Contraception in Sub-Saharan Africa

About the much less financially advantageous...

TermsEpidemic - large outbreak, one that spreads among a population or region
Pandemic - generally refers to an epidemic that has spread on a more global scale

--------------------\

2002

Poverty, Risky Sexual Behaviour, and Vulnerability to HIV Infection: Evidence from South Africa

Used data from the 1998 South African Demographic and Health Survey.
South Africa is one of the countries worst affected by the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

...unsafe sexual practices, often due to a lack of knowledge, lack of access to means of protection, and inability to negotiate condom use with sexual partners as a result of entrenched gender roles and power relations (3,6-12).

There is little evidence that poverty is associated with risky sexual behavior, although poorer women are slightly less likely to have necessary knowledge on HIV/AIDS...

https://ourworldindata.org/hiv-aids

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23498915

--------------------/

--------------------\

2006

Poverty and HIV/AIDS in South Africa: an empirical contribution

Also used data from the 1998 South African Demographic and Health Survey.

...non-use of condoms among the non-poor due to low perceived risk of HIV infection implies that HIV prevention programmes are not really succeeding in removing the stigma associated with HIV/AIDS.


https://doi.org/10.1080/17290376.2006.9724863

--------------------/

--------------------\
2008
Does Community Clustering Mitigate the Negative Effect Of Poverty on Adolescent Condom Use in South Africa?

Poverty remains a central factor for a young woman's risk of HIV, even after controlling for shared characteristics within her community.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27642867

--------------------/

--------------------\
2011
Dimensions of poverty and inconsistent condom use among youth in urban Kenya

n = 261
Condoms were used inconsistently in 57% of months and were never used in 31%.
Corroborating existing literature, lower household wealth and lower educational attainment were associated with inconsistent condom use. Lower individual economic status (lower earned income, food insufficiency, and larger material transfers from partners) were also important determinants.
The lowest level of schooling, lower amounts of income, and larger amounts of money and gifts received from sexual partners were associated with inconsistent condom use.

DOI:10.1080/09540121.2011.555744.

--------------------/

SEP Habermas

If I'm a discourse theorist, how do I approach applied moral issues?

Is it too political (political theory) for an individual's ethical system (decisions/actions)?

The Theory of Communicative Action (1984a/1987; German ed., 1981; hereafter cited as TCA)

3.2 Habermas's Discourse Theory

Habermas's theory of communicative action

rests on the idea that social order 

depends on the capacity of actors to recognize

the intersubjective validity (truth, between conscious minds) of the different claims 

which social cooperation depends.

not only in truth claims about the empirical world, 

but also in rightness claims about the kind of treatment we owe each other 

Whether or not his pragmatic theory of meaning succeeds, 

the discursive (digressing from) analysis of validity 

illuminates important differences in [...] justifiable claims. 

it is first necessary to understand the general structures of argumentation.
Discourse theory is about pragmatically analyzing an argument as a social practice.

presuppositions - a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action
Basically, an argument isn't all what it appears. One must become, truly understand, the perspective of the argument's proponent. argument as product, as procedure, and as process, which he loosely aligns with the traditional perspectives on argument evaluation of logic, dialectic, and rhetoric.

product - sets of reasons that support conclusions, tied to logical strength

procedure - 

process (i) no one capable of making a relevant contribution has been excluded, (ii) participants have equal voice, (iii) they are internally free to speak their honest opinion without deception or self-deception, and (iv) there are no sources of coercion built into the process and procedures of discourse.

Criticism on process, Habermas's highly idealized and formal model hardly does justice to the substantive richness of the rhetorical tradition. One can, however, supplement his model with a more substantive rhetoric that draws on Aristotle's account of ethos and pathos (Rehg 1997).

1) moral discourse - justify norms and courses of action that accord due concern and respect for persons in general

2) “ethical” discourse - focus on questions of the good life, either for a given individual (“ethical-existential” discourse)

Moral rightness claims and empirical truth claims are justified by reasons that should be acceptable to a universal audience, whereas ethical claims are addressed to those who share a particular history and tradition of values.

3) other ethical questions - ones that do admit of universal consensus (e.g., choices of technologies that bear on the future of human nature, such as genetic enhancement engineering)

At the dialectical level, one must meet different burdens of proof by answering different types of challenges. For example, in defending the ethical authenticity of Tom's pursuit of a career in medicine, one need not show that medicine is a career everyone must follow, but only that such a career makes sense, given Tom's personal background, talents, and desires. 

One can also examine Tom's career choice from a moral perspective, but in that case one need only show that anyone in his circumstances is morally permitted to pursue medicine. 

