PHILO

docx

School

Langara College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

1105

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by dakshmahajan2912

Gender Equality 1. Feminism : the belief that women should be allowed the same rights , power , and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way. It is often depicted as women wanting to be superior than men but it is not the case. Wollstonecraft’s main claim is that women are educated not as human beings but to prepare them to fulfill feminine, subservient roles in the society. Women are kept in a state of perpetual childhood, utterly dependent on men, existing to serve them and at least for the wealthy women who are the subject of Wollstonecraft are kept in the state of leisure and idleness. Mary Wollstonecraft was an important feminist writer. She has turned over various book written on the subject of education and patiently observed the conduct of parents and the management of schools and she strongly believe that the neglected education of women is the grand source of their misery. The conduct and manners of women prove that their minds are not in a healthy state. Mary Wollstonecraft accuses false system of education, books written on this subject by men who consider females as women rather than a human creature. She also believes that the men are more anxious to make females alluring mistresses than affectionate wives and rational mothers. In the natural world, it is seen that the men are stronger than women and this fact of nature cannot be changed. The goal of Mary Wollstonecraft is to show women what true dignity and happiness mean and she want to encourage them to become strong, both in mind and body. We should understand that being described as sensitive, delicate and refined can sometimes mean being seen as weak and those who are only seen as objects of pity, or a certain type of love might end up being looked down upon. MW want to show that being elegant is not as important as being virtuous. The most important thing is to have a good character as a human being,

without caring too much about whether you are a man or a woman. Other goals should come after this basic one. It’s true that many women spend their early years learning how to do things that look good, while neglecting their physical and mental strength. They do this because they believe that the only way they can improve their lives is through marriage. This desire to please others turns them into shallow individuals. The education they have received so far has made them objects of desire and mere baby-makers – then it is clear that women have been taken out of their proper roles and made into something ridiculous and useless once their youthful beauty fades. If men become more modest and women does not become wiser as a result, it will become evident that women have weaker minds. Some women are smarter than their male relatives and because intellect always holds some power, they can sometimes control their husbands without lowering themselves, because intelligence will always have authority. Men often complain about the foolishness and unpredictability of women when they are not mocking our strong emotions and pretty flaws. My response would be this: it’s a natural outcome of being kept in dark (ignorance). A person’s mind will always be unstable if it relies solely on preconceived notions and their behavior will be like a wild river when there are no barriers to control it. Women are taught from a young age, following the example of their mothers, that having a little knowledge about human weakness (which they call cunning), being gentle, obedient, and following trivial rules of propriety will earn them a man's protection. And if they happen to be beautiful, that's all they need for at least the first twenty years of their lives. Men are acting quite foolishly when they try to keep women in a perpetual state of childhood to ensure their good behavior. Therefore, in my opinion, the best education is one that challenges the mind while also strengthening the body and nurturing the heart. In simpler words, it should help individuals develop virtuous habits that make them independent. In fact, it's not genuine virtue if it doesn't result from a person's own reasoning and

understanding. when women focus on superficial qualities to please their husbands and obey them without question, it may not lead to genuine happiness. The author argues that throughout history, women have been treated as inferior and oppressed, with only a few exceptions. To simplify, the passage is criticizing the idea that women should be passive and obedient to be good wives. It argues that this view is unfair and that women have often been treated as the weaker sex. The author hopes that as society progresses, women will have the opportunity to develop their abilities and virtues and be seen as equals in intelligence. The author acknowledges that there are exceptional women who should not be overlooked. The passage talks about the potential for human progress and women's roles in society. It suggests that when despotism (tyranny or oppressive rule) decreases, humanity may advance further. The author predicts that women will no longer be seen as morally inferior or merely tools for men's use. Instead, they will be recognized as moral agents with the ability to reason and improve. In simpler terms, the author hopes for a future where women are treated as equals, not as inferior beings or tools for men. They believe that as society becomes more just and moral, women will gain more rights and respect. The author criticizes the idea of women being subservient to men and argues that true virtue and morality should not be sacrificed for convenience. They see this as a utopian dream but believe it's worth pursuing. The passage also mentions that politics is still developing, and as it evolves to promote liberty, humanity, including women, will become wiser and more virtuous. Questions: A. How according to Wollstonecraft, have women been educated?  women had been educated in a manner that perpetuated their subordination and limited their potential. women were primarily taught to focus on their physical appearance and manners rather than

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

intellectual development. She argued that women's education should empower them to be self-sufficient and not rely solely on marriage for security. B. What difference does Wollstonecraft acknowledge between the sexes? How have these differences been treated, and how does she argue, should they be treated?  Mary Wollstonecraft acknowledged that there were biological and physiological differences between the sexes. However, she argued that many of the perceived differences between men and women were not inherent but rather the result of social and cultural conditioning. She believed that these differences had been treated as justifications for women's subordination and unequal treatment in society. Wollstonecraft's central argument was that women should be treated as rational beings with the same inherent rights and capabilities as men. She advocated for a more just and egalitarian society where women were not confined to narrow domestic roles but were given the freedom to pursue education, careers, and public engagement. She believed that by providing women with equal opportunities and treating them as equals, society would benefit from their contributions and become more just and enlightened. C. What are the advantages of educating women with the virtues needed for independence?  Personal Fulfillment. By providing women with education and fostering their rational thinking, they can make better decisions, exercise critical judgment, and contribute to their own well-being and the welfare of society. Education instills self-respect in individuals. When women are educated and independent, they have a higher sense of self-worth and self-esteem. Educated women can be better mothers and educators to their children. When women are educated and independent, they can contribute their talents and skills to various

fields, including politics, science, arts, and social reform. This benefits society by tapping into the full potential of its members, regardless of gender. 2. Simone de Beauvoir begins with different question: “What is woman?” In doing so she forces us to make a distinction between the biological (“she is a womb”) and the social question concerning the nature of femininity. And this question is much more difficult. Simone de Beauvoir asks that is there feminine “essence” or it is an arbitrary classification and should we stop considering people as men or as women but just as a human being? Perhaps she says that this a superficial difference that will disappear, but its current existence cannot be denied. Man is the “absolute human type”; woman is the “other”. The distinction between the biological and the social can be described as a distinction between sex and gender , to decribe the social roles and attributes typically taken on by women and men. Simone de Beauvoir's text is exploring the complex concept of "womanhood" and how it is defined. She begins by acknowledging that the subject of women and feminism has been discussed and debated extensively, yet there is still confusion and uncertainty about what it means to be a woman. De Beauvoir questions whether there is an inherent, unchanging quality called "femininity" that defines women, much like the concept of an "eternal feminine." She argues that modern science and social understanding reject the idea that certain characteristics are predetermined by biology or essential traits. She goes on to explain that the term "woman" doesn't have a fixed or universally agreed-upon meaning. Some people argue that it's merely a label applied arbitrarily to certain individuals, while others believe that there are unique qualities or experiences associated with being a woman. De Beauvoir emphasizes that women are often keenly aware of their gender and its implications in society, which is not typically the case for men. Men don't usually need to define themselves as men because their identity as males is taken for

