Phil 120 W Reading Notes PDF

Week 1 Jonathan Haidt's The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment Big Idea: Moral judgments are mostly driven by intuitive emotional responses, rather than by deliberate reasoning. Social Intuitionist Model Moral judgments are often the r...

Week 1 Jonathan Haidt's The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment Big Idea: Moral judgments are mostly driven by intuitive emotional responses, rather than by deliberate reasoning. Social Intuitionist Model Moral judgments are often the result of quick, automatic intuitions rather than conscious, reasoned thought. People rely on gut feelings when making moral decisions. Role of Emotion Emotions are not the causes of moral judgements When justifying something, don’t be a lawyer, trying to build a case, rather be a judge, searching for the truth Interpersonal Influence Moral judgments are influenced heavily by social interactions. Moral reasoning often involves social persuasion rather than reflection by yourself Moral Reasoning as a Public Act The process of moral reasoning can be pictured as an attempt to convince others or justify one's own intuitive judgments Other people's judgement, especially friends affect your own judgement People are very unwilling to change their ideas on things Implications for Moral Philosophy and Psychology Haidt states that moral psychologists need to recognize the domination emotion and intuition have in moral decision-making Moral reasoning Judgement is a kind of inference made in several steps. The reason our searches for relevant evidence ways, evidence, coordinates evidence with theories and reaches a  decision. Some of these steps may be performed unconsciously, and any of these steps may be subject to biases and errors. (Kuhn, 1989;Nesbit and Ross) (Baron 1998) demonstrated that people following their moral intuition, often bring disastrous consequences and matters of public policy health and the tort system David Hume proposed that moral judgements are similar informed to aesthetic judgments. They are derived from sentiment, not reason. Kohlberg ran a study in which she claimed that children start as egoists judging actions by good or bad consequences, but as the children’s cognitive abilities expanded, they develop the ability to see a situation from other peoples perspectives Kohlberg trained or inspired most of the leading researchers in moral psychology today Hume stated that Human actions can never be accounted for by reason, but are accounted for by sentiments and affections of mankind Actions that involve no injustice harm or right violations are treated as violations of social conventions involving logically agreed on within social systems The intuitive system Fast and effortless Process is unintentional and runs automatically Process is inaccessible only results enter awareness Does not demand additional resources Parallel distributed processing Pattern matching thought is metaphorical holistic All mammals Context dependent Platform dependent depends on the brain and body that houses it The reasoning system Slow and effortful Process is intentional and controllable Process is consistently accessible and viewable Demand attentional resources which are limited Serial processing Symbol manipulation thought preserving analytical Unique to humans over age 2, and perhaps some language trained apes  Context independent platform independent the process can be transported to any rule following organism or machine Week 2 Robert Nozick, The Experience Machine 1. What is “The Experience Machine”? "The Experience Machine" is a thought experiment introduced by philosopher Robert Nozick. It is a machine that could provide you with any experience you desire by stimulating your brain to make you believe you're living a perfect life. 2. What are three reasons Nozick suggests make us reluctant to plug into the machine? First, people value real experiences. We don't just want the feeling of doing things; we want to actually do them. Second, we want to be a certain type of person with a particular identity, not just experience things passively. Being plugged into the machine limits our ability to shape who we are. Third, we value reality itself. We have a deep desire to engage with the actual world and not just live in a fabricated one. 3. What is that reluctance said to show? The reluctance to plug in shows that we care about more than just pleasure or happiness. Nozick argues that this indicates we value authenticity, personal agency, and connection with reality. This thought experiment challenges hedonism, which suggests that pleasure is the highest or only good. Depression and the Problem of Absent Desires Ian Tully 1. What is the desire theory of happiness? The desire theory is a person is happy when their desires or wants are satisfied, and the more of their desires that are fulfilled, the happier they are. 2. What is the Simple View of the desire theory of happiness? Is a basic version of the desire theory of happiness. It states that a person's happiness is directly proportional to the number of their desires that are satisfied. If your desires are fulfilled, you're happy; if they aren't, you're unhappy. 