Takeaways - Habermas defines ethical and moral differently. Discourse theory isn't a simple Google search of understanding away.

3.4 Habermas's Discourse Theory of Morality, Politics, and Law

“discourse principle” (D)

A rule of action or choice is justified, and thus valid, 

only if all those affected by the rule or choice 

could accept it in a reasonable discourse.

Habermas's discourse theory of morality generally goes by the name “discourse ethics,” a somewhat misleading label given that “ethics” has a distinct non-moral sense for him.

Like Kant, he considers morality a matter of unconditional moral obligations: 

the prohibitions, 

positive obligations, 

and permissions 

that regulate interaction among persons.

1953 publicly challenged Germany’s greatest living philosopher, Heidegger, 

to explain himself...because Heidegger was a Nazi...

SparkNotes "Sophie's World"

A philosopher knows that in reality he knows very little. That is why he constantly strives to achieve true insight. Socrates was one of these rare people. He knew that he knew nothing about life and the world. And now comes the important part: it troubled him that he knew so little.

Gaarder (author) seems to wholeheartedly embrace existentialism.
We all come to terms with the world in our own way. But we must not make the mistake of living our lives according to a set of values that turn out not to really hold any meaning.

What does Alberto Knox tell Sophie one needs to do in order to truly live?

Travel and explore
Question and ponder
Never stop reading
Take chances and risks


According to the letter Sophie receives, what is the only requirement for being a philosopher?

Intelligence
A vast library
Capacity for wonder


What amazes Sophie about the philosopher Democritus, who believed that everything was made up of atoms?

He was so young
He used prior philosophers 
He couldn’t read


What did Plato believe regarding the place of women in matters of intellect?

Equally capable of reasoning
Much better than men
Incapable of true philosophy
Capable of small contributions


How did Aristotle view women?

Gifted in some ways
Incapable of reasoning
Unfinished men


In what tool did Aristotle believe, above all others?

Talk
Imagination
Senses


What is the name of the belief that God is present throughout nature?
Pantheism 
Polytheism


During the Baroque period
(Portuguese barroco, or “oddly shaped pearl,” for Western European art music from 1600 to 1750),
what conflict characterized philosophy?

Idealism vs. materialism 
Pantheism vs. polytheism
Optimism vs. cynicism
Religion vs. science


What did Hegel believe about the concept of “right” and “wrong”?

Definite rights and wrongs
Depends on culture only
Changes depending on context


According to Kierkegaard, which of the following is not a stage of life?
Religious stage
Aesthetic stage
Ethical stage
Intellectual stage


One true test of a belief is what you're willing to undergo to uphold it. Socrates is a man of principle because he was willing to die for what he believed in. This is ironic: Athens was a hotbed of learning. The death sentence of a man who simply asked questions proved that the state was attempting to control the thoughts of citizens.

Plato returns to the idea of change. Socrates was concerned with moral philosophy and human interaction, and Plato attempted to unify a theory of the natural world with one of humanity. Plato was Socrates' pupil, and so clearly much of his work was influenced by Socrates. [...in a chronological manner, but she still takes the philosophy of each as a separate entity.] Philosophy definitely builds upon itself, but it is important not to forget that each philosopher is an individual thinker capable of coming up with unique ideas. [...] Plato would not have been the great philosopher that he was if he had not been taught by Socrates, but his education did not make his ideas inevitable. The history of philosophy is not necessarily additive. Thinkers use and respond to the ideas of those before them, but this does not mean they are following some necessary progression in the history of thought. 

Challenge the status quo. Think beyond the routines of daily life. Sacrificing one's life for one's principles is the right thing to do.

The irony that philosophy is something that everyone should be interested in because the questions it addresses apply to everyone

Spinoza, heavily influenced by Descartes, he was the first to suggest that the Bible be read critically. He was persecuted for his beliefs, and his own family even deserted him. Spinoza viewed the world itself as a part of God. He rejected Descartes's dualism and believed that thought and extension are simply two of God's features that we can perceive. He had a deterministic view of the world, believing that God controlled all through natural laws. Spinoza felt that only God was truly free but that people could attain happiness through seeing things "from the perspective of eternity.

Hume was the greatest of the empiricists and had a tremendous influence on Kant, a later philosopher. Hume was concerned with cleaning up our thoughts. He believed that perception was made up of "impressions" and "ideas". Impressions are how we experience the world, and ideas are what we recall of our impressions. Both ideas and impressions can be simple or complex, but complex ideas can be made through our imagination—an angel is one example. He wanted to examine our complex ideas in order to throw out everything that did not stem directly from impressions. He pointed out that we have no unchanging ego, since what we perceive as ourselves is in reality a huge number of perceptions that change rapidly. The Buddha also believed this, and both he and Hume opposed the idea of an eternal soul. Hume was an agnostic.

