https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-d6H6jRlqg#t=578
Dawkins and Singer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lu9sc4FWLw
ABC Interview(s)

Lectures and Tutorials at Clayton (Ron G indicated)
RonG
Ron
S111
Ron
Ron

GOOD FRIDAY NO TUTORIAL
DON'T FORGET Weekly Reading Quizzes
(x 10 @ 0.5% bonus each) Mondays 10am, weeks 2-11.
Note: The section you need to read for the quiz is the one indicated for the week beginning the day the quiz is due. (Not the week just gone past.)

Assessment Summary
Within semester assessment: 60% Exam: 40%
Assessment Task
Short Answer Questions:
AT1.1:(5%), 400 words due Wed 18 th March
AT1.2:(10%), 400 words due Wed 15 th April
AT1.3:(15%), 600 words due Wed 6 th May
AT2: Essay (30%), 1100 words due Wed 20 th May
Weekly Reading Quizzes (x 10 @ 0.5% bonus each) Mondays
10am, weeks 2-11.
Examination (40%)

AT1.3:(15%), 600 words due Wed 6 th May
Does Singer think the principle of equality plays a role in showing that racism is wrong? Explain why or why not. Does the principle rule out all forms of racism? (suggested 150 words max)
If one ethnic group was naturally smarter than another, would this pose a threat to the principle of equality according to Singer?
(suggested 100-125 words)
Peter Singer presents a number of reasons in favour of vegetarianism. Critically present and discuss one of those reasons. (suggested 100-150 words)

Define Singer ’s principle of equality (POE)
What does it say about racist acts?
What does it say about racist beliefs?
If it was a fact that the Scottish were the most naturally intelligent, and creative race in the world, would this pose a threat to the principle of equality?
What are Singer ’s arguments for vegetarianism?
What are some arguments against vegetarianism?

Questions for AT2: Essay (30%), @1100 words due Wed 20 th May
1.
Is it justified to kill an innocent threat in defence of oneself or others? Why/why not? Discuss, with reference to the views of at least two authors from the unit.
2.
The principle of equality that Singer defends has radical consequences. Critically discuss the principle, explaining some of its consequences, and assess whether Singer is right that we ought to adopt it.
3.
“Abortion is impermissible, because it deprives a being of a future like ours. Accordingly, it is morally similar to killing a healthy adult.
” Critically discuss this argument, drawing upon at least one of the authors we have looked at in the readings.

For preference utilitarians, taking the life of a person will normally be worse than taking the life of some other being, since persons are highly future-oriented in their preferences.
To kill a person is therefore, normally, to violate not just one, but a wide range of the most central and significant preferences a being can have. Very often, it will make nonsense of everything that the victim has been trying to do in the past days, months, or even years. (Singer 1993, 95)

Singer describes the POE as a ‘ minimally egalitarian principle ’
It doesn ’ t recommend equal outcomes, but equal interests being considered equally.
Egalitarianism (derived from the French word égal , meaning equal ) or Equalism is a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political , economic , social , and civil rights .
[1]

• Racists give undue weight to their racial group
POE Test: “What course of action is open to me which will maximise satisfaction of all creatures, counting all preferences that are sufficiently alike in an impartial manner?
Treat like interests in a like manner.
Dirk B

From ATS1371 Reader
Consider whether the principle of equality can be used to attack the institution of slavery. Suppose there were an institution of slavery based on a lottery in which everyone had an equal chance of becoming a slave or a slave-owner, would the equality principle still provide a strong case against slavery?

SINGER’S PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY

There has been a huge change in Western attitudes to blatant forms of racial discrimination.
‘The principle that all humans are equal is now part of the prevailing political and ethical orthodoxy’ ( Singer
(1993:16).
But what does this principle mean?
It is simply not true that all are equal with respect to intelligence or height or weight, etc.

Singer avoids the problem of trying to find a factual equality.
SINGER: Principle of equality (POE) is not a factual principle. Rather, it is a basic ethical principle that is an exhortation
(command, imperative).
NB: Imperatives are not truth-apt .

According to Singer, the POE is a basic ethical principle of equal consideration of interests.
POE: Treat all interests equally.
‘…give equal weight in our moral deliberations to the like interests of all those affected by our actions’
(Singer, 1993:21).

Singer:
1.
Ethical behaviour requires a universal point of view.
2.
A universal point of view requires that I take into account the interests of all those affected.
3.
So ethical behaviour requires something like the POE.
Note that the POE is part of utilitarianism , but can be adopted in isolation from it.

