Here are the key points made in the passages: Singer: Pacifists view the use of violence as absolutely wrong regardless of consequences. This assumes a distinction between acts (using violence) and omissions (not using violence). Thomson: Introduces the violinist thought experiment where a person is hooked up to a famous unconscious violinist who will die if unplugged. The doctor says it's only for 9 months. Thomson asks if one is obligated to remain hooked up for that time against their will. The passages present contrasting views on moral obligations and consequences. Singer questions an absolute prohibition on violence by pointing to consequences. Thomson uses a thought experiment to question if we have an obligation to aid

1. Life’s interests
Student: A further thought on trees having
interests: If we redefine interests to no
longer mean suffering/pleasure, but as being
a living thing thats aim is to live/survive,
then we must re-evaluate Singer's position on
the right to life, particularly in the case of
abortion.

2. prima facie rights and duties
Student: When discussing W.D. Ross’s ethical theory, you described it as postulating a
system of prima facie rights or duties one has. Also, you touched on the fact that
excusing conditions for failing to do what’s right can be either intrinsic or extrinsic. So
what you are really saying is that due to common sense, we fulfil moral acts not as
obligations, but because it is something that all people feel compelled to do in a sense.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
DrC: I’ve proposed an articulation of common-sense morality as a system of prima facie
rights and duties that have weight, which the individual must take into account when
choosing a course of action. DV theorizes this `taking into account’ as the individual’s
utility profile, which reveals the weight that s/he attaches to SU and and how this fares
against the claims of EU. This is an alternative to Singer’s view, which criticizes common-
sense morality and proposes a revisionist interpretation (preference utilitarianism) strictly
in terms of EU.... As for intrinsic and extrinsic excusing conditions, please see the Lexicon.
I would argue that common-sense morality adjusts the demands of prima facie duties to
the contours of a normal life, such that we are `intrinsically’ excused from doing all that
Singer’s revisionist ethic would require. The contours include family and professional life,
hobbies and personal projects, and so forth. I take Susan Wolf to be thinking about these
contours in her essay....And to say something about your final point: I do think that doing
the right thing has symbolic utility for people, so discharging one’s obligations is not
unwelcome to the extent that SU has weight. This is not to deny that obligation can be
onerous, nor is it to deny that we are often tempted to do the wrong thing because of
anticipated personal benefits.

3. neo-Aristotelian ethics?
Student: I thought the point brought up in a pmail in Monday's
class about sentientism was interesting to say the least. Indeed,
Singer's understanding of the term "interest" demands that we be
sentientists, since while a tree may have an "interest" in surviving,
it does not have an interest in the sense that it suffers or
experiences pleasure. The notion of "interest" that the pmailer
used seemed suggestive of the Aristotelian sense of purpose.
Student: On another note, I am wondering if we may "swipe"
sentences and remarks from our pmails without citing them in our
essays. If I use other person's pmail, I will cite it as if I am citing
class notes, but do I need to do that with my own submitted
pmails?

4. evolution and our place
in nature
Student: How, from an evolutionary perspective, can we really
consider man and nature to be in conflict with one another? We
consider all the changes due to global warming to be a result of
man, who is considered to be in opposition to nature; however, if
humans have evolved the way we have, our dispositions, inclinations,
and actions are a result of what nature has imposed on us through
natural selection, just as each trait of every creature on Earth has
been selected for. When a beaver dams up a stream and completely
changes the ecosystem of its environment, we don't consider that to
be a "beaver-made" catastrophe; rather, we call that nature at
work. Why is it that when humans affect their environment, it is
not considered nature at work? In any case, I suppose my question
is how can we be so sure that what we're doing is in conflict with
nature, when so many other animals, under the influence of their
traits selected for over millions of years of evolution, can have very
significant impacts on their environments without being considered
in conflict with nature?

5. The holodeck revisited
Student: I'm not sure if you intended the VR 'holodeck' technology
as a facetious thought experiment, but I don't think it is, as you
claim, a (major) problem for Singer and his comrades who advocate
environmental preservation for its instrumental value. Indeed,
Singer may still have grounds to advance the preservation of the
environment with this futuristic, but not chimerical, technology by
contending that the aesthetic value of a forest, for example, does
not exhaust all of the value therein. Indeed, over and above its
aesthetic value, plant life is useful for cleansing the atmosphere of
CO2, and for supporting the food chain, to name but two
examples. So until the machines are invented that can replace these
sources of value of the natural environment, I think we need to
think twice about razing forests (to erect vast VR holodeck
exhibits, for example).

