Reading Questions #1: Dewey Ch.

10
1. Do either of the following: (A.) Identify something from the text that you don't
understand and try to explain it: (B.) Identify something from the text that you disagree
with and explain why you disagree with it; (C.) Identify something important from the
text that you agree with, and explain why it is important.

I found Deweys argument that changes in conditions have made what they signify for
human action a matter of uncertain and controversy, to be quite interesting. Social
conditions are changing, and affect different aspects of life in ways that we would not
have considered. Dewey poses the thought that if all men followed the Golden Rule
as the law of conduct, we still need inquiry and thought to arrive at even a passable
conception of what the Rule means in terms of concrete practice under mixed and
changing social conditions (Dewey 178). Its true, this basic rule could change and we
would need to define what it meant.

2. Explain how Dewey understands the relationship between customary and reflective morality.
One way to describe the relationship is to say that there is a positive aspect and a negative aspect.
Identify each.

The former places the standard and rules of conduct in ancestral habit; the latter appeals
to conscience, reason, or to some principle which includes thought (Dewey 162). The
distinction is relative rather than absolute

The difference between customary and reflective morality is precisely that definite
precepts, rules, definite injunctions and prohibitions issue from the former, while they
cannot proceed from the latter (Dewey 165).

Negative = customary morality conflicts with reflective moralityeach individual

reflects on these morals differentex: being gay in the 1950s customary doesnt accept
reflective you feel gay but cant come out

Positive = our goal is to reconstruct custom (not abandon) and we need custom in order to
reflect

through reflection, goal is to reconstruct customsnot getting rid of customs but rather
changing them

customary = group

3. Explain why, for Dewey, the phenomenon of temptation does not constitute genuine moral
struggle? What, in contrast, does constitute genuine moral struggle?

Temptation causes one to not really think but permit his desires to govern his beliefs.
There is no sincere doubt in his mind as to what he should do when he seeks to find
some justification for what he has made up his mind to do (Dewey 164).

Genuine Moral Struggle: Exdedicated citizen whose country is going to war doesnt
support war but loves country

Nowhehastomakeachoicebetweencompetingmoralloyaltiesandconvictions

Struggle=betweenvalueseachofwhichisanundoubtedgoodinitsplacebutwhich
nowgetineachothersway

4. For Dewey, not all actions have direct moral quality. Why is this so? At the same time, any
action can acquire direct moral significance? Why is this so?

Many acts are done not only without thought of their moral quality but with practically
no thought of any kind. Yet these acts are preconditons of other acts having significant
value(Dewey 168). Basically, you dont give thought to moral qualityact must be
formed voluntary to have moral quality!

There are also just actions

Example:

2 ppl who both drive a carone goes to rob a bank and the other goes to help
the homelessaction in that specific situation now has moral qualitysituation itself
provides moral action

Person must also needs to have a stable character in order to make a valid act that has
direct moral quality

A vast number of acts are performed which seem to be trivial in themselves but whichin
reality are the supports and buttresses of acts in which definite moral considerations are
present (Dewey 168).

5. Explain how Dewey understands the relation between conduct and character. Specifically, how
does character function to distinguish conduct from a mere succession of acts?

Conduct = continuity of action, an idea which we have already met in the conception of a
stable and formed character; series; every act has potential moral significance, because it
is, through its consequences, part of a larger whole of behavior (unity of actions)

Another circuit: action 1 action 2 action 3 = conduct

Character (virtue ethics// dispositions to act)

It is that potentially conduct is one hundred per cent of our conscious life. For all acts
are so tied together that any one of them may have to be judged as an expression of
character(Dewey 170).

Conduct and character are strictly correlative are morally one and the same thing

6. Explain the distinction between motive and intention, but also Dewey's view that they cannot
be sharply separated.

(School of Bentham) Ex: surgeon The intended consequence, the intention, of the
surgeon was to save life; morally his act was beneficent, although unsuccessful from
causes he could not control his intent was right, it makes no difference what his motive
was

motive = dont really think about consequences; pushing one to act // vs. intent = think of
consequences

When it is recognized that motive is but an abbreviated name for the attitude and
predisposition toward ends which is embodied in action, all ground for making a sharp
separation between motive and intentionforesight of consequencesfalls
away(Dewey 175).

