The Inherent Faults of Egoism

             As we have discussed in our last few classes, psychological egoism seems 
  to have some inherent faults that lead us to believe that the theory is irrefutable 
and should be considered meaningless. Because of egoism attractiveness in
simplifying  and explaining all of our actions it is hard for me to think of it as
meaningless, yet after reading some recent articles and examples there does
seem to be a critical fault in this theory regarding its inability to have objections
to it.  
            The following link reminded me a lot of the example Shafer-Landau points  
out in chapter 7 of his book The Fundamentals of Ethics:
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO6qu5fQLHo

Although this Captain America scene is fictional in contrast to the example of Army  

Ebay commercial

This is a commercial made by Ebay almost ten years ago:

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

I found this video very interesting, as it defies the concept of psychological egoism. Since Ebay is a platform that is mainly based on the benevolence of the sellers, the company thought that advancing a marketing campaign that would communicate the general trustworthiness of people would be beneficial to its business. From a marketing stand point I found this to be a very successful idea, in that it centers the issue of online selling platforms and conveys the humanity of people, which, as a matter of fact, I believe to be generally true.

Cultural relativism and consequentialism in Italian tardiness

Over break I was having a conversation with Nancy, a violinist in the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, as well as a friend of my family. She has a house in my hometown in Italy, Spoleto, where my family and her met a couple of years ago. Nancy and her husband Terry have fallen in love with the diverse architecture of the town, presenting styles that vary from Ancient Roman times to our days. They have also fallen in love with the Italian way of life, characterized by a relaxed pace, shopping for food at local markets and stores, a pervasion in art in everyday life, and, of course, good wine. There are certain aspects about the Italian way of life, however, that she finds are frustrating. The main one is the inevitable tendency of Italians in being late.

She told me about an episode in which Terry and she were involved. They hopped on a public bus to go from the train station to their house. The bus driver had to wait one minute in order for the bus to run exactly on schedule, but a tourist couple approached the bus driver asking him where to buy tickets. The bus driver pointed at the newspaper kiosk where they could buy them, not mentioning the fact that he would have left the following minute. But, in fact, the bus driver wanted to do the couple a favor and decided that waiting for them would have been the right thing to do, the nice thing to do. As a result, the bus left five minutes late. Just a few stops later, one of the main bus stops of the town, there were six people waiting for the bus.

This is just a simple example of a common tendency in Italian culture, where being 20 minutes late for an appointment is perfectly acceptable, where classes at universities have developed the concept of the “academic 15 minutes” (i.e. a class scheduled at 9am is expected to start at 9.15am), where the average delay of trains is 7 minutes (this statistic also takes into account trains that are on time). There is actually an unofficial website that, by entering the number of the train, it will tell you its current, average, and expected delay.

I found this story interesting because it brings forward two ethical issues that we have discussed in class this semester: cultural relativism and consequentialism. The first one is concerned because I can tell you that, as a person that grew up in Italy, being late is not perceived as being late; it is perceived as a normal feature of everyday life. If my friends and I want to go out for a drink on a Friday night and wish to meet at 10.30pm, we will schedule to meet at 10pm. Being raised in a bicultural family (my mother is American), I sometimes point out to my friends how this doesn’t make any sense and, although they kind of acknowledge it, they don’t perceive as a big deal at all and continue to follow this model. Cultural relativism is involved in this issue because the conception of punctuality is perceived differently throughout different cultures.

The issue of consequentialism concerns the bus driver’s choice of waiting for the tourist couple to the detriment of the six people waiting at the next bus stop (and of all the people at the next bus stops). The bus driver thought that he did a good deed by accommodating the needs of the tourist couple, but he neglected the needs of all the people, perhaps dozens of people, that suffered from the bus delay (maybe one of these people was a train driver who consequently made the train depart late). Consequentialism looks for the best outcome for the greatest number of people. Therefore, a consequentialist bus driver would have ignored the needs of the tourist couple to favor the needs of dozens of people. 

