What elements of the moral life does feminist ethics emphasize? Do you believe there are situations in which impartiality is important in moral reasoning? Explain.

 

Feminists moral life ethics emphasize approaches focused on women interests, experiences, and being devoted to supporting the moral equality between men and women. There are emphasis on: personal relationships, suspicion of moral principles, rejection of impartiality, greater respect for emotions.

I definitely believe that there are situations where being impartial is important. From the surface, looking down to people you don’t know, it seems to be easier to be impartial. I have not culminated personal relationships with people like store clerks the same way I have with my friends.  And in cases even with my friends I treat them impartially in some settings. My different standards of morality will come into play to separate people on different occasions.

Just the other day, I bought groceries from Safeway, and as I was checking out a man next to me dropped salsa that exploded in the path of where I have to walk out. I think “I have to side step the mess so I don’t slip.” The bagger, a girl ~19 years old, says, “I’m not on mop duty.” With that short sentence and tone my slightly feeling sorry for her went away completely. Another bagger around the same age from the next lane ran over and dropped paper towels all over the mess. I admit I felt bad for her for a second since Safeway was busy and now she had to take the time to clean up a huge mess through no fault of her own along with the pressure of being in front of an audience watching her clean it up. No I wasn’t going to help her clean it up, it was her job to do it. It’s part of the job that she is being paid for. However, I think that many of us now will say that this society has come to letting/making people deal with problems on their own. If for instance the same thing happened to my girlfriend at home and she dropped salsa all over her kitchen I would be inclined to help her because Im involved with her. I care about her enough to stop what Im doing and help. The same thing happens when Im at work. If something happens and my boss/co worker sometimes it may be up to them to clean it up themselves and the same goes for me. The same way the lady working the register did not help the bagger. I believe being impartial sometimes makes you appreciate what you have when others help or go out of their way for you. However, if something out of the ordinary comes up say someone attacking the bagger or my co worker being impartial should go out the window. It is so far out of the realm of the job someone needs to step in.

I think the “rejection of impartiality” and how it reigns in on non-equal treatment of all people is extremely important. Not everyone is equal even in the most impartial terms. I wouldn’t treat my girlfriend the same way as a store clerk. At the same time I would not treat my girlfriend outside of her own capabilities. For instance I would not ask her to help me lift something heavy, and instead ask my friend who is much stronger than her.

The Dali Lamas main commitments are: prātimokṣa,  focusiing on abandoning harmful physical and verbal actions; bodhisattva, abandoning self-centered thoughts, words, and deeds; tantric, aims to overcome subtle mental obscurations. He believes they will help us keep commitments and precepts. Then insisting that we actually think about our ethical choices. Every moment a precept is kept a destructive action is being avoided and enriching ourselves. Ethical conduct qualms the chaos of our actions and minds allowing us to concentrate more throughly on.

I do agree. I believe society needs a structure to follow. I believe the overall goal should be progression and worldly problems and ambitions and letting emotions run without restraint distracts us from the progression we as individuals and a society could be making.

I think especially in todays (first) world at least the commitments can be applied to a lot of our social structure over media. Its very easy to others over the internet, be conceited, arrogant, or other things that break pratimoksa. The same can be said for Bodhisattva, many “influencers” and people in general are obsessed with the amount of followers and influence they have on others along with the money that comes with them.

The Dali Llama says, “The prātimokṣa ethical restraint focuses on abandoning harmful physical and verbal actions. The bodhisattva ethical restraint emphasizes abandoning self-centered thoughts, words, and deeds.” I think this works well with the Utilitarian philosophy. In the sense of helping others and being more useful than to just oneself. I also believe it is important for someone who holds a higher spiritual position to be able to be able to relate to modern ethics.

I think Punzo means that since two people are willingly acting sexually that it is a definitive statement of their bodily union because of how vulnerable people can be during those times. It isn’t as simple as giving someone ice cream. Sex makes someone vulnerable physically, emotionally, psychologically, and in many other ways.