Cant sharply distinguish between motive and intention because distinction between
motive and intention is a result of our analysis according as we emphasize either the
emotional or the intellectual aspect of an action (Dewey 171)

Motive is connected to outcome and actions that you will perform

Reading Questions #2 (FE Ch. 19 &20)

Highlighted text =
information added
after class
discussion

1. Identify an issue in the text that you feel strongly about and explain why you feel strongly.
An issue that I was strongly drawn to was this idea of ritual killings and how it
relates to moral infallibility. I was first shocked to learn that a father would kill his
innocent daughter after she was raped, simply due to the fact that her honor was
dirtied. Rapean act that was completely unwarranted, causes the death of a
girl, at the hand of her own father nonetheless! This is a rather large flaw in the
idea of cultural relativism. Cultural relativists might argue that the men in these
cultures may be morally required to kill their wives, daughter, or sisters for having
shown their bare calves, having kissed the wrong man, or having been raped
(295)
2. Explain how the following terms are related to each other: moral skepticism, ethical
objectivism, ethical relativism, and moral nihilism.
The worry, is that Moral skepticism: the denial of objective (universally true
regardless of what anyone happens to think) moral standardsis correct, and that
morality therefore lacks any real authority
-this sort of puzzlement is not about the content of moralitywhat it requires or
allowsbut about its status

Ethical Objectivism: is the view that some moral standards are objectively correct
and that some moral claims are objectively true

Ethical Relativism: claim that some moral rules really are correct, and that these
determine which moral claims are true and which are falsesubcategory of moral
skepticismrelativism does not deny the existence of moral truth

Moral Nihilism: view that there are no moral truths at allthe world contains no
moral features; when we take a step back from the issues that engage our
emotions, we can see that nothing is right and nothing is wrong; not a denial that
we dont do itmore so that when we do it, there are no truths to it

3. Do you agree that if there are no objective moral truths, moral progress is impossible?

Yesmoral progress occurs when our most fundamental beliefs change for the better (ex
racism, sexism, Germany after WWII) But if a persons or societys deepest beliefs are
true by definition, then they cant change for the betterthey can change, but not for
moral improvement (Russ Shafer-Landau 297). In subjectivism, the ultimate rule is
personal opinionin relativism, the ultimate rule is given by a societys basic ideals

-ex: if a society gradually eases out of its deeply sexist attitudes, that cannot be moral
changethat can only be a change to a different moral code
-requires objective truth in order to have moral progress
slaveryabolition

(according to moral skepticism, not a moral change (factual) , moral progress

(normative))
We want both objective and subjective truthhow can we have both??
Depends on the situation sex before marriage vs. murderstill wrong regardless of
your opinionnormative truthnot obvious like factual

4. How might Dewey respond to the two forms of relativism? Would he endorse one over the
other, reject both entirely, or seek some reconciliation between relativism and objectivism?

Dewey would reject both ideas of cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism
Dewey recognizes the value of social normseveryone is educated to believe certain
thingsreflected capacity when you reach a certain agemost part (internalize certain
norms)ex: if raised in racist home then you will be racistfact of existenceno one is
free from social environmentwe cant challenge all social norms simultaneouslywe
have to use other social norms to challenge
Not a matter of rejecting or accepting social norms entirelymore of a negotiation
Figure out the nature of moral truth
Experience (could be a social experience) problematic situations reflection claims
to moral knowledge we have to then act out our claimbring it to reality (to Dewey,
this is an experiment) must have moral sensitivity does it consummate your
experience?
For Dewey, every situation is uniqueit is relative to the situation and reflection that you
go through

5. Do you agree that all moral claims are factual errors? If so, does that mean moral claims have
no authority? In not, how would you deal with the fact-value problem?

Disagree error theorists believe sincerely claiming that murder is wrong is true, we just
happen to be always false even though our moral claims are in linguistic structurenot
clear like descriptive claims (ex: the door is closed) murder is wrongeven though ppl
agree that it is wrongdifficult to prove that it is a factual truth claim; factual claims vs
value claims (murder is wrong)
Objectivists believe value claims are actual factual claimsbut how do you describe the
fact that murder is wrongno description of how murder is wrong
-no such thing as right or wrong on factual level
attempt to understand what we are doing when we make moral truth claims
truth claim example: murder is wrong

both could be wrong- or both could be right responding to something real in this world
Dewey is trying to cut right through error theory and objectivitydeal with the problem
of truthto the situation and reflection

