Karteikarten
Global ethics
Karten in diesem Stapel (82)
- 1Explain the difference between moral nationalism and political nationalism.• Moral nationalism says we care first or only about our compatriots
• political nationalism says we have some duties to individuals beyond borders. but us first - 2· Explain the difference between moral cosmopolitanism and political cosmopolitanism.• Moral cosmopolitanism says moral duties apply globally
• political cosmopolitanism says everyone should be members of a global political community. Ex world gov - 3What is the argument for Nationalism based from commonsense and experience?○ The duties we owe to our compatriots may be more extensive than the duties we owe to strangers, simply because they are compatriots.
- 4What is the argument for Nationalism based from Identity and Flourishing○ Community-membership is centrally important in our personal identity.
○ We identify ourselves by our roles and contexts.
○ We flourish as human beings within particular communities/contexts.
○ It is important to us to have a national identity based on shared history and culture.
○ People are rooted in their traditions.
○ People experience themselves from within a social context.
○ Philosophy should not seek out universal abstract principles but rather ground their theories in historical social norms and intuitions.
○ Communal ties give us particular duties of loyalty and solidarity.
○ There is an intrinsic value in the life of a community, including a national community.
○ There is a special bond or loyalty between members which gives greater obligations to compatriots over non-compatriots. - 5What is the argument for Nationalism based from Contract and Consent○ Society is a system of mutual benefit for individuals.
○ The nation is the extent of that system.
○ Individuals must make sacrifices for their own benefit – can only be effective or motivated if there is a limit to the moral community.
○ Hobbesian idea – moral community = contracting community
○ “You get moral status, have rights, and are owed respect just in case your cooperation is needed in order for others to benefit.”
○ Political Implication – “realism” (no duties beyond borders) - 6What is the argument for Nationalism based from Success○ Nation-states and national sovereignty is a ‘natural, stable, and suitable unit of the international order.’
○ National governance is an efficient organizational structure for meeting the needs of citizens.
○ Justice best achieved through a state-based system. - 7How would a nationalist approach ethical questions concerning global poverty, immigration, conflict or environmental policies?• Look out for their nation first
- 8What is the argument for Cosmopolitanism based from Common Humanity?Everyone should be treated the same
- 9What is the argument for Cosmopolitanism based from JusticeIf everyone is equal, we should all have equal rights
- 10· Outline the three options for global governance suggested under political cosmopolitanism.Centralized World State
○ One official body with same rules for everyone
Global Federation of States
○ Increases representation of citizens
International Institutions for Particular Issues
○ UN etc - 11Outline the arguments for nationalism and cosmopolitanismNationalism - Prioritize Self-interest and those closest to you (your nation)
Cosmopolitan - everyone is equal - 12Outline the arguments against nationalism and cosmopolitanismnationalism - put ones nation above another
cosmopolitanism - Hard to get someone to care for someone unless they have some communal ties. Eliminates our identities - 13Explain Hardin’s Lifeboat Analogy. What ethical conclusions does Hardin draw from this analogy?• Lifeboat can hold 50 people with room for 10 more with 100 swimmers in the water.
• People in the boat are rich nations, people swimming are poor nations
• Hardin says helping the poor will bring worse consequences for the world as a whole (rich and poor)
• Hardin argues that in a lifeboat situation you cannot allow 100 people on board, saving everyone, because you will swamp the boat. Furthermore, you cannot even attempt to save a minimum few people by filling your boat to its maximum carrying capacity - this will lead to the loss of the boat’s “safety factor” which insures you against catastrophe or emergency situations. The only ethical response in a lifeboat situation is to ensure the survival of those already within the lifeboat and allow those on the outside to drown. - 14Explain the key factual premises of the argument: limited resources○ Giving away your limited resources to help others can cause your nation to become weaker
- 15Explain the key factual premises of the argument: population growth○ Giving aid to poor countries is bad because it will increase the amount of people eventually making it impossible to continue to give when they outnumber our own.
○ Bad for environment - 16· Explain how one might challenge Hardin’s factual claims.most details are either missing or distorted in the lifeboat metaphor. Hardin believes that the resources of wealthier nations are limited and must be preserved for the benefit of those in wealthy “lifeboats”. He also bases his argument on the claim that any help given now will be futile because developing countries will continue to see populations increase if given aid or development assistance.
