Moral Reasoning 22 - Lecture ACT/OMISSION - different moral things 1, Motive argument -general moral principles - more back and forth between moral principles - incentive to revise one or the other when they conflict II. Arguments that looked at the consequences ~ more concerned about the inherent quality of the act ??? ‘Two _braod types of moral arguments 1. Consequential -- Utilitarianism - Jeremy Bentham, J.S. Mill 2. Categorical - Kant relationship between morals and political philosophy on two accounts 1) philosophy is a repository of ideas, policitecs is the realm of reality in which we try to acquire to the ideal form in ¥ philosophy. "gap between theory and practice" 2) are practices bound with philosophy and theory to begin with. = we are committed to some philsophcial conjecture.Moral Reasoning 22 -- Lecture Consequential / Categorical association between philosophy and politics external view = "philosophy is a friend” internal view = "tensio- between phil and pol Kant: “skepticism is a resting place but changing" Moral philosophy (principles) -- Dudley 4 Stephe-ns Utilitariansim - species of consequential argument - we must speak of results Jeremy Bentham (1748) - political radical - "Introduction to POlitical Morals" - basic principles of utilitraianism “to act as to produce the greatest good for the greatest number" - Maximize utility - pain/ pleasure - supreme moral principle for 1) individuals 2) legislators - a little more complicated than for individuals - sum of the individulas who are also balanced by the pain/ pleasure principle --) not obvious why its wrong. -- widely current -- economists = maximize utilityUtilitarianism cont'd strengths: 1) simple and clear - non-metaphysical - = no such thing as natural law natural rights - clear and simple standard - moral psychology preent in all as foundation 2) No other alternatives - the world will be better if you follow this view. Objections 1) utilitarianism assumes homogeneity nbetween pleasure and pain homogeneity of value ==) utilities or dollars are these values incommensurable PINTO case putting cost/benefit analysis in the past - some values can be ascribed utils Bentham's ansewr: - problem was in the application and not in the principles - we do © not put value on life in dollar terms Next week ++ next two objections27 September 1983 Moral Reasoning 22 -- Lecture 1) Homogeneity of pain & pleasure 2) higher / lower 3) justice - utilitarianism has no room for individual rights Higher / Lower forms of pleasures - not just the quantity or interesting of pleasures - some pleasures are nobler than others - for Bentham ==) quantitative considerations wer important - 3.8, Mill gave concessions on higher/lower pleasures --"it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied" Justice/Rights - most common and most important objection to utilitarianism - impossible to account for justice ==) doing right by individuals may = may be contrary to social benefis - ubilitarianism rational calculus for criminal law = JUSTICE - individula rights objections was recognized by Mill “gustice is a virtue that can't be compromised”- but the issue is why justice and individual rights # need be so respected - happiness of human life (long-term, globally) 1 is increased by justice. - justice grounded in utility is the most stable justéce. the general reason why this argument is not effective is the distinction between persona and societies. - utilitarianism derives a certain naturalness by borrowing from the individual case. “Fallacy of composition” -utilitarianism is a powerful stand in the morla intuitions of our civiization Theory of Rights -- the draft.27 September 1983 Objections to Bentham's Utilitarianism I. Homogeneity of value - that everything can be cashed out in a single value case: Ford Pinto * value given to human life was woefully small case: Edward Thorndike's experiment with electric shocks pleasure / pain case: St. Anne's College translate old-fashioned moral arguments into arguments of utility II. Distinction between higher & lower pleasures * Bentham: the higher pleasures are those that give mkore and longer pleasure * 3.8. Mill: celebrates higher virtures associated with independent thought. "It is better to be human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied." - how to distinguish between higher & lower pleasures and maintain calculus of utilitarianism. J.S. Mill --) those that I prefer are higher pleasuresTT. Impossible to account for justice ** because individula right at odds with gain of society case: penal reform * purpose of criminal law is not to instill virtue or destroy vice but to protect society from harm * therefore, wrong to punish an innocent because it does no social good. e.g. hang an innocent bystander at avoid mob torture a suspected terrorist argument: failure to do justice in particular case response: if punish innocent. even if for short-term good people would live in fear, thus subtracting from social utility counter argument: is it wrong to 4#2% kill solely because it scares others response: is ending a happy life, taking happiness away from others counter argument: then kill an unhappy person Mill: Justice was the single most thorniest objection to utilitarianism ** justice cannot be compromised --) what is at issue. ny is justice so important. --) because happiness of human kind is best served when justice is upheld29 September 1983 Moral Reasoning 22 -- Lecture Draft 1862 -- Civil war 1863 flat fee to the gov't for defferal - Midwest and New York draft riots. - Civil War was the last time people could buy themselves out of the draft. Vietnam War - local draft boards determined who went - student deferments - All-Volunteer Army - Pres. Carter reinstitutes draft re stration arguments against the Draft STRONG thesis q ~ form of enslavement - the state uses it as instruments for its own purposes WEAK thesis - even if the draft is not exactly enslavement --) it is a form of inefficent and unfair taxation Objections to the draft policy analysis 1) inequality in the background conditions “poor man's army" groups 2,3 white market scheme = volunteer army - substitue compulsion = call to serve comes from economic necessity rather than from draft boards or personal preferences.2) military serviees is a special kin of work i. risk of life ii, obligation