6. Do you believe amoralists exist?

Amoralisits: someone who sincerely makes moral claims, but is entirely unmoved by
them
I suppose amoralists could existbut I have yet to meet one. As humans, I feel as though
we are naturally emotionally tied with the moral claims that we makethey invoke
emotion. I dont really see how one could be disconnected/ unmoved by the moral claims
he/she makes. These moral claims are the sort of things that we as individuals fight
everyday about, because we feel so strongly toward!
It seems more likely that expressionism exists

Reading Questions #3 ~ FE Ch. 11 Kant

**Highlighted text =
information added
after class
discussion

1. Explain the difference between, on the one hand, the What if everyone did that? rule
and the golden rule, and, on the other, the principle of universalizability.

What if everyone did that lacks consistency; if everyone did x and x is immoral
-consequentialist rule!
-doesnt address issue of right or wrongjust addresses desires
- disconnection between universalization of it and right and wrong outcome;
you have some actions in a particular instance that seem good- but if you follow
this rule then disastrous results
-all depends on what we happen to care aboutno contradiction whatsoever
(unless you care and there is contradiction)\
-According to Kant, universalization process leads to contradiction regardless if
you (as an individual) care or not!

Golden Rule- unreliable bc depends on persons desires, one desires defers from
anothers desire
-principals or rules are relative to what ppl desire
(connected to consequentialism) but we need a firmer ground for morality bc
feelings can change

Universalizability- the feature of a maxim that indicates that every rational person
can consistently act on it:
-carefully frame the maxim
-imagine a world in which everyone shares and acts on that maxim
-determine whether the goal within the maxim can be achieved in such a world

Feel like lawsbut are they properly universalizable

2. What does Kant mean when he claims that the inability to universalize a maxim is due to
contradiction?
Were we making an exception of ourselves, our maxims wouldnt be
universalizable pg. 165
It cant contradict
Maxim of action (intention) Kants ethics = morality of intentions; universalize
maxim (moral lawcategorical (moral command; what you must do) imperative)
moral equality, moral will
moral equality = vital; all rational beings are equal! If I am superior to you, then I

can do things that you cant do!

I intend to do x in order to bring out Yrole for consequences, but consequences
is not fundamental basis for right and wrong!
Robbing banks: if everyone robs bank, then there would be no banks to rob
contradiction, it does not allow you to achieve maxim after you universalize it!

What if you are at home and someone is in a panic, killer chasing person and
needs to hide killer comes; lying is immoral, so right thing is to tell? What is
Kants response
-lying vs. lying to save someones life as long as we include in order to bring
about y and doesnt contradict in process of universalization!

3. Both expressivism and Kant reject the view that one can be an amoralist, but for very
different reasons. Explain this difference.
Amoralist: is someone who believes in right and wrong but doesnt care about
morality at all
It would refute Kants claim that immoral actions are always irrational

Kant thought you act irrationally when you act contrary to your strongest reasons

Expressivist: says every time we express moral belief we are expressing our moral
feelingsamoralists are able to separate feelings; feeling are a necessary part of
having a moral belief; motivated by feelings

Kant: motivation is REASONis strongest motivator

-Morality should depend entirely on things we can control; emotions are
out of our control
-maxim/intentions are in our control!

**Highlighted text is
information that I added
after our class discussion

Reading Questions #4 (FE Ch. 12 Kant)

1. What does Kant mean by humanity? How are the concepts of end, means, autonomy, and
respect connected with the concept of humanity?

Humanity: all rational and autonomous beings, no matter the species

As an end: treating her with the respect she deserves
As a means: dealing with her so that she helps you achieve one of your goals
Principle of Humanity: always treat a human being (including yourself) as an end,
and never as a mere means
Treating someone as a means to an end is okay ex of plumber; we use him to
assist us, but we treat him with respect and pay him
Using someone as a mere means = wrong
Respect someone as autonomous, and you can still use person as a means

2. Explain why, for Kant, the good will is the only thing that always adds value, as opposed
to the consequentialist view about the value of consequences.

Good-will = knowing what your duty is and acting on it

Kant = moral quality of an act has to do with the intentions of the act
Good will always adds value bc shows that you value other ppls rationality and
autonomy
We cant control the outcome of your actions!
-ex: of old man helping cross street not within your control that he was hit
Only held accountable for what you can control
We can only set our intentions

Consequentialists: the consequences are what matter; not intentions; man who
crosses street (hit by car); you acted immorally by helping him bc he was hit
Moral responsibility the good will is the cause of your actions (according to
Kant)

3. Do you think American levels of consumption, if it can only be fulfilled through the
poverty of other people, fails to respect those other peoples' autonomy?

