GLOBAL POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
LOUIS POJMAN
Book Outline
11/26/2006
PREFACE
Politics: the art or process of using words to organize people into groups, to create institutions that further our interest, to invent rules of behavior that embody our values and can guide our actions
Political philosophy: the attempt to provide a rational structure for our rules, to make sense of politics, to critically assess and justify institutions and governmental systems
A subset of moral philosophy
Biography: when 16, his school mates firebombed a black family; 1960s civil rights activist; preacher in black church
Reinhold Niebuhr: opposed SDS activity at Columbia University; our freedoms are threatened by anarchic revolutionaries; humans are so sinful that our ideals are likely to be corrupted by flawed character
A WORD TO THE STUDENT
Fall of the Soviet Union, rise in ethnic cleansing and terrorism; 9/11
INTRODUCTION
1. On Political Philosophy
Political philosophy defined: inquiry into the meaning of political concepts and the justification of theories about the nature and purpose of government
Questions: Why should I obey the state? How should the state be constituted? What is the justification of the state? What are the principal functions of the State? Should the state be a national or international body? Should states be nation-states, or cosmopolitan?
Political science is descriptive, political philosophy is prescriptive (how political institutions ought to function)
State and nation
State: has authority over a geographical domain (laws, constitution, institutions)
Nation: a group of people who are tied together through cultural phenomena including ethnic similarity, language, literature, history, myth, religion
One state, many nations (Great Britain); one nation, many states (Korea)
Ferdinand Tonnies distinguishes between community (nation), society (state)
Nation-state: the two are combined
2. The Relationship of Ethics to Political Philosophy
Ethical Relativism and Objectivism
Definitions:
Ethical relativism: the moral rightness and wrongness of actions vary from society to society, and there are no objective universal moral standards binding on all people at all times
Ethical objectivism: even though different societies hold different moral codes, an objective core morality exists, made up of universally valid moral principles
Cultural relativism (descriptive thesis based on anthropological data): different cultures hold different moral codes; there is cultural diversity
Argument for ethical relativism
Diversity thesis: what is considered morally right and wrong varies from society to society, so there are no moral principles that all societies accept (true descriptive thesis of cultural relativism)
Dependency thesis: all moral principles derive their validity from cultural acceptance (Sumner’s view)
Weak view: the application of moral principles depends on one’s culture
Strong view: the moral principles themselves depend on one’s culture
Ethical relativism: therefore, there are no universally valid moral principles, no objective standards that apply to all people everywhere and at all times
Subjective Ethical Relativism (Subjectivism)
Moral judgments are person-relative
Criticism: notions of good and bad cease to have interpersonal evaluative meaning
Conventional Ethical Relativism (Conventionalism)
Argument for intercultural tolerance (anthropologist Melville Herskovits)
If morality is relative to its culture, then there is no independent basis for criticizing the morality of any other culture but one’s own
If there is no independent way of criticizing any other culture, then we ought to be tolerant of the moralities of other cultures
Therefore, we ought to be tolerant of the moralities of other cultures.
Criticisms of ethical relativism
Criticism: argument for tolerance self-refuting since tolerance would be an absolute principle
Criticism: can’t criticize anyone who espouses heinous principles (Hitler’s genocidal actions)
Criticism: moral reformers are always wrong
Criticism: civil disobedience isn’t justifiable
Criticism: unless we have an independent moral basis for law, it is hard to see why we have any general duty to obey it
Criticism: since we are members of different subcultures, we can be morally right and wrong at the same time (e.g., a Catholic having a legal abortion in the US)
Arguments for ethical objectivism
There are some core moral values that we see throughout the world (O.E. Wilson, rejection of the diversity thesis)
There may be diversity in how we apply the moral principles (weak diversity principle), but the moral principles themselves are objective
Moderate Objectivism
Ross’s prima facie duties: there are valid rules of action that one should generally adhere to but that in cases of moral conflict may be overridable by another moral principle
List of ten core principles of morality
Do not kill innocent people
Do not cause unnecessary pain or suffering
Do not steal or cheat
Keep your promises and honor your contracts
Do not deprive another person of his or her freedom
Tel the truth, or at least, don’t lie
Do justice, giving people what they deserve
Reciprocate; show gratitude for services rendered
Help other people, especially when the cost to oneself is minimal
Obey just laws
These principles are necessary for the good life within a flourishing human community
Other rules may apply in special circumstances (e.g., water usage in a desert community; laws permitting polygamy when there are more women than men)
Two Types of Ethical Theories (both objectivist)
Deontological: there are foundational duties that we must follow
Consequentialist: morality depends on the good consequences that result from an action
Act-utilitarianism: an act is right if and only if it results in as much good as any available alternative
Rule-utilitarianism: an act is right if and only if it is required by a rule that is itself a member of a set of rules whose acceptance would lead to greater utility for society than any available alternative
Criticism: we could always create more good consequences by breaking a general rule (e.g., lying to protect someone’s feelings)
Response: three levels of rules (1) general moral rules (e.g., don’t lie), (2) conflict resolving rules (lie to protect someone’s feelings), (3) use your best judgment when no rules apply
