CPHL306 Contemporary Moral Issues I - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – CPHL306 Contemporary Moral Issues I PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 24752e-ZjExZ



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

CPHL306 Contemporary Moral Issues I

Description:

Here Dworkin's distinction between two kinds of moral commitment is important: ... F.3. One can only justly acquire from nature such that there be 'enough and as ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:206
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 44
Provided by: chassUt
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: CPHL306 Contemporary Moral Issues I


1
CPHL306Contemporary Moral Issues I
  • Multiculturalism

2
Soifer, Multiculturalism, Nationalism and
Aboriginal Rights
  • The Mosaic
  • vs.
  • The Melting Pot
  • Multiculturalism is the adoption of the Mosaic
    model of society.

3
Soifer, Multiculturalism, Nationalism and
Aboriginal Rights
  • Challenges for Multiculturalism
  • 1. Conflict may arise between different cultural
    groups due to different desires and values.

4
Soifer, Multiculturalism, Nationalism and
Aboriginal Rights
  • 2. Cultures may need government assistance to
    remain active and avoid absorption by the
    dominant culture.
  • (i) To what extent is society obligated to
    help particular
  • cultures? Do some cultures deserve more
    protection than others?
  • (ii) Should the government alter its own
    practices to accommodate other cultures?

5
Soifer, Multiculturalism, Nationalism and
Aboriginal Rights
  • Can justice be satisfied purely in terms of
    individual rights, or should society take notice
    of such things as collective rights? Can
    protection of cultural groups be consistent with
    the idea of a colourblind Constitution which
    advocates equality for all? To what extent can
    cultural groups violate equality rights in order
    to preserve their own identity? Is the very
    concept of an individual right the product of a
    specific culture, which should not be applied
    wholesale to other cultures? 549

6
Soifer, Multiculturalism, Nationalism and
Aboriginal Rights
  • An additional question (not from Soifer) about a
    key term What should we mean by culture?
  • If society decides to promote multiculturalism,
    to protect and/or promote minority cultural
    groups, it must decide what is to count as a
    culture, in the first place.
  • Do racial groups have their own culture? Or is
    culture to be drawn primarily on linguistic,
    religious, or geographical boundaries?
  • How small and specific can a culture be to merit
    special protection?

7
Haack, Multiculturalism and Objectivity
  • Four Types of Multiculturalism
  • Social Multiculturalism the idea that the
    dominant culture should not impose unnecessarily
    on the sensibilities of minority culture(s)
    (Haack, 549)
  • Pluralistic Educational Multiculturalism the
    idea that it is desirable for students to know
    about other cultures than their own (Haack, 549)
  • Particularistic Multiculturalism the idea that
    students (especially, that students from minority
    groups in multicultural societies) should be
    educated in their own culture (Haack, 550)
  • Philosophical Multiculturalism the idea that
    the dominant culture is not, or should not be,
    privileged (Haack, 550)
  • (not mutually exclusive)

8
Haack, Multiculturalism and Objectivity
  • The claim of pluralistic educational
    multiculturalism is true.The claim of
    particularistic educational multiculturalism is
    false. (551)
  • Awareness of other cultures helps one to
    understand oneself and ones own culture better.
  • Awareness of other cultures increases tolerance
    in multicultural societies.
  • Raising self esteem is not a direct goal of
    education, but even if it were, it is not clear
    that particularistic education achieves it more
    effectively than conventional education.
  • Children of immigrants are likely to be
    disadvantaged if not made intimately familiar
    with the conventions and practices of the
    dominant culture.
  • ______________________
  • 5. Particularistic educational multiculturalism
    is a bad model for education.

9
Haack, Multiculturalism and Objectivity
  • Haack gives the name epistemological
    counter-culturalism to a radical version of
    philosophical multiculturalism.
  • epistemology is the philosophical study of
    fundamental questions about the nature of
    knowledge
  • epistemological counter-culturalism is the view
    that Western culture is the product of white,
    heterosexual men and thus privileges their ways
    of knowing and serves their interests

10
Haack, Multiculturalism and Objectivity
  • Haack has two immediate objections to EC-C
  • There is no specifically white or black or male
    or female way of knowing in fact such a claim
    is itself the essence of racism or sexism.
  • EC-C falsely implies that we cant separate
    knowledge from power, inquiry from advocacy.
    552

11
Haack, Multiculturalism and Objectivity
  • Knowledge is defined in philosophy as justified,
    true belief.
  • A justified belief is one that has sufficient
    evidence in its favour.
  • The view attacked in (i), that there are
    community-bound ways of knowing, posits that we
    have incommensurably different standards of
    evidence.
  • Haack argues that in fact people across
    communities have similar standards of evidence,
    but differences in background beliefs.

12
Haack, Multiculturalism and Objectivity
  • Across
  • 7. Counsel, make your ____ .(4 letters)
  • Down
  • 2. Modern physics would be amiss without this. (4
    letters)
  • Sams answers Careys answers

13
Charles Taylor, The Politics of Recognition
  • The central recognition argument
  • 1. How we are recognized by others affects our
    self-conception.
  • __________________
  • 2. Thus non-recognition or negative
    misrecognition can inflict real harm on
    individuals.
  • Examples?