- 17· On what basis might one objection to Hardin’s moral conclusions?Rich could have acquired their wealth from using poorer nations. EXPLOTATION
- 18Outline the “Drowning Child” scenario.• small child drowning in a pond. The pond is not deep and you could easily rescue the child by stepping into the water and pulling her out. However, you are wearing some expensive clothes – which you do not have time to remove – and they will likely be ruined by wading into the pond. Are you morally obligated to save the child?
• Singer says you should save the child because it outweighs the happiness clothing would bring you - 19what is Prevention Principle?if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought morally to do it
- 20what is Diminishing Marginal UtilityThe more you have the less utility you gain from a small increase
- 21what is Proximity Principle?doesn't matter where you are, shouldn’t make any moral difference to assist.
○ You are required to treat like cases similarly, ignore morally irrelevant differences, and treat everyone equally.
○ Your obligation to be to help out where the need is greatest, wherever that might be. - 22what is the Acts vs omissions principle?The consequences or results that matter and not how the consequences are brought about
Responsible for any consequences even if you didn’t cause them as long as you are able to help - 23• Distinction between obligatory and supererogatory actions?○ Obligatory action - action require of you
○ Supererogatory action - is something which is not required but seen as an extra action you might chose to take (charity) - 24what are Communitarian objections?ethics should not demand this level of impartiality and that, in fact, individuals have greater obligations to assist those within their own communities before thinking about assisting ‘strangers’. Communitarians argue that individuals have ethically significant loyalties and ties to their friends, family and community which can take precedence over universal demands to assist whomever is in greater need.
- 25What are demanding objections?Too demanding, individuals want to enrich their own lives as well.
- 26Explain the “Entitlement Principle” in LibertarianismThose with wealth are entitled to what they have earned by good fortune, voluntary exchanges or their own hard work. They deserve their wealth and cannot be required by justice to redistribute to those worst off.
- 27What is the difference between positive and negative rights? Give examples of bothNegative Rights: we have a duty to "reduce severe harms we will have cause and we should not take advantage of injustice at the expense of its victims.
○ Ex: right to not be killed
Positive Rights: As affluent people and countries, we surely have positive moral duties to assist persons mired in life-threatening poverty whom we can help at little cost to ourselves.
○ Ex: right not to live in extreme poverty - 28Outline Pogge’s explanations of the causes of severe poverty historicallyThe claim is that wealthier countries are in a better position today because they are benefiting from a heritage in which currently poorer countries were exploited. They gained their current levels of wealth by unfairly taking from currently developing countries and so cannot claim to be entitled to this wealth which was built on a history of exploitation.
- 29Outline Pogge’s explanations of the causes of severe poverty CurrentlyPollution and resource depletion
Labor standards
Protectionism
Intellectual property rights - 30· How does the duty not to cause harm apply to affluent individuals’ relationship with those in poverty?They should give as much as possible without causing themselves harm
- 31· What duties do affluent individuals and nations have towards those in poverty?They should give as much as possible without causing themselves harm
- 32· How might someone challenge Pogge’s assessment of the causes of global poverty?some argue that colonialism was in fact advantageous to developing nations. Others claim that existing poverty is affected more by a country’s geography, allocation of natural resources, and domestic political culture – causes which cannot be ascribed to unjust practices of wealthier nations.
- 33What might a forward-looking consequentialist say about the claim that one has a duty to assist only if one caused the harm?• Shouldn’t matter how it happened if you can do something about it
- 34· Define “open” vs. “closed” borders.• Closed - limited, defined immigration
• Open - Free (freer) movement of people/labor - 35Explain the Consequentialist Arguments for closed borders○ National Security
○ Manage economy and state better
○ Liberal democracies need to exclude outsiders in order to function properly.
If borders were open fewer citizens would be motivated to invest their personal energy in the democratic process or give up a portion of their wealth in order to assist less fortunate fellow citizens. - 36Explain Walzer's communitarian argument for closed borders○ Closed borders are important for a nations cultural identity and right to self-determination
○ A nation is a community – a nation is not simply a place for any and all people to live and work at their own choosing but rather embodies values, ideals and goals which need to be protected by limited and defined immigration. - 37Explain the national self-determination argument for closed bordersLegitimate states have a right to political self-determination; freedom of association is an essential component in political self-determination; freedom of association entitles one to refuse to associate with others. Countries must have control over who to invite into their political community.