Moral Obligation to be Green

A friend of mine recently wrote a blog post addressing the recent energy wars between major living units on campus called "Do You Have a Moral Responsibility to Go Green." During Energy Wars major living units compete to reduce the amount of electricity they use in three weeks and the housing unit that reduces the most energy wins bragging rights and a money prize they can use to contribute to a "greener campus." This resulted in some competitors reducing much of their energy use and become educated and aware of the effects of electricity use around the world. The winner is praised and the campus as a whole receives reputation on being a Green campus. However, after the competition is over most people return back to their usual habits of leaving the lights on and leaving outlets plugged. The problem with this is that we all live on this earth, and we all have ecological effect on the earth. Still, there seems as though there was no actual moral obligation or responsibility to self regulate energy use at all aside from winning the competition.

Although the result was that many people learned more about being aware of their effects on our world, looking at this from a praising aspect, was their anything that deserved moral praise? Some may argue that it is a moral obligation to be sustainable because everyone has to live on earth. Being sustainable and conscious would be the equivalent to cleaning your own room. I think people are well aware of their moral obligation to be sustainable, but they choose to not participate because they learn that the problem is too great for them to have any contributing factors in turning the situation around.

According to David Norton, those who simply participated has only barely completed the bare minimum of their moral duty. Although the participates have learned a lot from the publicity during the three weeks of Energy Wars, they do not deserve significant praise for their actions. The participates simply did something they understood to be correct but is not morally challenging in any way. Norton would ask more from the participants and argue that it is a moral obligation to continue to stay green and that they are not worthy of praise. Saying that the participates deserve some sort of moral praise would a minimalist thought therefore Norton would most likely expect more from them.
So, should we praise those who participated in energy wars?



Norton, David L. "Moral Minimalism and the Development of Moral Character." Midwest Studies in Philosophy 13.1 (1988): 180-95.

Witwer, Noelle. "Do You Have a Moral Responsibility to “Go Green”?" The Prindle Post. The Prindle Institute, 6 Mar. 2015. Web. 18 Mar. 2015. <http://www.prindlepost.org/2015/03/moral-responsibility-go-green/>.

Consequentialism in Gun Control

In class last week we discussed how Shafer-Landau describes consequentialism as choosing the most optimific act.  An optimific act is a scenario where you have weighed the pros and cons for either choice you make and picking the one with the best overall outcomes.  Following a consequentialist mindset means the optimific act is obligatory in happening regardless of how the outcome will affect your own individual life.  This notion of sacrificing your own self interest for the benefit of the aggregate tends to be the deal breaker for many philosophers, myself included.  While I absolutely value happiness outside of my own and want others to attain success and achieve their goals, at the end of the day all individuals are intrinsically motivated through their own subjective biased and that is something I find to be hard to practically overcome.

The Gap Between Good Will and Volunteer Work

Volunteers traditionally project the image of dedication, commitment, and morality. Volunteers feel as though they are performing a good deed, further, an act of good will. Kant would disagree. Kant classifies a good will as something not considered or contemplated, but as a duty both known and expected. Good will is done without analysis of outcome or weighing of possible consequences. These good wills are limitless in their intrinsic value and are established by maxims which can be universalized. Volunteer work seemingly aligns with all of these motivations based on its basic concept. However, volunteering has been socially warped into an act of self-gratification and self-benefit.

Is a Woman's Plea of Clemency an Exception to Kantian Ethics?

Immanuel Kant once wrote in his philosophical writing, Metaphysical Elements of Justice "If, however, he has committed a murder, he must die. In this case there is no substitute that will satisfy the requirements of legal justice. There is no sameness of kind between death and remaining alive even under the most miserable conditions, and consequently there is also no equality between the crime and the retribution unless the criminal is judicially condemned and put to death." Would Immanuel Kant apply this logic to the case of Kelly Gissendaner?