Conclusion
I. JUSTIFICATION OF GOVERNMENT: WHY SHOULD I OBEY THE STATE?
Introduction: Political Authority
1. Why Not Anarchism?
Political Anarchism: The state is unjustified because it improperly infringes on human autonomy
Autonomy: self-directed freedom; a fundamental moral absolute, which the state has no right to violate
Positive anarchism (Proudhon): human nature is good, and all forms of government are bad since by restricting us they prevent us from attaining perfection
Negative anarchism (Wolff): human nature is not necessarily good; however, all governmental authority is fundamentally in conflict with human autonomy (and autonomy is essential for morality)
Eradicating governments is impossible, but the governmental authority is illegitimate
Responses to Anarchism
Religious Answer: governments are instituted by God for the protection of the people and the public good
Divine right of kings
Criticism: assumes God exists, that God presides over us, that we can know the will of God
Social Contract and Principle of Consent (Locke, Hobbes): government is based on the consent of the governed
People voluntarily give up to the state their natural freedom in order to have their interest served
Tacit/implied consent to obey through residence (few people explicitly consent)
Criticism (Hume): poor people don’t have a free choice to leave their country, so there is no meaningful tacit consent
Principle of Fair Play (Hart, Rawls): the function of the state is to promote justice as fairness
Freeloading is unfair
Nozick: since I don’t want the current social scheme to begin with, I can’t be responsible for keeping it going even if I do derive some benefit
Two kinds of benefits (Simmons)
Open benefit: benefits I receive whether I want them or not
Readily available benefit: available benefits that I must actively accept
Principle of Gratitude (Plato, Ross): receiving benefits creates a duty to obey the law
Criticism: gratitude is a personal and indefinite relationship, which as such doesn’t apply to the state
Indefinite (Kantian “imperfect” duty): it is open as to how you repay your debt
Personalness: gratitude does not apply to an impersonal entity like a state (e.g., “we are grateful to the laws of logic for preventing contradictions from becoming true”)
2. A Thought Experiment: A Bottom-up Project of Justifying Government
Idealistic students leave the mainland and set up a utopia on an island
The first generation will abide by the rules and preserve the original ideals
The second generation will not be committed to the ideals; envy, greed and disregard of social good arises (
An Application of the Theories of Justification
Four justifications for the utopian government:
Explicit consent (dies with first generation)
Tacit consent (dwindles after second generation)
Utility (continues after successive generations)
Fair-play (continues after successive generations)
Utilitarian/consequentialist answer: government is a tool for maximizing human happiness
Hume: the government cannot survive without compliance
Conclusion
II. LIBERTY, THE LIMITS OF THE STATE, AND STATE PATERNALISM
Mill's Theory of Liberty
Three principles:
The nonanarchy principle or self-protection principle (harm to others principle): the state con interfere with our liberty to prevent harm to others
The harm principle (non-paternalism): the state cannot interfere with individuals for their own good
The liberty principle: individuals may do whatever they desire to do, so long as they are not harming others
Argument for free speech regarding unpopular ideas:
The prohibited idea may be true, thus leading to the discovery of the truth
The prohibited idea may be partially true, leading to a fuller understanding of the truth
The prohibited idea may be false, but responding to it will help us better understand the orthodox position
Only through deep and vigorous intellectual debate can justified beliefs become fully appreciated by us. We need devil’s advocates to awake us from our dogmatic slumber
Criticisms of Mill
Is Liberty an Intrinsic Good?