granted. Simone de Beauvoir is exploring the complex nature of gender identity and the challenges women face in defining themselves as women in a society where gender roles and expectations have been deeply ingrained. She asserts that the concept of "woman" is not fixed and universal but subject to social and cultural influences, and it's a topic that requires careful consideration and analysis. In simple terms, Simone de Beauvoir is discussing the historical and social dynamics between men and women. She observes that throughout history, men have generally held more power and control in society compared to women. This dominance of men over women has been established for a long time, and it continues to influence our world today. De Beauvoir questions why men have traditionally held this power and why women have not been able to assert themselves as equals. She suggests that men and women are locked in a kind of social relationship where men have historically defined themselves as the "essential" or the dominant group, while women have been seen as the "other" or the subordinate group. She points out that this situation has not changed quickly because women have often accepted their roles as subordinates and have not actively challenged the status quo. They have not organized themselves to demand equal rights and opportunities in the same way other marginalized groups, like workers or racial minorities, have done. De Beauvoir raises important questions about whether this situation is fair and whether it should change. She doesn't provide definitive answers but encourages us to think about the historical roots of gender inequality and how it can be addressed in the future. The passage you provided discusses the historical oppression and discrimination faced by women, drawing parallels with other forms of discrimination like racism. Here's a simplified explanation of the main points: Women as "Other": The passage argues that throughout history, women have been treated as different or "other" by men. Men often justified their superiority over women, and these justifications should be viewed skeptically.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Religious and Philosophical Backing: The passage mentions that religions and philosophies were used to justify women's subordinate status. For example, some religious texts depicted women negatively, contributing to their oppression. Hostility and Stereotyping: It highlights that women were often portrayed negatively in literature, and this hostility was sometimes based on fact but often gratuitous. Men sometimes accused women to justify their own actions. Changing Views: In the 18th century, some philosophers like Diderot and later John Stuart Mill started to view women more objectively, arguing that women should be considered as equals to men. However, this view was not common at the time. Industrial Revolution: The passage mentions that as women started working in factories during the Industrial Revolution, their demands for equality gained economic grounds. This led to increased opposition from men who saw women as competitors. Using Science to Justify Discrimination: Some people used science, such as biology and psychology, to argue that women were inferior to men. They sometimes advocated for "separate but equal" status, which was similar to racial segregation. Analogies with Other Forms of Discrimination: The passage draws parallels between the discrimination faced by women and discrimination based on race or caste. It argues that the process of justifying discrimination is similar across these different forms. Criticizing the Created Situation: The passage points out that the ruling group often justifies the inferior status they created for the oppressed group. For example, they may argue that women are "frivolous" or "childlike" to maintain their dominance. The passage you provided discusses the complex dynamics between men and women in contemporary society, highlighting how some men view women as inferior while others see them as threats or competitors. Let's break down the key points: Inequality Persists: The passage suggests that, despite progress towards gender equality, there is still a prevailing belief that women

are generally inferior to men in various aspects. This viewpoint implies that women have fewer opportunities and rights compared to men. Conservative Bourgeoisie: It mentions that the conservative middle class, often referred to as the bourgeoisie, perceives women's liberation as a threat to their moral values and economic interests. They may resist changes that challenge traditional gender roles. Threatened by Women's Competition: Some men may feel threatened by women's advancement, especially in areas where they traditionally held dominance. This perceived competition can lead to resistance and even hostility towards women's progress. Feeling Superior: On the other hand, some men may feel superior to women and may exhibit arrogance or condescension towards them. This sense of superiority is often rooted in societal norms and expectations. Benefits of Dominance: The passage suggests that men can benefit from the idea of women's "otherness" or differences. This perception can lead to feelings of dominance, aggression, or a disregard for their own masculinity. The Myth of Woman: It mentions that the concept of the "myth of Woman" remains valuable for various reasons. This could be because it's challenging for individuals to reject the idea of being the unique and absolute center of attention and power. Most men do not explicitly reject this position. Many men today view women as equals, despite their differences. They believe in abstract equality, assuming that women have no demands to make, but they will never be equal to men. However, this belief is based on the deep social discrimination women face, which is difficult to measure. Men's sympathy for women is often misguided, as they do not fully understand their concrete situation. Feminists' arguments often rob them of value, as they often turn the "question of women" into a "quarrel." People have endlessly sought to prove that women are superior, inferior, or equal to men, but these arguments have their opposites and are often misleading. To see clearly, one must break free from these ruts and discard vague

notions of superiority, inferiority, and equality that have distorted discussions. The author discusses the importance of asking questions about the impact of being a woman on one's life and the opportunities available to them. They argue that an angel cannot fully understand the situation, as it is not a mysterious essence that dictates good or bad faith. Many women today, who have had the privileges of human beings restored, can afford the luxury of impartiality, and their understanding of the feminine world is more intimate than men's. The author suggests that understanding the consequences of being a woman is crucial, as it helps to determine the destiny of future generations. The author suggests that approaching human problems without partiality is impossible, as it presupposes hierarchies of interests and values. They suggest stating these principles from the start, avoiding the need to specify meanings for words like "superior," "inferior," "better," "worse," "progress," and "regression." The common view on women is that public good or general interest is the interest of society, while happiness is often confused with private interest. Happiness is subjective and cannot be measured, and it is easy to label situations that one would like to impose on others. Existentialist morality suggests that every subject posits itself as a transcendence, accomplishing freedom through perpetual surpassing towards other freedoms. However, when transcendence lapses into immanence, it leads to degradation of existence into "in-itself" and freedom into facticity. Women, like all humans, experience an indefinite need to transcend themselves, but their situation is defined by their autonomy and the demands of a world where they are forced to assume themselves as Other. The fundamental questions are how to accomplish oneself in the feminine condition, find independence within dependence, and overcome conditions that limit women's freedom. Questions A. Explain de Beauvoir’s claim that “One is not born, but rather becomes women”.  This statement represents her perspective on the social construction of gender and the distinction between biological sex and the role of being a woman in society. De Beauvoir begins by distinguishing between biological sex and gender. Biological sex refers to the physical and genetic characteristics that typically categorize individuals as male or female. Gender, on the other hand, is the social and cultural role, identity, and

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

expectations associated with being male or female in a given society. De Beauvoir argues that individuals are born with a biological sex (male or female), but they are not born with a pre-defined sense of what it means to be a man or a woman. Instead, they acquire their gender identity and role through a process of socialization and cultural influence. She contends that the concept of "woman" is not an inherent, fixed, or natural category but rather a social construct. Society assigns roles, expectations, and limitations to individuals based on their biological sex, shaping their identity and behavior as women. B. Why does he describe women as “the Other” to men?  De Beauvoir was influenced by existentialist philosophy. Existentialism emphasizes individual freedom, choice, and the responsibility of individuals to define their own existence. In many societies, particularly patriarchal ones, men have historically occupied the dominant or privileged position, while women have been subordinate. De Beauvoir's use of "the Other" reflects this power dynamic. Men, as the dominant group, are considered the norm or the self, while women, as the subordinate group, are seen as "the Other." By designating women as "the Other," de Beauvoir highlights how women have been objectified and oppressed in patriarchal societies. C. What use does de Beauvoir make of existentialist moral philosophy?  Existentialism emphasizes human freedom and individual responsibility for one's choices and actions. De Beauvoir applies this concept to women's lives, arguing that they must recognize their own freedom and take responsibility for their existence. a central concept in existentialism, involves living in accordance with one's true self and values rather than conforming to societal expectations or roles imposed by others. De Beauvoir criticizes the inauthenticity forced upon women by patriarchal societies, where they are often pushed into prescribed roles and defined solely in relation to men. She encourages women to embrace authenticity by rejecting these imposed roles and defining their lives on their own terms.