Shortcomings of Lex Talionis

German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, is arguably one of the most important and most widely read philosophers of morality.  However, this popularity and merit does not come without challenges in his arguments.  Two central ideas in Kant's moral philosophy are the Principle of Humanity and Lex Talionis, the theory used when prescribing justice. The principle of humanity, in short, claims it is morally obligatory to treat others never as merely an object, but rather always with respect for humanity, or anything capable of autonomy and reason.  Kant argues that humanity is infinitely valuable.  Lex talionis, on the other hand, is the law of retaliation.  Broadly, it "tells us to treat criminals as they have treated their victims" (Shafer-Landau 182). In other words, it is the eye-for-an-eye principle.  In this post, I will argue that Kant's principle of humanity and lex talionis are contradictory of each other's core principles.

Kant's Good Will

What if I were to tell you that happiness had no value? What if I were to tell you that happiness was only achieved as a result of wrongdoing? Kant states that happiness is merely one of numerous values that can be abused and misused. As a result, happiness is not consistent and therefore it is not always valuable. However, there is a value believed to be absolute and consistent. According to Kant this is the good will.

As defined by Kant, the good will “is the ability to reliably know what your duty is, and [the] steady commitment to doing [one's] duty for its own sake” (Shafer 178). In other words, the good will is doing what we know is right and expected of us without any sort of hesitation or question, regardless of the possible outcomes. The objective of the good will is not the outcome, it is the will and the intention under which the action is performed—this is what makes the action praiseworthy and moral. The intention in turn affects the moral worth of the action, this is what influences the overall praise that the action will receive. For example, a man volunteering in order to fulfill service hour requirements and for the praise is less praiseworthy and viewed as has having slightly less moral worth than the individual that volunteers in order to create more good and for the overall health and well being of the community. But, if the good will is our duty where is it that we draw the line in regards to acting on our duties that possibly infringe on the rights of others? Where does the respect and the dignity that Kant speaks of come into effect?

In the case of the “Cassandra C,” as she appears in legal documentations, the 17 year old who was mandated to undergo chemotherapy against her desires can be seen as an example of what Kant's considered the idea of the good will. Receiving statistics from her medical providers Cassandra and her mother opted to refuse chemotherapy and go about their lives. They continually missed appointments that put the terminally ill teenager at risk. In relation to the good will, the hospital was doing what they believe to be their duty and they were acting upon it. As a result, the Connecticut Department of Children and Families became involved in what appeared to be a case of medical neglect. With good will and good intentions the department was simply trying to protect Cassandra and take care of immediate and desperate medical needs.

However, Cassandra did not wish to continue to receive treatment and she preferred to discontinue it and go about her time, conscious of the consequences. Under good will where is it that we see its boundaries? Although it was in the department and the hospital's moral duty to care for the patient and see that she receive the necessary treatment in order to heal and recover, it was not what the patient deemed necessary and it was not what she wanted. Do these “wants” outweigh the necessities and the possibility of improving health? When is it acceptable to forfeit your rights in the practice of the good will in order to please and satisfy the patient and their desires? Does allowing a patient to suffer not violate the Hippocratic oath? The same general idea applies to the concept of physician assisted suicide, although the concept of such medical practices does in fact lie on a very slippery slope, when does the good will that is expected by us exceed the desires and the legal rights of the patient? When is it right to intervene, and when is it not?

Cassandra was forced to continue to receive chemotherapy despite legal attempts to halt treatment.

Is it moral to utilize the good will to do a duty that would generally be optimific if it no longer respects the human and their intrinsic dignity and rights?

Shafer-Landau, Russ.The Fundamentals of Ethics. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.

"Connecticut Teen in Remission as Forced Chemo Nears End - CNN.com." CNN. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 11 Mar. 2015.

Johnson, Robert. "Kant's Moral Philosophy." Stanford University. Stanford University, 23 Feb. 2004. Web. 10 Mar. 2015.