3. Is Frankl’s description of the psychology of some people who lived in concentration camps an example of complete conative collapse? Why or why not? Frankl’s description of people in concentration camps is not an example of complete cognitive collapse. Complete cognitive collapse refers to the total loss of all desires. In contrast, Frankl describes people who, while facing extreme suffering, still held onto certain desires (like the desire for meaning or hope), even though many of their basic desires were unattainable. 4. What is the “absent desire problem” for the Simple View or version of the desire theory of happiness? Where a person does not have any active desires , yet this doesn't necessarily mean they are unhappy. According to the Simple View, if you have no desires, you can't be happy or unhappy, which seems counterintuitive. 5. What are “idealized desires”? Idealized desires refer to the desires that a person would have under ideal conditions, such as full information, rationality, and clarity of mind. These are desires that a person might hold if they were free from mistakes or misconceptions. 6. Why do “idealized desires” fail to solve the “absent desire problem” according to Tully? Tully argues that idealized desires fail to solve the absent desire problem because they still depend on the fulfilment of desires, meaning that even if their idealized desires are fulfilled, it doesn't guarantee that the person will feel happy or satisfied in their actual lived experience. Week 3 Oshana, Marina. 2003. How much should we value autonomy? What is Autonomy? Being self directed and having control over significant parts of your life like choices or actions. Also involved are the ability to make decisions and the ability to make them independently free from internal or external forces 1. Basic Contrast Between Conceptions of Autonomy: a) Internalist Conception: ○ Autonomy is about having the inner ability to make your own choices. It's about your own mental state and freedom to choose based on your values. b) Relational Conception: ○ Autonomy depends on your social environment. It’s not just about your internal abilities but also about having supportive relationships and being free from oppressive conditions. 2. Why Wilma is Autonomous and Harriet is Not: Wilma is considered autonomous because she makes choices freely and those choices reflect her own values. Harriet is not autonomous because her choices are restricted by external factors or oppressive conditions that prevent her from acting freely. 3. Consistency of the Taliban Woman Example with Relational Autonomy: Oshana’s example of the Taliban woman supports her relational view of autonomy. Even if the woman feels her life is meaningful, the oppressive social conditions prevent her from truly exercising autonomy, according to this view. 4. Agreement with Oshana’s Claims: Agreement: You might agree if you believe that having a supportive social environment is crucial for real autonomy. Disagreement: You might disagree if you think that personal ability and inner strength are enough for autonomy, even if social conditions are not ideal. Islamist Women’s Agency and Relational Autonomy Ranjoo Herr 1. Do Women in the WMM Lead Autonomous Lives According to Oshana’s Conception?  Oshana's relational autonomy requires both personal choice and favorable social conditions. WMM women may feel fulfilled, but their autonomy is limited by restrictive social and religious frameworks. Despite their satisfaction, their autonomy is constrained by the environment in which they live. 2. Positive Attributes of WMM Women According to Herr Religious commitment: Strong engagement in their faith. Community leadership: Active roles in challenging patriarchal structures within their religious community. Personal empowerment: Experience growth and fulfilment through religious education and participation. 3. Is the Welfare or Happiness of WMM Women Compromised if They Are Not Autonomous? Herr argues that happiness and welfare are not necessarily compromised even if autonomy is limited. Women in the WMM find meaning and personal satisfaction through religious participation, which enhances their well-being. 4. Implications for Women Living Under Less Progressive Regimes like the Taliban Herr suggests that women under more oppressive regimes may still find happiness or fulfilment despite the absence of autonomy. Their well-being is shaped by socially restricted roles and constrained freedom, but subjective happiness may still be present. Autonomy is severely limited, but personal satisfaction can come from religious or cultural roles. Week 4: Liberty + The Subjection of Women (Book 1. Introduction) J.S. Mill 1. Mill on Tyranny and Its Evolution Evolution of the threat of tyranny:  ○ In earlier times tyranny was primarily the unchecked power of monarchs or rulers, imposing their will on society. As societies became more democratic, the threat evolved into what he calls the "tyranny of the majority." Tyranny of the majority: ○ This occurs when the majority uses its power to impose its views, values, or interests on minorities or individuals, suppressing dissent. It's not just about legal coercion but also societal pressure and norms that can stifle individuality and freedom. 