Quest 1

Explain Rawl’s Thought Experiment

Places people in original position behind the veil of ignorance which means you don’t know your social standings, preferences, or talents. Essentially, everyone is in equal footing, symetrically related to one another.

Why does he think it will correctly derive justice?

Because it ensures impartiality and fairness. As well as controls for personal interest and biases.

What is equal vote majoritarianism (EVM)?

A democratic principle ensuring that each citizen’s vote carries equal weight in decision-making. And the individuals would be bound by that decision.

What two democratic norms does it entail?

Equality and majority rule. Equality to ensure everyone has an equal vote and majority rule to ensure decisions reflect the preferences of the majority.

Deliberativists argue that equal say doesn’t ensure equal voice for citizens. What is the difference?

Equal say does not mean equal voice. Equal say means a formal equality, like voting. Yet equal voice means the ability to influence outcomes and have one’s perspectives changed. Delibs. argue marginalized groups often lack an equal voice due to power imbalances or exclusion from meaningful participation.

Provide one example of deliberative practice in US democracy.

Town meetings. These forums allow citizens to engage in open, reasoned discussions and work toward a consensus.

How does it manifest the deliberative ideal?

Because it’s not entirely focused on a vote, but rather the process leading up to the vote. People explain why they hold certain views using argument and evidence.

What is the assumption behind Moral Psychology as a project?

That there is some one way to study morality. Morality, therefore, is a biological fact and fixed.

What worry might one have about it as a result?

May overlook gender differences, leading to biased or incomplete conclusions. Also, without women’s consideration, they are ruled inadequate or lacking. Thus, men are cool and rational while women are scattered and emotional.

How does Kohlberg’s theory evaluate men and women?

Ranks moral development in stages, often placing men at higher stages and women at lower stages. Men are all about rights and rules while women are more focused on care relationships.

Why think its outputs are in error?

Because it reflects gender bias and assumes a male-centric model of morality. Yet, Gilligan says that women’s moral reasonings is not inferior but different. Thus, Kohlberg’s theory is flawed for failing to account for diverse moral perspectives and placing men at the top.

How does Gilligan’s suggestion differ from Kohlberg’s theory?

She critiques Kohlberg’s theory for prioritizing justice-based reasoning, common in men. And then neglecting care-oriented reasoning, common in women. She argues both perspectives should be integrated into moral psychology to understand new perspectives. Thus, challenging the universality of Kohlberg’s justice-based framework.

Why does Mills combine perception and conceptualization together in his analysis of cognitive pathways?

Because our perception is filtered through our concepts. We never see in a pure sense.

Give one example of your own to illustrate.

Two people looking at a protest: one of them thinks its a fight for justice and another thinks its a disruption. Their perceptions are influenced by their preconceived ideas about protests, showing how perception and conceptualization are intertwined.

According to Mills, collective memory is analogous to individual memory. Explain.

Can be selective or distorted. Just as indvs may suppress memories, societies may suppress histories of oppression to maintain dominant narratives. This collective memory shapes societal understanding and perpetuates ignorance. For example, indigenous histories.

According to Mills, both original and contemporary racist ideology is especially pernicious, because both masquerade as being for the good of those they oppress. Explain.

Mills says that racist ideologies often justify oppression as beneficial to the oppressed. For example, colonialism as a civilizing mission and today through a color-blindness of social mobility through hard work. This makes them harder to challenge, as they seem benevolent and not exploitative.

What is the “single-axis” approach to analyzing discrimination?

Approach analyzes discrimination along one dimension, such as race or gender.

Why is it inadequate according to Crenshaw?

It’s inadequate because it fails to recognize those facing intersecting oppressions, or multiply burdened. For example, black women facing both racism and sexism. Thus, this approach erases unique challenges faced by people at intersections of multiple identities.

What is Crenshaw’s intersectional alternative to analyzing discrimination? Explain

Crenshaw's intersectionality framework analyzes how multiple axes of oppression intersect to create unique experiences of discrimination. It highlights the need to address these overlapping systems of inequality rather than treating them as separate issues. For example, a Black woman's experience of workplace discrimination cannot be fully understood by examining race or gender alone but must consider how these factors interact. Thus, not analyzing them through a single-axis.

Who is today’s typical intellectual?

A scholar or someone in higher education. Mostly thought as being highly educated in a topic.

How does Hill-Collins’ alternate definition of intellectualism challenge that image?

Her alternate definition describes a self-conscious struggle to articulate experiences or ideas. Thus, not exactly a scholar or educated person. It can be anyone regardless of social location where that work occurs.

Why think argument is the preferable means of persuasion?

Because it is a rational discourse weighing evidence and logic for evaluation. Unlike, coercion or by force, argument promotes mutual understanding and critical thinking. It also respects the autonomy of indvs by appealing to their rationality and not imposing views through force. This makes argument an effective means of persuasion.

If our beliefs are largely the product of our culture, is argument pointless? Why or why not?

No, not pointless. Even if culturally influenced, it allows us to critically examine and challenge those beliefs, to bring about intellectual growth and cross-cultural understanding. It can help question cultural norms and arrive at more justified beliefs. Thus, its still a good tool for progress and discourse.

How does argument provide a test for the quality of a view?

Argument tests the quality of a view by evaluating whether its premises logically support its conclusion. A strong argument relies on clear, well-supported premises that lead coherently to the conclusion. If the premises are weak the conclusion is likely flawed. This process of scrutiny helps identify logical gaps ensuring that only well-reasoned views withstand critical examination. Thus, argument serves as a quality control mechanism for beliefs, separating robust ideas from poorly constructed ones.

What is the gender critique of adversariality in argument?

Traditional argumentation styles, which emphasize aggression and dominance, reflect behaviors more accessible to men due to societal norms. To be a successful arguer in real life often requires assertiveness, confidence, and even aggressiveness—traits associated with masculinity. Women, however, face a double-bind: if they adopt these adversarial behaviors, they risk being perceived as overly aggressive or unlikeable. But if they avoid them, they may be seen as weak or unpersuasive.

Govier distinguishes between minimal and ancillary adversariality. What is the difference?

Minimal adversariality is inherent and neutral to argumentation, such as presenting opposing views or challenging assumptions. Ancillary adversariality, however, involves unnecessary hostility, aggression, or personal attacks. Minimal adversariality is necessary for critical thinking, but ancillary adversariality is harmful and counterproductive to constructive dialogue. By distinguishing between the two, she advocates for a more respectful and productive approach to argumentation.

Are Govier and Moulton sympathetic voices? Why or why not?

Yes, Govier and Moulton are sympathetic voices. Both critique excessive adversariality in argumentation and advocate for more inclusive, collaborative approaches that respect diverse perspectives. They emphasize the importance of empathy, listening, and mutual understanding in philosophical discourse, challenging the dominance of aggressive, competitive styles. Their work promotes a more compassionate and equitable intellectual environment.

Some might argue that non-adversarialism is self-defeating. What is the meta objection to the non-adversarialist?

The meta objection to non-adversarialism is that it appears self-defeating because advocating for non-adversarialism itself involves engaging in argumentation, which can be seen as adversarial. Non-adversarialists must use adversarial methods to promote their view, creating a paradox. This undermines the credibility of non-adversarialism, as it seems to rely on the very practices it critiques. They cannot escape the adversarial nature of argumentation, making its goals difficult to achieve.