6. in defense of water-skiing
I find it slightly upsetting that, according to Singer, race-car driving and water-skiing
should be replaced with other forms of recreation that are less harmful to the
environment, such as biking. Firstly, the manufacturing of bicycles contributes pollutants to
the environment, although probably less than the manufacturing of boats and cars. But,
from this view, the only completely accepted mode of transportation that poses no harm
to the environment is walking or running. Canoes and bikes, although they emit no harmful
pollutants when being used, must still be manufactured, and are made from metals, or the
by-products of trees. It would be impossible in this day and age to completely eliminate
the destruction and pollution of the environment. But we should still take measures to
reduce it without completely altering our way of life and recreation. I don't think that
going water-skiing on a lake is going to drastically harm the ecosystem, except maybe
over a long period of time, but this could possibly be dealt with by having all boaters who
use the lake pay an annual fee that goes towards cleaning/filtering of the water.
However, clear-cutting the Amazon Rainforest would have drastic effects on the whole
ecosystem, along with many, many, different animals, species, and beneficial effects that
trees have in cleaning the air.

7. non-religious ethics?
Student: I am curious why Singer starts off his environmental
chapter with what Christians have said about the environment and
what God says is right. It seems counterintuitive to mention these
theological views since he is not considering religious beliefs in this
ethical theory he seems to be building....Also, up until now Singer’s
theories have all dealt with a barrage of expected utility and
whose preferences outweigh whose. However a virgin forest has no
preferences and thus if by demolishing the forest increased utility
for the workers now hired to build something there, it seems as
though by following Singer’s theory, the moral thing to do would be
to cut down the forest. He seems to focus a lot on the fact that
future generations Might enjoy the wilderness and such; however it
seems odd to me that he doesn’t mention the fact that without any
trees or greenery we have barely any oxygen to breath. The only
oxygen production left would come from microbes or other trace
sources.

8. desires and interests
Student: I think Singer understands that there are stronger cases
he could make for environmentalism, but is attempting to ground
the movement in logic that can be sustained. It seems that Singer
would like to agree with the deep ecologists view, as it might
provide more compelling reason to preserve the environment, but it
just seems difficult to defend the environment except on the basis
that it sustains and makes for better quality of sentient life....I'm
also wondering, because you differentiated between desire and
interest, what the difference is exactly. Is it that desires have
moral significance; that is, they are interests that, if unsatisfied,
cause psychological or physical harm? So we can speak of a tree
having interests, but not morally significant ones?

9. Rawls’s second principle
Student: Rawls: A Theory of Justice. Rawls explains the two
principles of justice (Cahn 149). I am not sure how to understand
the second principle. I am not sure if he means that wealth ought
to be redistributed (as in a socialist or even a communist sense), or
if he simply refers to the necessity of the availability of jobs for
anyone who is qualified (I assume qualification is necessary since
obviously none of us want an uneducated doctor looking after us).
Does he want equal distribution of wealth, or equal opportunity for
employment? How does this look when fleshed out (capitalist or
communist)? It seems a little bit idealist to me (in a capitalist
society, there is simply not equal opportunity. In a communist/very
socialist society, the rich seem to be taken advantage of and
historically this is ideal but simply impossible).

10. potential people
Student: I believe that Singer is simply aware of the fact that, unless the world (or the
survival of our species) were to come to a sudden end, there will be future generations.
And since this is fundamentally unavoidable, it is our responsibility to care for the
wellbeing of those "potential" people, just as it is our responsibility to care for the
wellbeing of persons in the third world, and the malnourished babies who are
"potentially" to be born there....Furthermore, the reason why I used quotation marks on
the word "potential" is because I think that there is actually a difference in the
meanings of the word in the two cases. I think the main difference is that in the case of
abortion, Singer claims that the fetus has potential because it will become a person
UNLESS it is stopped in its development, or aborted. The future generations of our species,
however, exist on a much larger scale. It would hardly seem possible to hinder all human
reproduction to prevent new generations from coming into existence. Therefore, I'm not
sure the word "potential" is the appropriate term. The existence of future generations,
thus, seems much more definitive than potential.
DrC: This is a helpful response to a pmail from last week that diagnosed Singer as
confused about potential. I suppose that one relevant question is, Why *should* the
existence of future generations be accepted as definite? Graveyard utilitarianism poses this
question.

11. feminism and essentialism
Student: So the argument in chapter 20 in Cahn about males and
females having different perspectives and ways of problem solving
when dealing with the world might have some problems. I do not
think there is any sex distinct differences in how we solve our
problems. How we view the world might be different based on child
caring, birth, power and other factors. But saying that just
because you are female you are going to solve problems differently
sounds wrong to me.
DrC: It’s important in this chapter to distinguish Grimshaw’s own
view from the views of others whom she discusses. Do you take her
to be defending an essentialist view?

