WPC+ W녠frVvLeb-`RYTl{o/EMw.a) Fpə^)TDLR&A{+ {(Pc+4J\ϋs֫7:7mD1[&-ip¿q#9Rn]AA{nmz,$f!t$YKo9E$[,üq`XX2,R?GCia.ʄZh TOFdFex!1yXNءzBKez▕Sf")4v^fw/3Йe٬\, 3ׅ h1h[P]Z܋sFGV0mi1GaB},QT>>"he`Bx9#Aݠ"T +C1E>tBsc4" f 0:^  0~wX4\p 0D 0cN( N* N, 0w. N N 0 03 0 0 0V 1u 72 N N N 1 72 m#UN % 0 0 72 0 0<S 0N 72i/  72U(T#|# 0DX' 1_(( 72( 72-)E_) 72a) 72) 72) 72)))))))) 72)*N[*[*[*[*[*[*[*[*[*[*[*[*[*[*[*[*[*[*[* B]*]*]*]*]*]*]*]*z*z* 1kZ+Z++($USUS.,uC, (.(3($ !USUS.,      0  ܡ5,@Q3|x(#$  0  (;3$2#  0  .3  0  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#( ^$  0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# `   .3  :. 0x(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)0vCHeadOfSecFor the outline I give beneath the title of IA1(a)(i)1)a)i)?8HP DeskJet 830C Series Printer0(,,,,0(0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#54 (7V$   .II  .ۀ   ( q^H$  0  0` (#(#   .E  ..ہ 0d  2 ($USUS.,    1    _Thisisnotasharpdivision.Rather,ascommunitysizeincreases,Iamlessandlessaware  oftheeffectsofourmutualagreementsontheothers,atleastinanydetail,lessandlessableto  discernwhoIneedtotalkto,andlessandlessabletospendthetimetalkingtothisgrowing  group.However,eventhoughIrecognizethisacontinuum,Iwillconsiderfacetofacemorality t asqualitativelydifferentfromtheotherendofthecontinuum,socialjustice,whereagreements ` mustbemadewithoutfacetofacecontactandwhereemergentsystemeffectsbecomeofgreat L  importance. 8    Emergentsystemeffectsreferstoforcesthataffectmoraldecisionsbeyondthesumof $ t theindividualsinvolved.Forexample,capitalismallowsforclassdivisions,whichsystematically  ` disadvantageonegroupandadvantageanother,eventhougheachindividualmakesthebestmoral  L  claimspossibleinthesituationsheconfronts.Why?Illhavetoexplainthisindetailinaseparate  8  essay[xx].(O$ԁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 i)Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5WOREssay #Header3Header4Header5Header654 Chapter4 K ($USUS.,    4    _[xxHeressomepreviousmaterial,lefthereforlateruseasneeded:]Another  consequenceofthisproblemisanuncertaintyabouthowtoresolvepersistentmoraldifferences.  Ifnoonecanbecertainh/hermoralpositionisvalid,howcananymoraldecisionsbemadeexcept  bymoralunanimity(unlikely)orbytheaccidentsofstrategicadvantage(immoralandoften t  systematicallyoppressive)?Althoughtheanswertothisquestionmightfitwithinthischapters d descriptionofmorality,Ihavegivenititsownchapter,Chapter4,becauseofitslengthy P descriptionanditsmovementbeyondsimpleagreement.TheAgreementProblem  ($USUS.,    3    _NotealsotheparallelwithHabermassdistinctionbetweencommunicativeactionand  strategicaction.Strategicisactionorientedtowardproducingaspecific,andprespecified,  result,whilecommunicativeactionisorientedtowardproducingunderstandingoragreement,  withnoprespecifiedimageofwhattheactualunderstandingofagreementwillbe.Theonlyway t weknoweitherhasbeenachievedisbytheactorssaying, Iunderstandor Iagree.[xxIm ` notsureImentirelyhappywiththefollowingdistinction.Afterall,ifmy prespecifiedgoal L  weremerelyto stopfeelinghungry,manythingscouldcreatethat.Howisthatdifferentfrom 8  mygoalbeing tounderstand/agree?](F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(#   !s37;?CGKOS-*+xi)54 i)54 i)54 54  d ($USUS.,    2    _Socialjustice=interpersonalmoralitywiththeaddedcomplexityofemergentsystem  effects.