2. The Harm Principle What is the harm principle?: ○ The only justification for restricting an individual’s liberty is to prevent harm to others. People should be free to act as they wish, so long as their actions do not negatively affect others. What does it require from (a) the laws and (b) from other people? ○ Laws: Should only restrict behaviour that harms others. ○ Other people: Society and individuals should refrain from interfering in others’ actions or imposing social pressure unless those actions harm others. 3. Does the Harm Principle Permit Punishing Adults Who Harm Only Themselves or Other Consenting Adults? No, the harm principle (does not permit punishing) adults whose actions harm only themselves or other consenting adults. Mill argues that people should be free to make their own choices, even if those choices are harmful to themselves, as long as they do not harm others involuntarily. 4. Does the Harm Principle Permit Taxing People or Drafting Them into the Military? Taxing people: ○ Taxation might be justified as a form of contributing to the common good, particularly when it’s for services that benefit everyone, like public infrastructure or national defence. Military draft: ○ Under the harm principle, (conscription might be justified) if a collective threat endangers the public good or others’ rights. In such cases, requiring individuals to defend society could prevent harm to others. On the Freedom of Expression (Book 2) 1. Why does Mill claim that speech which offends the majority but which may possibly be true has social utility? Mill argues that even if speech offends the majority, it might contain some truth or might stimulate debate, leading to the improvement of ideas or understanding. Suppressing such speech denies society the chance to critically assess its beliefs. 2. Why does Mill claim that exposure to speech known to be false benefits people? Exposure to false ideas ○ forces individuals to think critically about their own beliefs and strengthens their understanding of truth by confronting opposing views. “Dead dogmas”: ○ These are beliefs that people hold without understanding or questioning them, often accepted out of habit. When beliefs are not challenged, they become "dead dogmas," losing their vitality and relevance. Autonomy as Individuality (Book 3) 1. Why does Mill claim that each person’s happiness depends on having the opportunity to experiment with different lifestyles? Experimentation with lifestyles: ○ Mill believes that individual happiness arises from personal growth and self-discovery, which can only happen if people are free to explore different ways of life. Each person has unique needs and desires, and experimenting with different lifestyles allows them to find the one that suits them best. More than “ape-like imitation”: ○ Mill argues that true happiness requires (originality and personal expression), not simply conforming to the majority's way of living. Imitation without self-discovery leads to mediocrity and prevents individuals from reaching their full potential. Happiness, for Mill, comes from active engagement in life and personal growth, rather than passive imitation of others. Week 6 The case for utilitarianism Consequentialism and Respect By B. Eggleston 1. Well-being conception of a person’s interests: Focuses on what contributes to a person’s well-being or quality of life. Determines a person’s interests based on whether it increases their happiness or well-being. Utilitarianism uses this idea to assess the consequences of actions based on their impact on well-being. 2. Respect and additivity principle: Each person’s well-being should be respected. When considering policies, we should maximise the total well-being by adding up the effects on all individuals. Eggleston’s application to the road-widening example: ○ Consider all individuals’ interests, such as the benefits for drivers vs. the harms to residents. ○ If the benefits (e.g., reduced traffic) outweigh the harms (e.g., noise, pollution), the road should be widened. 3. Receptacles objection to utilitarianism: Criticism that utilitarianism treats people as “receptacles” for well-being. Claims utilitarianism focuses on maximising total well-being, even if it sacrifices some individuals’ interests. Eggleston’s reply: Utilitarianism respects individuals by considering everyone’s well-being in decisions. It balances each person’s well-being to ensure the best overall outcome, not ignoring individual interests. Famine, Affluence and Morality By P. Singer 1. Singer’s principle on preventing something bad: Singer argues that if we have the ability to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing something of equal moral significance, we are morally obligated to do so. “Without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance” means we should act to prevent harm unless it would cause something equally bad or prevent a similar moral good from happening. For example, if we can save a life by donating money and doing so doesn’t lead to significant harm or prevent another important moral action, we should donate. 