WWUD? New Delhi Brutal Gang Rapist Testimony

Warning: This blog post post contain information about a highly brutal sexual assault case. Please read with caution. 

Utilitarianism and Capital Punishment

Utilitarianism and Capital Punishment

            While reading Shafer-Landau the sentence that stood out to me most was “Utilitarian’s reject any absolute ban on killing innocents (or torturing them, or stealing from them, etc.)” (148).   This goes as far to say as innocent rather than criminals, and at first I was puzzled to why utilitarianism would be OK with killing someone that isn't doing any harm in the eyes of the judicial system.  But the more I thought about it I remembered it doesn't matter whether the law allows or disallows the act if the act would provide more happiness to people it is considered OK.  Brain storming of cases that would fall under this category, of killing, torturing, or stealing from an “innocent” person, adultery and stealing from the rich and dispersing his wealth among the less fortunate.  There are so many different calculations one would have to do to prove that his or her actions were justified that it is hard to take yourself out of the act and be impartial.  Yet, you have to be impartial in order to be looking at the situation from the utilitarianism perspective.  In this case I came the conclusion that it is impossible to do the calculations while being impartial, therefore look at the situation in all aspects in the utilitarian’s view.  But this caused me to wonder what utilitarian’s view on capital punishment is.

            I initially thought that they would support it because it would give closure to some families and that it would rid the world of a vicious criminal, but I was wrong.  According to Antonio Cassese utilitarianism view that it is justified because “capital punishment deters criminals from murder.  Furthermore, killing murderers prevents recidivism” if released from prison they might kill again.” (Cassese).  Also that by using capital punishment we don’t expend as much money on murders by imprisoning them the rest of their lives.  These two arguments are both justified in my eyes, especially the second one.  He goes on to say that there is a utilitarianism argument against capital punishment too that states it is an irreversible act, and what if he or she is latter proven guilty?  One would have been killed for no reason, and he can’t be given his life back like he would have been if he or she would have been imprisoned. 

            Having these two views that both use utilitarianism views interest’s me because it should simply come down to a simple addition of the positives and negatives, and we still get two outcomes?  I thought that utilitarianism all agreed because math has no positives and negatives, but it truly comes down to one’s own moral views and values.  Tying it back into that idea that it is impossible to approach a situation impartially, which disproves, in my opinion, that utilitarianism can either support or not support capital punishment.

Works Cited

"Beyond the Death Penalty Debate." Beyond the Death Penalty Debate. Web. 06 Mar. 2015. <http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/commentary/data/death_penalty>.

Shafer-Landau, Russ. The Fundamentals of Ethics. New York: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.

            

Can A Consequential Believe in God?

The question of what is morality is one that this class has actively examined and debated. However, an interesting concept that we have yet to tackle has been how consequentialist theory would apply to an omnipotent being. There is an existing body of philosophy known as divine command theory, which states, “Divine command theory says that no acts are intrinsically right or wrong; their morality depends entirely on whether God approves of them.  On this view, acts are morally right just because God insists that we do them, and wrong because he loathes them. (Shafer-Landau 305)"

Consequentialist theory, and more specifically, act utilitarianism states that an action is morally required just because it does more to improve overall well-being than any other action you could have done in the circumstances.  Believers in God would say that God is an objectively good being, omniscient, and cannot possibly be subject to choosing between objective moral truths because he is the source of these objective moral truths. Thus, the question becomes whether or not consequentialist theory would view god as a completely moral being? 