Free Speech John Mill begins by emphasizing the importance of free press against tyrannical government. He says that the majority has no right to silence a minority opinion, however unpopular. If we refuse to listen to the opposition then we will hold our view as “dead dogma” and may forget the good reason for which we hold it. 1. John Stuart Mill In simpler terms, this passage discusses the importance of freedom of the press and the expression of opinions. It begins by stating that it's no longer necessary to argue for the freedom of the press as a defense against a corrupt or tyrannical government. This idea has been convincingly advocated by previous writers. The passage then emphasizes that it's wrong for any government, even one that represents the people, to dictate what opinions or arguments citizens can hear. In democratic countries, it's unlikely that the government will often try to control expression of opinion, except in times of panic or when it aligns with the intolerance of the public. The author, however, argues that even if the government and the majority of the people agree on restricting certain opinions, this power is still illegitimate. The best government has no more right to censor opinions than the worst government. Censorship is harmful whether it aligns with public opinion or opposes it. The author believes that even if everyone except one person holds a certain opinion, that one person should not be silenced, and silencing them would be as wrong as if that one person were to silence everyone else. The passage highlights the unique harm of silencing opinions. It not only harms those who disagree with the opinion but also robs humanity as a whole, including future generations. If the silenced opinion is correct, people miss the chance to correct their mistakes. If it's wrong, they lose the opportunity to gain a better understanding of the truth through a robust exchange of ideas. In simpler terms, this passage discusses the idea that trying to suppress an opinion because authorities believe it to be false is a mistake. It argues that those in authority, like governments or leaders, are not infallible (meaning they can

make mistakes), and they shouldn't have the power to decide what everyone should believe. The passage points out that people often trust their own opinions too much and assume they are always right. Absolute rulers and those used to being followed unquestioningly tend to be the most confident in their beliefs. However, people who are more open to different perspectives and occasionally being corrected are more careful about what they believe. The text also mentions that individuals often trust the opinions of their own "world" (their community, group, or society) without questioning them. They rely on what everyone around them believes, even though people in other times and places may believe something entirely different. The passage argues that this blind trust in one's own "world" is not justified because history shows that every age has held opinions that later ages considered wrong. Finally, the passage anticipates an objection to this argument, saying that some may argue that when authorities forbid certain opinions, it's no different from any other decision they make based on their judgment. The passage counters this by saying that forbidding discussion assumes that authorities are infallible, just like thinking that their judgments are always right. It concludes that both individuals and authorities can make mistakes, so it's important to allow open discussion and not suppress opinions simply because they are different. In simpler terms, this passage deals with the argument against suppressing opinions that are believed to be wrong or harmful. It imagines that some people might say it's not claiming to be infallible (incapable of making mistakes) when authorities forbid spreading certain ideas. Instead, it's their duty to act on their sincere beliefs, even though they may be mistaken. The argument continues that if we never act on our opinions because they could be wrong, we'd neglect our responsibilities and interests. Therefore, the objection suggests that governments and individuals should form their best opinions and act on them, but only when they are confident they're right. However, the author disagrees with this objection. They argue that there's a big difference between assuming an opinion is true because it hasn't been proven false despite challenges and assuming it's true in order to prevent its challenge. The true test of an opinion's validity is allowing it to be debated and disproved. Full freedom to contradict and disprove

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

opinions is what justifies assuming their truth for the sake of action. Without this freedom, nobody can reasonably claim to be right. In simpler terms, this passage discusses how in our current age, people are more concerned with holding onto their beliefs than whether those beliefs are true. They argue that some beliefs are so important to society that governments have a duty to protect and promote them, even if they aren't necessarily true. This mode of thinking shifts the justification for limiting free speech from being about the truth of ideas to their usefulness. It assumes that only bad people would want to challenge these important beliefs, and therefore, it's acceptable to restrict those who do. However, this approach essentially assumes that those in power are infallible judges of what is useful. But the passage points out that determining the usefulness of an idea is also a matter of opinion and should be open to discussion. There's a need for an infallible judge to decide if an idea is harmful, just as there is to decide if it's false. So, it's not enough to say that someone can argue that their idea is useful even if they can't argue that it's true. The passage also notes that people who defend established beliefs often use the argument that their beliefs are "the truth" as a way to shut down debate. They don't separate the question of whether an idea is useful from whether it's true. This creates an imbalance in discussions because one side can use the argument of truth as a trump card, while the other side can't. In reality, when laws or public opinion forbid challenging the truth of an idea, they are just as intolerant of questioning its usefulness. They may allow for some discussion about how necessary the idea is, but not whether it's actually true. This lack of balance makes it difficult to have a fair discussion about the usefulness of ideas when one side can use the argument of truth to their advantage. In simpler terms, this passage discusses the harm of silencing opinions that some people find objectionable, even when those opinions are about important topics like the belief in God, an afterlife, or commonly accepted moral values. The author argues that such a practice is dangerous, and they use this example to make their point. The author begins by saying that discussing beliefs about God and morality is challenging because it gives an unfair advantage to those who want to suppress certain opinions. They argue that critics might say, "If you don't believe in these ideas strongly enough to protect

them by law, are you assuming you're infallible?" In other words, they are suggesting that by not protecting these beliefs, you are saying you're absolutely right and others are absolutely wrong. In simpler terms, this passage discusses how important it is to openly discuss and debate even widely accepted beliefs, whether they are religious or moral. The author starts by mentioning two famous cases where people were unjustly condemned for their beliefs: Socrates and Jesus. Both were considered blasphemers and suffered for their ideas. The author argues that it's unfair to judge these people harshly because they were likely not bad individuals but rather acted according to the norms and beliefs of their time. This leads to a broader point about how history is full of instances where truth has been suppressed by persecution. The idea that "truth always triumphs over persecution" is a pleasant but untrue belief. Persecution has often succeeded in suppressing true beliefs, especially when the persecutors were powerful. The author suggests that Christianity, for example, might have been wiped out in the Roman Empire if persecution had been more consistent. Truth doesn't have some inherent power to overcome persecution. People are just as zealous about false beliefs as they are about true ones, and legal and social penalties can stop the spread of either. The real advantage of truth, the author argues, is that it tends to resurface over time. Even if it's suppressed multiple times, there will always be individuals who rediscover it. Eventually, truth can gain enough strength to withstand suppression. The passage then shifts to discussing what happens when widely accepted beliefs are not openly discussed and debated, even if they are assumed to be true. The author argues that when beliefs are not subjected to scrutiny and open discussion, they become lifeless dogmas rather than living truths. In other words, it's essential to challenge and question even the most accepted beliefs to keep them vibrant and relevant. This passage discusses the importance of open and free discussion, even when dealing with widely accepted beliefs. It criticizes the idea that it's enough for people to simply agree with established opinions without understanding the reasons behind them or being able to defend them against opposing views. The author argues that holding a belief without knowing the reasons for it is not genuine knowledge or understanding. Such a belief becomes a mere prejudice, clinging to words rather than being

rooted in rational conviction. To truly cultivate our intellect and judgment, we should engage in discussions and understand the grounds for our opinions. Questions A. What is lost according to Mill if we ban expression of false view?  By allowing the expression of false views, society has the opportunity to engage in open debate and critical discussion. Through this process, the truth can emerge as different viewpoints are examined and challenged. Suppressing false views may prevent this truth-seeking process. Mill believes that allowing the expression of false views strengthens one's understanding of true beliefs. Allowing the expression of false views also serves the purpose of exposing errors. When false opinions are openly discussed and debated, their weaknesses and flaws become apparent. This can be instructive for others in recognizing and critiquing fallacious arguments or erroneous beliefs. B. Is Mill’s utilitarian defense the best basis for arguing for free expression?  John Stuart Mill's utilitarian defense of free expression is one of the most well-known and influential arguments in favor of freedom of speech and expression. However, whether it is the "best" basis for arguing for free expression can be a matter of debate, as different philosophical perspectives offer alternative justifications for this fundamental principle. Mill argues that allowing free expression, even of dissenting and false views, contributes to the search for truth, intellectual growth, individual development, and the prevention of tyranny. However, some critiques of Mill's utilitarian defense of free expression include: Limitations of Utilitarianism: Critics argue that utilitarianism, which seeks to maximize overall happiness, may sometimes prioritize the interests

