Post your ethical analysis of the voting propositions in the reply. It's going to get rather complicated, but I think it will be a good demonstration of how Aristotle, Kant, Mill, and Epicurus would reason through some different concepts. And the added benefit is it might help you make sense of some of the more confusing aspects of the California ballot.
Oh, speaking of that... here's the complete Voter Information Guide
And here's the rest of the Armando Iannucci comedy sketch on the non-golden mean... is this a fifth ethical system?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Aristotle on Prop 2:
We thought that Aristotle would vote YES on Prop 2 because animals have souls. It would also make us more virteous to be sympathetic to these poor animals which in turn feed us.
Okay...i don't know why this decision was so hard to make but here it is:
Aristotle votes yes on prop 2. He is voting yes not only to practice the virtue of sympathy, but to create an opportunity in which he can act sympathetic directly to the animals ('cause you know he's going to want to help give these animals the space himself). His actions are in search of the good that will bring him happiness. By voting yes, he has an opportunity to look for one in helping animals.
Aristotle on Prop 8:
Aristotle would vote No on prop 8 because by feeling sympathetic towards same sex couples, he is performing a good for someone else, which in fact will increase his excellence. Under prop 8, same sex marriage will provide equality to all. If he votes yes on prop 8, he is helping in taking away that equality from others, which would not help him in becoming a better person and reaching happiness.
Aristotle on Prop 8
Aristotle would vote Yes on prop 8 because it would allow everyone to gain as much virtue as they possibly can. By voting No, people wouldn't be able to gain their full virtue because the law would be stopping them.
Kant on Prompt 2:
Would vote Yes because it is the right thing to do. It is inhumane to keep chickens, calves, ect. caged up. He doenst care for the consequence so he wouldnt take into consideration if there would be less eggs or no veal to eat, just that it is wrong to be inhumane to animals so he would want to do the right thing and vote yes.
Aristotle on prop 8- Aristotle might say that a person's telos is to reproduce, and because homosexuals cannot reproduce, it wouldn't fulfill the purpose of being a human and therefore of being married. He would vote NO on prop 8
Aristotle on prop 4- Aristotle would say that parents should make the decision because they are more knowledgeable and would therefore be more capable of making an appropriate decision. He would vote YES on prop 4
Kant on Prop 8
My group and I concluded that Kant would vote No. Kant is a big believer in the golden rule and being treated as you would want others. In this respect, if you were gay and wanted to get married, then you should let all gays marry.
Epicurous on Prop 2:
Because Epicurous is primarily concerned with the pleasure of the individual, he would not care about animal rights of any kind. The way he sees it, giving farm animals bigger cages would only increase the price of food like eggs or meat. If the price of meat increases, the individual will have to pay more money for something that they are not personally affected by. Therefore, Epicurous would vote NO on proposition 2.
Mill on Prop 4: I think yes, will affect the greater amount of people for the better because it hurts parents not to know their daughters are having abortions.
Kant on Prop 4:
We had a hard time reaching a consensus on whether he would vote yes or no on this prop, because it is was hard for us to determine what Kant would consider right or wrong about abortion. Here is our reasoning for both.
Yes- He would not consider the consequences of the parents being notified, but would consider the act of notifying them as the right thing to do. Also, if his golden rule was applied, I think he would want to know if his daughter was getting an abortion.
No- If he applied the golden rule and believed that everyone has the right to choose to do whatever they please with their bodies, despite the consequences of secrecy and or emotional despair for the girls getting abortions.
Aristotle on Prop 4:
We thought that Aristotle would say No, because it is the person who is pregnant that has the right to decide what is better for themselves and not someone elses.
Prop 2 (YES = regulate caging of farm animals, NO = leave it unregulated)
Epicurus: would certainly agree with Stephanie's hedonistic reasoning
Aristotle: would agree with Kiyomi's point that animals have souls, although he would qualify that they have lesser or less important souls; depending on how much "lesser" he would maybe or maybe not agree with Roselaine's point that sympathy is relevant to animals
Kant: I agree that Jessica reasoned through this in a Kantian (deontological) way, but the premise that animal cruelty is "inhumane" is something Kant might not accept. One reason is that I can't apply the categorical imperative to chickens (would I want chickens to do this to me?). It could be argued that animals are not part of ethics at all. Personally I disagree, but I'm just saying that Kant could reach two different conclusions here depending on what his starting premise is.
MILL: Here also I question whether the animals would fit into a utilitarian calculation of greatest good... greatest good for humans was the original idea... but of course in our own reasoning we can modify the principle... thus Mill might be interested in how the law would affect farmers
Prop 4 (YES to mandate parental notification of underage abortion, NO to allow minors to make this decision without parental notification)
Epicurus: if E. reasons from the perspective of a statutory rapist / baby daddy, it would probably be to his benefit to not need to materially support the child, and this would seem to imply a NO vote... otherwise I can't see how he'd be particularly interested in what happens to someone else's fetus
Aristotle: I agree with Ivan, and disagree with Jeffrey, that A. is likely to see the minor as lacking the ethical sophistication to even make such a choice (depending on how we define "minor"... for Aristotle this might not mean 18 yrs. old, but then again he probably wouldn't consider any woman to be a good decision-maker... by the way, if you want an insight into how majority of age was determined in the ancient world, ask yourself where the Latin word "public" comes from)
Kant: I agree with Ariana that we need a premise beyond the categorical imperative, and that premise is whether or not the fetus counts as a person... it seems likely that Kant, in his own time period, would vote yes, but I could definitely see a Kantian case for voting no... note that the pro-life / anti-abortion argument is almost always Kantian... did you notice McCain's dismissal of the "health of the mother" issue in the 3rd debate? He was dismissing the utilitarian perspective.
