OLET2111 Philosophy notes PDF

Preview

Summary

Download OLET2111 Philosophy notes PDF

Description

FEMINISM Feminism: to achieve a substantive equality for women. It is true that in many developed countries that women have the same right with men. They have the right to vote, to have their own property under their names, there are laws against sexual discrimination. But in real terms, there are still more women who are suffering from impoverishment, women earn less than men and higher rate of sexual harassment or assault. Sexual liberation Sexual stigma Sexual revolution’s result is not equal for the gender still. Multiple partner thing Male sexual behaviour—dominating, viewing them as a sex object otherwise women are enjoying and will not be hurt. The epistemology of feminism Being a feminism doesn’t exclude men, men can also be on the board of feminism. Men don’t have that kind of experience, it doesn’t mean they are not qualitied to talk about it, you haven’t experienced it but they can defer to the experts. We need men to be involved to make changes. Pornography Feminism against that kind of pornography that is inegalitarian which depicts women in position of servility, in a role of being a man’s sexual slaves, very little reciprocity in terms of pleasure. Eroticises female submission and male dominance. Wrong concepts from pornography, including G-strings, high heels which are actually uncomfortable for women but are defined as sexy, and more seriously, gang rape being represented as sexy. Even in a jury verdict on rape cases, sometimes women say no maybe they don’t mean it, just come from some romance way. It is not the best way to ban those inegalitarian pornography. Just mutually reinforcing causes, men might think it is acceptable and not morally wrong to follow the way that is acted in pornography while women might think they are pleasure to be a sex object to please the men.one way is probably to ban that kind of pornography, Another way is to challenge those ideas against women, point out it is potentially really harmful to the women. The objectification of women Treat them as thing, purely instrumentally, just be thing to provide service, don't have conscious. One opinion: it is just intrinsically wrong Other: It is bad when it is bad, the most problematic thing is that if this becomes a prevailing way or common way that men treat women in the society. But actually, the men who just as an instrumental in pornography, when they walk out to the set, they might be total different and have their own attitude towards the society, they can separate them clearly. The future of feminism The rise of social media poses challenges for men and women, intensifies and magnifies those norms:

Oppressive beauty norms that apply to women, expected to look a certain way. Young women internalize in those norms. Creates anxiety, self-esteem A cluster of real challenge Teenage anxiety and depression and suicide, repercussion of social media. a lot of young women don't want to describe themselves as a feminism as nowadays there is a backlash to the feminism. This word might be politicization men and women need to be committed to identifying the cause of sexual inequality such as structure of the workplace, tradition gender role at home. Women have a real practical interest in affecting social change, philosophy can help women to achieve the goal sexual equality and so on. It is a perfectly accompaniment to a movement which is all about political empowerment. Vocab: backlash complacent Subservient Robust Tyrannical Misogynistic: an attitude of hating and disrespectful to women Unrepentant: If you are unrepentant, you are not ashamed of your beliefs or actions. Coarse: rude and offensive, especially about sex

READINGS:

Down girl: the logic of misogyny Patriarchy is getting a publicly sanctioned voice and silencing a feminist voice 1. Smothering Women who are strangled rarely cooperate with the police. In the U.S., there is no specific statute that defines strangulation a crime, it is been relegated to a simple assault, typically a misdemeanor. But strangulation is actually pretty prevalent among intimate relationships and other family relationships and the victims in a majority of cases of strangulation are female and perpetrators are men. The victims are reluctant to testify against their abusers and if they speak out, his demonstrated willingness to do what it takes to regain the upper hand makes the situation dangerous. And, as will shortly emerge, the lack of competence regarding the concept of strangulation is extremely widespread. Such incompetence is the result of the sort of pernicious ignorance misogyny. 2. Silence Donald trump—martial rape; David Lurie--“Not rape, not quite that, but undesired nevertheless, undesired to the core” a-52-year-old professor had sex with his student. Donald trump’s lawyer threaten journalist not dare to report anything about using the word ‘rape’ or he would ruin the reporters’ life. Ivana, Donald Trump’s ex-wife, sworn testimony during divorce proceedings and fully changed her attitude in order to not influence Donald Trump’s campaign.

