Ethics Notes 9/19 Patterned - Looks for distribution to fit a pattern - end-result - principles (egalitarianism; utilitarianism) - principles that

"track some natural dimension" historical: moral merit; usefulness to society; non-historical: I.Q. (any sort of random feature like hair color or dominant hand) Non-patterned historical principle: Nozick's three principles Utilitarianism (moral theory) 2 parts 1) morally right action is action that creates the most good 2) pleasure/absence of pain are the only thing that is good. Greatest happiness principle do that act which, from among your options, will provide the greatest amount of happiness(pleasure/absence of pain) for greatest number of people. "Liberty upsets patterns" Suppose we have achieved your favored patterned distribution (D1). Wilt Chamberlain -> makes $250,000 over the year by charging extra 25 per ticket --> D2 Question: if everyone was entitled to what they had at D1, then how can D2 be unjust? To maintain a pattern will require interfering in people's lives. 9/21 Rights/side constraints/morally permissible Donald: suppose Donald wins $1000000 in lottery. He is deciding what to do with cash. Ideas/possibilities: 1) giving cash to charity 2) investing cash 3) buying a solid gold humvee 4) putting up road signs that say "Rosie O'donell is a big fat pig." 5) hiring a hit man to kill Rosie O. There is a line between 4 and 5 (could say that doing 5 crosses the line). Moral permissibility - doesn't violate anyone's rights. Nozick's arguments against redistributive state Forced labor argument P1] it isn't the case that forcing someone to labor for others' benefit is morally permissible.

P2] if redistributive taxation is morally permissible, then forcing someone to labor for the benefit of others is morally permissible. C] therefore it is not the case that r.t.(redistributive taxation) is morally permissible. Possible objection: if you don't like r.t. then you can move/emigrate. So, if you stay there, there is no forced involved. Nozick's response: If it is ok for you to emigrate to avoid r.t., then it should be ok to "opt out" while still living in the country. Self ownership argument P1] if r.t. is morally permissible, then the state (partially) owns us. P2] it is not the case that the state (partially) owns us. C] it is not the case that r.t. is morally permissible. Eyeball lottery- win lottery and eyeball is taken to give to blind. This is impermissible.

9/23 Why is redistributive taxation morally impermissible, and taxing to support minimal state morally permissible? Argument 1 for the moral permissibility (mp) of taxing for minimal state (ms) P1] All rational people would voluntarily pay for MS P2] if P1, then taxation for MS is morally permissible. C] taxation for MS is MP P1 is obviously false, even though we all as a group do better in a MS (rather than anarchy). It is in an individual's interest to "free ride" - enjoy the benefits without paying. - that's why taxation is necessary. Argument 2 P1] everybody benefits from the MS P2] if P1, then it is MP to tax for MS C] it is MP to tax for MS Other possible programs that could be justified by argument 2 Public education Transportation (highways & bridges) Public health care Public pensions (social security) 9/26 Rawls Justice = a set of principles that all free, rational persons would agree to govern the 'basic structure' of their society, in a situation of equality. Original position - (initial choice situation) - Each individual is self-interested - Each individual has general knowledge of:

Politics Economics Psychology History - (Veil of ignorance) Each lacks knowledge of: Race Gender Religion Conception of the good life Natural talents and abilities Class/economic status - Each is motivated to reach agreement on principles of justice Claim: choices made in the original position (OP) are guaranteed to be fair - it is a fair procedure 1 pie for 4 kids: fair procedure - assign 1 child responsibility for cutting, but require he chooses last piece. 2 principles of justice: 1) equal basic liberties principle (EBL) - each person it to have a right to the most extensive scheme of basic liberties compatible with an equal liberty. - freedom of religion, speech, association, from government coercion without do process, to hold private property, ... These are things everybody is gonna need to live a good life - whatever a good life amounts to. 2) difference principle (DP) - economic inequalities are justified only if they benefit the least well off members of society. Principle number one is the main one (achieve 1 then worry about 2). In situation of uncertainty, one is rational to reason according to the maximin (maximize the minimum) principle - to rank all alternatives by the worst outcomes and pick that alternative that has the best worst outcome.