Disrespecting autonomy of ppl of poverty ignorance of poverty in order to get

what we want

Our levels of consumption require the poverty of other ppltrue? (child labor in
China; cheap labor; use of other ppls natural environment)

Are we responsible by virtue of consumption for their poverty?

Participating and consuming goods
Causal connection outcome of system and our participation in the system

4. How does Kant justify punishment and how does it differ from a consequentialist view of
punishment? Which form of punishment do you think is best? Explain.

Lex talioniseye-for-an eye principle; treat criminals as they have treated their
victims (not necessarily for the greater goodpunishment)
Flaws:
-Cant explain why criminals intentionally hurt their victims should be punished
more than those who accidentally cause the same harm
-lex cant tell us what criminals deserve (when crimes lack victims)
-Guidance that lex provides when it does prescribe a punishment is sometimes
deeply immoral
-punishment = act of correction

Kantian view of punishment = Wrong bc then that means the government

would have professional torturers

Consequentialistreduce level of harm and increase well-being; want to

maximize well-being whatever it takes
-Looks toward the future rather than backward toward the crime
-Retributivism is nothing more than a compromise with revenge and no
punishment can be legitimated without knowing that it will bring forth good
effects
-irrelevant action of crime bc it already occurred; act of punishment must be
looked at through the same way any other act is looked at

Consequentialist viewprevention or to rehabilitate ppl

5. Explain the problem of moral luck with respect to Kant's view of punishment. How
would you address this problem?

Moral Luck: causes in which the morality of an action or decision depends on

factors outside of our control
-if Kant is right, moral luck cant exist
Luck comes in, in outcome for Kant, it is the intention
Ex: 2 ppl who are drunk from a bar; one kills a person, and the other doesnt harm
anyone according to Kant, both are in the wrong; both deserve to be punished
(how do we punish them?)
Just at fault; luck is just lucky if no outcome though, what is the appropriate
punishment?

Highlighted text =
information added
after class discussion
FE Reading Questions #5: Ch. 17
1. Explain the connection between the good life and the good person from the theory of
virtue ethics and how virtue ethics differs from both consequentialism and Kantian
deontology.

Virtue in the good life: essential in the good life, but does not guarantee a
good life; necessary but maybe not sufficient
Temperance, courage, wisdom, justice = original 4
What do virtues do, how do they function, if this connection is right, to
enable one to be happy?
Can cause conflict between ppl
Differ in a big senseother 2 focus on moral rulebook; virtue ethics
understands complexity of moralitysituation from situation
Consequentlism and Kantian deontology = mechanical
Virtue ethics- not given ahead of time, how a virtue should be applied
Some similarities: virtue ethics in some sense = consequentialist; purpose
of developing character = develop virtuous character; develop the good
and happy life
Virtue vs. vice (character traits; disposition)
Virtues = active ways of interacting in the world
Vices operate to destabilize ones life of interaction, whereas virtues act to
harmonize it (make it coherent)
Virtues constitute happiness are a means to happiness
In forming your character, you are forming certain intentions (virtues)
-deontology = focuses on intentions! Like that of virtue ethics

2. Explain the connections among the idea of a moral exemplar, the complexity of morality,
and moral understanding. Trace a logical development starting from the moral exemplar
to moral understanding.

In order for someone to be a moral exemplar, must develop moral understanding

therefore, would know what to do in the complexity of moralityfor virtue
ethics, not one set rule (based on situation)
Exemplars provide ppl with a standard; models (start from a position of role

models)
Point is not to simply copy the role model (rather, the starting point), through the
role model, we see somebody who has developed the moral understanding
Someone who has a moral capacity has ability to act; possesses courage,
temperance, etc. in each situation; each moral situation is unique; virtue ethics =
situationists
Moral exemplar = understanding; leads us to our own understanding, and a role
model or an exemplar
Moral good sense = somebody who knows how to apply the virtues in the correct
way (no rule to give how to do that!)
We can only know through EXPERIENCE; only way to develop the virtues is to
try to be virtuous; must act!