2. Traditional moral categories being upset: Singer challenges the traditional distinction between duty (what we are morally required to do) and charity (voluntary acts of kindness). Traditionally, donating to charity, like the Bengal Relief Fund, is seen as a generous, optional act of charity. Singer argues that such actions should instead be seen as moral obligations (duties), not just optional acts of generosity, thus “upsetting” traditional views on moral duties vs. charitable actions. 3. Weaker vs. stronger version of Singer’s argument: Stronger version: ○ We are morally obligated to prevent bad things from happening, regardless of distance or personal involvement, even if it requires significant sacrifices (e.g., giving up a large portion of our wealth to prevent suffering). Weaker version: ○ We are still morally obligated to help, but only to the point where we don’t sacrifice something of significant moral importance (e.g., helping others without giving up most of our own resources or well-being). The difference: ○ lies in the level of sacrifice we are required to make to help others. The stronger version demands more significant sacrifices, while the weaker version calls for less. Week 7 The case against utilitarianism Why Utilitarians Shot President Kennedy By: Don Locke 1. Why would utilitarians shoot JFK? Utilitarians might justify the assassination by believing it would lead to greater overall harm than good. They may think JFK’s presidency could result in significant negative consequences (e.g., war, social unrest). The assassination could be seen as a means to prevent greater suffering and maximise overall happiness or utility. 2. Objective vs. Subjective Justification Objectively Justified: ○ Actions could be justified if the assassination leads to a greater good and maximises overall happiness. Subjectively Justified: ○ Individuals may not personally believe their action is right. ○ They might feel conflicted about taking a life, creating a disconnect between theoretical justification and personal beliefs. According to Locke, why should utilitarians who shot JFK feel no remorse? They should feel no remorse because their actions align with the utilitarian principle of maximising overall happiness. If they believe their actions will yield positive outcomes, guilt or regret is unnecessary. Their moral framework prioritises collective benefit over individual suffering. 3. Justification for Suppressing Information  Utilitarians may justify suppressing information about their plot to prevent interference. Keeping their plans secret could help ensure the assassination goes forward, avoiding actions that might lead to greater harm. Transparency may be viewed as detrimental to the greater good, justifying the decision to conceal their intentions. Lenin’s anticipation of Bernard Williams’s integrity objection to utilitarianism By Alexander Miller 1. What is the discussion of Jim supposed to show according to Williams? Purpose of the Jim Example: Williams uses the hypothetical scenario involving Jim to illustrate the limitations of utilitarianism in addressing personal integrity. In the scenario, Jim must choose between killing an innocent person or allowing several people to die, highlighting the moral conflict between utilitarian calculation and personal ethics. Argument Against Utilitarianism: The Jim example argues that utilitarianism can compel individuals to act against their moral convictions for the sake of maximising overall utility. It demonstrates that utilitarianism overlooks the importance of personal integrity, suggesting that a moral theory that forces individuals to act against their deeply held beliefs is inadequate. 2. What is the dilemma Lenin describes, and how does he claim to resolve that dilemma? Dilemma Described by Lenin: Lenin presents a dilemma regarding the moral implications of revolutionary violence and the ethical considerations of sacrificing individuals for a greater cause.  He suggests that revolutionaries might face a conflict between utilitarian calculations (justifying harm for the greater good) and their personal moral beliefs. Resolution by Lenin: Lenin resolves this dilemma by advocating for the necessity of revolutionary action, arguing that the end justifies the means. He implies that upholding the revolutionary cause may require individuals to act in ways that contradict personal integrity, but he views this as a necessary sacrifice for the ultimate goal of societal change. 