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

of the majority over the rights and well-being of minorities. C. Under what circumstances according to Mill can free expression rightly be limited? Is his position defensible?  Mill's position on limiting free expression is often summarized as the "harm principle." According to this principle, free expression can be rightly limited when it causes harm to others or presents a clear and present danger to society. Mill acknowledges that even when expression may cause harm to others, limitations should only be imposed when there is an imminent and clear danger, rather than mere speculation about harm in the future. The harm must be both evident and immediate. 2. Catharine Mackinnon The author begins by stating that they will analyze pornography from a feminist perspective. They want to explore how pornography affects the social status and treatment of women. The author argues that when power structures in society shape the way we see and understand gender, it can lead to sexism and the unequal treatment of women. Pornography, according to the author, plays a role in constructing this gender-based social reality. It defines how we perceive women. This, in turn, makes it difficult to challenge gender inequality and discrimination because it becomes an accepted part of our culture. The author highlights a dilemma. On one hand, there's the freedom to create and consume pornography, which some argue is a form of personal freedom. On the other hand, this freedom can come at the expense of gender equality, particularly for women. In other words, when some people exercise their freedom to engage with pornography, it can harm the overall equality of the sexes. This creates a conflict: the freedom of some can negatively impact the equality of others. The author questions whether women can truly experience freedom as long as they remain unequal to men. They argue that men's freedom to use women in certain ways, as depicted in pornography, shouldn't come at the

cost of women having a lower social status or being treated as second-class citizens. They suggest that gender discrimination and inequality persist, even if they are not always visible. The author believes that feminism is the first movement to take a serious look at the situation of all women, from a collective perspective, and examine how society treats women as a whole. From this perspective, the author explains that many forms of abuse and discrimination against women, such as rape, sexual harassment, domestic violence, and child abuse, have been largely ignored and silenced in the past. Women often didn't report these incidents because they weren't taken seriously or believed. The author emphasizes that silence doesn't mean these events didn't happen or that there was consent involved. The author also argues that men, in the context of sexism, are harmed as well. However, they clarify that even though men may experience the negative effects of sexism, they are not socially defined as subordinate to women through force. The passage then delves into the role of pornography in shaping these issues. It suggests that pornography sexualizes hierarchy and inequality, making dominance and submission seem like erotic elements of relationships. It argues that pornography perpetuates male supremacy and constructs a specific view of gender and sexuality, where women are seen as objects for men's pleasure and consumption. Obscenity law and feminism have different views on the issue of pornography. In 1973, obscenity law defined obscenity as material that, when looked at as a whole, appeals to sexual interest in a way that's offensive and lacks value in literature, art, politics, or science. Feminism questions this definition. It doubts whether there's an average, neutral person and is concerned about how community standards are determined. Feminism wonders why feelings are protected more than women from being exploited. It also defines sexuality more broadly than the law and questions whether the legal system, which has difficulty distinguishing between rape and intercourse, should be trusted to determine what's pornography. Feminism believes that obscenity is about moral judgments of good and bad, while pornography is a political practice of power and powerlessness. Obscenity law focuses on qualities like nudity and prurient appeal, while feminism is concerned with how pornography perpetuates

violence and discrimination against women, turning them into objects for harm and exploitation. Pornography, according to feminism, plays a role in promoting harmful attitudes and behaviors toward women, affecting their treatment and status in society. Our approach is to consider pornography as a form of sex discrimination that violates women's civil rights and goes against sexual equality. Our goal is to hold accountable those who profit from the harm caused by pornography, prioritizing women's rights over the pleasure and profits of others. We define pornography as any sexually explicit material that portrays women in a way that subordinates them, dehumanizes them, and includes elements of pain, humiliation, or rape. This can involve women being shown as objects, enjoying harm or violence, or being displayed in degrading situations. We make a clear distinction between pornography and erotica, with the latter being based on equality. Our law aims to protect women's rights while respecting the First Amendment. It acknowledges the conflict between women's equality and the freedom of pornographers and consumers. Courts will need to balance these rights when resolving conflicts, considering whether the harm to women outweighs any claimed benefits or freedoms associated with pornography. Men are not hurt by pornography in the same way women are. The first victims of pornography are those involved in its creation, like the performers and models, many of whom are coerced into it. Questions 1. How does MacKinnon distinguish her critique of pornography from objections based on obscenity?  MacKinnon's concern is with the real harm that she believes pornography inflicts on women and society as a whole. She contends that pornography is a form of sex discrimination and violence against women. She argues that pornography contributes to the subordination and degradation of women, reinforcing traditional gender roles and harmful stereotypes. In contrast, obscenity laws typically focus on moral or community standards without the same emphasis on gender equality.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

2. What for MacKinnon is the relationship between the pornography and the powerlessness?  MacKinnon asserts that pornography often reflects and portrays existing hierarchies and power dynamics in society. It tends to depict women as objects of male desire and as subordinate to men. Pornography often perpetuates harmful stereotypes about women, portraying them as sexually insatiable, willing participants in violence, or as enjoying degradation. These stereotypes can influence societal perceptions and reinforce prejudices, which in turn can lead to discrimination and violence against women. 3. In what way according to MacKinnon, does pornography silence women?  Pornography often portrays women as mere objects of sexual desire, reducing them to their physical appearance and sexual functions. In this portrayal, women are denied agency, autonomy, and a voice of their own. Their thoughts, desires, and feelings are marginalized or ignored. Pornography frequently depicts women as willing participants in their own subjugation or even as enjoying their own degradation. This portrayal sends the message that women's consent to oppressive or violent acts is not only common but also pleasurable.

Sexual Morality A. Lois Pineau In simple terms, this passage discusses the complex issue of consent in cases of sexual assault. It highlights how the current criteria for consent can be unclear and open to misinterpretation, leading to situations where sexual assault is mistaken for seduction. The example provided involves a woman who initially agrees to spend time with a man she's attracted to, hoping for mutual enjoyment. However, as the encounter progresses, the man pressures her for sex, which she doesn't want. She may have various reasons for not wanting sex, such as personal beliefs, concerns about pregnancy or disease, or simply not feeling ready. Despite not wanting to engage in sexual activity, she may feel pressure to comply due to societal expectations and a fear of upsetting the man. The passage emphasizes that the woman's feelings and desires are not always clear, and her reluctance may not necessarily be seen as non-consent in the eyes of the law. This ambiguity can lead to misunderstandings and perpetuates the idea that male aggression and female reluctance are normal aspects of seduction. In simpler terms, the passage argues that society often confuses sexual assault with seduction because it's challenging to determine when consent is given or not in situations where there is pressure or reluctance involved. This confusion arises from societal beliefs about how sexual encounters are expected to unfold and how consent is understood. Rape Myth This passage discusses common misconceptions and myths about sexual assault, particularly the idea that victims provoke or "ask for" it. It explains why these beliefs are problematic. Blaming the Victim: Many accused individuals defend themselves by claiming that the victim's behavior provoked the sexual incident. This