3. Vocal changes Andrew Puzder had been tapped as Donald Trump’s pick for labor secretary and his previous allegation of abuse to his ex-wife has been focused. Then his ex-wife, who used to be a woman with stubborn and passion about protecting women themselves and advocate others to fight against family violence, recanted her account. She changed her voice and said the story was all made up. Part of male dominance, especially on the part of the most privileged and powerful, seems to be seizing control of the narrative—and with it, controlling her, enforcing her, concurrence.

Have smartphones destroyed a generation? Girls have also borne the brunt of the rise in depressive symptoms among today’s teens. Boys’ depressive symptoms increased by 21 percent from 2012 to 2015, while girls’ increased by 50 percent—more than twice as much. The rise in suicide, too, is more pronounced among girls. Although the rate increased for both sexes, three times as many 12-to-14-year-old girls killed themselves in 2015 as in 2007, compared with twice as many boys. The suicide rate is still higher for boys, in part because they use more-lethal methods, but girls are beginning to close the gap. These more dire consequences for teenage girls could also be rooted in the fact that they’re more likely to experience cyberbullying. Boys tend to bully one another physically, while girls are more likely to do so by undermining a victim’s social status or relationships. Social media give middle- and high-school girls a platform on which to carry out the style of aggression they favor, ostracizing and excluding other girls around the clock. Social-media companies are of course aware of these problems, and to one degree or another have endeavored to prevent cyberbullying. But their various motivations are, to say the least, complex. A recently leaked Facebook document indicated that the company had been touting to advertisers its ability to determine teens’ emotional state based on their onsite behavior, and even to pinpoint “moments when young people need a confidence boost.” Facebook acknowledged that the document was real, but denied that it offers “tools to target people based on their emotional state.” 1. 2. 3. 4.

Individuals have the right to autonomy and to consent to sexual acts Actions which violate this right are morally objectionable The making of pornography is characterised by coercion and there is a lack of sexual consent from actors involved (e.g. contractual obligations, grooming) Therefore, pornography violates the right to autonomy and sexual consent and is morally objectionable

TOLERANCE •

Three questions about tolerance 1. What is tolerance and how is it similar to and different from other possible attitudes and actions that we might possess? 2. What is the moral status of tolerance? 3. Is there some kind of tension within tolerance, or even a paradox of tolerance? Is tolerance in some way self-undermining?

• Defining tolerance Tolerance is something that we might direct at the behaviour of other people.

The first two: endorsing it Tolerance can be fit in Quiet Disapproval Tolerance the annoying noise which is not a morally wrong Tolerance is compatible with public criticism? Or if you are tolerating you must withhold all criticism The moral status of tolerance 1. Shouldn’t be too confident in our moral judgement, if I am not sure my moral judgement is correct, then I should tolerant others who hold different moral judgement against me. 2. Even if someone is doing wrong, we should respect their right of leading their own life –political liberalism 3. Can avoid all sort of things that are worse than the behaviour that I tolerant, such as violent things and get along with each other • Am I being inconsistent when I call for tolerance? Call for tolerance: 1. Call for others to tolerant Toleranting is better than critisiing it 2. Call for others and myself • The paradox of tolerance If I call for tolerance, then I am against people who are resisting behaviours rather than tolerating it, but when I am against them, that is an intolerant behaviour Popper: --unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. --if we are to defend a tolerant society, we must be willing to exercise intolerance towards the enemies of that tolerant society. We must be intolerant of the intolerant people. • Three possible responses to the paradox of tolerance