iii. privilige -- obligation of citizenship Responses to objectiosn to the draft 1) reaction to inequality -- -- look again @ 2,3 still better off with wage - same as for the trash collector 2) beyond economics - insurance scheme, actual, - life is in dollar terms - we do pay people to risk their lives - is it better ot pay people to risk their lives or force people to risk their lives. privilige and eb§- obligation - is military service realgy a privilige? = where does risk and obligation come from and what other obligations do we have? - what about conscripted soldiers - where is passive consent? implicit in the market-oriented argument and the objections and counter arguments are several strands of political philopsophy.4 October 1983 Arguments for the Draft I. philosophical vs technical - inability to attract high quality soldiers Sandel: this is not an argument outside philosophy protections is a very important moral consideration II. draft is an inevitalbe kind of tax evidente: $1500 buy out in Civil war III. neglect to consider interest of state as a whole * everybody loses if state s loses a war Sandel: does state have an interest greater than the sum of interests of individuals STRONG THESIS: draft is like slavery WEAK THESIS: draft is like unfair tax * inequitable because imposes unfair burden on those selected by lottery * inefficient possible to devise taxes Objections: Economics =-) not really volunary --) tests circumstances II. Beyond Economics * privileges and obligations = not just another job - duty to the stateIssues of Political Philosophy 1. Rights 2. Obligations 3. Inequality / Equality Addressed by: A. LIBERTARIAN THEORY 3. Inequality * volunteer army reflects inequality of society, does not cause it * increases list of options for those who have the fewest * not logically inconsistent to a favor - volunteer army where inequality few - draft army where inequality geeatest EQUALITY : what does it have to do with justice? “moral presumption in favor of equality” Nozick: “no natural connections between equality & justice * in any society, people situated differently * cannot tell whether society is unjust by merely looking at D(¥) * must look at how this D(¥) came about a) END-STATE e.g. utilitarianism: all it needs to know is balance of pain/ pleasureb) HISTORICAL - inquire into history of DIY i) Pattern - but examine this history according to pre-determined dimension ii) Entitlement: does not have pre-determined state of world or formula 2 Principles of Entitlement I, Acquisition: how people acquired goods? e.g. by complex chain of voluntary excahnges II. Transfer : given justice in acquisition, justice in transfer Liberty is the centrepiece of justice contrasts to end-state - liberty upsets justice according to equality vs. pattern a) conflicts with liberty of individuals b) intervening to set © world equal is wrong/unjust casi : order a society according to whatever principal you wish i.e. egalitarianism case: Reggie Jackson case: can you justify income tax with entitlement NO...right to tax what is earned thru voluntary exchange RIGHT to do what we one wh wants with one's property OBLIGATION to respect other people's property rights6 October 1983 LIBERTARTANISM egalitarian: society starts out with equal distribution - ends up with unequal therefore, tax some of richer - if you believed initial situation was just then how can you believe the end result is just unless believe in free voluntary exchange... --) distribution will never return to initial equality. NOZICK 1, Liberty upsets patterms to maintain equality will have to interfere in markets * for some reason it is wrong for a theif to steal and give to United Way...same for IRS * theft and taxation are both wrong because both are coercive =-) no taxation policy with goal of redistribution is just * compassion and charity should be a matter of individual choice. ENTITLEMENT justice in a) ACQUISITION in initial holdings b) TRANSFER subsequent exchanges a) is met by allowing anyone to bracket ént initial distribution b) is met by allowing voluntary exchangecase: Reggie Jackson collecting 25¢ OBJECTIONS 1. unfair to fans * don't want to pay 50¢ but want to see team 2. unfair to teammates Reggies as member of society has obliga- tion to make a contribution to society. 4, What about need * people in society who need money more than Reggie...extra $1 means more to poor than to the rich. dim marginal utility of money RESPONSE - sma same moral issue arises for base salary - contracts are voluntarily agreed to = people will buy tickets if they want to - team is a voluntary assoc. = no one coerced the other players into their contracts - Reggie's contribution is to hit baseballs dim MU of money is difficult to estimate 2. are we committed to principle from moral point of view? UTILITARTAN argument for progressive income tax JUSTICE means tak treating people fairly in individual case...wrong to thing you can extend calculus between people because we are fundamentlly different individuals 5. in real world do not start w/ equal D($,power ,wealth) * weak link is question of acquisition of én initial holdings How propery arises 1. ownership tied to production before distributive questions arise, propery is already attached 2. LAND is the exception Theory of ProperyTHEORY OF PRIVATE PROPERTY: LOCKE, ** inserted quote from (p.27) “Prom all which it is evident, that though the things of nature are given in common, yet man, by being master of himself, and proprietor of his own person, and the actions or labour of it, had still in himself the great foundation of propert: 0 * earth given in common to man - private property arises when a person mixes his/her labour with land a) so long as what I acquire leaves enough for others b) there can be no waste * morally entitled to what acquire until I use all I acquire c) solong as I acquire what I mix my labour with Locke: PROPERTY IN : Self-possession 1. every person has a property in his or her own person Labor * what I decide to do with my person 3. Fruits of my labour * therefore taxation is equivalent to forced labour * tagation is morally tantamount to slavery11 October 1983 OBJECTIONS TO _LIBERTARTANISM Are we sole owners of produce of our labour? YES Locke: property in 1) his own person 2) his labour 3) by mixing labour to land makes both a) fruit