is a common defense tactic, but feminists and others rightly criticize it. Misunderstanding Consent: Some people believe that if a woman behaves in a sexually provocative manner, she somehow agrees to engage in sexual activity. This belief raises the question of why being sexually provocative should lead to aggressive consequences. Confusing Nonverbal Behavior: Some argue that a woman's nonverbal behavior implies consent to a full sexual encounter. They claim that at some point, she has made an agreement or contract, and the man is entitled to demand fulfillment. However, in most situations, casual nonverbal behavior does not create agreements, and private individuals cannot enforce contracts. Belief in Insistent Male Sexuality: There is a belief in the insistent and uncontrollable nature of male sexuality, which is thought to override rational will. This belief assumes that women should not provoke male desire because it can lead to uncontrollable actions on the part of men. Expectations on Women: Women are expected to be more reserved about their sexual desires, and this cultural expectation leads to the myth that they secretly want to be raped. It's suggested that women may desire sexual pleasure but are hesitant to admit it, leading to the belief that they want to be raped. Blaming Women's Motives: If sexual pleasure is what women truly desire, some people may blame their motives, suggesting that women put themselves in situations where they can be seduced. This view tends to place contradictory roles on women as both desiring and denying sexual activity. Misconception of Sexual Pleasure: The belief that a raped woman experiences sexual pleasure implies that the rapist knows how to cause this pleasure without any guidance from the victim. This misconception suggests that sexual pleasure can emerge from overwhelming male insistence, which is not based on communication. Acceptance of Nonverbal Seduction: The language of seduction often involves nonverbal cues like eye contact, smiles, and gestures,

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

which can be ambiguous. This ambiguity can lead to misunderstandings, but honest mistakes should be excused. Dispelling Myths This passage dispels common myths about sexual assault and highlights the importance of understanding consent. No Contract in Seductive Behavior: The idea that a woman creates a contract through seductive behavior is flawed. In legal terms, contracts aren't automatically valid just because someone made a promise. Pressure tactics to obtain agreement are generally frowned upon. Changing Your Mind is Okay: Even if a woman initially agrees to a sexual encounter, she has every right to change her mind during the act. This change of heart could be due to various reasons like pain, guilt, fear, or simply a loss of desire. Forcing her to continue against her will is considered assault. Not Like a Slide: Unlike a slide where you can't stop halfway down, sexual encounters aren't the same. Most of the time, people have control over their actions during sex. Only in the moments just before orgasm might control slip momentarily. Mutual Enjoyment Requires Communication: Sexologists argue that sexual enjoyment relies on comfort, communication, and a lack of pressure. People have different preferences, so it's crucial to respect each other's boundaries and check in with your partner. Aggressive Seduction ≠ Good Sex: Aggressive seduction doesn't lead to enjoyable sex, as most women don't like or want it. It's logical to assume that if such sex happens, it likely wasn't consensual. Misconceptions About Rape Victims: Unfortunately, rape victims who come forward often face skepticism and doubt. This doubt can lead to accusations that the victim made a false claim, either to cope with their feelings of guilt and shame or as an act of revenge. Logical Presumption: If a woman claims she didn't consent to a sexual encounter involving high-pressure tactics, it's logical to believe

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

her. The burden of proof should be on the defendant to show why she consented. COMMUNICATIVE SEXUALITY: REINTERPRETING THE KANTIAN IMPERATIVE This passage discusses a different approach to sexual encounters, emphasizing open communication and mutual understanding. Respecting Each Other's Desires: In sexual situations, it's essential to focus on the sensual aspects and acknowledge that aggressive and high-pressure approaches are not conducive to enjoyable experiences. Taking Responsibility for the Other's Satisfaction: The idea is that when engaging in sexual activity, both partners should consider each other's desires as equally important. They should help each other seek satisfaction and avoid actions that go against the other person's wishes. This ensures that both parties are willingly participating. Communication Over Contracts: Instead of viewing sex as a contract with specific obligations, it's suggested to approach it as a conversation where cooperation is sought for its own sake. In conversations, we value genuine cooperation, while in contracts, we may accept reluctant or even hostile compliance. Quality of Interaction: Good conversationalists aim for meaningful exchanges, not just information. They are intuitive, sympathetic, and charitable, allowing them to understand each other's perspectives and emotions. They adjust their tone and responses accordingly to maintain a positive atmosphere. Mutual Desire in Sexual Encounters: Similarly, in sexual encounters, partners should be sensitive, sympathetic, and charitable towards each other's responses and emotions. They should focus on fostering mutual desire and be attentive to each other's needs and reactions. Respecting Subjectivity: Both in conversations and sexual interactions, the primary concern is mutuality and respect for each other's subjectivity. The desire to continue depends on the other

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

person's interest as much as one's own, and this mutual respect is vital for maintaining trust and intimacy. Responsibility and Trust: In intimate relationships, sharing personal knowledge and emotions creates trust. However, with this trust comes responsibility not to misuse the knowledge gained. Respecting the dialectics of desire means not taking advantage of the other person's vulnerability or emotions. Cultural Presumptions This passage discusses the cultural expectations surrounding dating and how they relate to sexual encounters, particularly in the context of consent and sexual assault. Traditional Dating Expectations: Traditionally, dating implies that two people are attracted to each other, enjoy each other's company, and are looking forward to spending time together. Dating is seen as a way to build a connection based on mutual liking and trust. Friendship and Trust in Dating: Dating is often seen as more akin to friendship than a business contract. Therefore, when people are dating, they are expected to behave in a friendly and trustworthy manner. This means that pressuring someone for sexual activity, especially when it's not in line with their desires, goes against these expectations. Conquest Mentality and Exploitation: Having a mindset of conquest, where one person is solely focused on their own desires without considering the other person's feelings or satisfaction, is considered morally wrong. It exploits the trust and respect that is typically present in dating relationships. Importance of Communication: Evidence from sexologists indicates that women are less likely to experience sexual pleasure when their partners are uncommunicative and aggressive. Therefore, it's unreasonable for women to consent to sexual encounters that they don't find enjoyable.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Reasonable Consent: Consent should be reasonable, meaning that a person should agree to a sexual encounter based on relevant knowledge and under conditions that a reasonable person would accept. Aggressive and noncommunicative sexual encounters are generally not reasonable. Legal Protection from "Date Rape": To protect women from "date rape," the passage suggests that the legal system should consider reckless indifference and willful ignorance as sufficient conditions for establishing mens rea (guilty mind) in sexual assault cases. Additionally, it advocates for the acceptance of communicative sexuality as the norm, where sexual encounters are based on open communication and mutual understanding. The Epistemological Implications This passage discusses the implications of adopting a new model of "communicative sexuality" when it comes to assessing consent in cases of sexual assault, particularly in the context of a date rape trial. Changing the Approach: In this new model, the focus shifts from traditional criteria for consent to evidence of ongoing positive and encouraging responses from the person who may have been assaulted. This approach requires different tactics for cross-examiners and different expectations from juries and judges. Reevaluating Date Rape Cases: Under the new model, a case of date rape would be seen differently. Instead of viewing it as seduction, it would be considered sexual assault. Cross-Examination of the Accused: During a trial, if a man accused of date rape claims that he presumed mutual sexual enjoyment, he would need to explain why he persisted when the other person expressed reluctance. He cannot claim he thought she liked it if he believes she did not. In this case, he would have to justify why it was reasonable to think she consented, given her initial resistance, presumed lack of enjoyment, and pressure tactics used. Using a Communicative Model: If the accused admits to presuming mutual sexual enjoyment, the cross-examiner can use a