An established theorist who tackles this question is Jonathon Pearce. Pearce argues that in contrast to divine command theory, god can make immoral decisions. He bases this of the premise that actions can either be right or wrong and that these actions create moral facts. He derives this conclusion from the standpoint of consequentialism, which measures actions comparatively to their effect on the whole of the society in question. As such, some actions are measurably better than others and can be defined as morally superior.  Pearce argues that any action can be right or wrong, and the collection of these constitutes moral facts.  With this theoretical framework established, Pearce moves on to evaluate whether or not Gods actions have been seen in religious texts as moral or immoral. He specifically cites the flood cast upon the Earth and theorizes that, “God was trying to achieve a greater good in this seeming ‘evil’. Perhaps God needed to do this potentially harsh act in order to achieve a particular (all-loving) end” (Pearce 2). Thus, God’s actions were not simply moral because this being was carrying them out. Rather, God was acting to ensure the betterment of the society (all of humanity) as a whole. As such, the morality of actions does not rest simply with god, but rather with what is good for the society.

            This argument is by no means completely sound, however it does propose some interesting viewpoints, which contradict divine command theory. As this has been one of this classes major focuses, I have found this new approach to be quite stimulating and look forward to further exploration of consequentialism as the class continues.

Works Cited:

• Pearce, J. "God is a Consequentialist." The Skeptic Ink. http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/essays-and-papers/god-is-a-consequentialist

The Difficulties of Consequentialism in the Real World

According the the consequentialist outlook outlined by Shafer-Landau, one must do as much good as they can. We must make the world the best place it can be by choosing the optimific outcome, the outcome that yields the greatest balance of benefits over drawbacks. If acts maximize the amount of goodness in the world, then those acts are morally right and therefore required. However, when looking at the consequences of actions, some problems arise for the consequentialist. Shafer- Landau asks readers: "If the rightness of an action depends on all of its results, and these haven't yet occurred, then how can we know whether an action is the right one to do?" (123). The morality of our actions can depend on two things: an action's actual results, or an action's expected results. 

Shafer-Landau makes sure to note that "we are not morally infallible" (124). We are all, to some degree, morally ignorant. Humans cannot determine all of the expected results, or even at times understand the actual results, that will occur from an action or decision. Even if an action is is done in good conscience, that is to say even if intentions are morally good provided they are expected to yield good results, an action done in good conscience can yield disastrous results. This is a problem with consequentialism that can be seen in today's society, especially in the Middle East.

Consequentialism in the World of Sports

I recently came across a couple of articles on the website Ethics Alarms that make some very interesting connections to sports and consequentialism. In short, the author of the articles focuses on famous baseball outcomes that were determined by the manager’s decisions. One specific example in the articles was that of MLB outfielder Bryce Harper, who was benched by his manager Matt Williams after not running hard to first base. The game ended with Harper’s less-talented replacement grounding out to lose the game. In the following days, manager Williams was criticized tremendously by fans and analysts for leaving Harper on the bench. This doesn’t come to a surprise either; it is the norm for sports fans to see decisions as right or wrong after the game. Keeping this in mind, consequentialism becomes very relevant in terms of judging an action or decision as right or wrong based on the outcome it brings about. With that said, most sports fans seem to have a consequentialist view when it comes to the outcomes of sporting events. I say this because regardless of the reasons a coach or manager may have for making a decision, more specifically a game-determining decision, a consequentialist would consider the decision that ultimately led to losing a game, such as the example above, as wrong regardless of the manager’s reasons for making the decision. 

         The Bryce Harper example above, can easily be compared to an incident involving NBA player Rajon Rondo Tuesday night, yet the outcomes were much different. After arguing with coach Rick Carlisle in the second half of the game, Rando was benched for the remaining minutes. Shockingly, Rondo’s replacements ended up scoring 27 key points that led the team to a comeback victory. Coach Carlisle’s “game-winning” decision was seen by fans as professional and effective. Knowing that the decision to bench Rondo ultimately led to the best outcome (victory), it could also be said that a consequentialist would agree with the fans just like the first example.  Personally, I can think of numerous sporting events where I had seemingly consequentialist points of view toward the coach’s decisions in the final moments of the game based on having the hindsight of knowing the final outcome. Although this seems normal, it doesn’t seem right to me that I should evaluate sports coach’s decisions or judgments this way primarily because it seems to me that both coach’s made the right decision in benching their star player based on what the player’s deserved for disrespecting their coach.