and b) akn land his property Nozick: patterned principles of justice is equal to someone forcing you to work for them, thus they own part of you. No Objections to labour / property link A. taxation is not morally on par with forced labour * element of choice when state taxes % of fruit of labor vs. % of labor hours * because get satisfaction from work whereas none with forced labor B. people have a vote of what taxes should be and how they should be spent. C. richer scheme of externalities goes into a person's income than free-market exchange i.e. a society cultivates us, makes us what we are.Response to objections to labor / property link A. Difference between taxation and forced labour Nozick: person who chooses to work more to make up difference that IRS makes a choice between work and leisure Extrenalities: part of ¥ = rent tax system captures rent tax system is justified to repay what we pay for * but we've decided it is mkore more effective efficient to state to undertake these functions ~-) none of these have anything to do with redistribution II, Link between person and labour objections A. in exchange for being a part of society =-) give part of person B. can still be free of mind C. vote in a democracy to D. Fortune: some of attributes I have aren't really more than a consequence of fortune Response C. Democratic argument: we can vote whatever we want can legislature pass laws to force people to work if democracy is so morally powerful to enslave what is so good about democracy E. Collective Good : must be balanced against theory of individual rights EXTERNALITIES --) sale of blood13 October 1983 LIBERTARIANISM Summary of objections: 1) Taxation and forced labor * because gives greater utility * because we have choice 2) Vote 3) Need * wrong to claim fruit exclusively 4) Luck * in having abilities others don't have * therefore, wrong to think we have a right 5) Members of society * we need other people to earn what we do Responses: 1) when thief steals TV, lose less utility than if he steals $500 to pay TV, but still wrong 2) because people vote, does not mean vote is necessarily right 3) this is argument for voluntary charity * unless wish to contest property rights 4) contribution was made originally 5) externalities do no provide argument for redistribution but for more pay-as-you-go taxationQuestion self-possession A) if deny self-possession are you willing to apply it across the board e.g. 1) abortion 2) Yaz: force him to play since we are part-owners of Yaz since we pay his salary. INALIENABLE RIGHT: so profoundly a part of me that even I can't deal it away e.g. life, liberty --) non-transferable therefore, suicide violates against inalienable right of living (life) slavery violates against inalienable right of liberty significance * since everything we have aren't ours to trade away it follows that neither can the state * even if by consent of governed/legislature since no one can trade away mkore power than he had in himself * based on laws of nature antecedent to those of saate...and these laws claim life and liberty to be inalienable. Why not a liberal God ? * that is, concession on self-possesion does not open way to abusing peopleARBITRARINESS OF FORTUNE * if will allow community to have property rights in me how will you prevent range of abuses LIBERAL / EGALITARIAN THEORY (welfare state liberals) * theory that respects dignity of individuals * without infringing upon property rights property in person is too crude, protects -- a) too little do not protect social / economic rights b) too much things that aren't basic rights are included DWORKIN: certain individual rights so morally weights that even considerations of utilitarianism can deny 1) what is it to have a right ? 2) what rights do we have 2 3) of what virtue do we have right ? NoZICK DWORKIN 1) specia-ly weighted : thing that can't be compromised 2) to liberty denies free choice if all liberty means is to volutary/free exchange absence of #¥ contraints too many things that interfere with liberty --) this idea of liberty constantly compromised for other considerationsNOZICK ties justice to liberty where liberty finds expression in property rights 3) on Locke xight to liberty & property SIMILARITIES 1) opposed to utilitarianism 2) DWORKIN to equal respect and concern (does not mean equal wealth to all ) gov't cannot weigh preferences of some more than others --) state must be neutral therefore, right to distinct liberties right to equality not liberty on Kant --founded on human not property 3) difference between a moral and legal rights -- moral is not determined by what state decides 4) just society will be one where legal and moral Fights eek coincide.Moral Reasoning 22 18 October 1983 Lecture 1) libertatian 2) Liberal/egalitarian -) =) -) property rights human rights fundamental, fundamental right right to liberty to equality laissez-faire gov't must treat politics and people with economics equal concern and respect Lockenan argument Kant - Kant's philosopical foundation of the 2nd liberal conception of rights Kaat is difficult - liberals believe what he wrote the reason that the individula is sacred comes from the fact that we are - autonomous and - rational beings we have the capacity for reason & freedom capacity for pain or pleasure = satisfaction etc. - sensient creatures rational capcacity makes us special we think of freedom = absence of constrains on our decisions. notion of freedo when we seek after pleasure or the avoidance of pain as is animals = we are not free but are slaves to our appetites or desires "special demainding sense of the term" - i.e. we are not autonomous-- therefore, - to act free is not to act according to the laws or determination of nature, but to act according to a law I set for myself. - to choose the end for itself - freedom is opposed to necessity - €xee - necessity is related to nature cause & effect - we would always be the instruments of external forces in nature. - i.e. not the product of our will. Heteronomy Autonomy, - under the sway of - influences the chain external influences of necessity Heteronomous determination - "for the sake of something else, and something se else, etc. " autonomous - we cease to be instruments - we act and will ourselves to ends in themselves gives humanity its special dignity -intrinsic value = notion