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

communicative model of sexuality to assess whether there was respect for the other person's desires. They might inquire about whether he asked what she liked, if she was using contraceptives, and what kind of tone and language was used during the encounter. This line of questioning can help determine whether the interaction was truly communicative or not. Challenges to Consistency: Even if the accused lies, a skilled cross- examiner can often reveal inconsistencies in their story when they are not telling the truth. In simpler terms, the passage suggests that in cases of date rape, a shift towards a communicative model of sexuality is important. This model focuses on ongoing positive responses and respect for the other person's desires. If someone accused of date rape claims they thought there was mutual enjoyment, they would need to provide reasonable evidence for that belief. Cross-examiners would assess the level of communication and respect during the encounter to determine whether consent was genuine. using "communicative sexuality" as a guideline for normal sexual interactions makes it easier to identify cases of non-consensual sex, particularly in instances like date rape. Questions A. How is date rape to be distinguished from other types of rape?  Date rape, also known as acquaintance rape, is a specific form of sexual assault that occurs in the context of a social or dating relationship. It is distinguished from other types of rape primarily by the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim and the circumstances surrounding the assault. In date rape, the perpetrator and the victim know each other, often through a prior social or dating relationship. They may be acquaintances, friends, or even in a romantic relationship. In contrast, other types of rape typically

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

involve strangers or individuals who have no preexisting relationship. Date rape often involves a situation where consent is ambiguous or withdrawn during a sexual encounter. In many cases, the victim may have initially consented to some level of sexual activity but later decided to stop or did not consent to further acts. In other forms of rape, there may be no pretense of consent, and the sexual assault may involve physical violence or threats. B. What does Pineau find wrong with the “she asked for it” defense?  Lois Pineau criticizes the "she asked for it" defense commonly used in sexual assault cases. This defense typically involves blaming the victim for the assault, suggesting that her behavior, appearance, or actions somehow provoked or invited the sexual assault. Pineau asserts that the "she asked for it" defense is incompatible with the principles of consent and voluntariness that underpin sexual assault laws. In cases of sexual assault, the burden of proving consent lies with the perpetrator, not the victim. Consent must be freely given, informed, and not coerced. C. How does Pineau think consent should be managed in order to avoid the possibility of date rape?  Lois Pineau advocates for a model of "communicative sexuality" as a way to manage consent effectively and avoid the possibility of date rape. In this model, the emphasis is on clear and ongoing communication between sexual partners to ensure that both parties freely and willingly consent to sexual activity.It includes:mutual communication, no assumptions, respect for autonomy and shared autonomy.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

2. Nicholas Dixon We want to understand how a woman's alcohol consumption should affect our judgment of whether or not she has been raped. To do this, we'll look at two different situations where alcohol plays a role. Example 1 - Clear Non-Consent: In this scenario, if a man forces himself on a woman after she clearly says "no" or resists, regardless of alcohol consumption, it's considered rape. We don't need to discuss the impact of alcohol here because non-consensual actions are already against the law. Example 2 - Alcohol's Role: Now, let's talk about situations where women have been drinking alcohol and show varying levels of agreement to sex. We need to consider how alcohol affects both the actions (actus reus) and the intentions (mens rea) of the people involved. Two limiting cases Fraternity Gang Rape In 1988, there was a disturbing incident involving a female student and members of a Florida State University fraternity. The student had consumed a dangerously high amount of alcohol and had passed out with a blood alcohol level that was extremely high. Afterward, it was alleged that four fraternity members had sexual relations with her, and she was later mistreated in a different fraternity house. In 1988, there was a disturbing incident involving a female student and members of a Florida State University fraternity. The student had consumed a dangerously high amount of alcohol and had passed out with a blood alcohol level that was extremely high. Afterward, it was alleged that four fraternity members had sexual relations with her, and she was later mistreated in a different fraternity house. We can apply this understanding to other situations where a person has consumed so much alcohol that they are barely aware of their surroundings or who they are with. Even if they appear to agree and

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

physically respond positively, their mental state is so impaired by alcohol that their consent may not be meaningful enough to counter allegations of rape against the person they engaged in sexual relations with. A Regretted Sexual Encounter In this scenario, a male and female college student went on a dinner date and had a moderate amount of alcohol, such as a glass of wine or beer. They both felt relaxed and enjoyed their conversation, and eventually, they went back to the male student's place to continue their evening. They had one more drink there, engaged in kissing and making out, and he invited her to stay the night. Although she wasn't drunk, the alcohol had lowered her inhibitions, and she accepted his offer. The following morning, she woke up beside him and deeply regretted their sexual encounter. In this situation, it's important to note that no rape occurred. At the time, her consent was freely given, even though she later regretted it. Her decision to spend the night with her date was voluntary, even though it might not align with her long-term values. Just like when we sometimes overindulge in food or make other choices we later regret, it doesn't mean that our initial decisions weren't autonomous. It's essential to distinguish between a regrettable sexual encounter and an actual case of rape. Engaging in sexual activity after consuming a moderate amount of alcohol doesn't automatically invalidate one's consent. PROBLEMATIC INTERMEDIATE CASES: IMPAIRED SEX In this situation, we're looking at a college student who becomes very drunk at a party. Her level of alcohol in her blood is much higher than the legal limit for driving. She's slurring her words and unsteady on her feet, but she's still aware of her surroundings and the people she's with. Eventually, she ends up spending the night with a guy from the party, someone she may have just met or knows casually, but not someone she's in an ongoing relationship with. She willingly

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

engages in sexual activity with him but deeply regrets it the next day. Although she remembers going home with him, her recollection of the evening and night is hazy. This situation, referred to as "impaired sex" due to the woman's significant alcohol-induced judgment impairment, raises the question of whether it constitutes rape. Now, let's examine two different perspectives on impaired sex, each inspired by the extreme cases discussed earlier. But first, let's consider if the extent to which the man contributed to the woman's intoxicated state matters in determining whether it's rape. Suppose he deliberately got her drunk, encouraging her to consume more and more alcohol with the intention of making her more receptive to his sexual advances. This strategy implies that he doubts she would agree to have sex with him if she were sober, and his actions appear manipulative. In this scenario, her consent under the influence of alcohol may be considered invalid, and his claim that he believed she consented voluntarily would seem disingenuous. His recklessness in disregarding doubts about the voluntariness of her consent might meet the mens rea (guilty mind) requirement for rape. However, for the rest of this discussion, we'll focus on the more challenging variant of impaired sex where the man does not use alcohol as a tool for seduction. Instead, he meets the woman when she's already drunk, or they both drink together without any intention to get her drunk. In either case, he spontaneously takes advantage of the situation. The question is whether this constitutes rape. Women’s responsibility for their own actions Some people argue that women should take responsibility for their own choices when it comes to alcohol and sex. They believe that women, as adults, should be accountable for the consequences of their decisions, including using alcohol. These individuals suggest that women should not rely on others to protect them from potentially risky situations, such as sexual encounters when they've been