12. preserving the environment
Student: I think most people would have trouble arguing against
preserving the environment. To me Singers use of preference
utilitarianism was akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight (i think he
knows it too), i thought it was inadequate in swaying me- unlike the
other chapters where you may not agree but the logic is sound,
this chapter compels you to agree regardless of the "shortcomings"
in rational.
DrC: Do we want to preserve the environment (1) because we value
the experiences that it facilitates, or (2) because it is intrinsically
valuable? The deep ecologists opt for (2), but Singer opts for (1). A
problem with (1) is that it’s only a matter of time before we have
VR technology to render a `holodeck’ that would give us the
(qualitatively identical) experiences without the environment that
nowadays produces them.

13. Rawls’s original position
Student: I found Rawls' theory on justice to be quite rational in a
purely philosophical and theoretical way, that being said, I think it
is too Utopian to have any utility in the real world. I understand
that his "original" position is a hypothetical situation, but I do not
think this saves his theory. Even if, for arguments sake, you are
able to have condition where in the rules can be created under a
veil of ignorance, once in place this veil is lifted. Even if these rules
are in place, this will not stop some from trying to manipulate
matters to suit their own respective position an/or interest in
society. Although a pleasing argument, I do not believe that holds
any practicality in the real world.
DrC: Rawls would argue that even if your point is true, the
argument from the Original Position reveals what’s appropriate and
inappropriate (in the OP, excluded from the OP) when reasoning
about justice. That said, your point leads other moral theorists to
be interested in a more `practical’ contract, like Gilbert Harman’s
virtual contract or David Gauthier’s `morals by agreement’.

14. interests
Student: I think it's interesting that Singer, who's so concerned
about speciesism and ECOI, assumes that only sentient beings can
have interests. It's true that trees (or forests, ecosystems) don't
have preferences, but in a very real sense, it is in their interest to
not be cut down (or destroyed). Why should the value of forests
depend on the value of sentient beings? If speciesism is wrong,
why (if we can assign interests to trees) should "sentientism" not
also be wrong (or a form of unwarranted bias)?
DrC: Biological sciences implicitly attribute interests to all living
things, specifically an interest in survival that explains its
functional properties, which permit it to survive. Exploring this
thought would retain Singer’s individualism while expanding his
conception of interests.

15. the private sphere
Student: I especially support [Grimshaw’s] view in the last sentence
of the essay that moral and social priorities would be very
different if the activities and concerns regarded as primarily female
were given equal value and status. I think that Gramshaw is right
that the 'private' sphere is not given the same consideration as the
'public' sphere, but I disagree in that I do not think in today's
Western society, that the private sphere should be designated
primarily to females anymore. Many families have both parents
working full-time, with family responsibilities in the 'private' sphere
shared. Furthermore, with the high rate of divorce, many
households do not even have females residing in them. I think that
a shift should start recognizing the private sphere as being
encompassed more equally by males and females in Western society,
and for there to be less division between the sexes in the public
and private spheres.
DrC: This makes sense. It’s a good paper idea. But what about
people in a multicultural society who belong to a culture that
insists on a strict division of the sexes in the private sphere?

16. animate and inanimate
Student: On pg 279 Singer parallels the actions of plants to that
of a river or a guided missile. I do not agree with this comparison
that Singer tries to establish. I do agree that plants don't try to
consciously "seek out" water or sunlight, but I do believe that they
should not be paralleled to completely inanimate objects such as
flowing water molecules or fused pieces of metal. I do not share
this because plants are composed of cells that are living, they
undergo metabolism, meiosis, transport and countless other intra-
and extracellular processes that are characteristic of only living
cells, the same processes as the very cells that we are composed
of also, none of which are done so by water molecules or metal
ions. I do not think that because plants may not be concious that
they should be paralleled with molecules or objects that posses no
processes that are characteristic of life.
DrC: You might want to read “Should trees have standing?”, an
essay by Christopher Stone. It’s anthologized in *People, penguins,
and plastic trees*, which should be in our library.

17. Singer, “Ends and Means”
Singer: “Opposition to the use of violence can
be on the basis of an absolute rule, or an
assessment of its consequences. Pacifists
have usually regarded the use of violence as
absolutely wrong, irrespective of its
consequences. This, like other `no matter
what’ prohibitions, assumes the validity of
the distinction between acts and
omissions.” (307)

18. Judith Jarvis Thomson,
“A defense of abortion”
The violinist thought-experiment. The doctor
says, “But never mind, it’s only for nine
months.” Thomson asks, do you *have* to
accede to this situation? “What if it were not
nine months, but nine years?” (169) Later she
supposes that the violinist needs only an
hour. (177-8)

19. Mary Anne Warren, “On the moral
and legal status of abortion”
Warren: “Thus, to demonstrate that a fetus
is not a person, all I need to claim is that an
entity that has *none* of these six
characteristics [sentience, emotionality,
reason, the capacity to communicate, self-
awareness, moral agency] is not a
person.” (194)