of dignity, Kant's conception of freedom and autonomy and his conception of morality. AUTONOMY / HETERONOMY FREEDOM / NECESSITY DIGNITY / PRICE CATEGORICAL / HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVE / IMPERATIVEsupreme principle of moarlity for Kant act in such a way that you treat humanity always as an end and never simply as a means * categorical imperative "moral law or supreme principle of morality" - commands universally that does not depend on the particular circumstances "not relative" - wheras hypothetical imperative is relative respecting human dignity means = regarding people not as means but as ends - from a Kantian emphasis utilitarianism is wrong - begin with the idea of duty - which is the ideal of dignity similarities: Kant Locke against utilitarianism inaiianable rights duty to oneself oppose suicide oppose suicide = dignity to - inalianable rights oneself - we don't own ourgelves that much. In the Lockean conception - inequality may arise from differences in property possesion Kantian -- sanctity and dignity of the person - respect for persons- the relative value of what I have may be very large but I have no special claim to that value 4+ rational capacities are common to human begins as such. - leads the way open for a certain egalitarian possiblitie - different foundation to the idea of human dignity - right to treatment as an equal. - requirement for human dignity and respect = changes in time and space - political rights, social rights etc, tec. what respect do persons erquire? ++) what does equal practice entail in our society? - to be tee treated not as a means but always as an end. - does remove our objection by saying that there is a human dignity that doen'st depend on self=possesion. two theories of rights:two theories of justice based on rights LIBERTARIAN LIBERAL/EGALITARIAN Nozick Dworking Locke ** Kant ** - respect for - reppect for persons/ property human dignity - fundamental right to eguality opposed to opposed to utilitarianism utilitarianism define our contemporary political agenda liberals - conservatives - we still know that this idea of comman assets. - consider the possibliity that perhaps these two theories can be a basis for political morality - both emphasize rights and take individual rights seriously - both reppect rights and individual freedom in the way that requires the state to take a certain stance toward our values means and ends. central to assumption -- the state must be neutral between its citizens -- liberal/egalitarian structure also argues for this - state respect differences between citizens and not favor any one of them as morally s superior Key political thought - theory of justice that is neutral between its citizens regarless of the differences20 October 1983 Moral Reasoning 22 -- Lecture Libertarian Liberal/Egalitarian -- some of my assets are shared assumption concerning neutrality these two theories define the political spectrum inviolability of the peon. -- makes se rights so important -- “sanctity of the person" - gives rise to the idea that the state shouldn't presuppose that any particular life plan should be preferred. - to respect the inviolability of the person means we must respect the differences between people - thus we msut respect our values and ends as long as we respect others. * it is the ultimate offense to insist on any particular conception of the good life Nozick Dworkin -) scroupulously ==) no life style any neutral between better than the other its citizens Liberalism - committment to neutrality - problem with this vers@8"of liberalism - due to committment to neutrality - both of these theories have been opposed --) Moral Majority against the idea of neutrality-) implicit is the argument of the Moral Majority says that the state should not and could not remove itself from the conception of the good life. - liberal response -- conceptual confusion Moral Majority - respects absolute values only - Jerry Falwell's values are wrong here liberal's are no less absolute than conservatives.25 October 1983 Moral Reasoning 22 -- Lecture Liberal Political Philosophy --) neutrality three argumens against the Tennessee law 1) evolution did no harm to the person 2) the even if evolution was at odds with religious convictions it would not invluence their beliefs bad argument because 1) it my be untrue 2) even if its true, then one might just as well teach creationsim 3) Speeck and teach does no real harm is a statement that is ironic: - speech should be protected because it is harmless thus bespeak a lack of respect for speech. - totalitarianism requires through fear disrespect for free speech entails an understanding of its power of speech and free expression. law at stake violated the right to think this argument does not really say that evolution was right but that there is a right to think - really meant "the right to teach what one thought" the right not to conform or to be forced to conéorm. however, there must be some justification.3) the argument that evolution is true and that creation was wrong whether genesis could literally be true - validity of evolution - of this is the arguemnt then we are not discussing a liberal moral --) it is wrong for the state to impose any views or just wrong views. - what was wrong was that it banned the wrong thing. therefore, it was not the triumph of & free thought but the triuph of a particular thought. * the liberal must be prepared to uphold the view that he proposes eppesition epposition - there is a difference, a distinct assymmetry ~ to teach science and to liave religion out of it. - we as liberals can evade the moral view by insisting on the distinction between science and religion. - doubts: 1) evolution is a theory of the origin of man and of the universe. creationism is also a theory. theories change, but scientists say that they change for the better, not jsut randomly.**) Neutrality asks that the state not favor any moral or religious views over others. - no scientific fact could bear on the validity of any moral conviction. - distinction between science and religion can only be held if the distinction between values and facts hold. - i.e. if science has no bearing on moral and human self understanding. - however, science is these areas border with philosophy and thus border with réligion * thus some science borders on religion. Secular humani - we believe what we do largely by our social condition. 