Personally, I think it is important to take into consideration whether or not an individual is deserving of good things or bad things based on their prior actions or decisions. Similarly, I think that whether or not the player’s deserved to be benched should have some influence on the coach’s decision to bench them or not, yet consequentialism does not acknowledge this “deserving” as something that should constitute whether the coaches’ decisions were right or wrong, only the outcome does. In both examples above, most individuals would agree that the coach’s made the right decision benching the players because they deserved it. I too agree with this. Although sporting outcomes and coaching decisions are not as blurry as complex moral dilemmas, there is still something to say about consequentialism’s complete focus on the best outcomes. As I have tried to illustrate in the examples above, there are many more factors (individuals deserving things) than just outcomes that I believe should be evaluated when considering whether a judgment is right or wrong at the time it is made.

Works Cited

            "Case Study in How Sports Encourages Consequentialism: The 1968 Detroit Tigers." Ethics Alarms. Last modified October 2, 2013. Accessed February 26, 2015. http://ethicsalarms.com/2013/10/02/case-study-in-how-sports-encourages-consequentialism-the-1968-detroit-tigers/.

            Shafer-Landau, Russ. The Fundamentals of Ethics. New York, 

NY: Oxford University Press, 2010. 

            "Yet Another Consequentialism Lesson from Baseball." Ethics 

Alarms. Last modified April 20, 2014. Accessed February 25 2015. 

http://ethicsalarms.com/2014/04/20/yet-another-consequentialism-

lesson-from-baseball/. 

Relativism and Perception of Violent Events

When is it a hate crime? Three Muslims at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill campus were killed execution style by a middle aged white man, 46 year old Craig Hicks Tuesday evening. The three dead, Deah Saddy Barakat, Yusor Mohammad, and Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, were all under the age of 23 with the ladder not yet 20 years old.  The gunman was their neighbor who came to the deceased’s house multiple times with a gun on his belt complaining about minor issues.  One of the victims called her father before the altercation took place telling him about how scared she was, and because she truly believed that Hicks hated these three individuals for their faith. This is a tragedy fueled by rage over a minor instance. Muslims around the world are saying it is a hate crime, and they are 100% correct in my point of view. But Chapel Hill police are saying that the shooting was about a parking space and the gunman’s wife says it was just a dispute between neighbors. So why in the eyes of some, especially those in charge of the case, is this not considered a hate crime? Would a man actually kill three young adults over a parking space?

Error Theory and Expressivism, Nihilistic Analogies

This topic of conversation concerns Nihilism as seen represented in two recent works of art, movies K-Pax and The Purge. According to Shafer-Landau, moral nihilism approaches morality as "make believe, a complex set of rules and recommendations that represents nothing real." (p. 308) In essence, nihilists believe that value claims cannot be factual and, therefore, are false. 

"So Where Do We Go from Here?"

I would like to continue our conversation about intersectionality because despite several discussions concerning sexism, racism, micro aggressions, and privilege, we are left with more confusion than clarity in regards to the question “So where do we go from here?” The following post references class readings from McIntosh, Buchanan, Alcoff, and Jaggar, as well as Chapter 18 from the Fundamentals of Ethics by Shafer-Landau.

In “White Privilege and Male Privilege”, Peggy McIntosh compares the position of power that men have over women in society to the ways in which the pure existence of white privilege damages those that are not privileged. McIntosh notes that while men are willing to accept that women may be disadvantaged in society, they are quite unwilling to acknowledge that they are privileged, and even more unwilling to acknowledge that their privilege is the cause of women’s disadvantage. She uses this observation to draw a parallel to white privilege and the ways in which one can be advantaged in a society purely due to their skin color. Privilege is very obvious to those that don’t have it, but nearly invisible to those who do. I believe that this concept is very important to understand as a community when we delve into discussions about micro aggressions and the ways in which fellow students on our campus feel disadvantaged.

