Morality and Morally Relevant Consideration

1. What are some of the reasons that Fullinwider gives for arguing that Affirmative Action programs are necessary and useful in our society? How does King distinguish between just and unjust laws, argue for civil disobedience, and criticize white moderates and the Church? · Just law – one that is in line w/moral laws or laws of God; any law that uplifts human personality · Unjust law- one that is not in harmony with the moral law; any law that degrades human personality · Non-violent civil disobedience is sometimes morally required so that such unfair laws (like segregation) can be replaced with more just, democratic laws that would recognize the basic rights and freedoms of people. · criticized the white moderates because of their failure to understand the gravity of the situation for the Negro community and that the movement for social justice required that the tensions between the communities lie quietly within their own community.

· Fullwinder – “land of the giants” world appears normal to those who have made it; but don’t see how it privileges/disadvantages others.

· Consequentialist arguments – forward thinking; justified b/c good outcomes are alleged to happen; create greater diversity = greater good outcomes

2. What are Singer’s and Steinbock’s opposing arguments on animal ethics/rights and on the use of animals in experimentation? What are the specific reasons that Singer and Steinbock each provide for their positions?
Singer – animals can experience pleasure/pain so they deserve our moral consideration. Speciesism is an injustice parallel to racism and sexism.
· Not all animal lives are of equal worth. Human interests may outweigh those of nonhumans.
· Need of an overall balance of pleasure over suffering
Steinbock
· Pain of animals is a morally relevant consideration but is not morally decisive.
· Morally good reasons for taking our own species as morally special
· Affirms speciesism – humans are more important than non-human animals, even though animals still have moral status.
3. What is Ishmael’s analysis of the differences between Taker and Leaver cultures? What are examples of how Takers and Leavers perceive and treat the world around them differently?
Takers are ‘those who know good and evil’ and the Leavers are ‘those who live in the hands of the gods’. The Leavers are those that are subject to the conditions under which evolution takes place. Takers want to put an end to creation itself because they believe that ‘the world belongs to man’ whereas the Leavers’ motto is that ‘man belongs to the world’.
· Takers – ‘those who know good and evil’; want to put an end to creation itself b/c they believe that the ‘world belongs to man’
· Leavers – ‘those who live in the hands of the gods’; subject to the conditions under which evolution takes place; ‘man belongs to the world’