1) equal time 2) find equally public sthools and private schools -- voucher system 3) reject neutrality altogether and teach truth ) good science27 October 1983 3 Policies for teaching biology 1) Equal time - due to inherent impossiblity of being neutral.when teaching biology present 2 versions as theories 2) voucher accept that public school is teaching a religion and, therefore allow people to choose among schools 3) abandon neutrality - teach the truth / darwinism Are we prepared to dispense with liberal concern with neutrality therefore, what is at stake is a verifiable truth by scientific method against competing theories * shows that when opinion is too skewed in favor of one we might be too easy to neglet neutraligy Pornography: Libertarian: let person pose nude if he wants to according to free exchange Liberal/Bgalitariai : we have right to privacy just like right to speech Conservative: pornography is bad, immoral, base ( rejecting conception of neutraiiy and law must reflect what is morally right ) Marcus: this is not a matter of convention or social conditioning...prostitution is morally wrong and laws are supposed to embody moral good.Libertarianism: J.8. Mill: against paternalism, i.e. that state should not legislate its morality sole end mankind may interfere with others or power may be exercised against others - is to protect against harm = not for his own good or make happier - that which eorex concerns himself is absolutely his * allows that higher or lower pleasures - but wrong to compel to live according to any vision of what is supposedly higher (not utilitarian argument that all ways of thinking are equivalent ) --) but still founded on utilitarianism * because greatest human good comes of epople pursuing freedom of their won actions. Tension within liberalism * opposed to legal restrictions on the- vile * wrong for state to legislate against vile practices a) it is a higher good to let people choose for themselves Relativistic liberalism: who is to say what action is better * if liberalism does present some higher pleasures, of the good life then difficult to characterize the neutrality it proclaims1 November 1983 Moral Reasoning 22 -- Lecture 2 Liberal Political theories that define political agenda Similarities: 1, notion of individual rights * certain regarded as so important that common good cannot override them 2. neutrality * state cannot favor certain groups Challenges ) can any theory be neutral ? Liberal predicament @ * how to affirm one's fairth in certain principles if they are merely relative rejoinder: A. rights-based liberalism needs neutrality B. what kind of neutrality 1) of effect: the way it works out 2) of grounds: the way principles are justified --) arguments against neutrality always assgmed neutrality of effect in that case, how can a regulative principle or moral principle constrain certain actions therefore, a sense of neutrality does not lie in effect ==) to be fair is to respect rights to respect rights is to be neutralcase: judges decision --) its effect is not unfair or partial because one loses / one wins --) the grounds for the decision must be neutral * therefore, justice would be undermined if judge is partial to one side before hearing the case GROUNDS OF JUSTICE 1. some conception of the good 2. the highest principles are those that serve the best good Aristotl “every action aimed at some good" J.S. Mill: "all action for sake of some and all rules take their validity to the end to which they are subservient" therefore, want those principles which embody the highest good political community that regulates itself by those ends cannot be neutral... not only in effect but also in gorunds. case: Aristotle “law must be a rule of life such that it will make members good and just" =-) the- does not make rights prior * takes common good as central concern therefore, neutral in neither of two senses therefore, no neutralGround Rights in the Utility teleology: J.S. Mill: reconciles idea of a grounding of principles of the good and still accomodate rights to have a right, is something society ought to defend becasue of general utility, rights matter to depend on * what makes justice so important * what makes rights so important is their utility in the broadest sense " "wk & utility is the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions" Objectio! * not taking rights seriously ---) because utility may take precedent over rights * vights thus groundeed are insecure KANT: “ grounding rights on contingent empirical circumstances is no consistent with human freedom " Ground Rights on Freedom of Mind Kant: "concpet of right is grounded on freedom * latter end must no interfere with law of right because men have differend idea of latter and of happiness " * where can principles be found if not human happiness, human nature etc. * pure reason... based on autonomycase: pornography * how is it possible to justify something bad? * if bad, should be opposed on morally grounds? Liberal: it is a terrible thing but it is even more terrible not to allow it to go on. Permit a Prima Facie bad I. Relativist : who's to say it's bad * all values are relative II. Purposive permitting this bad will serve the good * some higher purpose will be served III. Freedom +: wrong / coercieve/ offensive of our dignity of persons * won't stop it. 3 Cases: A Dates B Core Curriculum C Pornography A. Dates I who's to say she's bad * its a matter of taste IT even if there is such a thing as better womaon for him, he must learn on his won * prudent to let him go because he willlike her more if we stop him III who are parent to interfere. hist independence «must respect * not right to interfere.B. Core Curriculum I who knows which is intrinsically more valuable II. we know the difference between good and bad courses * must no constrain * part of a good education means learning from our own mistakes III, inappropriate paternalism a) liberal arys means making your own choice b) students have a right to choose * paid for thier education C. Pornography I. people have different tasts=e II. free market place will drive out bad publications * make better citizens by ate allowing them o to choose III. no freedom to impose * it is unjust * people have categorical