 When Dr. Sue gently confronted the majority group with the reality that their privilege alone greatly damages the minority groups in many ways, it immediately triggered a defensive response by many students who felt they were being targeted for reasons out of their control, such as social class, ethnicity, etc. I was personally very ignorant regarding the concept of “white privilege”. This ignorance can be very morally damaging for those that are privileged because they are “conditioned into oblivion” (McIntosh). Buchanan writes that “we can know so little on our own”. Without being taught, it is incredibly difficult to recognize that the reality one experiences is not universal and is only shared with those who are in mirror situations, which is why conversations such as the ones that took place on the Day of Inclusion are so necessary, and so difficult. Because we are not born with the knowledge of others’ experiences and an understanding of the ways that members of different groups intersect, it is necessary to first recognize the “systems and sustainers of false beliefs” (Buchanan) before considering necessary actions to take.

But after acknowledging an individual’s place in society and the ways in which their position affects others, how should that individual act? How do I make others feel that I regard them as equals? That I do not consciously categorize them by their skin color, their sexual orientation, or their mental health?

On page 287 in The Fundamentals of Ethics, Shafer-Landau writes about how feminists argue for equal consideration. That “the interests of women are to be given the same importance as those of men.” It seems that this approach requires an effort to not only consider others as legal or social equals, but to also recognize their feelings of discomfort, alienation, fear, hardship, etc., as valid and real. Political activist and writer Andrew Solomon addressed the audience at a TED Talk about the importance of parents having unconditional acceptance for their children and the ways in which this unconditional acceptance benefits society by supporting and encouraging children who can share their unique experiences with those who are “privileged” and haven’t experienced this specific reality.  

If as a community we were able to adopt this way of thinking where we at least attempt to give everyone “equal consideration” and our “unconditional acceptance”, then I believe that even that effort will be seen as a big step by those who currently feel disadvantaged due to their identifying beliefs, anatomical traits, and family demographic, because it is my attempt to acknowledge the alternate realities of those who are directly impacted by my words, actions, and demeanor on a daily basis.

Does Cultural Relativism Have Practical Implications?

Cultural relativism, as presented by Russ Shafer-Landau in his work, The Fundamentals of Ethics, argues that a "moral judgement is true because it correctly describes what a society really stands for" (300). Rather, if relativism is true, then actions are moral if a society says it is moral.  This theory is in support of skepticism in that it argues morality as a human invention.  In other words, if our species were to cease to exist, so would morality.  Given morality is a human invention, where does moral authority stem? According to relativists, it stems from society.

The Evolution of Feminism

This past year was the year of feminism. With Beyonce performing at the MTV Music Awards in front of the word "Feminist" and famous actresses proclaiming themselves proud feminists, feminism has engrained itself in pop culture and resulted in the talk of women's equality being at an all time high (at least within my lifetime). What used to seem like a dirty word is now a label that people aren't shying away from.

Women's rights have been argued for before, but it is interesting to see how time has changed perspectives on feminists. White Privilege and Male Privilege by Peggy McIntosh was written in 1988, and even though the conversation on feminism has evolved since then her views on female inequality are still pertinent to today's society. McIntosh's claim that "men's unwillingness to grant that they are overprivileged" (McIntosh 95) is bold, but accurate. In the time that has passed since the writing of McIntosh's article men are still saying that "they will work to improve women's status" but they still "can't or won't support the idea of lessening men's [status]" (McIntosh 96).

More men are defining themselves as feminists, however there is still a huge disparity between men and women, especially in the work place. Not only are men and women viewed differently due to preconceived gender norms, but the failure to obtain equal pay is a huge source of controversy. According to the U.S. Census Bureau in 2013 women who worked full time earned, on average, only 78 cents for every dollar men earned. With women of color the figures are even worse with African Americans earning only 64 cents and Latinas earning only 56 cents per dollar in comparison to white males ("Equal Pay for Equal Work").