$35;AGOW_e11.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Chapter3 !USUS.,  _  8XXdd8February3,2002  xxB(# LEVEL:9 Ԉ   "XX[Chapter2]#XX"#    "XX0   #XX"m#7 XXIntroduction#XX 7# 8(#(# [URL:Ch2Intro]    (#33SECTIONS(&perhapssubsections):    (v03" ;"   ;0  2v  I  3  0` (#(#  OnPartII( TheInterpersonal:RelatingFacetoFace) ;݌| ` (#` (# Ќ  " ;"   ;0  2v  II  3  0` (#(#  OnthePresentChapter ;݌h ` (#` (# Ќ  AY9) xdE?xA @  #     #.I  .ۀ  OnPartII( TheInterpersonal:RelatingFacetoFace)#L  1Ԍ O Ќ  WenowtakeuptheconceptofinterpersonalmoralityinChapters24.Interpersonalmoralityis ' thatoffacetofacerelationships,wherewemakeagreementsvalidonlyforatmostasmall  community,onesmallenoughthateveryonecantalkwitheveryoneelse,andsmallenoughthat  everyonecanseehowtheagreementsaffecteveryoneelse.% #  1      ׀Facetofacerelationshipsarethe _ groundof careandresponsibilityascentralmoralperspectives.Theimpersonalperspectiveof 7  justicebecomesincreasinglyimportantaswerequiredealingwithotherswedontknow _ personally.Theproblemsofmoraljudgmentdiffersufficientlyfromthoseofinterpersonal 7  moralitythattheyrequiredifferenttreatment.Interpersonalmoralityisthesimplercase,soIstart d there,inthisandthenexttwochapters.Socialjusticeisbuiltoninterpersonalmorality,a #  2      ׀soItake < itupinChapter5.     Ihavefounditdifficulttowriteaboutinterpersonalmoralitywithoutusingexamplesthat   havesocietaljusticeaspects.Afterall,mostrelationshipsareembeddedwithinalargersocietal  ` context,andmostofthemoraltheoryIvestudiedhasconcernedsocialjustice,rights,andsoon. 8  MyintentioninChapters24istowriteaboutissueswhereinterpersonalmoralityisthemost t  salientissue,andtoconsiderissuesspecifictosocialjusticeinChapter5. L    Thatdistinctionmade,letmeconsidernowonlyinterpersonalmorality.Asthetitleofthe $ presentchaptersuggests,mypurposehereistodescribewhatitisthatwedowhenwemake  judgmentsaboutandagreementsonhowwearetorelatetoeachother.Iarguethatsuch p judgmentsaremadethroughprocesseslikethosebywhichwereconcileourvariouspersonas.In H otherwords,Iholdthatthequestformoralityhasthesamebasicformasthequestfor   authenticity.Moraljudgmentsdifferonlyinthatthepersonasinvolvedincludeourintrojected \ understandingsoftheother.Theseintrojectedpersonasaretheresultofempathy,butnota 4  chosen,willedempathy!theusualimage!butratheranempathywiredintousandallcreatures  " havinginternalrepresentationsoftheworld.Theresultingtensionamongthesepersonashasthe #  samedynamic,atleasttoafirstapproximation,astheintrapersonaltensionamongonesvarious %X" Goods.AndjustasChapter1didnotspecifyanythingaboutonesintegratedselfexceptthatit '0!$ beintegrated,sothischapteradvancesnospecialmoralitybeyondthatsameintegration.Inthis l)#& respectitparallelsHabermassdiscourseethics,inwhichthesolefinalcriterionofmoralityis d agreement.3 #  3       <   Moralityisthereforenotanyspecificagreementbutratheraprocessbywhichpeopleseek   agreement.Orientationtowardthisprocessconstitutestherelationshipbetweenpeople.   _Chapter3_Ԁ(4e 8&O  5  Relationshipsvs.Means&Ends6&O  7 .)elaboratesonthis,arguingthatweshouldfocus  ` firstontheserelationshipsandonlysubordinatelyonthespecificmeansandendsagreedupon. 