3. What problem does Miller identify with Williams’ argument against utilitarianism, and how does Lenin’s response address it? Problem Identified by Miller: Miller argues that Williams’s integrity objection may overlook the context of revolutionary ethics, where the necessity of action can supersede personal moral beliefs. He suggests that Williams’s argument does not account for situations where individuals might willingly sacrifice their integrity for a higher cause, as seen in Lenin’s revolutionary context. Lenin’s Response: Lenin’s perspective provides a counterpoint to Williams by asserting that personal integrity can be sacrificed in the service of a revolutionary aim. His argument implies that the utilitarian calculus in revolutionary contexts may require prioritising the collective good over individual integrity, thereby challenging the absoluteness of Williams’s objection. 4. Do you agree with Williams’s thesis that moral theories which conflict with personal integrity are defective for that very reason? Why or why not? Agreement with Williams’s Thesis: Agreeing with Williams’s thesis suggests that moral theories must account for individual integrity and personal beliefs to be considered valid. A theory that demands actions contrary to one’s moral convictions may lead to alienation and psychological distress, undermining the individual’s sense of self and ethical responsibility. Disagreement with Williams’s Thesis: Conversely, one could argue that in certain contexts (e.g., revolutionary scenarios), personal integrity may need to be subordinated to broader ethical considerations. This view posits that moral progress sometimes necessitates difficult choices, and a rigid adherence to personal integrity might hinder important societal changes. Conclusion: Ultimately, the evaluation of Williams’s thesis depends on the prioritisation of individual ethics versus collective well-being and the complexities inherent in real-world moral dilemmas. Week 8 Morality Kant’s Ethics A Simplified Version of Kant’s Ethics By Onora O’Neill 1. What Does Kant Mean by the Maxim of an Action? Maxim Defined: ○ A maxim is a subjective principle or rule that an individual uses to guide their actions. ○ It expresses the intention behind an action and indicates the reasoning that justifies it. Importance in Ethics: ○ Maxims are critical in determining whether an action is morally permissible by evaluating if it can be universalized. 2. How Does Kantian Ethics Differ from Utilitarianism? a) Scope: Kantian Ethics: ○ Focuses on individual intentions and the moral duties arising from them, emphasising rights and obligations.  Utilitarianism: ○ Centres on the outcomes of actions, aiming to maximise overall happiness or utility for the greatest number of people. b) Precision: Kantian Ethics: ○ Provides clear moral guidelines based on rational principles (e.g., the Categorical Imperative) that can be universally applied. Utilitarianism: ○ Often requires complex calculations of consequences, making it less precise in individual cases. 3. What Is the Difference Between Duties of Justice and Duties of Beneficence? Duties of Justice: ○ Concerned with fairness and the rights of individuals. ○ Focus on preventing harm and ensuring that individuals are treated with respect and dignity. Duties of Beneficence: ○ Involve actions that promote the welfare of others. ○ Go beyond mere non-interference and encourage positive contributions to others’ well-being. 4. If Kantian Ethics Cares Primarily About Intentions, Does That Mean the Theory Considers the Consequences of Actions to Be Morally Irrelevant? Intentions vs. Consequences: ○ Kantian ethics emphasises intentions behind actions as the basis for moral evaluation. ○ While it prioritises intentions, it does not claim consequences are entirely irrelevant; consequences may be considered but do not determine moral worth. 5. How Do Kantians and Utilitarians Value Life Differently? Kantians: ○ Value life based on inherent dignity and the ability to act rationally.  ○ Each individual has intrinsic worth that must be respected regardless of consequences. Utilitarians: ○ Value life based on its contribution to overall happiness or utility. ○ The worth of a life can be assessed in terms of the happiness it generates for the greatest number. 6. Which Ethical Theory (Kantian Ethics or Utilitarianism) Do You Find More Persuasive? Why? Personal Reflection: ○ This question invites subjective interpretation based on individual values and beliefs. Consider factors such as: ○ Preference for rights and dignity (supporting Kantian ethics). ○ Focus on outcomes and societal benefit (supporting utilitarianism). ○ Justify your choice with reasoning based on personal convictions about morality, justice, and ethical decision-making. Justice Week 9 Justice A Kantian Social Contract A Theory of Justice: Revised Edition (Harvard UP, 1971) By John Rawls 1. The Rawlsian Social Contract in General Familiar Idea of the Social Contract: Philosophical concept where individuals consent to form a society. Implies moral and political obligations for social cooperation. Discussed by philosophers like Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. Higher Level of Abstraction: Focus shifts from specific societal contracts to principles of justice. The “original position” is a hypothetical scenario for choosing fair principles. Commentary on Society: Rawls notes individuals are born into specific societal circumstances. These circumstances significantly influence life chances. Justice cannot be solely based on voluntary agreements. 