9/28 Rawls 2 principles of justice 1) EBL 2) difference principle - economic inequalities are only justified if they benefit the least well-off (inequalities that do not benefit the least well off (LWO) will be redistributed to benefit the LWO.

Implication of DP - stiff death tax/estate tax How is the difference principle consistent with that part of the EBL principle that protects private property? Rawls: holdings acquired in an unjust society are not holdings that one is entitled to. Take Nozick's minimal state where everyone has their holdings as a result of original acquisition or free exchange. Rawls: people not entitled to holdings acquired in a minimal state because these holdings are acquired because of features of persons that are undeserved. Features - intelligence - physical ability - favored economic circumstances - family upbringing ------------------ effort? Even effort, or the ability to make an effort is determined, according to Rawls, by fortunate family circumstances. Determinism - every physical state of the world is determined by the prior physical state of the world plus the laws of nature Free will - one has freely done x if and only if one "could have done otherwise"

9/30 2 desert claims 1) Sally (p) deserves an 'a' on the exam (x) on the basis of studying hard (y) 2) Fran (p) deserves the promotion (x) on the basis of being good-looking (y) --------------------------------Form of desert claims p deserves x on basis of y Rawl's desert principle - p deserves x on the basis of y if and only if p is responsible for y. The point - it cannot be a necessary condition of deserving something that one has acquired something that one be responsible for all the things that enable one to acquire it. Nozick self-ownership entails that you own your talents and abilities, and so you own the products of those talents and abilities. Rawls people's talents and abilities (since they are undeserved) should be treated as a common asset to be used to benefit everyone.

Another point about desert neither Rawls nor Nozick wants to base distributive justice on claims of desert People object to the D.P. because they think P1] if you deserve something, than you are entitled to it. P2] you don't deserve something C] you are not entitled to it This is invalid (keep desert and entitlement separate). 10/5 Nielsen Capitalism private ownership of the means of production. Socialism public ownership of the means of production. -----------------Means of production all of the stuff necessary to produce products (includes goods and services) minus the labor. factories, natural resources/raw materials, tools Claim: Socialism better serves our moral values. Our Values Autonomy capacity to set ends (make goals). Freedom absence of political or social impediments carrying out one's choices. Autonomy is intrinsically valuable. Intrinsically valuable things that are worth having for their own sake. Freedom is instrumentally valuable. ex.: family/friendship; happiness Instrumentally valuable things worth having for the sake of something else. ex.: money - paper is worth nothing, but it has a value and can be traded for things. So, freedom is only valuable because it gets us something intrinsically valuable (Nielsen - autonomy) and not valuable for any other reason.

In C. (capitalism), owners of the means of production (m.o.p.) determine workers' working conditions sort of work they do what is done with the products of their work what use is made of their skills whether they work or not Democratic socialism (d.s.) would allow all of us to determine these things (things listed under C. Such as working conditions) by some democratic process "we all have a say." -------------

D.S. Does restrict freedom - it does not allow capitalist acts between adults you can't buy or sell labor or own or use the means of production for profit. C. Does not restrict freedom in this way. Objection: in a capitalist system, a worker can come to be a member of the capitalist class economic mobility. Response this (the objection) can happen, but by definition of capitalism, only a very few can do so.

10/7 Cohen Libertarians justify private property in terms of freedom. Socialist claim that libertarian societies force workers to sell their labor to capitalists and therefore makes them unfree (restricts their freedom). ---------------------Cohen: Socialists are right that C. Forces workers ..., but that does not restrict their freedom and so the socialist objection is not a good one. ---------------------Argument that force is compatible with freedom. positive argument P1] if you are forced to do x, then you are able to do x. P2] if you are able to do x, then you are free to do x. C] therefore, if you are forced to do x, then you are free to do x. negative argument P1] if you are not free to do x, then you are not able to do x. P2] if you are not able to do x, then you cannot be forced to do x. C] therefore, if you are not free to do x, then you cannot be forced to do x. Argument 2 for compatibility Suppose that there are two exits to a room and at time 1 both are open, so you are free to go out either exit A or exit B. Suppose at time 2, I lock one of the exits (B). I take your freedom to leave by B, but not your freedom to leave by A.