14
Charles Taylor, The Politics of Recognition
  • The demand for recognition has two very
    different sub-demands
  • A. The Politics of Universalism
  • All are equal, and should be recognized as
    such
  • B. The Politics of Difference
  • Everyone is unique, and should be recognized
    as such
  • Can these two sub-demands be reconciled?

15
Charles Taylor, The Politics of Recognition
  • Take the issue of discrimination
  • The politics of universalism tells us to avoid
    discrimination against by treating all people
    alike, that we should be blind to cultural
    differences.
  • The politics of difference tells us to avoid
    discrimination by making a groups / persons
    distinctive features the basis of differential
    treatment.

16
Charles Taylor, The Politics of Recognition
  • Here Dworkins distinction between two kinds of
    moral commitment is important
  • Substantive - commitment to a particular set of
    goods or ends in life
  • Procedural - commitment to a particular
    method of dealing with each others differences
    in substantive commitments
  • Dworkin claims that liberalism is a merely
    procedural commitment to treat people with equal
    respect, despite their different substantive
    commitments.
  • To do this it relies on a number or organizing
    distinctions public private, religious /
    secular. These distinctions allow us to
    relegate the contentious differences to a sphere
    that does not impinge on the political. 570

17
Charles Taylor, The Politics of Recognition
  • Taylor notes that Dworkian liberalism is rooted
    in the Kantian notion that human worth is rooted
    in our autonomy - our ability as individuals
    to rationally, independently select our own ends
    in life.
  • It is ultimately itself a substantive,
    culturally-specific view about what is important
    in life
  • liberalism cant and shouldnt claim complete
    cultural neutrality. Liberalism is also a
    fighting creed. 571

18
Charles Taylor, The Politics of Recognition
  • This expose of liberalism sits well with the
    common politics of difference charge that
    supposedly culturally-neutral conceptions of
    human nature and society are in fact the dominant
    cultures conception.
  • Taylor claims that substantive distinctions are
    inescapable in politics.
  • He advocates a non-procedural liberalism that
    explicitly elucidates the substantive goods that
    it takes interest in.

19
Charles Taylor, The Politics of Recognition
  • Are various cultures equal with respect to human
    potential, or are they in actuality of equal
    value?
  • The politics of difference is moving towards the
    latter view, says Taylor.
  • But are all cultures equal? Even if they are,
    is it reasonable to expect people to respect all
    cultures equally?

20
Neil Bissoondath The Limits of Diversity /
Diversity and Creativity
  • Multiculturalism
  • is prone to endless stretching of the envelope
    (p. 136)
  • Promotes withdrawal into insulated sub-cultural
    worlds the psychology of divisiveness
  • Fails to discriminate between appropriate and
    inappropriate forms of discrimination
  • Has caused a slide into ethical chaos

21
Hurka Canadian Nationalism and the
Distinctiveness Fetish
  • Nationalism is a form of partiality, of caring
    more about some people that about others (p.
    622)
  • We care about Canada more than other countries in
    part because of our shared history.
  • Thus it wouldnt matter if any of Canadas
    qualities were shared by other nations.

22
Hurka Canadian Nationalism and the
Distinctiveness Fetish
  • What sorts of things do we suppose make Canada
    unique?
  • Is nationalism morally justifiably?

23
M. McDonald, Aboriginal Rights
  • Central question what sort of treatment do
    native peoples in Canada deserve?
  • Welfarist response Natives should not be allowed
    to fall below a certain standard of living
  • Libertarian response Nobody has a right to
    welfare everyone should work his own way
  • McDonald then attempts to show that certain
    libertarian assumptions about property
    entitlement actually support the case for native
    reparations and land claims

24
M. McDonald, Aboriginal Rights
  • Nozicks theory of justice in holdings
  • Two ways in which I can have just holdings
  • 1. If the object is unowned, I may, under certain
    conditions, come to own it
  • 2. If the object is owned, then the owner may,
    under certain conditions, transfer it to me
  • According this theory, the history of an object
    and my relation to it is what determines whether
    I justly own it (Compare to Ross ethical theory)
  • Welfarist theories of ownership tend to be more
    forward-looking (Compare to utilitarianism).