3. Explain why, for Aristotle, the virtuous life can only arise out of the use of reason.

Cases of moral complexitybc the virtues dont admit of mechanical

application, must develop knowledge or wisdom about how to be virtuous
in this situation vs. another
Not obviousmust develop rational capacity of moral understanding
One has to have this kind of practical knowledge; can only learn it through
experiential development; must develop in a certain way; process = key

4. How might a virtue ethicist respond to the Who are the moral role models? and the
Conflict and Contradiction problems?

How do we decide who our role models should be, especially if different ppl
endorse different candidates? hard problem!
Ex: some ppl exalt suicide bombers or Hitler in the Hitler Youth
Solution = relativismidea that appropriate role models will differ from person
to person or culture to culture
No role model = perfect (account for difference in role models)
This leads to the view that moral standards too will differ in this way
We become more insightful in selecting moral exemplars only by becoming
morally wiser in general (bit difference than relativism)
Contraction and conflict occurs when many virtuous ppl disagree about what to
do in a given situation
Solution: the first is to insist that there is really only a single truly virtuous person
and so the differences that cause the contradictions would disappear
Or modify the virtue ethical view of right action
1. An act in a given situation is morally required just bc ALL virtuous ppl,
acting in character, would perform it

2. An act in a given situation is morally permitted just bc SOME BUT NOT

ALL virtuous ppl would perform it
3. An act in a given situation is morally forbidden just bc NO virtuous person
would perform it

Aristotles idea of virtue ethics relies substantially on the effects role models have
on ppl. Aristotle believes that we learn to be moral virtuous by modeling behavior
of moral ppl

5. How would you respond to the priority problem as the author explains it, using the
example of rape? Is this problem fatal to virtue ethics?

Priority problem = putting virtue over duty

Virtuous ppl would never rape- therefore it is wrong; rape is not wrong in of itself,
it is wrong bc virtuous ppl would never do it
Problem can be fatal to virtual ethics bc based on mimicking; wouldnt develop
moral understanding
Exemplar knows rape is wrong through own experience; does or doesnt do it is a
sign; know what is right or wrong

**NoteHighlighted text
signifies notes added after
class discussion

Reading Questions #6: Aristotles Ethics

1. Explain why, for Aristotle, happiness is the ultimate goal of the human being. Then,
explain why happiness requires the use of reason and what the function of reason is in
terms of happiness.

Eudaimonia (happiness) and eu zen (living well) designate such an end

Search for the highest good

Happiness depends on ourselves

Virtue is maintained by the mean

The highest good, virtuous activity, is not something that comes to us by chance

Everything operates according to a means end relationship must be some

ultimate purpose

Continence, incontinence, vice

Ethical virtue is fully developed only when it is combined with practical wisdom

All free males are born with the potential to become ethically virtuous and
practically wise, but to achieve these goals they must go through two stages:
during their childhood, they must develop the proper habits; and then, when their
reason is fully developed, the must acquire practical wisdom

The use of reasoning prevents us from destructive behavior

In order to truly achieve happiness, humans have to put work into ituse reason

Cant be virtuous at all without reason

Purpose of something has to be relative to something distinctive about it

discover what purpose is

Living things have soulssouls = animating factor of life

Nutritive soul = plant; locomotive soul + nutritive soul = animals; locomotive

soul + nutritive soul + rational soul = humans

As humans we do not have instinctwe have reason which is what gets us to

happiness (behavior)

2. How would Aristotle respond to the claim that in many instances a person would be
happier if he or she did the vicious thing?

Evil ppl are driven by desires for domination and luxury single-minded in these
pursuits

Desires leaves them dissatisfied and full of self-hatred; deeply divided (the more
they pursue, the more they are dissatisfied)

You have capacity to make choices about how to develop character (rational
soul) virtue vs. vices ends that are momentary

Rational soul should be ruled by reason

Virtues correspond to ends that are permanent; unifying/balance the soul

Allows you to maintain stability over time

Dont need to reason to perform vicesneed reason to perform virtue, to build

virtues; you are not naturally virtuous

Happiness = is having a balanced soul in which reason is in control of soul

3. Explain how, for Aristotle, virtue is necessary for happiness, but not always sufficient.
Give an example to illustrate how a person may fail to be happy despite developing the
virtues.