Liberals claim that the libertarian state is the freest state possible, but claim that the are values other than freedom that are just as important (fairness; equality). ---------------Cohen: libertarians and liberals (L & L) don't understand "freedom" Cohen freedom (CF) one's freedom is restricted whenever anyone interferes with their actions keeps them from doing what they want to do. So according to CF private property restricts people (workers) freedom to use that property "pitch a tent" case. L & L want to say that keeping me from pitching my tent does not restrict my freedom.

Moralized freedom (MF) one's freedom is restricted only if another unjustifiably interferes with one's actions unjustifiably keeps one from doing what one wants to do. Put MF together with a justification of property rights and interfering with the "pitch a tent" people does not compromise their freedom. P1] MF P2] private property claim A keeping B from using his property is justified C] therefore, A does not restrict B's freedom by keeping him from using his property. Cohen: P1 is false by counterexample counterexample if MF was correct, then you would restrict the freedom of a justifiably convicted criminal by putting him in jail.

10/10 Test: bring blue book and blue scantron. Same format. Cohen's argument against MF moralized freedom P1] MF one's freedom is restricted only when one is unjustifiably kept from doing what one tries to do. P2] private property is justified people are justified in keeping others from using their property. -----------C] therefore, one's freedom is not restricted when someone denies another the use of their property. ------------------Cohen: C is false by counterexample if it were true, then we would restrict the convicted criminal by putting him in jail. But suppose that MF were true, then the libertarian owes us an argument for P2 and it can't be given on grounds of "freedom". So the question remains, which society enhances freedom more: socialist or capitalist? (Cohen freedom). Tool Case A and B have different sets of household tools in their possession tool rule 1 each may take and use a tool the other posses without the other's permission, as long as the other is not using it. The taker returns it, or gives it back when the other needs the tool. tool rule 2 private ownership: exclusive use of the tools which each possesses. ---------------------Case where rule 1 does not enhance freedom toothbrushes. Case where rule 1 does work streets; highways; bridges

 freedom of movement enhanced by collective ownership. -----------------------Economic objection to socialism calculation problem in a society of pure socialism it would be impossible to determine the efficient use of capital.

10/12 Exam Friday Bring blue book and scan sheet -----------------------------------------Intellectual property rights 3 Kinds copyright patent Trade secrets --------------------------Copyright: original works of authorship ex. : literature, art, film, software author's death plus 70 years public still has limited use of copyrighted material Scholars Critics News organizations -------------------------Patents: inventions (new/useful) Usually some sort of machine or process 20 year exclusive monopoly to use, sell, and authorize other's to use and sell (excludes independent inventions from capitalizing on same invention) -------------------------Trade secrets: informations that can be used in the operation of business that affords some actual or potential economic advantage ex.: formulas/chemical compounds Processes of manufacturing Machines Lists of customers Does not exclude independent discovery

Hettinger: prima facie case against I.P.R. P1] if there is something that can be used and consumed by everyone concurrently, then maximal access should be permitted to that thing. P2] I.P. Can be consumed/used by everyone else concurrently C] therefore, we should have maximal access to any intellectual property

----------------------Utilitarian argument for I.P.R. P1] we should promote the creation of valuable intellectual products (make us better off). P2] granting limited ownership of I.P. promotes creation of valuable I.P. C] therefore, we should institute I.P.R.

Stuff about essay questions 3) given that we care about these values, and the original position already enshrines them, then we care about them. Intellectual property rights are on the tests. 1) everyone freely chose to give money to Wilt, but to impose the pattern that Wilt upsets, shows that any pattern principle requires to much control on our lives. Every capitalist act will upset the pattern. Hence, liberty upsets the pattern. Give examples of pattern principles Age, height, IQ, or perhaps the difference principle Doesn't matter how pattern comes about, but about the pattern itself (distribution doesn't necessarily have to be fair.