James Fitzjames Stephens: liberty is not an intrinsic good, but is good only because it enables us to do good things (e.g., fire is not an intrinsic good, but is good only for the good things it produces)
Response: Mill recognizes this insofar as he permits governmental interference when our liberty harms others
No Man is an Island
Almost everything we do has an impact on others, which diminishes our zone of liberty
Response: the issue isn’t simply whether our actions harm others, but whether they unjustly harm others (e.g., my marriage to a woman that you want to marry isn’t an unjust harm)
Response (Feinberg): offensive harms should be tolerated except when we cannot avoid them and they violate our autonomy (e.g., we can look away, change the channel)
Negative and Positive Liberty
Two kinds of freedom (Isaiah Berlin)
Negative (political): the freedom to do whatever we want, without being interfered with by others
Internal component: freedom from lack of information, lack of ability, ignorance, lack of understanding
External component: freedom from physical compulsion, coercive incentives
Positive: genuine freedom to become your real or rational self
Internal component: freedom from weakness of will, compulsive habits, neurosis, obsessions
External component: deficient resources
Mill’s liberty is mainly negative external
Agonistic liberty or value pluralism (Berlin’s notion): seek for an uneasy equilibrium between competing and sometimes incompatible values
One’s own value commitments do not form a complete vision of politics and society
e.g., the moral life of a nun is incompatible with that of a mother, yet there is no purely rational measure of which is preferable
Paternalism
Examples:
Mandating seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, drug by prescription, blood transfusions for children
Prohibiting dueling, gambling, suicide, recreational drugs
Pojman’s example with forcing his daughter to finish her paper
We may intervene when someone is not fully autonomous, e.g., when
The paternalist should have intimate knowledge of the agent
The agent is not functioning in a fully rational mode
The paternalist must do all he or she can do to persuade the agent to consider the act in question
The paternalist must have reason to believe that once the agent gets through the crises, she or he will agree that the paternalist acted correctly and will be grateful for the intervention
Dworkin: paternalism is sometimes justified even by Mill’s own premises (e.g., programs like social security that are rational insurance policies)
Should the State Limit Free Speech?
Stanley Fish: “There’s no such thing as free speech and it’s a good thing too”
The notion of free speech is just rhetoric, and we in fact regulate speech based on our political needs (e.g., restricting hate speech)
Free speech is what is consistent with our political goals
Criticism: Fish is right that speech has consequences and the right is not absolute; however there is a difference between disrespectful speech and speech where truth is the goal
Liberty and the Tragedy of the Commons
If individuals have unlimited freedom to access natural resources held in common will deplete or ruin those resources (grazing fields, air, water); thus each country must limit its liberty and manage its resources
Ratchet effect (some processes cannot go backwards): the wrong kind of intervention irretrievably makes matters worse
e.g., food aid keeps alive people who would otherwise die in a famine; these people survive and reproduce, thus creating a bigger crisis since the supply of food has not been increased.
e.g., government subsidies for special interest groups that don’t benefit the country as a whole and lead to overspending
Conclusion
Mill’s principle of liberty applies to only mature, responsible adults
e.g., allow motorcyclists to ride without helmets, but refuse them health care when they are injured
III. EQUALITY: ITS NATURE AND VALUE
Introduction: The Meaning of Equality
Empirical fact: people are not equal (take any personal characteristic)
Abstract theories of equality (egalitarianism):
Kymlicka: “Every plausible political theory has the same ultimate value, which is equality”
Dworkin: we’ve reached an “abstract egalitarian plateau” on which all political discussion must now take place
Equality is identified with justice, inequality injustice
There are competing theories of equality, and it’s not clear which is the correct one
Formal Equality
Formal vs. substantive equality
Formal equality: states a formula or policy but includes no specific content
Substantive equality: identifies a concrete criterion or standard by which distribution policies are to be assessed
Aristotle: “injustice arises when equals are treated unequally and unequals equally”
Bob has X degree of P (e.g., need; merit; desire) which implies that Bob should have X degree of Q (e.g., assistance; reward; fulfillment)
Joe has Y degree of P which implies that Joe should have Y degree of Q
P and Q are left unspecified, but almost anything could apply
Puritan punishment: everyone who is a nonbelievers (P) should be put to death (Q)
No substantive conclusions follow from purely formal conceptions of equality
e.g., equality before the law just says that we all should be judged by the same laws
Substantive Equality
Two questions of substantive equality:
Question 1: Which types of inequality are morally indefensible?