Mill: I'm pretty sure he would disagree with Hannah, because there is a direct physical harm to the underage girls because they would be discouraged from having safe abortions and would have unsafe ones... this is what happens in places where abortion in general is illegal... Hannah invokes the emotional pain/pleasure of the parents, but Mill is likely to see that as secondary... you can see how Obama is a utilitarian on this point, arguing that abortions are undesirable but that policy should be shaped around their prevalence or inevitability
Prop 5 (YES means minor drug offenders are sent to rehab or paroled to rehab, NO means serve the usual jail sentence)
I guess I didn't assign this one because we discussed it in class.
Epicurus: if I am a drug user or dealer, I want to avoid jail time... also a loosening of drug laws will probably make my drugs cheaper because it reduces the opportunity costs of the market... on the other side, it could be argued that harsher drug laws keep non-users/non-dealers safer because illegality promotes criminal control of the market... but if we follow this reasoning, E. would favor legalization of drugs
Aristotle: I agree with what was said in class, that A. would be concerned with giving the offender a chance to cultivate virtue, and that prison is not a good place wherein to cultivate virtue, and that perhaps sympathy for the criminal is also a form of virtue... I'm sure Aristotle would be concerned about the political consequences of lax punishment of crimes in general, but it isn't likely he would see drug use specifically as criminal... he might see it as undesirable or unvirtuous, but not criminal... Dionysus was the Greek god of hallucinogenic mushrooms... he became the wine god as a result of what we might call cultural censorship
Kant: Mercy is a categorical imperative (see: New Testament)
Mill: reducing jailtime would save the state money, which might lead to a tax refund or the funding of other worthy social programs... prison space is also finite, so he'd rather violent offenders take those spots over people caught with a dimebag of weed... but the most important question he would ask is whether rehab or jail time was most effective in reducing drug abuse... Mill is not interested in being "tough on crime," just in what has utility
Epicurus - Prop 8:
Epicurus, as an ancient Greek, would vote no on Prop 8. He would want homosexual couples to marry, especially if that gave them more pleasure. Also, he may see this as a threat to any relationship he may want with a younger man.
Prop 8 (YES to oppose gay marriage, NO to keep it legal)
Epicurus: either I'm gay and the law benefits me (my taxes, my ability to visit a sick partner, my dignity, etc.) or I'm not and it doesn't affect me
Aristotle: perhaps it develops my virtue to give others an opportunity for happiness as Mari suggests; on the flipside Aristotle is going to be concerned about the social or political consequences... he might argue as the yes advocates do that this violates the telos of the family unit and would therefore be disruptive... this is a stronger version of Ivan's point... the telos of humans is not merely to reproduce but it could be argued that this is the telos of marriage
Kant: As Christine points out, sympathy is the most relevant application of the categorical imperative... I think Kant would also consider the state's definition of marriage as a merely legal or technical question rather than an ethical one... a more proper ethical question might be: should I be gay?
Mill: A no vote benefits some people, and it does not harm others unless you presuppose a social risk that Mill is unlikely to recognize because he couldn't quantify it
Hah, that's funny, Alec was writing his comment as I was writing mine.
By the way, this is a much better study guide than it is a voter guide, isn't it?
Mill on Prop 8:
Yes because there are more straights than gays, and for the better meant of society the majority is important.
Aristotle on Prop 4:
Aristotle says No on prop 4.
The parents would know best and probably would not want to kill off a new life that holds the potential to be virtuous.
Mill on Prop 2:
It seemed that Mill would vote no on Proposition 2, since he would be interested in the greatest good of the people, and since the greatest good would be considered as cheaper food, no lost revenue in expanding size of cages, and not worrying about things that are not human.
Aristotle Prop 2
We would vote YES for prop 2 as Aristotle because animals still have souls. Trying to be as virtuous as possible, we would extend our help to these poor animals and save them from their misery. That way, it is beneficial for both us and the animals.
Monique, this logic only works if you (Mill) can specify what the "betterment" actually is to the straight majority.
Florence, that's a good point about the Aristotlean "potential" of the fetus... A actually argues that the sperm is (prior to and after conception) the actuality of the future person and the womb (he doesn't know what an "egg" is) is the potentiality. You can see pretty easily what the Catholic interpretation of Aristotle is. On the reverse, it might be argued that the fertilized embryo is still much more a potentiality than an actuality and therefore that someone more actual would have precedence of rights over it.
Rosemary, I think Mill would want those eggs to be used to bake some orange cookies for the greater good.
Post a Comment