Test 3 material 10/17 Copyright/patent If we grant that these rights should expire after some amount of time for public good reasons. And we grant that there should be limited protection to provide incentives for public good reasons. Then the only question remaining is how long the protections should extend we need to "balance" the two. --------------------------Trade secrets are different in that they never have to be publicly disclosed but that is the case with any secret if we all grant that one should be able to keep ones secrets in general, then ... ? 10/19 Employment at will (EAW) Employers have a legal right to hire, fire, promote, demote, and employees have a legal right to accept employment, decline it, quit, at will, unless they have entered into a contract that says otherwise, or if a law would be violated by doing any of the above. At will = for any reason, or no reason at all. Laws that limit scope of EAW:

National labor relations (1935) allows forming unions, collective bargaining Civil Rights act (1964) forbids hiring/firing on grounds of race, sex, national origin, or religion. "public policy" limitation does not allow hiring/firing if it is contrary to public welfare. Ex.: can't fire people because they refuse to break law, and can't fire for exercising legal rights, like right to vote. Werhane/Radin EAW does not allow employees due process procedural due process means to appeal hiring/firing decision substantive due process requirement that the decision is justified (I.e. there are good reasons for decisions Think right to due process should extend to all employees whether private or public. This is inconsistent with EAW, and so, EAW has to go. Freedom voluntary argument for EAW Employees voluntarily accept employment under terms set by the employer, including knowledge that they are under EAW. we should not interfere with this voluntary choice. W/R accepting employment entails certain legitimate expectations the employer can demand of the employee loyalty, trust, respect for property, business decisions, and employer. These legitimate expectations are mutual obligations so employer owes the employee the same loyalty, trust, and respect. arbitrary firing does not meet these obligations. -----------------------------------------Utilitarian argument for EAW EAW ensures maximum productivity in company operations that involve hiring/firing. ex.: can fire unproductive employees/troublemakers Expanding due process rights to all employees would reduce productivity (increase costs). Increased costs would probably be taken out of workers' wages. W/R argue that the utilitarian argument makes two faulty assumptions 1) Assume it will actually increase cost corporations that have in house due process procedures do not report an increase in cost. 2) Assume that workers would prefer money over right to due process. This is not always so because job security might be more important, for instance.

10/21 The issue of EAW is that there is a supposed imbalance of power between employer and employee that due process requirement would rectify. ------------------Epstein: standards that should govern any public policy decision Is the policy fair?

 Are the benefits greater than costs utilitarian consideration ------------------Why is EAW fair/just? "presumption of liberty" we take personal freedom to be intrinsically valuable. Allow people to freely enter marriage contracts This presumption should carry over to economic contracts Economic contracts are enforced and entered into against a "backdrop" of prohibitions that ensures fairness/justice. Prohibitions: Can't contract to harm third parties On contracts that violate public policy On coercion/fraud On taking advantage of young, mentally enfeebled, insane -----------------------------Cost/benefit/utilitarian considerations EAW enables both employer and employee to maintain each others behavior for public good. Monitors employee behavior by employee because it allows the employer to fire: Thiefs Malingerers Unproductive ... Employee controls the demands that employer can make, and the price of carrying out those commands 2 employment scenarios 1) fixed term employment (invites abuse by employer) 2) EAW can always quit when the costs exceed benefits Administrative costs Due process requires litigation includes determining the motives of the parties involved lots of time/lots of cash EAW has no such costs. 10/24 D/D Right to privacy violated whenever personal information is requested, collected, or used by an employer for any purpose that is irrelevant to job performance. Two arguments that widespread drug testing does not violate this right 1) lower productivity 2) Prevent harm ----------------------------D/D dismiss number one on following grounds