Question 2: What should be done about it?
Analysis of Question 2:
Interventionism (liberal and socialist position): the state should intervene and make things equal (e.g., redistribute resources)
Non-interventionism (conservative and libertarian position): the state should not intervene, but leave change to market forces and voluntary action
Analysis of Question 1:
French Revolution “Manifesto of the Equals”: “Let there be no other differences between people than that of age or sex”; eliminate the arts since they hinder equality
Natural lottery: since we don’t deserve our native endowments or our better family backgrounds, we don’t deserve the results of what we do with those endowments
List of possibly indefensible inequalities
Resources, economic benefits (wealth), power, prestige, class, welfare, satisfaction of desire, satisfaction of interest, need, opportunity
Universal enfranchisement (voting rights)
Marx: not sufficient since effective participation in the political process requires wealth, education, leisure
Equal welfare
Criticism: we can’t ensure that everyone has the same welfare level, since people have different requirements to live the good life (e.g., Bill Gates vs. a Trappist monk)
Equality as an Intrinsic/Instrumental good
Instrumental good (i.e., equality is good to the degree that it produces positive consequences)
Intrinsic good (i.e., equality good in itself, regardless of the positive or negative consequences)
Jencks (report on American education): inequality that derives from biology ought to be as repulsive as inequality that derives from early socialization)
Richard Watson: if equal distribution of food were to result in no one’s getting enough to eat, we should nevertheless choose this annihilation of the human race rather than an unequal distribution
Three ways of achieving equality between people
Bring the worst-off and those in between up to the level of the best off;
Bring the best off and those in between down to the level of the worst off;
Bring the worst off up and the best off down to meet in between
Criticism: even if equality is an intrinsic good, it may not be the only one (e.g., liberty, efficiency, fraternity, desert, merit)
Criticism: what is the basis of the intuition that equality is an intrinsic good (e.g., natural intuition, aesthetic feeling, religious conviction that we’re all made in the image of God)
Practical consequences of political emphasis for equality
Justified many wars
Tocqueville: criticizes American emphasis on equality; the desire for equality “leads the weak to want to drag the strong down to their level and … induces men to prefer equality in servitude to inequality in freedom”
Hare: “When inequality is the general rule in society, the greatest inequalities attract no attention. When everything is more or less level, the slightest variation is noticed. Hence the more equal men are, the more insatiable will be their longing for equality”
Resource vs. Welfare Egalitarianism
Resource egalitarianism (Rawls, Dworkin): in societies of abundance, human beings are entitled to equally valuable shares of the resources (e.g., wealth)
Criticism: unfair since people have different basic needs (e.g., someone in wheel chair needs extra resources)
Criticism: leads to slavery of the talented; people with talent will have to bid away great sums of their other resources to preserve the use of their talents
Welfare egalitarianism (Hare, Nielsen): in abundant societies, people should also receive equal welfare (fulfillment or preference satisfaction)
Criticism: creates problems when we have desires that affect other people; e.g., the racist’s desire that his race flourish at the expense of others
Criticism: people with expensive tastes can take from the modest resources of contented persons
The Doctrine of Equal Human Worth and Metaphysical Equality (equality as an intrinsic value)
All humans are of equal and positive worth because of some intrinsic property
e.g., God’s image (Genesis), spark of divinity (Stoics), rationality (Kant)
Three problems
Identifying the relevant property
e.g., is rationality (or rational autonomy) intrinsically valuable?
Discovering whether we have equal amounts of it
e.g., why doesn’t having more rational autonomy make us more valuable?