- 38Explain the point of Walzer’s neighborhood analogy.○ A nation could be a neighborhood (allowing anyone to move in)
○ Walzer argues that human beings have a desire to form ‘distinct and stable communities’ and this requires there to be closure at some level – here there must be closure at the national level. - 39Explain the point of Walzer’s club analogy.○ Rather than a neighborhood, the nation should be a closed private club
○ Members vote them in if they want in
○ Walzer likes this because right of self-determination and allow people in who pass certain requirements - 40Explain the point of Walzer’s extended family analogy.○ Membership is not determined by choice but by kinship
○ Current citizens may also bring foreign born relatives over to their country - 41Explain why Carens believes that a Libertarian would argue for open borders as a moral ideal.• Libertarian - says all individuals, citizens or not, have the same natural rights as individuals (life, liberty, and property).
- 42Explain why Carens believes that a utilitarian would argue for open borders as a moral ideal.Utilitarian - says that all human beings, citizens or not, deserve equal respect and consideration.
- 43Explain why Carens believes that a rawlian would argue for open borders as a moral ideal.Rawls' Theory of Justice - assumes that all parties to the original position who are deciding on principles of justice ought to be treated fairly, that is to say, as free and equal people.
- 44Explain how pacifism might be supported by both deontological and consequentialist reasoning.• Deontological - Killing is never justified so no war
• Consequentialist - The benefits of war are not worth it. Violence begets violence - 45· How do realists approach the question of warfare?• War is justified because each state exists to protect its own interests and the interests of its citizens
- 46· Name two ancient thinkers who described early version of the Just War Theory.St. Augustine
○ gave an early attempt to justify the use of force in defending the Christian Roman Empire
St. Thomas Aquinas
○ Wars must be fought with a just cause, by a legitimate authority, and with the right intention - 47· Explain these two aspects of Just War Theory: “jus ad bellum” and “jus in bello”.• Jus ad bellum - the circumstances in which it is just to go to war or wage a war
• Jus in bello - governing the conduct of war and stating actions which are permissible in the context of war - 48· What are the six criteria for waging war within traditional Just War Theory?1. Legitimate Authority
2. Just Cause
3. Right intention
4. Probability of success
5. Last resort
6. Proportionality - 49· Why does Walzer argue that “collective self-defense” is a just cause for war. Are nations only permitted to defend themselves against aggression, or are they permitted to assist others?• Allowed to defend self ,and "others in harm" through war
- 50· What is a “war of subsistence”? Why does Luban believe such wars could be just?• You can go to war if you need vital resources (need food but no one will give you any)
• Luban said "A fight for life is a just fight". - 51What is pre-emptive defense? Why is this a controversial application of the appeal to self-defense?• Striking someone that hasn’t attacked you yet but has threatened to
• No acts of aggression have taken place and may never - 52· What are the three conditions that Walzer lists as essential for making pre-emptive attacks justified?• A manifest intent to injure
• A degree of active preparation that makes that intent a positive danger
• A general situation in which waiting, or doing anything other than fighting, greatly magnifies the risk - 53Why does Walzer argue that there should be a general presumption against wars for regime change?• Only act on actions not what they can do
- 54· What is the definition of a humanitarian intervention?• refers to situations in which the use of force is argued to be justified “to prevent mass violation of human rights, as in a genocide situation; or in a circumstance where states have collapsed into civil war and continual conflict.” In traditional just war theory, a military act against a foreign nation would be seen as an act of aggression, but it is argued that, in certain severe cases, the rights of sovereign states to non-intervention is superseded by a requirement to prevent terrible suffering or injustice. The use of force can be justified to protect or restore rights, or secure peace.
- 55· Explain the communitarian argument for non-intervention. Why does Walzer argue that foreign powers must not intervene in civil wars or rebellions?• we should respect a principle of non-intervention in the affairs of other nations.
• If you intervened your actions would be seen as aggression. Don’t have a right to mettle in other nations. - 56· Why do some consequentialists argue against humanitarian interventions?• That ignoring state sovereignty by a state could lead to perpetual wars everywhere
- 57Explain Luban and Collier’s arguments in favor humanitarian interventions.Luban
○ Owe a duty to the people and not the state. State is owed duty if the people recognize the state
Collier
○ Poverty Countries in civil wars, rebellions, etc., will continue to stay in a endless cycle of poverty and war
○ Problems overspill into neighboring countries
○ Modern armies should supply global public good of peace in territories that otherwise have the potential for nightmare
○ Self-interest - 58· Under what circumstances do most theorists agree there is a duty to intervene in the affairs of foreign nations?• Genocides or crimes agaisnt humanity
- 59· Outline the Doctrine of Responsibility to Protect.maintains that in extreme cases, most obviously of genocide or crimes against humanity, the international community has a responsibility to intervene to protect people from their own governments, to prevent war crimes or crimes against humanity.
