Prichard’s Dilemma

“Why do the right thing?”

• give some extra-moral reason (bad, because you maybe are acting in self-interest)
• give some moral reason (“I do the right thing because its right”, tautology)

Kantian Contractualism

“rules that would be agreed to by people trying to share a world as equals”

scanlon

what no one commuted to sharing a world could reasonably reject as a basis of informed, unforced general agreement

1. substantive (sharing a world, presupposed content to what is a value) rather than formal
2. restricted (moral)
3. proceduralist (its about following a procedure, irrespective of what the output is)

Moral Luck

Control principle: we can only be judged for something to the extend its under our control.

Corollary: two people are not morally judged differently if the only difference is not under their control.

resultant luck

Luck in how your choices turn out.

constructive luck

Luck in who you are and what you are like.

circumstantial luck

Luck on the choices/circumstances that we face.

character

Stable traits and disposition: blameworthyness, etc. doesn’t apply here. There are blameworthy / praiseworthy actions, etc, but characters themselves can’t be.

• It seems to me that once we depart from the notion of TS and TO, the later conversations about consiquentialism, objectivism, and justice ceases to discuss what exactly is “right”/“wrong” and instead how to bring it about; yet, under a notion of command theory, the latter considerations of what “to do” (i.e., whether to be consiquentialist, etc.) can be waved away by sang “people do it/people believe in it”. Therefore, isn’t there an order of operations required or at least an assumption of some kind of objectivism which allows the remaining conversations to proceed?
• How does consiquentialist theories command deliberation? I know it is not a deliberative theory, but how does the consiquentialist ask one to go about having choices? That is, surely, as the readings mention, one mustn’t over-think aspects which require spontaneity?
• This is a higher level question: especially for more “extreme” arguments like Singer, how is it supposed to be taken? What Singer advocates directly is practically impossible to implement, even in a weaker version. Doesn’t this show the absurdity of globally moral thinking? If it doesn’t, how is it supposed to be implemented?

general choice of sound

• ominous/bad: low tonal drone
• surveillance: loud high frequency buzz
• final ending music contrasts with erythidng

• uses immediate dialogue with no visuals to present focus
  • rawness/truth of the dialogue (and arguably Snowden’s good job at phrasing) makes it more compelling
  • nat sound without visuals provide additional focus
• background music modulates emotional valence

• fairly significant use of nat packages to emphasize reality
• the tone of the reading also modulates the opinion

• the confrontation of the court creates tension
• parallel contrasting statements

• transition to Snowden interview feels relatively peaceful compared to the beginning, which is drawing attention in its own way
• the jovial nature being in the room contrasts to the serious issue at hand
• the cuts are really quite hard: to emphasize contrast between loud news breaks and the quietness of the hotel room—especially large contrast with regards to Ed Snowden’s wife being raided, etc., which is rather peaceful
  • or the quiet of TV television as compared to the loud noise of the nat package behind

• the lack of speaking from the camera operator/sounds behind the makes the scene much more intimate