A) if job performance is unacceptable, than it is grounds for dismissal/discipline (independent of cause) B) If job performance is acceptable, then drug use is irrelevant. D/D accept that number 2 will justify some drug testing, but argue that it will be justified only in a very small number of cases and in any event it will be largely counter productive. --------------Drug testing is justified if it enables employer to prevent serious harm to others. ------------------------------Complications some jobs pose "clear and present danger" to well-being of others and some do not Those that do: Airline pilot Surgeon Heavy equipment operator Those that do not: Flight attendant College professor Accountants In the clear and present danger jobs, drug testing will be justified if it actually does prevent harm and there is no better way to prevent harm. ----------------------D/D Drug testing is no better than behavioral testing. At other harm that might be prevented by drug testing is harmful to user might get him to stop or slow down. D/D we don't allow random phone taps to reduce crime, so we should not allow random drug testing. 10/28 D/D P1) an employer is only entitled to info that is work related P2) information about drug use is not work related C) therefore, employer is not entitled to info about drug use. D/D and Cranford agree with P1 disagree about P2 D/D think that only job performance is work related the causes of performance are not work related. ---------------Cranford thinks P2 is false Employees are entitled to know about causes of poor performance because they are entitled to distinguish between temporary causes and ongoing habitual, and increasingly detrimental causes of poor performance. A possible way around the disagreement

Make an analogy with debilitating illness Employer is entitled to know whether his delivery man has a "bad back." Drug use is debilitating in the same way and so it is work related, even if actual present performance is satisfactory.

10/31 The law 2 kinds of sexual harassment quid pro quo - demand/request sex for some employment related good -promotion, keeping job, etc. hostile work environment - behavior of boss on co-workers is such that it "unreasonably interferes with work performance, or creates intimidating, or offensive work environments." --------------------------Superson applying the law requires knowing the subjective states of mind of both the victim and perpetrator. (intentions/feelings) Shifts the burden of proof on to the victim, and because of this many victims do not get legal protection. Superson: we should treat women as a disadvantaged group (D.G.) D.G. social group that has identity distinct from individual identities of its members. occupies a subordinate position in society political power is severely limited If we establish women as a D.G., then any practice which stigmatizes that group or that contributes to their subordinate social status should be legally prohibited. ------------------------How does sexual harassment harm women as a group? Sexual harassment reinforces sexist attitudes women are inferior to men women are sexual objects Women are unfit for jobs that don't fit their "social role" Myths about male/female sexuality (male - predatory; female - submissive) Sexual harassment cannot be perpetrated by females against males. Sexual harassment, to occur, does not have to bother, or otherwise affect women's attitudes. (victim's attitudes are irrelevant) Daytona beach case Superson's objective definition of sexual harassment: whether sexual harassment has taken place depends entirely on whether the behavior is an instances of a practice that expresses and perpetuates the attitudes that the victim and members of her sex are inferior because of their sex. 11/2

Sexual harassment 1) quid pro quo 2) Hostile environment -------------------Griffith First we need to distinguish sexual misconduct from sex discrimination Between "sexual" and "gender related" Forms of actual sexual misconduct Sexual assault: any sexual behavior forced on unconsenting person Sexual coercion Coercion 1) one does something one does not prefer to do 2) One does it because someone else has unjustifiably threatened them with harm if they don't do it. Difference between sexual assault (S.A.) and sexual coercion is that victim has a choice in sexual coercion (S.C.) either comply with threat or suffer the harm. Sexual coercion only takes place when 1) It is reasonable for "victim" to believe a threat was made 2) It is unreasonable for "perpetrator" to deny threat was made Sexual offers 2 kinds 1) Person offers undeserved benefits in exchange for sex 2) Person offers sex in exchange for undeserved benefit Power relationship between the two parties is reciprocal. Any person who has the power to confer benefits is in a situation in which the person to whom such an offer is made has the power to exchange sex for those benefits. ------------------If we should sanction one of the parties for making an offer, then we should punish those who accept the offer. Sexual boorishness Non-threatening, expressive behavior of sexual nature that is offensive to morally decent, psychologically normal, adult of either gender. Ex.: obscene gestures, language displays of pornography Should be sexual misconduct only when either is 1) Directed against a particular person (this is a case of sexual harassment). 2) Creates hostile environment (not directed at anyone specific). Remedy for this is education, not law