•

1. Tolerance is wrong, we should fight for the right things and against wrongdoers. 2. Tolerance is good, we ought to embody tolerance rather than promote it. The best world is where there are lots of tolerance, but in order to have tolerance, we should be willing to be intolerant, at least some of the time. For instance, in order to defend a sphere in which tolerance can exist, we must be intolerant against advocates of intolerance such as Nazis, the intolerance here might be good as the intolerance has good effects. 3. Tolerance is sometimes good and sometimes bad. But which things we should tolerance and why? READINGS: 1. After Charlottesville, how we define tolerance becomes a key question First-order tolerance is to tolerate behaviours which are used to be intolerant. E.g. decriminalized gay sex Second-order tolerance is to intolerant people who are intolerant about a specific behaviour. E.g. Many countries and states also now have anti-discrimination laws, aimed at preventing intolerance of homosexuality, among other things. The Voltaire-figure allows people to say things he does not approve of (first-order tolerance), and will also interfere with those who try to prevent the person speaking (second-order intolerance). When people who believe extreme political views want to express their opinions, we can tolerate their speech and argue back. We can be first-order tolerant. Tolerance need not imply approval, and when we argue back to them we can express our disagreement under the same umbrella of protection afforded by a first-order tolerant society. But when people refuse to be tolerant, we can refuse to tolerate those behaviours. That refusal should not be violent or unreasoning, and should not target behaviours that would otherwise receive protection; the aim is not “tit-for-tat”, a reply to intolerance in its own coin. The aim is instead to protect, using reasonable means, the field of first-order tolerance. 2. Toleration-conceptual analysis Toleration is usually grounded upon an assumption about the importance of the autonomy of individuals. This assumption and the idea of toleration are central ideas in modern liberal theory and practice. a) Conceptual analysis Tolerate, toleration, tolerance-- imply enduring, suffering, bearing, and forbearance. When an agent tolerates something: (1) the agent holds a negative judgment about this thing; (2) the agent has the power to negate this thing; and (3) the agent deliberately refrains from negation. As mentioned already, there also may be other non-tolerant reasons for refraining from negation: fear, weakness of will, profit motive, self-interest, arrogance, and so forth.

Proponents of toleration think that toleration is good not because they are unsure of their moral values but, rather, because toleration fits within a scheme of moral values that includes values such as autonomy, peace, cooperation, and other values that are thought to be good for human flourishing. b) Moral toleration Tolerance as a moral virtue might be linked to other moral virtues such as modesty and selfcontrol. We ought to refrain from negating the other when concern for the other's autonomy provides us with a good reason not to act. A commitment to autonomy might require that I allow another person to do something that I find abhorrent, not because I believe that values are relative, but because I believe that autonomy is so important that it requires me to refrain from negating the autonomous action of another free agent. Of course, there are limits here. Autonomous action that violates the autonomy of another cannot be tolerated. Mill's account of the principle of liberty is helpful for understanding this idea of toleration. Mill tells us that we should be given as much liberty as possible, as long as our liberty does not harm others. -Paradox of toleration: One way of resolving this paradox is to recognize that there is a distinction between firstorder judgments and second-order moral commitments. First-order judgments include emotional reactions and other practical judgments that focus on concrete and particular attitudes and behaviors. Second-order moral commitments include more complicated judgments that aim beyond emotion and particularity toward rational universal principles. With regard to the paradox of toleration there is a conflict between a first-order reaction against something and a second-order commitment to the principle of respecting autonomy or to the virtues of modesty or self-control. The paradox is resolved by recognizing that this second-order commitment trumps the first-order reaction: principle is supposed to outweigh emotion. Thus we might have good reasons (based upon our second-order commitments) to refrain from following through on the normal consequences of negative first-order judgments. However, when there is a genuine conflict of second-order commitments, that is, when the tolerant commitment to autonomy runs up against an intolerant rejection of autonomy, then there is no need to tolerate. In other words the paradox is resolved when we realize that toleration is not a commitment to relativism but, rather, that it is a commitment to the value of autonomy and to the distinction between first-order judgments and second-order moral commitments. -Tolerance vs. indifference Moral toleration asks us to restrain some of our most powerful first-order reactions: negative reactions to persons, attitudes, and behaviors which we find repugnant. Without the tension between first-order reactions and second-order commitment, toleration is merely indifference. Indifference usually indicates a failure at the level of first-order judgment: when we are indifferent, we do not have any reaction, negative or positive, to the other. Such a