right to choose i) teleological ii) categorical } which of these 3 gounds could rescue liberalism from predicament:I, Relativist * if all values relative * how is it possible to affirm anything including liberal principles II. Teleological * how can liberalism maintain neutrality * vision of goood which upholds rights could undercut those rights III. Categorical * need a mkoral law * derived from a categorical conept of freedom therefore, secure rights on something which is not controversial. Political Theory * insists on freedom as prior to the good Ancient Theory +: notion of the good hobbes: "there is no final aim no highest good as was assumed by old we mke-moral philosophers but once abandon notion of a highest good problem becomes how to affirm anything or arrive at principles of justice * falls to man to conceive himself as embodiment of pure reason * to look at that reason as the source of the principles that regulate our moral lives Kant: * start not with a human good but with human freedom * start with a world without morals and use human reason to arrive at moral reason.3 November 1983 Moral Reasoning 22 -- Lecture --) no principle of m justice, no matter how liberal can be equality in effect vights-based justice =-) equality of grounds - nonteleological (telos - purpose or aims ) teleological moral theory is a theory taht deals with human purposes or aims no teleological explanation can do for #- rights based justice - no teleological justification to provide a neutral grounding. Incentives to find a non-teleological grounding (neutral grounding 1) in order to rights categorically seriously 2_ ensure freedom I, teleological principles leave rights vulnerable =-) they depend on their service to the good - e.g. utility etc. \ happiness) - maybe we shouldn't take rights any more w seriously - if you want categorical rights you can't argue for them on categorical grounds II. comes out of our discussion of Kant - neutrality is necessary for freedom - different people have different ends, differnent conceptions of happiness - h any attempt to impose a particular end or conception of good is to impose some conception of good on peoplethis is a bid of coercion way freedom as a human being aan be expressed in the foltowing formula "each may do as long as he sees fit so long as he donst infring on the freedom of others” Two different ways of arguing the principles of JUSTICE Teleological (purposes ) --) notion of yood Categorical (freedom ) --) Kantian sense - the whole concept of an external right is arrived at by the concept of neutral freedom among rational beings Teleological - two examples of thi 1) Aristotle - teleological in the way that characterized its difference - the ru aim is a rule of life that will make the police good and just. 2) John Stuart Mill wants to be a liberal argues for a storng consideration of righst. in this way he sounds like a Kantian liberal - against paternalism imposing particular conception of the goodl- to have a right is social - society must defend - but, Mill argues for rights etc. - not for categorical reasons but for the reasons of general utility - ultimate appeal on all ethical questions is utlity. - Mill is a closet teleological KANT categorically given rights - freedom has a claim on us...independent of the happiness it may bring on us. MILL teleologically given rights --) thence are these two sections or vocabularies in our moral discourse? Kant's answer to this question = tow do we find a moral law that resolves these stringent requirements? - B#ERe reason - pure is the sense that is not contaminated by emipiraal ends. - wholly undetermined - a priori determination - freedom gournds the meavi-2ay moral law - not that each person has his wenown moral 3w law - categorical imperative is singularJohn Rawls the we who do the will are not particular but we are embodiments of pure reason we is a single we of persons that legislate. - tries to save categorical rights based liberalism from the complications and obscurities of the Kantian grounding --) translates this view - think of principles of justice as the product of an origianl contract under certain conditions enter that operations w/o knowing what our particular situations and differentiates characteristics/ those principles ef if formulated would meet the requirements of the categorical idea we need to detach the surrounding of Kant's doctrine from its metaphysical grounding. RAWLS is a this social contract is designed to do just that. vights-based liberal in two respects: 1) taking rights seriously agaisnt the utilitarian calculus 2) principles of justice not dedicated to a particular conception of the good nonteleological1) we had three oringinal objections to utilitarianism - doesn't respect rights Rawls theyex- theory develops that objection utilitarianism fails to take into account the distinctions between persons. - it is a mistake to think that the principle for one persom 0 sacrifice now for hapinness later - cannot be applied to a whole society - in this way some people will be used as means. 2) Teleology as such is misconceived - whenever a society seeks to maximize a good some liberties are trespassed - how does social contract they theory or consent theory provide a solution? - 17th century with Hobbes --) modern liberal political theory --) there is no summun bonum = also with Hobbess that the social contract political theory comes into play at the same tjime that the idea of a highest good is rejected - #8 a social contract theory it is possible to answer at justice by agreement in a world that doesn't give a preconceived idea of the good - human beings can arrive at these principles of justice w/0 starting out with some conception of the good.