2. The Veil of Ignorance Missing Information: Participants lack knowledge of personal attributes (race, gender, etc.) and social status. Ensures principles chosen are unbiased. Fairness of Chosen Principles: Principles are fair as ignorance encourages protection of all interests, especially the disadvantaged. Hypothetical Agreement: Refers to an agreement made in a theoretical construct, illustrating rational choice under fairness. 3. Principles of Justice in the Original Position Principle of Equal Liberty: Asserts equal rights to basic liberties (speech, assembly, conscience). Difference Principle:  States inequalities must benefit the least advantaged members of society. Ordered Principles of Justice: Principle of equal liberty has priority over the difference principle. Rejection of the Principle of Utility: Utility could justify sacrificing rights of the less fortunate for the greater good. 4. Why is the Veil of Ignorance Fair? Natural Endowments: Inherent talents and abilities affecting life outcomes. Deservingness of Natural Endowments: Individuals do not “deserve” these endowments as they are arbitrary. Deservingness of Character: Individuals do not “deserve” character traits that enable exploitation of endowments. Right to Natural Assets: Individuals have a right to their natural assets as a matter of justice. 5. The Argument for Principles of Justice from Uncertainty Rationality Behind the Veil: Individuals seek to maximise well-being without knowledge of their future status. Social Primary Goods: Essential resources and rights for pursuing personal conceptions of the good life. Influence of Uncertainty on Principles: Uncertainty leads to principles that minimise risks and ensure basic needs. Maximin Rule: Decision-making principle that maximises the minimum outcome, ensuring the best situation for the least advantaged. Week 10 Justice The Natural Right to One’s Body A Defense of Abortion,” Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1(1971), 47–66. By J.J. Thomson Main Argument: Thomson argues that even if a fetus is considered a person with a right to life, it does not necessarily entail that abortion is morally impermissible. Violinist Thought Experiment: Thomson uses the analogy of being connected to a famous unconscious violinist whose life depends on your body. She argues that although the violinist has a right to life, you are not morally obligated to remain connected, just as a pregnant woman may not be obligated to sustain a fetus. Distinction Between Killing and Letting Die: Thomson distinguishes between directly killing and simply allowing someone to die, arguing that abortion can sometimes be a case of withholding life support rather than intentional killing. Consent to Risks Argument: Thomson addresses the idea that by engaging in sex, a woman implicitly consents to the risk of pregnancy. She challenges this view by suggesting that even if a woman consents to sex, she is not obligated to sustain a resulting fetus. “People Seeds” Thought Experiment: ○ She introduces another thought experiment where “people seeds” drift through windows and grow into people inside homes, even with barriers. This supports the idea that consent to risk (e.g., pregnancy despite contraception) does not equate to obligation. Moral Permissibility in Self-Defense: Thomson argues that in cases where the mother’s life is at risk, abortion is akin to self-defense and morally permissible. Good Samaritan vs. Minimally Decent Samaritan: Thomson suggests that carrying a pregnancy to term might be a praiseworthy, “Good Samaritan” act, but morality does not require such extraordinary sacrifices. Instead, being a “minimally decent Samaritan” should suffice. Limitations of the Right to Life: Thomson clarifies that having a right to life does not mean having a right to use someone else’s body to sustain it. Conclusion: Thomson concludes that abortion can be morally permissible even if the fetus has a right to life, particularly when it requires using the woman’s body against her will or imposes significant burdens. Week 11 Justice The Natural Right to Privacy What Is the Right to Privacy?” Philosophy & Public Affairs, 43(2015), 3–26, Selection By Andrei Marmor 1. Marmor’s Justification for the Right to Privacy The moral right to privacy is based on a basic interest in controlling personal information and situations. Privacy allows individuals to set boundaries, protecting them from unwanted intrusion and public scrutiny. This control is essential for personal autonomy, allowing people to form relationships and make personal decisions freely. 2. Examples Supporting the Interest in Privacy Examples Marmor uses: ○ Control over intimate information, like romantic relationships and family matters. ○ Protection of private communications, such as conversations and messages. Agreement with Marmor’s Examples: ○ Yes, these examples illustrate how privacy maintains personal integrity and autonomy by protecting personal domains and enabling authentic self-expression.  