Vulnerability allows someone to be open to some sort of harm. Since sex is viewed as an extremely intimate act it is usually performed with someone you are comfortable enough since its such an ‘open’ position for you to be attacked.

I think he believes theres a double standard on commitment. Uncommitted sex is just as “unjust” as feeling regret after commitment. Commitments must be made in order to solidify the emotional and/or sexual relationship. I disagree. I believe after a specific vow is made whether its public or not is a valid reason to be with someone. UNLESS they have an extensive history of lying and cheating. But my argument can possibly be tweaked if the thought of open relationships comes into play.

He believes sex is an incredibly intimate union of people. Another sports activity does not make a person as vulnerable and scared as sex does. Playing tennis isn’t a morally significant act since it doesn’t put someone in a vulnerable situation let alone a person you may very much care about.

The second formulation by Kant says we shouldn’t treat humanity be it ourselves or others as a means only but always as an end in itself. Kant is essentially pushing us to respect people’s humanity. We need to recognize that if we are receiving instrumental value or intrinsic value the people we work with have a humanity. Instrumental value would be going to go get fast food. The person working the window is considered an instrumental value to you because they are necessary to get something that you want ie. the food. Kant requires respect for another human. But this respect can go different ways, I may only respect the person working fast food as a fast food worker. There is a possibility that my respect for their humanity can go only so far. Using someone like a fast food worker to obtain food is not morally wrong since the mutual line of respect is understood. As a worker one is using the job to simply do a transaction and be paid, on the other hand I as a customer understand that I will pay for my food and eat it. But, I would say that asking things inside of each others control is morally appropriate and respectful as well. For instance asking the person for more napkins or maybe one can even fish out exact change in your car to make the math easier for the cashier. I also believe that treating someone with humanity is basically status quo in environments like this. I think this is why so many new jobs have difficulty of drawing a line in the sand where respect and humanity are. ie. Uber drivers. I believe I’ve heard over a dozen stories about a friend who have taken an uber (mainly girls with a male driver) where the driver has become “friendly” and disrespectful.  Yet, this uber driver isnt very different from a taxi driver. But because of this new job and new tech associated with it blurs that status quo line. No matter if the transaction goes good or bad we are to remember that the person is a human and deserves to be treated as such. However Intrinsic value is something we place on things like love. Many people don’t use the traditional and romantic sense of love with someone else as a means to an end. They use it because we find the love and the other person valuable and therefore respect them humanely (in most cases.)

Kant says, “Assuming an action has moral worth only if it expresses a good will, such actions have no genuine ‘moral worth’.”

Kant believes love treatment is moral but unsatisfying. These actions toward loved ones have little to no moral worth. For instance, if you make breakfast in bed for someone  you love it is morally neutral. But were it not for that person that action would not have transpired therefore leading to more of those actions. Kant however does believe that love is not a good source of moral behavior because love isn’t for everyone, yet everyone needs to still be morally respectful.

Singer extends that if a being is in pain there is no moral justification to not help that being. Singer is saying that if a being has the capacity for suffering it must also have the capacity for happiness. Singer goes on to argue that when white racists nullify their recognition of pain from blacks its comparable to the way humans reject the pain from animals. Singer says, “I would call ‘speciesists’ give greater weight to the interests of members of their own species when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of other species. Human speciesists do not accept that pain is as bad when it is felt by pigs or mice as when it is felt by humans.” We reject their pain/happiness because we view them as less intelligent.

Singer says, “If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering – in so far as rough comparisons can be made – of any other being.”

I think this quote is important considering the quality of life we place on specific animals such as dogs and cats. Those animals are given large outcries if videos or articles surface of mistreatment or murder. Since I believe we are conditioned to pay specific respect to one animal and not the others; (ex: cows, fish, lamb, chickens) society makes no outcry.

