ATS1371Life, Death, and Morality

Semester 1, 2015Dr Ron Gallagher

ron.gallagher@monash.edu

Tutorial 7 (4 more tutorials to go)

Equality, Race, Species and Singer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-d6H6jRlqg#t=578

Dawkins and Singer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lu9sc4FWLw

ABC Interview(s)

Lectures and Tutorials at Clayton (Ron G indicated)

RonG

Ron

Ron Ron

S111

DON'T FORGET Weekly Reading Quizzes(x 10 @ 0.5% bonus each) Mondays 10am, weeks 2-11.Note: The section you need to read for the quiz is the one indicated for the week beginning the day the quiz is due. (Not the week just gone past.)

GOOD FRIDAY NO TUTORIAL

Assessment Summary Within semester assessment: 60% Exam: 40%

Assessment Task Short Answer Questions:AT1.1:(5%), 400 words due Wed 18th MarchAT1.2:(10%), 400 words due Wed 15th AprilAT1.3:(15%), 600 words due Wed 6th May

AT2: Essay (30%), 1100 words due Wed 20th May

Weekly Reading Quizzes (x 10 @ 0.5% bonus each) Mondays 10am, weeks 2-11.

Examination (40%)

AT1.3:(15%), 600 words due Wed 6th May

Does Singer think the principle of equality plays a role in showing that racism is wrong? Explain why or why not. Does the principle rule out all forms of racism?  (suggested 150 words max)

If one ethnic group was naturally smarter than another, would this pose a threat to the principle of equality according to Singer? (suggested 100-125 words) 

Peter Singer presents a number of reasons in favour of vegetarianism. Critically present and discuss one of those reasons. (suggested 100-150 words)

Define Singer’s principle of equality (POE)What does it say about racist acts?What does it say about racist beliefs?

If it was a fact that the Scottish were the most naturally intelligent, and creative race in the world, would this pose a threat to the principle of equality?

What are Singer’s arguments for vegetarianism?What are some arguments against vegetarianism?

Questions for AT2: Essay (30%), @1100 words due Wed 20th May

1. Is it justified to kill an innocent threat in defence of oneself orothers? Why/why not? Discuss, with reference to the views of at least two authors from the unit.

2. The principle of equality that Singer defends has radicalconsequences. Critically discuss the principle, explaining some of itsconsequences, and assess whether Singer is right that we ought to adopt it.

3. “Abortion is impermissible, because it deprives a being of a futurelike ours. Accordingly, it is morally similar to killing a healthyadult.” Critically discuss this argument, drawing upon at least one ofthe authors we have looked at in the readings. 

Singer on Preference Utilitarianism

For preference utilitarians, taking the life ofa person will normally be worse than takingthe life of some other being, since personsare highly future-oriented in their preferences.To kill a person is therefore, normally,to violate not just one, but a wide range ofthe most central and significant preferencesa being can have. Very often, it will makenonsense of everything that the victim hasbeen trying to do in the past days, months,or even years. (Singer 1993, 95)

Singer describes the POE as a ‘minimally egalitarian principle’It doesn’t recommend equal outcomes, but equal interests being considered equally.

Egalitarianism (derived from the French word égal, meaning equal) or Equalism is a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights.[1]

Racism, speciesism and the POE

• Racists give undue weight to their racial group

POE Test: “What course of action is open to me which will maximise satisfaction of all creatures, counting all preferences that are sufficiently alike in an impartial manner?

Treat like interests in a like manner.

Dirk B

From ATS1371 Reader

Consider whether the principle of equality can be used to attack the institution of slavery. Suppose there were an institution of slavery based on a lottery in which everyone had an equal chance of becoming a slave or a slave-owner, would the equality principle still provide a strong case against slavery?

PART III

SINGER’S PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY

EQUALITY

There has been a huge change in Western attitudes to blatant forms of racial discrimination.

‘The principle that all humans are equal is now part of the prevailing political and ethical orthodoxy’ (Singer (1993:16).

But what does this principle mean?

It is simply not true that all are equal with respect to intelligence or height or weight, etc.

A non-factual approach to equality

Singer avoids the problem of trying to find a factual equality.

SINGER: Principle of equality (POE) is not a factual principle. Rather, it is a basic ethical principle that is an exhortation (command, imperative). NB: Imperatives are not truth-apt.

POE

According to Singer, the POE is a basic ethical

principle of equal consideration of interests.

POE: Treat all interests equally.

‘…give equal weight in our moral deliberations to the like interests of all those affected by our actions’ (Singer, 1993:21).

Why Accept the Principle of Equality as a basic ethical principle?

Singer:

1. Ethical behaviour requires a universal point of view.

2. A universal point of view requires that I take into account the interests of all those affected.

3. So ethical behaviour requires something like the POE.

Note that the POE is part of utilitarianism, but can be adopted in isolation from it.

DOES THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY ENTAIL EQUAL TREATMENT?