25
M. McDonald, Aboriginal Rights
  • By Nozicks theory, it appears that natives have
    entitlement to much of the land that is now in
    non-native hands
  • McDonald calls this the entitlement defence of
    native rights

26
M. McDonald, Aboriginal Rights
  • Objections to the entitlement defence of native
    rights
  • The Vandals argument
  • 1. If we have an obligation to restore land to
    natives, then we should also restore goods to
    compensate for countless historical injustices.
  • 2. It is absurd to suppose that we should also
    restore goods to compensate for countless
    historical injustices.
  • __________________________
  • We do not have an obligation to restore land to
    natives

27
M. McDonald, Aboriginal Rights
  • McDonald breaks the Vandals Argument into two
    separate objections
  • Historical Disentanglement It is practically
    impossible to sort out the relevant historical
    issues
  • Arbitrariness It is morally arbitrary to
    compensate natives and not other groups

28
M. McDonald, Aboriginal Rights
  • B. The Forefathers Argument
  • We are not responsible for the sins of our
    fathers
  • Can we be morally responsible for an event that
    we did not cause? (Child in garden analogy)

29
M. McDonald, Aboriginal Rights
  • C. The Double Wrong Argument
  • In rectifying an injustice done to the native
    people an injustice will have to be done to
    non-native Canadians by taking away from them
    land or the profit therefrom which they have in
    good faith purchased and improved (p. 605)

30
M. McDonald, Aboriginal Rights
  • D. The Sovereignty Argument
  • Will land reparations threaten Canadian
    sovereignty?

31
M. McDonald, Aboriginal Rights
  • E. The Litigation Argument
  • Claims to aboriginal title are unlike ordinary
    property claims - land unoccupied by claimants
    for long period of time

32
M. McDonald, Aboriginal Rights
  • F. The Acquisition Argument
  • Did the natives themselves justly acquire the
    land in question? There are four sub-arguments
    here
  • F.1. It is possible that current native groups
    and Inuit acquired North American land by force
    from other groups.
  • Where does the burden of proof rest?
  • F.2. One can only justly acquire from nature as
    much as one can make use of before it spoils.
    Natives could not possibly have made use of most
    North American land.

33
M. McDonald, Aboriginal Rights
  • F.3. One can only justly acquire from nature such
    that there be enough and as good left in common
    for others
  • F.4. Natives failed to justly acquire any land at
    all, because they failed to perform the
    appropriate acquisitive acts
  • According to John Locke, to gain unowned
    land, one must mix ones labour with it. Did
    the natives do this?

34
Will Kymlicka Liberalism in Culturally Plural
Societies
  • Can we be committed to both liberalism and group
    rights?
  • Liberalism
  • Individualism
  • Egalitarianism
  • According groups special rights / privileges can
    sometimes conflict with the rights of
    individuals.

35
Will Kymlicka Liberalism in Culturally Plural
Societies
  • If we respect Indians as Indians, that is to
    say, as members of a distinct cultural community,
    then we must recognize the importance to them of
    their cultural heritage, and we must recognize
    the legitimacy of claims made by them for the
    protection of that culture.even if they conflict
    with some of the requirements of the Charter of
    Rights. (p. 306)

36
Appiah, Racisms
  • Racist Propositions
  • v.
  • Racist Dispositions

37
Appiah, Racisms
  • Racist Propositions
  • Racialism The belief that there are heritable
    characteristics, possessed by members of our
    species, that allow us to divide them into a
    small set of races, in such a way that all the
    members of these races share certain traits and
    tendencies with each other that they do not share
    with members of any other race.
  • Racism
  • a. Extrinsic Racism
  • Morally distinguishes between members of
    different races because it is supposed that
    racial essence entails certain morally relevant
    qualities
  • b. Intrinsic Racism
  • Morally distinguishes between members of
    different races because it is supposed that each
    race has a different moral status, quite
    independent of the moral characteristics entailed
    by its racial essence

38
Appiah, Racisms
  • Racist Dispositions
  • Understood as a disposition, racism is a
    cognitive incapacity an inability to see that
    the evidence does not support ones factual
    claims.
  • False consciousness the idea that an ideology
    can prevent us from acknowledging facts that
    would threaten our position

39
Peter Singer Is Racial Discrimination
Arbitrary?
  • Two uses of the term racism
  • Morally neutral, descriptive sense
  • Evaluative sense
  • Singer adopts usage 2, and uses the term racial
    discrimination to refer to 1

40
Peter Singer Is Racial Discrimination
Arbitrary?
  • Thus we can sensibly ask, if we adopt Singers
    terms
  • Is racial discrimination racist?
  • In other words
  • Is racial discrimination morally wrong?

41
Peter Singer Is Racial Discrimination
Arbitrary?
  • 1. The standard objection to racial
    discrimination
  • Race is irrelevant to the distribution of
    benefits and harms. The use of race in
    determining such distribution is thus arbitrary,
    and thus morally wrong.
  • The standard objection is apparently supported by
    Aristotles famous principle of justice
  • Equals ought to be treated equally, and unequals
    unequally (insofar as the equalities or
    inequalities are relevant to the treatment in
    question)

42
Peter Singer Is Racial Discrimination
Arbitrary?
  • Possible exceptions to the claim that racial
    discrimination is arbitrary
  • Casting for a black film
  • Cake shop with prejudiced clientele
  • Landlord who favours whites over blacks

43
Peter Singer Is Racial Discrimination
Arbitrary?
  • Singer then attempts to show that if it is wrong
    to racially discriminate in any of the above
    cases, it must be for some reason other than the
    reasons offered by the standard objection.
  • The moral principle of equal consideration of
    interests
  • We should give equal consideration in all of our
    moral decision-making to the like interests of
    all affected by our actions.
About PowerShow.com