8    Thelastofthethreechapters(40 &O  5  4: MoralitybeyondAgreement:MoralActionwithin t  MoralConflict6&O  7 )takesupwhatItermthe 42 ,&O  5  agreementproblem6&O  7 $.Sincenoonehasanystandpoint L  fromwhichtostateinerrantlywhatismoralorevenhowweshouldcometoagreement,weare $ facedwiththeproblemofwhattodowhentheverytermsofmoralityitselfcanbedisputed.In  whatsensecanweevenspeakofmoralityinsuchcircumstances?Iarguethataparticularsense p ofmoralityremains,sinceempathydoesnotdisappearjustbecauseweargueoverit.However,in H aworldinwhichempathycanbeburiedunderlayersofemotionalpainandphilosophical   abstraction,relianceuponitisnoteasy,andintheendthesenseofmoralitydescribedhereisnot \ aneasyonetouphold.Alas,inanimperfectworldtherearenopainlessanswers.1 #  4       4  #     ##.II  .ۀ  OnthePresentChapter##]  BԌ < Ќ    Letmereturntothepresentchapter.IbeginwiththebasicdistinctionbetweentheGood   andtheRight,i.e.,thedistinctionbetweendecisionsinvolvingonlyonesownGoodsandthose   involvingbothonesownandothersGoods.Iwilllaterarguethatthisdistinctionisnotasclear  ` asitappears,butIdiscussitnonetheless,bothbecausethereareinfactsomedifferencesbetween 8  thetwosituationsandbecausethedistinctionholdacentralplaceismoralphilosophyasitexists t  today. L  [xxNowIdescribethischapteritself.Talkaboutpreviousattemptstogroundmorality.  Nietzscheandmusic.Foucaultandart.Apelandhis{transcendental?metaphysical?}grounding. p Habermasandthepresuppositionsofargumentation.{Q:Shouldthisbediscussedhere?Should H itbeaseparateessay?Shoulditbepartofanotheressay?Shoulditbediscussedatall?}]     [xxIneedtotalkaboutthetwomoralorientations(orwhateverKohlbergwoundup \ callingthem)of care&responsibilityand justice.{Q:Again,whereshouldthisdiscussion 4  go?Inthematerialabove?Initsownessay?Asasectionofanotheressay?]  "   Mydescriptionoffacetofacemoraljudgmentshasthemgroundedonempathy,whatever #  cognitivescaffoldingweerectonthatfoundation. %X"   Thenextessaydefinesmoralityintermsofthe relationalprinciple!basically,anability '0!$ tolookeachotherintheeyewhenproposingordefendingamoralposition.Thisprincipleis l)#& oversimplifiedthere,butitprovidesafoundationforsolvinglatercomplexitiesasweencounter d them. <   Therelationalprincipledependsonempathy;withoutempathy, lookingoneanotherin   theeyewouldpasssociopaths,whoexperienceotherssensesoftheGoodonlyasproblemsto   beovercome.Whendealingwithothersthatway,nohumanrelationshipexistsforthem.The  ` conceptof sociopathandthedistinctionbetweeninstrumentalandhumanrelationshipsraisethe 8  problemofevil.Therelationalprinciplegroundsmoralityonempathyanditsconcomitant t  premisethatpeopledesiremoralrelationshipswitheachother.Butifevilpeopleexist,thenthese L  premisesarefalse.Theessayonthisproblemarguesthatourperceptionsofevilareifnot $ demonstrablymistaken,atleastpremature.Itthenlaysouttheconsequencesformoralityofsuch  aposition. p   Chapter2concludeswithanessayoutliningthesenseinwhichthechaptercanbesaidto H justifythewaysofrelatingperspectiveonmorality,giventhatwedifferinoursensesoftheGood   andthatnoone(includingme)(andyou)canbecertainthatamoralperspectiveornormisvalid. \ Becauseofthisproblem,thesenseofjustificationusedherehasadialecticalstructure,whichis 4  importanttounderstand.