Discovering whether a person maintains the property over time
All or nothing theories of equality
Kant and Rawls: it’s an all or nothing concept
Vlastos: “the human worth of all persons is equal, however unequal may be their merit”
Family metaphor: all members of a family are equally valuable, even though they have different qualities
Humanity is nongradable (unlike talents which are gradable)
Criticism: Smith (a lazy moral degenerate) claims he has infinite worth; a Martin would find such claim silly (i.e., Gandhi seems to have more value than Hitler)
Criticism: the family metaphor breaks down because we aren’t willing to make significant sacrifices for non-relatives
Nagel’s theory: we have essential value viewed from an impersonal standpoint
Argument
1. I cannot help valuing myself as a subject of positive and negative experience (e.g., suffering, happiness, fulfillment, or frustration)
2. All other humans are relevantly similar to me, subjects of positive and negative consequences
3. Therefore, I must, on pain of contradiction, ascribe equal value to all other human beings
Criticism: our personal value may derive from a complex of qualities that we might lose
Should I become immoral, insane, or desperately disease-ridden, I would be valueless and I would hope to die as swiftly as possible
Criticism: rests too heavily on the agent’s judgment of him/herself
If I don’t value myself, then I’ll conclude that others are also of no value
I can decide that no one is of value and thus conclude that I’m not of value
Criticism: Nagel theory endorses both utility maximization and equality, which lead to conflict
Legal Equality
Basic meaning of legal equality
The law should be applied impartially
If persons A and B both break law L, which carries the penalty P, A and B (minus mitigating circumstances) should pay the same penalty
This is a formal notion of equality, not a substantive one
Laws permitting discrimination are on the same footing as laws forbidding discrimination
Weston: legal equality is not just empty, but of negative value since it misleads us into thinking that substantive principles can be derived from formal equality
e.g., Carey v Brown allowed a protester to picket at a Chicago mayor’s residence since the law allowed people to picket at one’s place of employment (the issue is really one of free speech, not of equality before the law)
Conclusion
IV. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
Introduction
The Concept of 'Equal Opportunity'
Definition: two people A and B have an equal opportunity to attain some goal or good G with regard to some specific obstacle X, if and only if neither is hindered from attaining G by X.
Implies meritocracy, i.e., the practice of appointing the best-qualified person for the position in question
The doctrine of equal opportunity is consistent with unequal results: people are very different from each other in abilities and in effort
Types of Equal Opportunity
Arbitrary Equal Opportunity: no one has a right to expect anything in life more than anyone else; everything is governed by chance
Rules should be made equal to all (e.g., repealing Jim Crow laws so blacks have equal access to education and all of life’s opportunities)
Meritocratic Equal Opportunity: finding the best qualified person for the job
Procedural Equal Opportunity (means-regarding): each person has the chance to develop his or her talents
The state offers each citizen a similar toolbox to compete in the market place (education, welfare, job training)
Provides equal means, not just identical rules
State provides external means; agents need internal means, i.e., a set of skills
Result-oriented Equal Opportunity: equal opportunity = equal results
Extreme version: unless we have equal group results in all significant life spheres, we have not achieved equal opportunity
Arguments for Equal Opportunity
Equal opportunity can be justified as producing efficiency (teleological)
We get the best-skilled people for various positions
Equal opportunity is justified by a notion of desert (deontological)
Equal opportunity enables people to develop their talents to the utmost
e.g., basic education if founded on the view that math, reading, and critical skills a re required for even a minimally adequate life
Equal opportunity promotes personal satisfaction
By allowing people to compete for prizes and places, society promotes individual fulfillment
Objections to Equal Opportunity
Nozick's Life is not a Race Objection
Equal opportunity prohibits capitalist acts between consenting adults (e.g., it’s my business if I want to hire a relative or friend instead of a more qualified stranger)
Marriage example: the most appealing men and women voluntarily marry each other; the least appealing men and women also voluntarily marry each other considering that the alternative of remaining unmarried is worse
Galston’s criticism: there are basic prerequisites (e.g., education, job training) to full participation in social competition, particularly when there are few opportunities for unskilled labor
Schaar's Communitarian Objection
Equal opportunity leads to decadence: “a society of well-fed, congenial, and sybaritc monkeys surrounded by gadgets and pleasure-toys”
Equal opportunity increases the gap between the elites and the ordinary folk: “Only those who genuinely are superior in the desired attributes will enjoy rich opportunities to develop their qualities. This would produce, within a few generations, a social system where the members of the elites really were immensely superior in ability and attainment to the masses”
Criticism: the elite rulers can direct society away from decadence
Equal opportunity misleads people: “What is so generous about telling a man he can go as far as his talents will take him when his talents are meager?”