- contract theory ensures individula rights = collective act of consent that any one of us could veto.8 November 1983 Moral Reasoning 22 -- Lecture Hypothetical Contract * where we don't know some things about ourselves. "veil of ignorance" 1) discount all differences between people 2) removing bias or prejudice 3) avoiding any particular conception of the good Two parts of the Theory I. Hypothetical imperative II. Arguments that his two principles of justice would spin out from this hypothetical imperative. ? What goes on in the hypothetical imperative ?? ) rights-based rather than utilitarian liberal / egalitarian ** non-teleological grounding Social Contract Theory - idea of contract and consent came up in draft argument "passive consent" John Locke ch. 8 - “political community ... arise in the first place by virtue of primordial consent"Locke acit consent" ... just about all of us -- distinction between moral force of the ar agreements and the moral force behind the principles - hypothetical contract is not a contract but as if it were (aren't real contracts: - point to independent principles - why are avgy agreements so morally sacred ? HUME_ - argued against social contract |ORALITY OF CONTRACT different views 1) contract is an 2) instruments of will, instrument of mutula benefit. free choice - deal of reciprocity - ideal of autonomy - morality depends on underlying fairness - points to the contract as the choice for - kpoints through the the justification contract to an antecedent - highlights a more general principle10 November 1983 Moral Reasoning 22 -- Lecture Contract Theory 1) why do contracts morally bind us? 2) how do contracts justify the terms they produce? * contracts aren't morally self-sufficient 1) WHY? last time brought up 2 reasons autonomy --) 1) because I agreed to it +++ I voluntarily agreed to it 2) I am obligated to keep our end of the deal because you kept your part of the deal Autonomy -- act of will second part of the answer - reciprocity --) underlying fairness of the exchange ideal of autonomy a/ : ideal of reciprocity / ~~) independent related to the question --) is it fair to what they agreed to? - its not the agreement that makes it fair but is it fair what they agreed to ? * Asymettry in the way in which these two ideals relate contracts to the terms they entail * pure procedural justice- if the procedure is carried out --) the result is fair = no independent criteria to justify fairness perfect Tnperfect Procedural justi ce - approximate a fair distribution interms of the procedure - criminal trial - fair outcome if the guilty are punished and the innocent are acquitted - there is a £# fair outcome which can be determined independently © form the outcome of the criminal trial - procedure isnt' guaranteed to achieve a fair result Gambling Pure Trial Imperfect Procedural Justice Cake Perfect = both perfect and imperfect arrive at an independent standard of 3 fairness - the only way a contract can justify the terms it produces if it is pure preed-pred procedural justice - no real life eentt- contract is a case of pure procedural justice --) it is always possible to ask of any contract --) is it fair to what they agreed to.* Aren't self-sufficient moral instruments 1) no real life contracts are mired in contingency --) one or another of the parties may be disadvantaged or decieved - difference in knowledge - this contingency undermined the mke moral basis of autonomy 2) ever even where actual results are fair, it isn't the contracts themselves that are fair - a contract or a promise is a social fact as a convention. - contracts and promises depend on some moral principle indepedent of contracts Two possible objections 1) once we rule out coercion and threats we can find a whole range of justifiable contracts. - we don't need our independent criteria 2) all exchanges including so called coercion are fair because they resulted in the exchange of equivalents ) the agreement demonstrated my value of X **0 a value is subjective ) assumes that the values of the things that we exchange are objective.15 November 1983 Moral Reasoning 22 Lecture ontract Theory - contracts arennt self sufficient moral arrangements ==) it #8 always makes sense to ask is it * fair to what they agreed to? - coerced consent is no consent at all --) aren't really contracts ==) two objections to the idea that contracts are inherently fai: 1) onee you rule out coercion it is possible to identify a range of self0sufficient contracts - coercion and deception are special cases of unequal contracts - = so long as consent is genuine --) the deal is just 2) all exchanges including coerced ones are fair by definition invoke an exchange of equivalents - guaranteed to be of equal value - subjectivity of value ) not because it sanctifies the agreement but becasue it brings X or reveals) the value 6 to me. - ** condition of reciprocity - nothing wrong so long as it was worth it to you.Thomas Hobbes - in the Leviathan book I - "measure of value is measured by ation of the contractors " - ideal of reciprocity is guaranteed to be met. 1st objections to these: 1) ridiculous 2) wholly subjective idea of value is wrong - I can misidentify my interests or needs... how could I ever look back and say i did something wrong, regret - be capable of genuine deliberation --) objection to lst objection - we need to know grounds - i.e. why are coercive exchanges unjust --) both fail to realize the ideals implicity in contractual justification e.g. autonomy and reciprocity -) something imposed from outside =-) autonomy argument -) deception --) against reciprocity * difference is not between coercive and noncoercive but between autonomy and heteronomy and obstacles to such however the case* differences of power and knowledge are always present ~) actual contracts are not self-sufficient moral instruments - not be self justifying but parasit¥e on independent criteria. * imagine a contract in which ideals of autonomy and reciprocity were guaranteed - everyone equal - subject of this contract --) the principles to govern our lives, assign our rights etc. - a contract like this would allow no room for coercion, deception etc. ) pure procedural justice ** hypothetical agreement ) Rawls solution of how to arrive at Principles of Justice - agreement in an original position ) "veil of ignorance" ==) no aims, values or conception of the good assumes equality of power and knowledge * brings us to a certain irony - began thinking about a hypothetical contract with the analogy of a real life social contract - hypothetical contract is the next best thing -) better thing than being there * stronger moral basis than real contracts rather a pure form of a actual contractHypothetical contra ct self-sufficient moral instrument doesn't dppend on it actually happening - rather a way of thinkging and receives moral realization principles of justice 3 advantages of veil of ignorance 1) by bracketing inequalityies --) morally fair 2) brackets conception of goods compels interests and ends --) neutral ge grounding 3) makes an agreement possible --) amke- make unanimity possible What principles would we have chosen? two principles for Rawls 1) would be equal basic liberty - each of us the right to the most extensive list of basic liberties compatible with others - e.g. liberty of conscience freedom of speech right to vote etc. 2) social and economic inequalities would have two restraints * 1) greatest benefit to the least well off --) difference principle 2) equality of opportunity -- attached to offices and positions open to all.