Doing the virtuous thing wont always make you happy, but is always present in
happiness

Virtue as necessary for happiness

Virtue constitutes happiness

Necessary and sufficient do not overlap

External goods (attractiveness, wealth, health) factors outside of your control that
effect futurelike moral luck

-not necessary for happiness, but really help you; aid accomplishment of
happiness with virtueopen up opportunities with virtuebut also opens up
opportunity for vice as well (burdens or benefits to be virtuous)

if lack external goods, must have much more control

virtue = internal good (product of own training)

4. Explain the process of developing the virtues and the specific role of reason in this
development. Do the latter by starting with a virtue, understood as a mean between
excess and deficiency, and apply it to a concrete example.

As you develop reason, develop through trial and error, can also develop virtue;
ex: child cannot be virtuous bc not enough wisdom, must train habits; do not have
reason

One can only become virtuous by being virtuous (you only develop virtues by
aiming at virtues)

Virtues are a mean between excess and deficiency

Without reason, only a set of mechanical behaviorscant apply to every

situation! Pure habits dont direct you in proper way

Every situation is different- virtue in one situation can be a vice in another

Honestysometimes lying = virtuous thing to do; how do I come to know when

to lie and when I shouldnt

I will never be completely virtuous, but I can do the best I can through practice
forming bodily habits through use of reason; learn from experience; correct what
was wrong

FE Ch. 18: Feminist Ethics

Reading Questions #7
1. Do you think the fact that Western ethics and ethical theory is almost entirely told and
produced by men, who held (and still hold?) low opinions of women, biases ethics toward
men and against women? Explain.

I definitely think that ethical theory and western ethics (told by and produced by
men) hold biases toward men and against women. After all, Aristotle even said
that the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; the one rules, and the
other is ruled. Rousseau, Kant, and Aquinas all held incredibly sexist and low
opinions toward women. These men are regarded as some of the most
intellectually intelligent humans in historyso it is quite unfortunate that these
influential men have stated these beliefs toward women. Sexism toward women
still very much exists still today and reading this remarks toward women is
difficult to hearespecially because these men believed women were inferior to
them simply because of their gender. I understand the time period, but the thing is,
many men still hold these beliefs today. Women are members of our society, and
for these men to underplay their role in our everyday lives is insulting.

2. What is the significance for ethics of Carol Gilligan's conflict with Kohlberg over moral
development? How is the nature/nurture debate implicated in this debate?

According to Kohlberg, there are six stages of moral developmentand as we

grow, we view morality ad depending on our social roles and on our relationships.
In the 6th stage, we think of morality as requiring obedience to abstract rules of
impartial justice
However, Gilligan noted that many women fare poorly on Kohlbergs scale, as
they never advance beyond the third stage
Gilligan also noted that women brought an attitude of care and sympathy to their
decision making, and rarely appealed to abstract moral principles, were inclined
to voice their views with hesitation and humility, rather than with great
confidence and assurance
Gilligan did mention that not all women thought in these ways, nor are women
attracted to these ways of thinking by nature
Still, women Gilligan studied did react to cases of moral struggle in similar ways
Gilligan studied the differences between male and female thinking (not ethically)
in both a biological and environmental way

3. What is the significance of including the experience of dependence and vulnerability in

how we understand ethics? Contrast this to Kantianism, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics.

The female outlook/experience, such as giving birth and mothering (shared by

women and less by men) are widely neglected by philosophers.
Vulnerability to rape, and threat of domestic abuse is also neglected by these

(male) philosophers, as it does not pertain to them as strongly. Prior to the early
1980s, these ideas were completely ignored.
The ordinary female experience includes an increased dependence and diminished
autonomywomen have less control, and are required to depend more on others
(namely, men).
Kantianism, utilitarianism, virtue ethics reflect male experiences dependent and
vulnerability in social situations are more commonly experienced by women, this
is why that these other theories tend to emphasize experiences of autonomy and
independence reason why these theories focus on independence, autonomy, bc
they are the product of certain experiences (men)
Significance is that if we take the idea seriously and need of a moral theory that
reflects broader range of experience, then that means that moral theory looks like
will be very different

4. What moral theory, utilitarianism, Kantianism, or virtue ethics, is care ethics most akin
to? Explain.

Virtue Ethics! There is discussion of specific virtues and their relation to social
practices and moral education in care ethics, which is central to virtue ethics.
The moral exemplar is a crucial aspect to virtue ethicsand I am sure that more
often than not, the role model for many is their parent, or mother (care ethics)
feminist would say that moral exemplar is a traditional role modelmust
consider the change of times and the importance of a female role as well
Both ethical theories do focus on ideals of character
Much easier to make a change to virtue ethics than to utilitarianismcare ethics =
goal or aspect that we show partiality to certain members (this is not evident in
utilitarianism)

Highlighted text =
information added after
class discussion
Reading Questions #8:
Feminist Social Epistemology
1. Explain the difference between the atomistic model of knowers and epistemology based
on situated knowers. Also, how does the latter differ from Dewey's situationist or
contextualist view that every moral situation has its own moral solution?

