Final

1. In James Turner Johnson’s article ‘Threats, values and defense: does the defense of values by force remain a moral possibility?’ (60) he cites four justifications for war. What are they? From a pacifist’s point of view why are these reasons problematic? In this article the four justifications for going to war are: defense of the innocent, recovery of something wrongly taken, punishment of evil, and defense of aggression in progress. From a pacifist's point of view there are some major problems with these justifications for war. Each and every justification is met with its own singular problem. The defense against the innocent seems like it is justified but there arises two arguments against it. In a war more than just soldiers are killed. Other civilians will be killed and many of the soldiers don’t want to fight, they are just ordered too. That means we are killing innocent civilians and soldiers to protect some innocent. From a utilitarian view we must ask if this the death of the innocent will outweigh the death of the other innocent if we do or don’t go to war. Yet, deontologists would say that killing is bad and that needs to be punished because killing is wrong. So kill people to stop killing. For a pacifist that is just wrong. The other problem from defending the innocent is that violence is key in war and many times over we have been shown that violence is not always the best way. We should try and support people and ideas like Gandhi, to win with non-violence. There is not always a need for full war if we can help these people peacefully. Then there is the problem with the justification of recovery. This can be taken way out of proportion. If you don't believe me just look at fascist Germany in WWII. Hitler wanted the land that was wrongfully taken from them in the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler wanted to take back the Sudetenland and that turned into an entire world at war. This cannot be. We cannot take back things with such deadly force like that. The problem with the punishment of evil also has two things wrong with it. The first is that in today's society it is so muddled as to who is really the evil one. There is such a potential for evils to become blown way out of proportion like in the last justification. A general or even the president could over or under estimate the evil of someone causing a wrongful war. The second problem is that we see the Middle East as the evil ones while they see us as the evil ones. We both seem to be fighting this just war. It is reminiscent of Foucauldian views and Laura Whitt. They say that we shouldn't judge the evils of another because our culture is just too different. We need to understand their culture before we can judge that they are evil and decide to go kill them. The last problem is with the defense of aggression in progress. Again I draw our attention back to WWII. The Allied nations waited for the aggression to happen and that caused millions of people overall to be killed. So, we must decide when it is the right time to intervene in the aggression. This again brings us to blowing things out of proportion, the problem with using violence to stop violence, and the fact that maybe peace can solve it better. Overall these justifications for war seem to be sound, but when you look at them they seems to fall apart. We must draw a line in the sand where evil is too evil or the value of what was taken, etc. but where Johnson is drawing them is not the right place.

2. According to Carol Gilligan’s article ‘In a Different Voice’ (71) what is the major difference between a masculine and a feminine approach to ethics. Refer specifically to her critique of Kohlberg’s study. The major difference between the ethics of men and women is that men are geared towards justice, while women are more towards caring. When faced with Heinz's dilemma, proposed by Kohlberg, men and women tend to answer the question the same as others of their gender. Men look at it like "a math equation" they go through it in their heads and look at the logic of it and conclude that in that situation Heinz should steal the drug to save his wife. Women look at this dilemma and think about the relationship between the people involved and they don't look at it logically like men do. This made Kohlberg conclude that women are lower on the ethical ladder than men. But for Gilligan this just means that they are looking at the problem differently and no one is above or below the other. Both the men and women are actually looking at the problem in a different way. Almost as if it was a different question. "Amy is considering not whether Heinz should act in this situation but, but rather how Heinz should act in this situation" (pg, 342). They see other ways to get the drug rather than stealing. Also they are concentrated on how this will affect the marriage and the store's business. This is different from how men look at it. They just ask themselves should he steal the drug and they conclude that life is more important than property. They don't try and see a way around it like women do. This means that this question is looked at by two genders in two different ways. Almost as if it is another question entirely. According to Gilligan, this does not denote the fact that women are less than men ethically, but that they have a different ethical outlook. Kohlberg's stages of development are therefore wrong in that they neglect the ethics of care. For the ethics of care, it is very nonviolent, nobody should be hurt. An ethic of justice is based on the "the premise of equality", everyone needs to be taken care of similarly. These ethics are reflected on the genders differently and Gilligan argues that one is not above the other, as Kohlberg said, but they are on the same equal grounds. They are just different ways of looking at the same dilemma.

