Last weekend, I watched Pulp Fiction for the first time, mainly because it is the source of a myriad and one cultural references. But also because Caroll made a point in the readings to establish that although PF was a film of aesthetic merit, it deserved to be critiqued because it was detrimental to a viewer's sense of morality because it confused, via introducing an element of revenge, the measure of gravity between committing the act of murder, from the act of rape.
The implication on Caroll's end seems to be that, no matter what, the depletion of one's life at the hand of another will always be worse than a deep and sexual violation of their sense of self. In my view, as we grow to understand the empirical effects of sexual assault from an ethical and philosophical analysis, it is becoming clear that there is no 'scale' of wrong-doing where which murder is 'the worst' and rape is the 'second-worst'. They are both equally egregious acts.
It was interesting to read in week 3 about a theory of evil which took 'evil' acts away from their quarantined pedestal and refocus on redefinitions based on the harms the acts effect. Using real psychological survey data to support a philosophical theory for evil acts really helped streamline instances of harm, with moral judgments.
I don't think this technique worked so well with Joshua Greene's attempt to discredit deontological judgment based on available data. Whereas in Formosa's analysis, he was working a harm consistent in form and effect, translating it via empirical accounts back into a theory of evil, Greene attempts to use selective studies based on a handful of similar samples to discredit one philosophy from another. I already wrote an analysis of the article earlier in the semester, but what we can learn from that largely inefficient attempt, is that scientifically derived data does not always translate into inherently cohesive philosophies.