- why would they agree to these two? ~-) thought experiment is available to all of us. Rawl's reasons - they would say there is no way to win special values for me ) but IT want to prevent a scheme in which others get special benefits ) this goes to equality of liberty - I don't know where I'll end up --) would waht equal distribution further thought --) why don't we say that those least well off --) greatest benefit - allow for those inequalities - if the worst off are better off - "egalitarian" difference principle --) would reject utilitarianism Libertarianism = no one would want to - for a similar reason take the chance of | being sacrificed for - 9 wouldn't want to wind some common good up in a society in which they were not | able to compete --) difference principle* How egalitarian is the difference principle ? 1) is egalitarian --) underlying inspiration is a tendency to equality 2) is not egalitarian in terms of --) we can't say in advance how much equality --) we can arrive at egalitarian results ** ege these arguments need to be made in each such case -- geneeral cultural force -- something importat in the difference principle such that people use it retroaetivaliy rhetoriacally Would these people give rise to these conclusions? 1) assumes people are cautious = but some pe epople would take their chances - some people would take the risk and have an unequal society --) this would mean that we knew our own proclivity to gambling and that too much is at stake and that our fundamental life prospects are at stake - how to come to a neutral grounding postponed the first order decision and first order principles of justice now equipped to return to and s assess ** which of these theoreis can succeed.17 November 1983 Moral Reasoning 22 -- Lecture last tim - completed the move from actual contracts to hypothetical contracts in the original position. --) hypothetical contract is morally more powerful - results are in virtue of them chossing them pure Contractarian decisions --) not that contracts are meaningless but rather that they are not morally self-sufficient --) where is the standard of fairness? Kant the standard of fairness is given by the principles of justice Libertarian theory Justice: volutary transfers in free exchange --) any deal I -ake is just * consent only binds when the background conditions are themselves just -) therefore those background conditions are defined by 1) equal righst and liberties 2) difference principle--) carry this over to socail arrangements in general * for a voluntary exchange to be fair there must be a background of just social arrangements --) require a certain strong measure of equality example of - free market is OK by libertarian * free exchange between consenting adults Rawls: - it depends on the background which may give rise to socially significant differences. voluntary army - free exchange for the libertarian --) egalitarian * poor man's army * in which the libertarian replies by saying that the egalitarian confiises the background inequality with the practice of the voluteer army - egalitarian says --) is it possible to separate the two? * there is some connection between the two. ** to what extent does inequality in the background conditions related to the practice of doing some things only when it:1) constrains rights and liberties 2) doesn't ensure well being of least well off * these are the results of the agreement in the original position -) original position sums up and embodies the implicit moral arguments * this is why these two conditions should constrain our moral positions = depends on the background conditions of equality as the two 4 conditions determine equality As in labor market ) difference in income is only justifiable if these two conditions are met. Difference Principles Rawlsian - differences in wages and the price system aren't justified simple on free exchanges - but also justified on the thought of a layer scheme which benefits the least well off. Libertarian ---- Liberal/Egalitarian 1) contracts - original posiiton behavior & consent 2) not related to original position = but related to the terms of societySection 12 - natural liberty --) arguem against it here How should the important things in life be distributed? * how much and what kn kind of equality is requireded? 1) Libertarian 2) Meritocratic 3) Egalitarian 1) Rawl's starts out with libertairan conception - we let things distribute as they fall --) the one's that are justare the ones that just occurred. Nozick assumes that any result is just --) doesn't give any arguments as to the justice of the initial distribution - if you take this as granted then justice is gauged on an arbitrary nature 2 ) equality of opportunity "at least everyone should have a fair start" - individual who ¥8R8 the race merits the rewards, because the race itself is fair 3) Rawls: the sme same logic that leads to meritocratic from libertarianism leads to democratic/egalitarianism from the meritocratic system. - by the conditions that were granted before the race are no less arbitray.- genetic lottery and cultural lottery are no less arbitrary thatn inherited wealth Egalitarian scheme --) as we are not asking for handicapping the race but the difference principle recasts the terms as which we are entitled to the friits of our labor - difference principle transforms the moral principles of my actions - we don't have sole property over ourselves ** "Tam not the owner but the guardian of the talents that have been given to me " - distribution of talents and abilities as a common asset 2nd_argument - for common assets instead of individual possession Lockean 1) self-possession - we own our assets, talents and abilities etc.