Criticism: there are many kinds of races that people can run in, and in some races people will have talents
Bernard Williams: imagine a society run by a Warrior class; it is then overturned with equal opportunity; the privileged children of the Warrior class “having had the advantage of superior training conditions, still win.”
Criticism: level the playing field by providing extra educational or training opportunities to the less advantaged
Fishkin's Trilemma
Three ideals
Equality of life chances: the prospects of children for eventual social positions should not significantly vary with their arbitrary native characteristics
Merit: there should be widespread procedural fairness in the evaluation of qualifications for positions
The Autonomy of the family: parents have autonomy in raising their children, unless parents hamper them for adult participation in society
Fact: in reality people in unequal family conditions have unequal abilities
Problem: we can satisfy two, but not all three of these principles
Solutions:
Give up autonomy of the family, e.g., collectivized child rearing (e.g., Plato, Kibbutz); but most people find this unacceptable)
Give up merit based systems and adopt affirmative action; but this will result in mediocrity and inefficiency
Give up the notion of equal life chances; but this means that disadvantaged children will be penalized for their bad luck
Compromises
Encourage family autonomy but supplement it with universal education
Implement affirmative action, but do so in early development, e.g., head start programs
Galson’s solution: separate meritocratic excellence from reward (e.g., let people compete to become brain surgeons, but don’t give them high incomes
Searle’s criticism: “Money attracts talent”
Conclusion
V. WHAT IS JUSTICE?
Introduction: The Circumstances of Justice
Three types of justice (not in Pojman):
Distributive justice: determining what is just or right with respect to the allocation of goods in a society
Procedural justice: concerned with the fairness of the process used to arrive at a decision
Compensatory justice: compensation for wrongs that have been done
The Classic Concept of Justice as Desert
Classic examples
Plato: “to each his due”
Karma: there is a law-like relationship between one’s deeds and one’s status in a future reincarnation
Roman law: “The principles of law are these: to live virtuously, not to harm others, to give his due to everyone
Desert and Merit
Merit: positive qualities that call forth positive response
Any feature or quality that is the basis for distributing positive attribution, such as praise, rewards, prizes, and grades.
Merit is a generic category (or superset) that contains desert
Desert (what one deserves): positive actions that call forth positive response
Connected to effort and intention
e.g., suppose there were humans with wings that could perform extraordinary tasks; they don’t deserve their wings, but do deserve merit for what they do with them
Entitlement: merit based on human law (positive rights)
e.g., even though I’m lazy
Marxism:
Distribution according to need should take place only in the ideal communist society, where all people are equally deserving
In a socialist society, the motto must be “from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution”
Problems with the Classic Doctrine of Justice
Criteria problem: determining exactly what is the appropriate desert base – contribution, performance, effort, or compensation
Epistemological problem: measuring how much a person deserves (e.g., 100s of contributors to a building project, various people in a tug of war)
Metaphysical Problem: determining whether the concept is even coherent (actions are determined by forces beyond our control)
Rawls: “No one deserves his greater natural capacity nor merits a more favorable starting place in society”
Hampshire: “In the last analysis, are not all advantages and disadvantages distributed by natural causes, even when they are the effects of human agency?”
Argument:
1. If we deserve anything, we must be the authors of our own selves (to have the kind of free will necessary to be responsible for our actions and achievements)
2. We are not the authors of our won selves
3. Thus we do not deserve anything
Classical liberalism (i.e., Libertarianism) and the justification of property
Locke’s labor account of property
1. I own my body and my labor
2. In laboring with nature, I mix my labor with the object
3. If the object is unowned, it becomes my property
Nozick’s criticism: it assumes that “ownership seeps over into the rest” (e.g., dumping a can of tomato juice into the sea doesn’t make it yours)
Once the property is yours, you may sell it or give it away, but you may not destroy it wantonly since you are stewards of the property that ultimately belongs to God
Criticism:
Rousseau: “The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought of saying, ‘This is mine,’ and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society.”