DOES THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY ENTAIL EQUAL
TREATMENT?
NO
‘ The principle of equal consideration of interests act like a pair of scales, weighing interests impartially.
True scales favour the side where the interest is stronger or where several interests combine to outweigh a smaller number of similar interests; but they take no account of whose interests they are weighing’ (Singer
1993:22).

Application
(1):
Leads to minimally egalitarian consequences.
> I have two doses of morphine
> X is in agony with a crushed thigh.
> Y is in slight pain with a gashed thigh.
> If I give one shot of morphine to each, X will remain in far greater pain that Y.
> As the interest that X and Y have in pain relief is not equal, I should give the two doses to X.
•
But – the unequal treatment has resulted in a more egalitarian result.
•
There is less difference in the amount of suffering.

(2)
> X, has lost a leg and is in danger of losing a toe from her remaining leg without medical treatment.
> Y has an injury to her leg, and is in danger of losing it without medical treatment.
If we were to aim for a more egalitarian result that narrowed the difference in welfare between the two, we would save X’s toe.
But –doing so is not a case of considering interests impartially.

Singer: there are cases where applying the POE can result in a greater difference between individuals.
> Ys interest in not losing a leg is much greater than Xs interest in not losing a toe.
> We should, when interests are considered and impartially, give the medical treatment to Y.
> To bring about best result, we must actually increase the inequality between two people. Hence POE is not thoroughly egalitarian.

(3)
Singer also thinks that POE will rule out blatant forms of racism, for those require total disregard for the preferences/interests of others.

If racism is wrong because it ignores the POE, then what does the POE tell us about inequalities between races?
Suppose there is a racial difference in IQ, or whatever.
Two weak replies:
> Racial averages do not correlate very strongly with the qualities of individuals.
> Racial averages may reflect environment much more than genetic influences.

(2)
IMPORTANT REPLY
The observed difference gives no reason to revise the
POE.
1.
Person A is smarter than person B, therefore
2.
Treat A’s interests as more important than B’s.
- This is a complete non-sequitur.
A statement of fact cannot contradict an imperative

Which of the following is a correct statement about Singer ’s POE?
1 . From the POE it follows that someone who says that blacks are more intelligent than whites is making a factual error.
II.
From the POE it follows that someone who says that blacks are more intelligent than whites is making a moral error.
A. I only
B. II only
C. I and II.
D. Neither

In saying what is wrong with racism, Singer has shifted focus off beliefs and sentiments towards actions.
•
But what about hatred of another race. Surely that is a wrongful part of racism?
Singer can say that it is wrong because of the typical consequences of racial hatred. But you might argue that hatred of a racial group is intrinsically bad .

•
In treating all interests equally, Singer is committed to taking into consideration the interest a racist has in persecuting another race!
(e.g. ‘Nasty Society Transplant’ case).

Perhaps we can block the second of these worries if we help ourselves to rights.
In addition to the POE, we might believe in the existence of certain basic rights that would be violated by any policy of persecution.
Good thing about the POE is that it shows how racism can be wrongful even if what we think of as racist beliefs are true.

1.
The POE rules out most racially discriminatory policies because those policies fail to treat the interests of all equally.
II.
The POE rules out racial hatred because such hatred is not based on treating the interests of everyone equally.
III.
All preference utilitarians must accept the POE.
A. 1 only
B. 1 and 11 only
C. 1 and 111 only
D. 1, 11 and 111

•
Singer’s principle of equality gives a neat explanation of why racism and sexism are wrong, that is not threatened by any inequalities between groups.
•
But, the same principle does not seem to explain what is wrong with racial hatred.

Does Singer think the principle of equality plays a role in showing that racism is wrong? Explain why or why not. Does the principle rule out all forms of racism?
POE: Encourage us to treat all people (and other animals) interests equally.
‘…give equal weight in our moral deliberations to the like interests of all those affected by our actions ’ (Singer, 1993:21).
Purpose – to encourage equal opportunities not enforce equal outcomes.
Racist actions and policies do not treat all people
’s interests equally (or impartially)
POE shows why racist beliefs are wrong only if you agree with the principle. You don
’t need to be a consequentialist to agree that we should treat all person
’s interests equally.
Egalitarian – Egalitarianism is a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights.
Fair
– Freedom from discrimination. Equal – The same.
If one ethnic group was naturally smarter than another, would this pose a threat to the principle of equality according to Singer?
(Check Singer 38ff)
POE cannot be undermined by a
‘fact’ because it is an imperative not a factual statement about the world.
Peter Singer presents a number of reasons in favour of vegetarianism.
Critically present and discuss one of those reasons.
(see Singer p54,p105)
POE – benefit of doubt (mammals may be person) – we should not cause suffering – ecology/economy – animals count in their own right -