3. According to Paul Taylor’s article ‘The ethics of respect for nature’ (101) what is the difference between a biocentric and an anthropocentric worldview? Outline the four major components of Taylor’s argument for biocentrism. For Taylor, the concept of a anthropocentric ethics revolves around human. "…human action affecting the natural environment and its nonhuman in habitants are right (or wrong) by either two of the criteria: they have consequences which are favorable (or unfavorable) to human well being, or they are consistent (or inconsistent) with the system of norms that project and implement human rights" (pg 501). In other words, what is right and wrong are judged on the consequences it had for humans, not the environment. For instance, global warming is bad because of the negative effects it will have on humans down the line. This is in contrast to the biocentric view of ethics. For biocentrism, the good or bad is judged not off humans, but of all living things. We are animals that need to survive off this planet just like everything else, meaning we are no better than any other living thing. Even if we are to say that humans were made in a god's image, this does not denote that we do not need to respect the life of other organisms. All living things' "well-beings, as well as human well-beings, is something to be realized as an end in itself" (pg. 501). The first component of Taylor's argument is, "humans are thought of as members of the Earth's community of life, holding that membership on the same terms as apple to all nonhuman members" (pg. 503). This means that we should not see ourselves as something apart from the world. We are all living things with the need to live and we must realize that and respect that fact, because we are a part of this world and it's habitat. The second is "The Earth's Natural ecosystem as a totality are seen as a complex web of interconnected elements, with the sound biological functioning of each being dependent on the sound biological functioning of the others" (pg. 503). What Taylor means is that the world and life on it is so complex that we cannot mess with the "web" because if we are to disrupt the functioning of one organism, we would disrupt the functioning of many others. This seems like no big deal for an anthropocentric view, but for a biocentric view, this disruption is immoral. The third concept is "Each individual organism is conceived as a teleological center of life, perusing its own good in its own way" (pg. 503). Each organism, whether we see it or not, is striving to meet some goal in order to live. They are doing good in the way that best helps them to live and grow as a community of organisms. This means that we should consider the good of these organisms as well as the good of humans. We are all striving for a good and we all must be treated as an end. The last component is "Whether we are concerned with standards of merit or with the concept of inherent worth, the claim that humans by their very nature are superior to other species is a groundless claim" (pg. 503). There is no evidence that we are somehow better than any of the other living things on this planet and thus we cannot act like we are somehow better. We have a different brain structure than other creatures, yes, but is it really superior? The only real argument for us being superior is that many believe some god created us and we look like that god. Yet, many times in the Bible, and other texts, it says to take care of the world around us. Not to rape it like we are doing now. We are on the same playing field as all living things. We live and die, just like ants, pigs, and bacteria.

4. Ethical Challenge: Identify 5 farms that produce something you eat on a regular basis within 100 miles of your home. Lewis' Orchard down the road from me produces many fruits that are grown right in this family's own orchard. They sell oranges, peaches, and pears. Their fruits sell for much less than they do at the stores, but they don't have as many. It is run by Rick Lewis, who inherited the land from his father who started the orchard before my neighborhood was ever built. Cornaby's Farm is mostly a strawberry farm. They make "fresh fruit spreads by hand" and they sell just the raspberries also. They are located in Salem Utah. This farm has been in Salem since the early days when Salem was first founded. McBride Briar patch is a farm that is located in Mapleton Utah. "This is a U-Pick raspberry and blackberry farm" (McBride's Facebook). They let you go and pick all of the strawberries that you need. M.J Miller's Farm and Orchard is owned and operated by Mel & Janene Miller. They sell many different kinds of fruits from their orchard and vegetables from their farm. Their mission statement is: M. J. Miller's Farm and Orchard is dedicated to providing fresh, delicious, and nutritious produce at affordable prices. Phelp's Berry farm produces many different berries and vegetables that you can pick yourself or just go buy at their home store. It is a family run farm. In fact, the instructions in the website instruct people to not park in his driveway, meaning there is no big parking lot. You just drive up to this guy's house and pick what you want from his farm in his own yard.

5. Ethical Challenge: Abstain from meat and processed foods for one day eating only fruits, vegetables and grains. Discuss how you felt. Make an ethical argument for or against a vegetarian diet with at least two premises and a conclusion.

As a poor college student that can't afford all this fancy organic stuff. I am not kidding. I can barely have enough money after rent to wipe my own butt. Everything that I eat is processed and/or has meat. When I started this challenge it seemed easy enough to not eat meat or anything that has been processed. But the second I looked at the food I had, I knew I was doomed. I didn't eat for an entire day, except for an apple that was in the fridge. Don't tell my roommate, I think it was his. Everything I wanted to eat was processed in some way, and all the foods that I could find that were not, had meat in them. I felt sick and hungry after that day and it made me realize just how much is processed and/or has meat in it. Was a real eye opener. It made me have a greater appreciation for the people who don't eat meats or processed foods. As for a vegetarian diet I have to say that is not the best thing to do ethically. Yes, we are saving cows from death but as a race of omnivores we must have meat to survive and live a healthy lifestyle. From the days that early man walked on the land, we hunted for food. It is because of this that we developed our brains. The proteins from meat gave man the strength to evolve into homosapiens and we can't deny where we come from. Our bodies have evolved to eat meat and we must do so in order to be healthy. Also, It is said that we are over killing and being brutal to animals to feed us. This is unethical, but the problem is not with killing, the problem is that humans have breed so numerous that it has become unethical. Over population is unethical. To feed all these people, meat is required, and for meat we need dead animals. To kill millions of animals in entirely unethical, so we need to deal with overpopulation and over consumption of meats; and not stop eating meat altogether. Our bodies require proteins and other nutrients from meat, and we must go easy on the meat and our population but becoming vegetarianism does not seem like the best ethics to live by.