- 60· Do realists think there are any rules in warfare?• No, they do it if it is required to win the war
- 61Outline the principles of jus in bello.1. Discrimination and non-combatant immunity (only target legitimate military, political, industrial targets; attacks directed only against those “engaged in harm”).
2. Proportionality – force used should be proportional to achieving your goals.
3. No Means Mala in Se – do not use weapons which might be described as ‘evil in themselves’ (e.g. mass rape, ethnic cleansing, poison, forcing soldiers to fight against their own side).
4. Treatment of POWs – once combatants are taken as prisoner and no longer a threat they should be treated with humanity (e.g. no torture, abuse, etc.)
5. No reprisals – it is not permissible to violate the principles of jus in bello even in retaliation for such violations from your enemy. - 62· What does external and internal jus in bello refer to?• External - how you treat the enemy combatants and innocents
• Internal - how you treat your own citizens during times of war - 63· Outline some of the different definitions given of a non-combatant. Why is it difficult in some modern warfare to distinguish between a combatant and a non-combatant?Non-combatant - a person who is not engaged in the business of the war.
○ Not threatening or injurious
○ Nagel says NC can be targets if they are contributing to the war effort
The enemy is not defined to a nation - 64· What is the Doctrine of Double Effect? Why is this relevant to the discussion of Just War?• It is permissible to bring about as a merely foreseen side effect a harmful event that it would be impermissible to bring about intentionally
- 65· What is usually meant by “intrinsically evil means”?•Certain actions are always wrong
Ex: are rape, slavery, torture, and the use of chemical and biological weapons - 66· What are some different definitions of “terrorism”?• Acts of terror that are committed by non-state or subnational groups
• Indiscriminate attacks against noncombatants - 67· Why might someone argue that terrorism was sometimes justified? What are the arguments to suggest that terrorism is never justified?• If you don’t have the power of a state then you resort to terrorism
• Doesn’t go with Just war - 68· Why might someone argue that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II was not justified according to the jus in bello principles, and should be viewed as an act of state-terrorism?its an act of terrorism because it was intented to kill innocents
- 69· What is meant by a “morally relevant characteristic”?• You can justify differential treatment
- 70· What is the difference between “intrinsic” and “instrumental” value?• Intrinsic value -Those which has moral worth. Those beings within our moral community.
• Instrumental value - gain something out of it - 71· What is anthropocentrism?the belief that human beings are the central or most significant species on the planet
- 72· Why do some argue that anthropocentrism would be more accurately described as “speciesism”?• Speciesism - the view that membership in the species homo sapiens gives a creature an inherently higher moral value.
- 73Explain the difference between moderate and absolute speciesism.• Absolute speciesism - all and only humans are members of the moral community
• Moderate speciesism - animals may be members of the moral community but humans are morally more important than non-humans. - 74Why does Singer think that “all animals are equal”? What is the term for his view (as contrasted with anthropocentrism)?They are able to experience pain and happiness
Sentience - the capacity to experience pain and happiness - 75· Does Singer believe that it is absolutely wrong to kill animals?• No
- 76· Why does Singer that eating meat is usually not justified?• Causes suffering to the animals and doesn’t bring the greatest amount of pleasure
- 77· Is there a good argument for “ethical meat eating”?• Permissible to kill one animal for food, provided that you replace this animal with another equally happy animal that would otherwise not have lived.
- 78· Does Singer think that animal experimentation can be justified? Explain his argument.No, He argues that “If the experimenters would not be prepared to use a nonhuman infant then their readiness to use nonhuman animals reveals as unjustifiable form of discrimination on the basis of species, since adult apes, monkeys. Dogs, cats rats, and other animals are more aware of what is happening to them, more self-directing, and, so far as we can tell, at least as sensitive to pain as a human infant.”
- 79What is “biocentric egalitarianism”?• All living things have interests and thus equal inherent worth.
- 80· Why does Taylor think that all living things have an inherent value?• Because all living things have interests
- 81· How would we need to change our lifestyles to live with a more biocentric outlook?• Live with minimal impact on other species and environment
- 82· What is anthropogenic climate change?• Humans effecting the environment causing climate change
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- Karteikarten am Global ethics, erstellt von Chad Keck am 15/12/2015.
- Erstellt von
- Chad Keck
- Aufrufe
- 0
- Bewertung