Atomistic model: These individual knowers are themselves conceptualized as

generic and self-sufficient in knowing. Conjunction of all these 3 features =
atomistic model of knowers. The model does not deny that knowers have
identities and social location, but it does deny that these are relevant features to
include in epistemic assessments.
-Not dependent on others for knowledge or support of own knowledge (selfsufficiency)
falseschool; knowledge has been built up for 100s of years
-epistemic agents are generic or interchangeable
-those who have more power are more inclined to take on views of atomistic
model to maintain power

Situated Knowledge: interactive; someone had to teach yourelationship with

others, or else you would know nothing; need others to help you grow and learn,
in constructing these devices; reliant on others; social location

Deweys view is that every situation is unique; not interchangeable whereas the
social location and interaction is unique to situated knowledge.

2. In elaborating on standpoint theory, the author says that epistemically relevant

experiential differences along the lines of social location are not random or
idiosyncratic, but are socially structured and systematic (2). Explain the difference
between these two features of social location.

Phenomena is unique to a specific group of people- systematic and pervasive;

dominant and structureshow you experience the world (ex: child birth)

random and idiosyncratic = lack of strong influence on the way person

experiences their world and how they know that world (skin color- makes much
stronger impact on how person experiences world; race structures society,
however, eye color does not)

features about us has an impact on how we know the world

women have different social locations than menwhich shapes experiences

Socially structured and systematic (class, race, gender, sex, sexuality the
structure and distribution of power)

The feminist arguments that gender is an epistemically relevant category of social

location apply only as long as the society under the consideration is structured
along the lines of gender

Systematic = socially structured

3. Explain the idea of greater epistemic reliability from the Marxist perspective and the
feminist alteration of it.

Those who are on the bottom rungs of power have a greater access to knowledge
because of particular social location

Social location effects scope/extent of knowledge

It ties social location very closely to epistemic position, arguing that social
locations not only vary from an epistemological point of view, but that some
social locations offer the potential to be more epistemically reliable than others.
Ones social position with respect to material labor is inversely related to ones
epistemic position. Society is structured along the lines of two classes, the
working class and the capitalists who own the means of production

Those with grater power, claim that power is earned and justified- deny any
claims of injustice/discrimination below them

comes down to power relations!!!

4. How might a defender of standpoint theory respond to the following criticisms (3)?
a. Differing epistemic locations makes it difficult or impossible to share knowledge
across social locations.

We can still be an ally to one another, but have to understand the problem and
their perspective; Deference (though some level of understanding)
Degrees of understanding- cant understand in fullness, but can achieve to
some degree an understanding

b. Some women have internalized their oppression, making their perspective unreliable.
Stockholm Syndrome: Ppl who are oppressed, take on view of their
oppressors; some women are anti-feminist
It is possible that some women have internalized their perspective making
them unreliable, and you wouldnt want to defer to them--- but that is a small

number; we can analyze their perspective

c. Women experience oppression in different ways, eliminating the possibility of a
coherent feminist position of epistemic privilege.

Feminist view believes we can have a female view of world; but women are
all different; how can we understand feminism if all women are different?
Maybe there is still some commonality that is the axis in the privileged groups
and their knowledge; ex: favoritism of men in workforcedifficulty for
women to receive promotion feminist unify around these common
experiences

5. Explain how differential social locations can adversely affect the results of scientific
research (4).

Power dynamicsscience takes place in a community (sharing and producing

science together) not necessarily a group of equals; power dynamics in
research communities

Might have a greater sense of power based on social location

Small groups males tend to dominate the discussion because they are
assertive

Epistemic privilegeentails that one cannot necessarily trust ones own

perspective! The moral thing to do is to be less and less trusting of own
perspective. In addition to having less trust, you can practice epistemic
deferencedefer to other ppls knowledge because of their different social
locations (and access to knowledge)