning that in order for a law to be objective it needs to be authored or created by something with greater capabilities than a human being. I'm not sure if I agree with the atheist argument against moral objectivism or their general belief that God does not exist. However, I think the atheist perspective and their stance on the existence of God is a very interesting one that could help us understand and make comparisons to the perspective of moral skepticism. This is why I decided to look into the level of present day atheism in different countries as well as examine some of the main arguments that atheists make to defend their view point.

Nihilism and The World Around You

Shafer-Landau in chapter 20 of the Fundamentals of Ethics describes moral nihilism as those who “deny that there are any moral qualities (Shafer-Landau 306).” To simplify what Shafer-Landau said moral nihilism is the belief that says that nothing is right or wrong that there are no good or bad moral actions only facts. Shafer-argues this point by expressing that “Facts exists; values don’t” like the table is made of wood would be an acceptable fact, but since “values cannot be factual, and so cannot be true (Shafer-Landau 306).”

Take a moment close your eyes and think of a World without morals. To today’s standard it would be a world of chaos and something straight out of one of the many post apocalyptic movies where the value of human life is the cost of a bullet or a movement of a blade through human flesh. Every man, woman, and child exist in a world where they have to take what you can for yourself before some one else takes it for themselves World. This is what I believed was the fatal flaw “if widespread acceptance of a moral theory would yield disastrous results, then that theory is false (Shafer-Landau 310).”  As you can see from how I picture it moral nihilism would result in disastrous results and therefore has proven to be false.

 But Shafer-Landau points out a very interesting argument. For instance if celibacy is moral and everybody practiced it and refrained from having sex, then no babies would be born, therefore the worlds population would start decreasing. With a continued decrease in population and no babies to fill the void of the dead, towns would die out followed soon by cities then countries and finally the entire human population of the World. This is if I am not mistaken a disastrous result from following a moral theory that is widely accepted and hasn’t been proven to be false yet. Therefore the argument of disastrous result cannot be used to disprove of the moral theory of moral nihilism.

The next way I tried to disprove moral nihilism is the fact that people are moral in their ways of life but some are just more apparent than others. So I sat down by the Hub and watched people’s actions for a while. I saw a guy pick up a book that a girl dropped talked to her for a while wrote down her number and parted ways surely that is a sign or morals, helping someone without asking for anything in return. But then after thinking for a while this action could be interpreted as a guy trying to get something for himself, in this case the woman’s number, instead of helping someone else out.