3. Two Ways to Violate the Moral Right to Privacy Intrusion: ○ Physically or technologically invading someone’s private space (e.g., eavesdropping or spying). Disclosure: ○ Revealing someone’s personal information without their consent, even if it was not acquired through intrusion. 4. Right to Privacy as Not a Right to Conduct Marmor’s argument: ○ The right to privacy is about controlling access to personal information, not about defending any specific actions. ○ It’s focused on setting information boundaries rather than protecting particular behaviors. Agreement: ○ Yes: Privacy as information control aligns with the idea of setting boundaries, not defending actions. ○ No: Privacy is indirectly connected to conduct since it enables certain behaviors to remain private, suggesting an indirect link between privacy and actions. Week 12 Justice Colonialism and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples “Territorial Rights and Colonial Wrongs,” European Journal of Philosophy, 29 (2021), 425–446, Selection By Ferguson, B., & Veneziani, R., Lea Ypi: Colonialism and Indigenous Rights 1. Ypi contrasts two theories to explain why colonialism is wrong: Associationist Theory: ○ Political legitimacy arises from voluntary consent to form political associations.  Statist Theory: ○ Political legitimacy depends on the existence of effective governance, not consent. Key Difference: ○ Associationist theory prioritises individual consent, while statist theory emphasises governance and order. 2. Do indigenous peoples have moral rights over their historical lands after entering a political association? Yes, but with limits: ○ Their historical claims are transformed into shared rights within the political association. ○ Exclusive historical claims may be limited by collective obligations in the new political order. 3. Is actual consent necessary for a state to be justified or legitimate? No: ○ Ypi argues that hypothetical consent or the moral justification of the state’s purpose can suffice. ○ Legitimacy is based on a state’s ability to uphold justice and equality, not explicit consent. 4. Do indigenous peoples have moral claims for rectification of historical lands? Yes, under specific conditions: ○ If resources were wrongfully taken or principles of justice (e.g., equality) were violated.  Rectification may involve: ○ Compensatory measures rather than the direct return of land. ○ Focus on restoring equitable conditions, not exclusive territorial control. Ferguson and Veneziano: Colonialism and Indigenous Rights 1. Why is colonialism wrong? Colonialism violates natural rights by unjustly taking indigenous peoples’ lands and resources. 2. Three conditions under which indigenous peoples fail to retain natural rights over their lands: (a) Lack of improvement: ○ Claim: Indigenous peoples did not “improve” their lands. ○ Counterargument: Traditional uses of land (e.g., hunting, spiritual practices) establish legitimate ownership. (b) Abandonment: ○ Claim: Indigenous peoples abandoned their lands. ○ Counterargument: Continuous cultural and spiritual ties prove they did not abandon their lands. (c) Consent: ○ Claim: Indigenous peoples willingly consented to give up their lands. ○ Counterargument: Consent was often coerced, manipulated, or fabricated, making it invalid. Week 13 Justice The Right to Shoot someone “Defense with dignity: how the dignity of violent resistance informs the Gun Rights Debate By Dan Demetriou Core Argument: Demetriou asserts that the concept of human dignity supports the right to violent resistance against threats, which in turn justifies the right to own and carry firearms. Dignity and Self-Defense: Dignity involves more than physical survival; it includes the ability to resist aggression with proportional force. Self-defense is a way to preserve autonomy and honor when under attack. Critique of Pacifism: Pacifism, while morally noble to some, may undermine personal dignity by denying individuals the means to assertively defend themselves. Relying solely on state protection risks demeaning individuals by making them dependent on external authorities. Gun Ownership and Autonomy: Private gun ownership empowers individuals to defend themselves and their communities without waiting for state intervention. Guns symbolize the practical ability to uphold one’s dignity in extreme circumstances. Moral Implications of Disarmament: Prohibiting firearms could strip individuals of their capacity for dignified self-defense.  The policy debate must weigh not only safety but also the preservation of personal honor and autonomy. Philosophical Foundations: The argument draws on concepts of respect for persons, Kantian autonomy, and the ethical weight of individual sovereignty. Violent resistance is framed as a last-resort measure but one essential to upholding dignity. Gun Rights Debate Context: Advocates for stricter gun control often emphasize safety, but Demetriou suggests the debate should include considerations of dignity. Gun rights proponents can use the dignity argument to bolster the moral basis for self-defense and firearm ownership.