NO

‘The principle of equal consideration of interests act like a pair of scales, weighing interests impartially. True scales favour the side where the interest is stronger or where several interests combine to outweigh a smaller number of similar interests; but they take no account of whose interests they are weighing’ (Singer 1993:22).

Application (1): Leads to minimally egalitarian consequences.

> I have two doses of morphine> X is in agony with a crushed thigh. > Y is in slight pain with a gashed thigh.> If I give one shot of morphine to each, X will remain in

far greater pain that Y.> As the interest that X and Y have in pain relief is not equal, I should give the two doses to X.

• But – the unequal treatment has resulted in a more egalitarian result.

• There is less difference in the amount of suffering.

APPLICATION (2)

> X, has lost a leg and is in danger of losing a toe from her remaining leg without medical treatment.

> Y has an injury to her leg, and is in danger of losing it without medical treatment.

If we were to aim for a more egalitarian result that narrowed the difference in welfare between the two, we would save X’s toe.

But –doing so is not a case of considering interests impartially.

POE – MINIMALLY EGALITARIAN

Singer: there are cases where applying the POE can result in a greater difference between individuals.

> Ys interest in not losing a leg is much greater than Xs interest in not losing a toe.

> We should, when interests are considered and impartially, give the medical treatment to Y.

> To bring about best result, we must actually increase the inequality between two people. Hence POE is not thoroughly egalitarian.

APPLICATION (3)

Singer also thinks that POE will rule out blatant

forms of racism, for those require total disregard

for the preferences/interests of others.

What if we discover inequalities?

If racism is wrong because it ignores the POE, then what does the POE tell us about inequalities between races?

Suppose there is a racial difference in IQ, or whatever.

Two weak replies:> Racial averages do not correlate very strongly

with the qualities of individuals.

> Racial averages may reflect environment much more than genetic influences.

What if we discover inequalities? (2)

IMPORTANT REPLY

The observed difference gives no reason to revise the

POE.

1. Person A is smarter than person B, therefore

2. Treat A’s interests as more important than B’s.

- This is a complete non-sequitur.

A statement of fact cannot contradict an imperative

Which of the following is a correct statement about Singer’s POE?

1. From the POE it follows that someone who says that blacks are more intelligent than whites is making a factual error.

II. From the POE it follows that someone who says that blacks are more intelligent than whites is making a moral error.

A. I onlyB. II onlyC. I and II.D. Neither

PART IV

PROBLEMS FOR SINGER

Intrinsically bad attitudes

In saying what is wrong with racism, Singer has shifted focus off beliefs and sentiments towards actions.

• But what about hatred of another race. Surely that is a wrongful part of racism?

Singer can say that it is wrong because of the typical consequences of racial hatred. But you might argue that hatred of a racial group is intrinsically bad.

EVEN RACIST INTERESTS COUNT

• In treating all interests equally, Singer is committed to taking into consideration the interest a racist has in persecuting another race!

(e.g. ‘Nasty Society Transplant’ case).

MOVING ON

Perhaps we can block the second of these worries if we

help ourselves to rights.

In addition to the POE, we might believe in the existence

of certain basic rights that would be violated by any policy

of persecution.

Good thing about the POE is that it shows how racism can

be wrongful even if what we think of as racist beliefs are

true.

Which of the following statements about the POE are true?

1. The POE rules out most racially discriminatory policies because

those policies fail to treat the interests of all equally.

II. The POE rules out racial hatred because such hatred is not based

on treating the interests of everyone equally.

III. All preference utilitarians must accept the POE.

A. 1 onlyB. 1 and 11 onlyC. 1 and 111 onlyD. 1, 11 and 111

SUMMARY

• Singer’s principle of equality gives a neat explanation of why racism and sexism are wrong, that is not threatened by any inequalities between groups.

• But, the same principle does not seem to explain what is wrong with racial hatred.

Does Singer think the principle of equality plays a role in showing that racism is wrong? Explain why or why not. Does the principle rule out all forms of racism? POE: Encourage us to treat all people (and other animals) interests equally.‘…give equal weight in our moral deliberations to the like interests of all those affected by our actions’ (Singer, 1993:21).Purpose – to encourage equal opportunities not enforce equal outcomes.Racist actions and policies do not treat all people’s interests equally (or impartially)POE shows why racist beliefs are wrong only if you agree with the principle. You don’t need to be a consequentialist to agree that we should treat all person’s interests equally. Egalitarian – Egalitarianism is a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights.Fair – Freedom from discrimination. Equal – The same.

If one ethnic group was naturally smarter than another, would this pose a threat to the principle of equality according to Singer?  (Check Singer 38ff) POE cannot be undermined by a ‘fact’ because it is an imperative not a factual statement about the world.

Peter Singer presents a number of reasons in favour of vegetarianism. Critically present and discuss one of those reasons. (see Singer p54,p105)POE – benefit of doubt (mammals may be person) – we should not cause suffering – ecology/economy – animals count in their own right -