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

drinking. However, these arguments have faced criticism. Critics argue that it's not fair to blame women for sexual assault, even if they've been drinking. Rape is a crime, and the primary responsibility lies with the perpetrator, not the victim. Comparing rape to a mugging, where the victim's behavior might also be considered risky, doesn't hold up because sexual assault is about a lack of consent, not just risky situations. In the case of a woman who willingly engages in sexual activity after moderate drinking and later regrets it, some argue that both parties share responsibility for their actions. They believe that women, as autonomous adults, should be responsible for the consequences of their alcohol use and sexual decisions. This perspective suggests that women should clearly communicate their preferences about sex to their partners. Pineau's view emphasizes that both men and women have a duty to ensure effective communication during sexual encounters. Men, in particular, are responsible for making sure their female partners genuinely consent to sexual intimacy. A reasonable belief that a woman consented to sex can be a defense against rape, but this belief is evaluated from the woman's perspective. Since it is highly unlikely that any woman would want sex with multiple partners while unconscious due to alcohol, the four fraternity members in the gang rape scenario failed in their duty to ensure consent and are guilty of rape. Questions A. What does Dixon mean by “impaired sex”?  The term "impaired sex" highlights situations in which consent is not given freely or willingly due to external factors that diminish an individual's ability to make a genuine and autonomous decision about engaging in sexual activity. Such impairments can lead to sexual encounters that are morally problematic or even non- consensual, depending on the specific circumstances and the degree of impairment involved. These impairments can result from various factors, such as the

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

influence of alcohol or drugs, coercion, fear, or other forms of manipulation. B. How does Pineau’s theory of “communicative sexuality” help us judge whether impaired sex is sexual assault?  Pineau's theory of "communicative sexuality" provides a framework for assessing whether impaired sex can be considered sexual assault. According to Pineau, in sexual encounters, communication and mutual understanding between sexual partners are essential. Her theory emphasizes the importance of ongoing, clear, and affirmative consent between partners. Communicative sexuality requires active and meaningful communication between partners to ensure that both are willing participants. Essentially, Pineau's theory shifts the burden of ensuring consent onto those who wish to engage in sexual activity. If there is doubt about the capacity for meaningful communication and consent due to impairment, the responsible approach is to refrain from sexual activity, as proceeding without clear consent is viewed as morally problematic and potentially legally culpable under her framework. C. Why does Dixon think that normally the sexual assault involved in impaired sex should not be criminalized?  Dixon argues that normally, the sexual assault involved in impaired sex should not be criminalized for several reasons. One of the key arguments revolves around the difficulty in drawing clear legal boundaries when it comes to impaired sex. Dixon highlights that making precise distinctions between different degrees of impairment due to alcohol or other factors is a significant challenge. In the case of ongoing, committed relationships, partners may have a level of trust and mutual understanding that makes it reasonable to proceed with sexual intimacy even if one partner is slightly impaired by alcohol. Criminalizing such cases

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

could be overly intrusive and unfair to individuals in these relationships.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

War John Rawls : Rawls describes the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a very great wrong. To support his judgement, he draws on just- war theory setting out six principles that explain the circumstances under which a democratic country is justified in going to war and the way it should conduct itself during war: 1. The aim of a just war waged by a decent democratic society is a just and lasting peace between peoples, especially with its present enemies. 2. A decent democratic society is fighting against a state that is not democratic. 3. In the conduct of war, a democratic society must carefully distinguish three groups: the state's leaders and officials, its soldiers, and its civilian population. The reason for these distinctions rests on the principle of responsibility: since the state fought against is not democratic, the civilian members of the society cannot be those who organized and brought on the war. This was done by its leaders and officials assisted by other elites who control and staff the state apparatus. They are responsible, they willed the war, and for doing that, they are criminals. 4. A decent democratic society must respect the human rights of the members of the other side, both civilians and soldiers, for two reasons. One is because they simply have these rights by the law of peoples. The other reason is to teach enemy soldiers and civilians the content of those rights by the example of how they hold in their own case. 5. Continuing with the thought of teaching the content of human rights, the next principle is that just peoples by their

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

actions and proclamations are to foreshadow during war the kind of peace they aim for and the kind of relations they seek between nations. 6. Finally, we note the place of practical means-end reasoning in judging the appropriateness of an action or policy for achieving the aim of war or for not causing more harm than good. This mode of thought-whether carried on by (classical) utilitarian reasoning, or by cost-benefit analysis, or by weighing national interests, or in other ways-must always be framed within and strictly limited by the preceding principles. The norms of the conduct of war set up certain lines that bound just action. War plans and strategies, and the conduct of battles, must lie within their limits. (The only exception, I repeat, is in times of extreme crisis.) The most important of the principles that Rawls lists concerns the idea that the war that the country fights should be a model for the type of peace that will follow. For this reason, among others, a country should exercise restraint in the method it uses. A statesman- looking to the next generation and not only the next election- should fight the war with these considerations in mind, wishing to guarantee the losing side a decent future. The only exception is in condition of extreme crisis. The statesman understands that relations with the present enemy have special importance: for as I have said, war must be openly and publicly conducted in ways that make a lasting and amicable peace possible with a defeated enemy, and prepares its people for how they may be expected to be treated. Their present fears of being sub- jected to acts of revenge and retaliation must be put to rest; present enemies must be seen as associates in a shared and just future peace.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Questions: A. Explain Rawls's position that in the conduct of war the nature of the resulting peace should always be kept in mind. Rawls's position on the conduct of war and the resulting peace underscores the significance of maintaining a continuous ethical framework throughout the entire process, from the decision to engage in war to the establishment of peace. The overarching goal is to create a just and stable peace that respects the rights and dignity of individuals and societies involved. B. What does Rawls mean by extreme crisis and how does it affect what might be done in war? In situations of extreme crisis, Rawls argues that there might be a shift in the moral and ethical considerations guiding actions, including those related to war. He suggests that the urgency and severity of such crises may lead to a reevaluation of what might be permissible or necessary in responding to these threats. John Rawls, in the context of political philosophy and ethics, refers to "extreme crisis" to characterize situations where a society faces grave threats to its fundamental institutions, values, or its very existence. This term denotes a state of emergency, such as a severe threat from external aggression, internal turmoil, or circumstances that imperil the stability and core principles of a society. C. What does Rawls appeal to the idea of the statesman in his discussion of just war?

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

In John Rawls's discussion of just war theory, he appeals to the concept of the "statesman" as a central figure responsible for making crucial decisions in the context of war and peace. A statesman- looking to the next generation and not only the next election- should fight the war with these considerations in mind, wishing to guarantee the losing side a decent future. The only exception is in condition of extreme crisis. It underscores the need for responsible, ethical decision-making by those in positions of authority, particularly in times of war, where the stakes are high and the consequences far-reaching. Thomas Nagel Nagel expresses the dilemma in terms of a conflict between utilitarianism, which would justify an action if its positive outcomes outweigh the negative and absolutism which says that there are simply some actions that should never be done. Nagel points out that absolutist restrictions are of two types: who can be subjected to hostilities and the form that action against them may take. He uses the analogy of the distinction between fighting clean and fighting dirty to illustrate the point that even when we are in conflict with other we feel we have a moral obligation to treat the other as a person, with atleast minimal respect. Utilitarianism gives primacy to a concern with what one is doing. The conflict between them arises because the alternatives that we face are rarely just choices between total outcomes. While not every conflict between absolutism and utilitarianism creates an insoluble dilemma, and while it is certainly right to adhere to absolutist restrictions unless the utilitarian considerations favoring violation are over poweringly weighty and extremely certain-nevertheless, when that special condition is met, it may become impossible to adhere to an absolutist position. One absolutist position that creates no problems of