I believe it is a good argument, its rational, however he does not mention anything about the systematic lowering of animal based product prices. I believe that animal based products have become engrained into many societies. Even in American culture the ideal breakfast looks like: eggs, bacon, milk, and possibly other animal based foods. e.g. buttermilk pancakes, biscuits made with milk and eggs, or sausage links. For some of my friends even the very thought of eating plant based foods or non animal based is sacrilege. It has also been very hard for plant based foods to get even the slightest food hold in grocery stores. Animal based product prices are so low that it makes it fiscally irrational for lower class and possibly middle class to buy plant based products over the ethics of animal cruelty. Beyond meat is a newer plant based burger patty alternative to beef patties that is taking grocery stores by storm. However, as of right now you can only buy them in packs of 2 for around 6-7 dollars and 10 beef patties for 10 dollars. Recently Beyond meats demand has gone up and they are finally getting enough investors to help lower the prices and hopefully reach more stores.

Mill says that Great Happiness is essential because it basically governs our morality and & the rules of human conduct. Because of the possibility to have the greatest and best pleasures and being far away from insufficient qualities of life human morality and conduct is forged around the possibility of having happiness.

Mill says, “the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” I agree with mill, but I believe that the message of everyone being beneficial to society gets lost in their own pursuit of personal happiness.

 

I believe Utilitarianism is a pig philosophy because we as a conscious society are never satisfied with the way we want to get our pleasures. Pig philosophy is considered only knowing their own side of the question at hand, it has also become synonymous with the a “fools” philosophy. According to this blog, it would be dissatisfied as a “human” or under Socrates’ philosophy because at least then you will know both sides to the story, and not be subject to entrenchment based on missing information. Pig philosophy  goes as far as putting other people in “hell” to support our own way. However, I do believe in going and getting great pleasures. Big rewards require big risk and possibly hurting others. But I am not a fan of shoving your way through other peoples lives for simple every day wants. Such as when someone is pulling out of a gas station at an intersection and needs to get to the farthest lane away. People will willingly shove their life and their car blocking other lanes instead of going around the other way because it will cost them a couple minutes. The wants will never end just as a child or a baby throws a tantrum for not getting what they want. We do the same thing but channel the tantrum in different ways.

Mill essentially says that taste changes and varies. A great pleasure and a lower pleasure completely subjective to whoever is in the situation.  One may go from wanting the greatest of 2 awesome pleasures at one point but later on may pick the lower of the 2 due to want of “Sensual pleasure” the higher being a more “intelligent pleasure.”

Ethics are culturally refined through time by social structures. I feel that those who are mature enough to understand this type of poll may have mixed feelings about it depending on their personal views. However, since it has become the new ethical norm in the social structure few may oppose it depending on the type of culture. Since we live in the United States something like this is hot topic in debate because so many people have a voice and legitimate power to make these decisions law. I believe growing up as a child with this type of ethical “coercion” sets a person on a pretty straight path by their families & culture at the time. Humans don’t like change especially when it comes to telling them whats right from wrong and may bury opposed feelings deep down. The notion that capital punishment is right and abortion is wrong is a new complex problem for a nation in the 21st century. Saying something is good or bad depends entirely on the individual in todays culture. Although something may be widely accepted history has showed us that not everybody agrees with a good/bad formula. There will always be opposition in todays world. But the movement has to start somewhere.

When I used to work in Santa Clara as a material handler for an electrical contractor I had a disruptive co worker. My co-worker was a 55+ white woman who had hurt herself working on a job site and upon investigation it found that she was at fault and not the company. The company was looking for a significant reason to rotate her (because she was a part of the union) due to her bad work habits. The woman knew they would try to get rid of her after this incident and threatened to sue for gender inequalities, since they had wanted someone else better to fill her spot. Instead of going to court the company put her in our fabrication shop where there are anywhere from 7-25+ workers on the floor including myself. During this time she made things incredibly difficult, made my job and other departments jobs difficult, manipulated others, threw tantrums, and would pretend to be weak. The injustice here is that its unfortunate that a worker who is not good at their job, where many others would love a shot at, gets to stay due to the abuse of worker rights. In my 2+ years there I had to pick up a lot of slack, stay late, and take on jobs my bosses would not trust her with.

 

Standard Form ex:

1. Injustice is when figures in power hold no accountability
2. Ones ability to avert accountability is an abuse of power
3. Those with no accountability unjustly abuse their power