11/4 Griffith Distinguishing sexual harassment from other types of sexual misconduct and sexual discrimination and at least in principle be able to determine guilt. ------------------Prima facie sexual behavior behavior inherently sexual unless context determines it to be non-sexual. Ex.: touching another's genitalia Contexts where this is not sexual medical exams; changing diapers Prima facie non-sexual behavior behavior inherently non-sexual unless context determines it to be sexual. Ex.: playing chess, reading novel, ... Neither one must know details about the context in order to be justified in believing that the behavior is sexual or not Ex.: kissing Harassment words, gestures, and actions that tend to annoy, harm, or abuse another person. --------------------So, sexual harassment (S.H.) cannot involve sexual assault, coercion, or offers. Any intimate sexual activity cannot be considered S.H. -------------------------The definition A S.H.'s B iff 1) A's behavior towards B is prima facie sexual or could be reasonably taken to be so by B (but does not involve assault, coercion, or offer). 2) A has an adequate reason to believe that B reasonably regards A's behavior as sexual in nature. 3) A has adequate reason to believe B does not want A to continue with the behavior. 4) A continues to behave in this manners towards B. Power differentials Abercrombie and Fitch: A. boss; F. subordinate Smith and Wesson: smith and Wesson are equals within the firm. ------------------------If A. engages in sexual behavior towards Fitch and that counts as sexual harassment, then if Smith engages in the same behavior towards Wesson it will count as S.H. too. 11/7 Bluffing in business Bluffing = intentionally misleading Conscious misstatements, concealing pertinent facts, exaggeration In most contexts misleading people is morally impermissible.

The issue: is bluffing morally permissible? If so, why? ------------------------Carr bluffing in business is morally permissible Business is like a game (poker analogy) where winning within the rules being the only consideration. ------------------Anything short of breaking the law in business is morally permissible.

11/9 Exam Friday Carson argues for 2 claims 1) typically business bluffing is not lying 2) Even if it is lying, business bluffing (B.B. is morally permissible) As long as one knows the other party is BB as well ----------Argument for 1 Dictionary definition of lying telling false statements with the intent to deceive Claim: intent to deceive is not a necessary condition of lying "Witness" Case witness makes false statements, he knows are false in order to avoid harm, not with intent to deceive he merely foresees that his statement will deceive. ----------------------Strategic bomber vs. terror bomber Have a nazi munitions factory inside of it is a nursery where the children of the factory workers play while their parents work. Strategic bomber (S.B.) is going to drop bombs in order to end the war by stopping weapons manufacture. Terror bomber (T.B.) is going to drop bomb to stop war, by killing children in nursery, demoralizing the enemy. ----------------Strategic bomber does not intend but merely foresees that his action will result in innocent death. Terror bomber does intend to kill innocents - it is part of his plan. Innocent deaths have to be caused. Bomber case is meant to show that two people can do the same things for completely different reasons. Witness case is still lying, even though they don't intend to deceive. Therefore the dictionary definition is flawed. That was his attack on the definition. Good definition S lies to X if And only if S makes a false statement he does not believes and in doing so warrants the truth of the statement. Warrant in this case is a type of promise.

To warrant a statement is to invite others to rely on it and to assure them that it can be replied upon. ----------------Except in specific contexts there is a presumption of warrant. What contexts does warrant no longer apply? Signals are given(winking, change of tone,...) Types of stories (tall-tales) ---------------------Business bluffing is one of the non-warrant contests parties consent to drop warrant requirement.

Carson on Carr 3 possible claims Carr could be making 1) if practice is allowed by ethical rules of society, then it is morally permissible 2) if practice is allowed by laws of society, then it is morally permissible 3) if practice is allowed by both ethical rules and laws of society, then it is morally permissible -------------------Whichever of the three is Carr's, they are all false This is always a bad argument P1] everybody thinks that X is morally permissible P2] if P1, then X is morally permissible false ---C] therefore, X is morally permissible Another argument P1] X is legal P2] if X is legal, then it is morally permissible false ---C] X is morally permissible