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

interpretation is pacifism: the view that one may not kill another person under any circumstances, no matter what good would be achieved or evil averted thereby. The type of absolutist position that I am going to discuss is different. Pacifism draws the conflict with utilitarian considerations very starkly. But there are other views according to which violence may be undertaken, even on a large scale, in a clearly just cause, so long as certain absolute restrictions on the character and direction of that violence are observed. The line is drawn somewhat closer to the bone, but it exists. Absolutism does not, of course, require one to ignore the consequences of one's acts. It operates as a limitation on utilitarian reasoning, not as a substitute for it. Questions A. Explain the distinction nagel makes between utilitarian and absolutist approaches to the killing of noncombatants in war. Utilitarian Approach : Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical theory that assesses the morality of actions based on their consequences. Utilitarians might justify the harm or killing of noncombatants as unintended "collateral damage" if it is deemed necessary to achieve a greater good, such as winning the war, minimizing casualties among one's own forces, or preventing future harm. Absolutist Approach: Nagel contrasts this with an absolutist which evaluates the morality of actions based on adherence to certain moral principles or rules, regardless of the consequences. Absolutists maintain that there are absolute moral prohibitions against intentionally harming or killing noncombatants, regardless of the potential positive outcomes. They believe in the inviolability of certain moral rules, such as "do not kill innocent people," even in the context of war.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

B. How does Nagel characterize the distinction between fighting clean and fighting dirty and how can it be applied in the case of war? Fighting Clean : Nagel characterizes "fighting clean" as adhering to certain ethical and moral constraints even in the midst of warfare. This includes abiding by the rules of war, such as not targeting noncombatants deliberately, minimizing collateral damage, and using proportional force. Fighting Dirty : Conversely, "fighting dirty" refers to engaging in tactics that violate accepted moral or legal norms in warfare. This could involve deliberately targeting noncombatants, using excessive or indiscriminate force, employing unethical means such as torture or the deliberate spread of terror, or violating established rules of engagement. Fighting dirty tactics may involve actions that are deemed morally reprehensible, unlawful, or in violation of fundamental ethical principles. C. What restrictions does Nagel place on hostilities to enemy combatants in war? Distinction between Combatants and Noncombatants : Nagel upholds the traditional principle of distinguishing between combatants and noncombatants. This principle dictates that the use of force should be directed only towards those actively engaged in fighting or contributing to the enemy's military efforts. Noncombatants, such as civilians, medical personnel, and other non-military individuals, should be protected from deliberate targeting. Principle of Proportionality : Nagel emphasizes the importance of proportionality in the use of force. According to this

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

principle, the level of force used should be proportionate to the military necessity and the intended military objective. Unnecessary or excessive force that could result in disproportionate harm to combatants or civilians should be avoided. Limits on Means and Methods of Warfare : Nagel advocates for limits on the means and methods employed in war. He argues against the use of tactics or weapons that cause unnecessary suffering or harm. This includes condemning the use of certain types of weapons, such as chemical or biological weapons, which cause indiscriminate harm and cannot be directed solely at combatants.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Terror and Torture The term terror means an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the investigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. Alan Dershowitz has been criticized for raising a red herring since it is well known that torture does not work- it produces many false confession and useless misinformation, because a person will say anything to stop being tortured. The tragic reality is that torture sometimes work. What values does Dershowitz think come into conflict in the ticking bomb case? National Security: The urgency to prevent an imminent and catastrophic threat to national security by extracting information from a captured individual who has critical information that could prevent an impending disaster. Human Rights and Ethics: Upholding human rights and ethical principles that oppose torture or any form of inhumane treatment, even when faced with extreme circumstances. Rule of Law: Respecting and upholding the laws, rules, and norms of a society, which typically prohibit torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. How do the act utilitarian and the rule utilitarian approaches to the ticking bomb differ?

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

In the context of the ticking bomb scenario, these two approaches differ in how they assess and justify the use of torture or extreme measures to prevent a catastrophic event. Act Utilitarianism: Act utilitarianism evaluates actions based on the specific circumstances at hand. It prioritizes the greatest good for the greatest number in each individual situation. In the ticking bomb scenario, an act utilitarian would consider the immediate consequences of using torture to extract information. If the action leads to preventing a massive loss of life and is deemed the most effective means available, the act utilitarian might justify employing torture as it maximizes overall happiness in that specific instance. The decision to use torture would depend on the calculated utility or happiness produced in that particular case, irrespective of established rules or principles. Rule Utilitarianism: Rule utilitarianism evaluates actions based on general rules or principles that, when consistently followed, tend to maximize overall happiness in society. In the ticking bomb scenario, a rule utilitarian would consider the consequences of allowing torture as a general rule. Rather than assessing the immediate situation in isolation, rule utilitarians focus on whether allowing torture as a general rule would lead to greater overall happiness or unhappiness in society. Rule utilitarians might argue against permitting torture even in extreme cases because allowing torture as a standard practice could have detrimental consequences on society, potentially leading to widespread fear, erosion of human rights, and overall reduced happiness. Why does Dershowitz think that the most defensible policy is to allow non-lethal torture in clear ticking bomb cases, but only when given judicial authoritization? Dershowitz advocates for a carefully regulated process that involves judicial oversight. This means that the decision to use such extreme

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

measures would not be left solely to the discretion of law enforcement or intelligence agencies but would require approval from a judge or a specially convened court. This judicial authorization aims to ensure strict limitations on when and how such techniques can be used. By involving the judiciary, there is an element of oversight and accountability, which can help prevent misuse or abuse of these tactics. It also means there would be a record and oversight of when and why such measures were employed. Michael Walzer He turns his attention more closely to the nature of terrorism and the moral justifications that are sometimes attempted for it. The point of terrorism is not only to kill the innocent but also to spread fear among people trying to go about their normal daily life. The purpose of his discussion is to try to undermine a number of common excuses. According to Walzer, the concept of "terrorism as the last resort" suggests that in extreme cases where a population is facing severe oppression or where all other means of redress have been exhausted, individuals or groups might morally justify the use of violence, even in the form of terrorism, as a last resort to achieve their goals. It is not easy to reach the last resort. To get there, one must try everything and not just once but by doing the same thing over and over again. The second excuse involves national liberation movements struggling against established and powerful states. Walzer discusses how the second excuse for terrorism differs from the first one. It focuses on situations where the claim is that nothing else is possible for a movement, except for terrorism. This argument doesn't mandate that the terrorists exhaust all available options in practice. Instead, it

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

requires them to consider various strategies in their minds, but the perceived finality of their weakness makes them believe terrorism is their sole option. In liberal and democratic states, where terrorism might be a possible strategy for opposition movements, other nonviolent strategies are also viable if the movement has significant popular support. However, in the absence of such support, terrorism might appear as the only option. Walzer distinguishes between two forms of weakness: the movement's weakness concerning the opposing state and the movement's weakness concerning its own people. The latter form of weakness, the inability of the movement to mobilize the nation in support of alternatives like nonviolent resistance, strikes, or demonstrations, is what makes terrorism seem like the only available option. the third excuse or justification for terrorism, which is based on the idea that terrorism works—that it achieves the goals of oppressed people even without their active participation. It's a consequentialist argument, meaning it focuses on the outcomes or consequences of actions rather than their intrinsic morality. In simpler terms, it suggests that if terrorism succeeds in achieving its aims, it can be seen as justifiable, even if it involves wrongful or violent actions. The author emphasizes that for this consequentialist argument to hold, it's not enough for terrorism to show results. It also needs to demonstrate that these desired outcomes couldn't have been accomplished by less harmful or wrongful means.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

PHILO

Related Documents