Hume believed that what we cannot know for sure that what we call laws of nature are unbreakable. Just because every time we have seen a stone dropped it has fallen to the ground does not mean that it has to do so. We simply expect it to fall. We impose our idea of cause and effect on the world. We perceive a billiard ball hitting another and decide that the first causes the movement of the second. In reality, all we have seen is that the second moves after and we ascribe causality to what we have seen occur again and again. Hume also pointed out that we act in accord with our feelings, not our reason. He warned against concluding that what is is what ought to be.

Good info

1. Scholarly vs. Professional
2. Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs
3. 
   
• Beyond the Confidence Interval
• Confidence intervals for the number needed to treat

SEP highlights

• http://marker.to/XdmNZy
• 
  

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/magazine/does-the-golden-rule-hold-up-in-modern-society.html?_r=0&pagewanted=print

October 25, 2013

Does the Golden Rule Hold Up in Modern Society?

By CHUCK KLOSTERMAN

• want to be treated in a manner that accounts for the possibility that other people can’t predict what I want
• want to be treated in a manner that does not assume all people are the same
• never want anyone else to automatically impose their preferences upon my life

119 Comments

• Greg
• New York

Your Golden Rule response is ridiculously overthought, to the point of nonsense. The phrase simply means to treat others with fairness and compassion, as any -- indeed, all -- of us would choose to be treated.

• Sajwert
• NH

Ask yourself if you want to be cheated, or stolen from, or lied to, or treated rudely with contempt, do you want to be ignored, denigrated because you are a skin color you can do nothing about, belong to a church that someone else doesn't, do you want this? If the answer is a resounding no, then you don't do it to anyone else.

• Rev. E.M. Camarena, Ph.D.
• Hells Kitchen, NYC

Saroyan, among others, wanted to see if it is possible to lead what he called a civilized life, meaning - to him - a life that would not hurt anybody else. But that is an impossible standard. We cannot be responsible for how other people feel about what we do. The golden rule means we should not ACTIVELY do things to someone that would bother us should they do it to us.

• Che Beauchard
• Manhattan
• 
  

One tends toward literal interpretations of rules when one is seeking legal loopholes, not when one is seeking insight into how one can be ethical. I suggest a more generous and less legalistic reading.

• Brian Wood
• 95415

The Ethicist makes The Golden Rule more complicated than is needed. Think of it the same way as the phrase "All men are created equal". Both phrases are concise ways of stating the correctness of individuals being afforded equal opportunity in a just society.

All people are obviously NOT created equal, but deserve an equal opportunity to achieve what they might.

As for The Golden Rule, one obviously cannot know how all others want to be treated. Nor, by the way, would it necessarily be ethical to treat each individual how he or she wants to be treated, as that could interfere with how others perceive their own treatment (i.e. I want you to treat me as more important than my brother). It is silly to try to parse the Golden Rule in such a literal way. The Golden Rule is shorthand for saying all individuals deserve freedom from oppression by others, as well as consideration for their particular needs.

Consequentialism

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/opinion/in-charitable-giving-no-hierarchy-of-goodness.html?_r=0&pagewanted=print

August 10, 2013

Good Charity, Bad Charity

By PETER SINGER

• many people appear to have irrational attitudes toward the small risks of very bad things happening
• we will achieve more if we help those in extreme poverty in developing countries, as our dollars go much further there. But the choice between, say, helping the global poor directly, and helping them, and all future generations, by trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, is more difficult
•  new developments are making these decisions easier
• charity evaluator GiveWell
• More experimental is GiveDirectly, which will transfer at least 90 cents of every dollar you give to an extremely low-income African family
• “Effective altruism"
• Thinking about which fields offer the most positive impact for your time and money is still in its infancy, but with more effective altruists researching the issues, we are starting to see real progress.

In Charitable Giving, No ‘Hierarchy of Goodness’

To the Editor:

• people give more, and more consistently, when pursuing their personal convictions

MELISSA A. BERMAN
President and Chief Executive
Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors

It is not a choice of giving to one or the other; neither is a “bad charity.”

ROBERT S. GREEN
New York, Aug. 11, 2013

Without the arts, life is not worth living.

BARBARA BARRAN
Brooklyn, Aug. 11, 2013