state of indifference is not virtuous. Indeed, it would be vicious and wrong not to react strongly against injustice or violations of autonomy. Indifference is flawed as a human response for two reasons: - Tolerance does not ask us to deaden our emotional responses to others; rather it asks us to restrain the negative consequences of our negative emotional responses out of deference to a more universal set of commitments. - Second, indifference is often closely related to general skepticism about moral judgment. The moral skeptic claims that no set of values is true. From this perspective, both first-order reactions and second-order commitments are mere tastes or preferences without any final moral significance. From this skepticism, indifference with regard to any moral evaluation is cultivated because all of our moral values are thought to be equally groundless. The difficulty here is that moral skepticism cannot lead to the conclusion that it is good to be tolerant, since the skeptic holds that no moral value can be justified. If we claim that toleration is good and that tolerance is a virtue, toleration cannot be the same thing as indifference. education does not ask us to give up on first- order reactions or sense perceptions. Rather, it asks us to be disciplined and self-critical, so that we might control first-order reactions in order to uphold more important principles.

MIGRATION

-The rights of states to control borders They have the right to exclude prospective immigrants but they actually don't have much space to determine their own migration arrangements and they have to make sure their refugees schemes conform with the demands of morality. There are a number of moral obligations that imposes limits on that right. Kit Wellman: it is the state’s right to freedom of association that grounds the right to exclude. Because states should be able to decide who they want to associate with, and a right of freedom of association as a component of the broader right to self-determination. As state’s right of self-determination is really IMPORTANT! People do care about politics, they do care about their votes, their rights, their welfare and etc., thus the state should have a great power on its self-determination. Regarding controlling borders, it is more about the liberal self-determination -Moral obligations to refugees ‘Refugees are who suffer political persecution or have a reasonable fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.’ It is too broad, more specifically, refugee are the people who can’t lead a minimally decent life without migrating. As they have existential vulnerability, thus the moral obligations are based on to accept and protect them as we are in a liberal democratic society. -Who counts as a refugee? As mentioned in the last session, the broader definition for refugee is just when you are suffering from a political persecution. And then we come to the second question, whether you could reside in your own state or you have to migrate in order to have a minimally decent life. That can help the states to control and more effectively pick up the number of refugees. -Refugees on Manus Island The reason why Australia refuses to accept refugees on Manus Island is that it wants to send a clear message to people smugglers that if you try to come to Australia, you won’t get in. It is a violent way to send the message. -Issues of family migration Morally, who counts as a family member for migration purposes: intimate are people like your parent or your spouse, your child, but also extend to members of your extended family relatives, uncles, aunties or even close friends (people care deeply about each other, they see each other as irreplaceable)

-How do we prioritise who should be allowed to migrate? Should prioritise refugees and only parents and young children should count—really similar reason of vulnerability with refugees. If we don't have the refugee problems anymore, they we can broader our family migration schemes that acknowledge other relationships. So the top priority can be really based on whether that person has a minimally decent life in their own states, if not, then they are a cohort of people who we prioritise to be migrated. -Skilled workers and migration ‘brain drain’ is about skilled immigrants leaving poorer developing states in order to migrate to wealthier liberal democratic states. But it raised question that the states where are demanding teachers, nurses and sort of skilled workers are difficult to retain the skilled workers as they are willing to migrate to a wealthier states, thus it is enabling harm to poor developing states. There might be a violation of thei...