I believe the reasoning for this persisting discrepancy in pay can be summed up in the arguments made by Linda Alcoff in Epistemologies of Ignorance.  Alcoff discusses both an unintentional and a willful ignorance of the dominant class. While Alcoff makes the arguments that gender differences are culturally specific and people are both limited and enabled by the specifies of their locations, her third argument about the dominant social class is most applicable to the discussion of workplace inequality. According to Alcoff not only do men "have less interest in raising critical questions about male dominance" but they have "'a positive interest in seeing the world wrongly'"(Alcoff 47).

As women become more career minded with the change in era, men have strong motivators to keep with the status quo. They have a definite positive interest in remaining on top of the career ladder. However we are no longer living in the days of "Mad Men". The stay at home mom ideal is dwindling, and men's willful ignorance is being tested. Campaigns, like the "HeForShe" campaign by Emma Watson, are drawing global attention to the taboo subject of women's equality. Women are striving to break down stereotypes, and while the inequality of women in comparison to men remains a hot topic it has most certainly evolved since the writing of McIntosh's article. It is being widely talked about and endorsed, and that is the first step to addressing these issues head on. I believe that celebrity endorsement is also furthering the movement and encouraging young women and men to pave a new path to equality that has evaded previous generations.

I am attaching the video of Emma Watson's UN Speech advocating "HeForShe". I think it is a powerful example of the positive impact that pop culture and celebrity can have, because I think that this speech spurred hard discussions about equality last year. I think it brings up the hardest part of the debate for equality, which is that "fighting for women's rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating" (Watson). I think Watson's claim that feminism has become synonymous with "man-hating" is true, and I think that this claim ties to Alcoff's argument of willful ignorance. The ignorance of the dominant group (men) results in the immediate frustration of women and often closes doors of discussion due to the tense hostility that results from accusation. However, in order for equality to become a reality, this frustration needs to be overcome. It is not a man's fault that he was born into a dominant position in society and insinuating this does not help contribute to the cause. It is important to acknowledge that women are not the only ones being held back by their gender. Watson states: "we don't often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that they are and that when they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence" (Watson).

I think the discussion on equality has been started, in fact it has actually been ongoing for a while. But I think that as a society we are finally at the point where changes might start being made. The unintentional ignorance of men has been disturbed and now it is time to see if men are willing to give up some of their status in order to obtain true equality, or if they will persist in willful ignorance due to their positive interest in male privilege.

Equal Pay for Equal Work article
Emma Watson Speech Transcript

How Intersectionality Affects Leadership

In Peggy McIntosh's piece White Privilege and Male Privilege, the author discusses the ways in which one's privilege have "blinded" them to the lifestyles of other races and the other gender. McIntosh discusses how one person's privilege not only puts some at a disadvantage but also puts those that are higher up on the social hierarchy at an advantage (95). Those on this higher end are taught to not recognize the advantage and utilize this "unearned asset" to keep a leg up on those who are lower on the social hierarchy.

Diversity, Method, and Metaethics

There are a number of links I wanted to share in connection with the material we have been discussing these past two weeks.  Because I keep running out of time to explain them fully, I'll just list them below with the briefest description.

"Crunching the Numbers on Sexist Microaggressions" - the post about the Petrie Multiplier, which purportedly shows that any heavily representationally skewed group will seem hostile to the minority group assuming there is any propensity to commit microaggressions, even if it is equally distributed among the majority and minority.

Project Implicit - The Harvard implicit association test that you can take online to determine whether you have subconscious biases concerning race, gender, sexuality, and a number of other characteristics.  I took the one concerning negative associations toward blacks.  Yes, I have it.  See what you think.

The Red Ground scene from the Color of Fear.  If you want a concrete example of what Jaggar calls "outlaw emotions," this will give you one.  You may find it difficult viewing.

Thoughts?