Proudhon: property is theft
Marxism: advocates abolishing private property
Nozick’s entitlement theory of holdings (just acquisition and transfer)
Three principles:
A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition is entitled to it
A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to the holding, is entitled to the holding.
No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) application of 1 and 2.
Principle of rectification of injustice in holdings: if a holding was acquired unjustly, justice requires that it be restored to the original owner
Patterned and nonpatterned schemes of distributive justice
Patterned: adheres to a formula of justice, “To each according to ____”
Nozick rejects this since it violates liberty
Nonpatterned (Nozick’s theory): no preordained formula of distribution; if it came about fairly, it’s yours
Nozick’s theory maximizes liberty, advocates laissez-faire capitalism, and sees taxation as forced labor
Voluntary charity
Nozick and other libertarians support voluntary charity to reduce the suffering of the poor and needy who may be victims of an unrestricted free market
Assurance problem: voluntary contributions work for big project only if everyone contributes; my personal contribution is low, so it is rational for me to withhold my contribution; but if others are thinking this way then the big project won’t get funded
Adam Smith’s three roles of government
Protect society from outside invasion (i.e., create and sustain the military)
Protect individuals from injustice or oppression through a system of justice (i.e., create and sustain the police)
Create and sustain public works that wouldn’t be in the interest of private individuals (e.g., NASA, public transportation)
Libertarians often neglect this third role
Problem of historical acquisitions: most property ownership came about unjustly through military invasion, plunder, violence, fraud; thus, based on Nozick’s principle of rectification of injustice in holding, such property should be returned
Rawl's Theory of Justice
Rawls’s theory is nonpatterned: it doesn’t reward based on any criterion (e.g., desert, need)
Veil of ignorance
Ignorant of one’s on place in society, class, gender, race, religion, generation, social status, natural abilities, intelligence
Ignorant of one’s thick theory of good: one’s conviction about what makes life worth living
Retains knowledge of a thin theory of good: knowledge of primary goods, e.g., liberties, opportunities, wealth, income,
Purpose: by denying individuals knowledge of their natural assets and social position, Rawls prevents them from exploiting their advantages
Binding force of our decisions under the veil of ignorance: “We should abide by these principles because we all would choose them under fair conditions”
Maximin principle: maximize (i.e. improve) the minimum (i.e., worst) position that one could fall into
Choose the arrangements “as though your enemy were to assign you a place in society”
Criticism:
Rational gamblers: We might gamble on a different arrangement (e.g., a utilitarian one) that might provide greater opportunity
Hare: modified utilitarian view that provides a welfare safety net for everyone, with no ceiling on personal income (Western European economic systems); this gives people an incentive for hard work
Two principles of justice: the principles which all parties would agree upon behind the veil of ignorance
First: each person will have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with similar liberty for others.
Second: social and economic inequalities must satisfy two conditions:
(a) They are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged (the difference principle)
(b) They are attached to positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity
The difference principle:
Ideal of fraternity: “not wanting to have greater advantages unless this is to the benefit of others who are less well off”
Two problems with strict equality
Equality at a subsistence level is undesireable, so we should encourage economic disparities if that enables the bottom to rise (a rising tide raises all ships)
Most people will work harder if they believe they will have a more affluent life as a result
Criticisms:
Michael Sandel (communitarian): behind the veil of ignorance we lose our personal identity and are abstract people
Reply: Rawls is just setting up the same conditions of impartiality that we expect from umpires
Wallace Matson: Rawls confuses justice as fairness
A law may be unjust, but fair in that it is applied consistently (e.g., uniformly lowering everyone’s grade by one letter)
Problem of need: the maximin principle is based on the concept of need, and conceptions of basic needs changes from society to society
e.g., food, clothing, shelter, education, radio
Rawls underappreciates personal responsibility
Contractors behind the veil of ignorance would choose to award benefits and burdens according to desert
Conclusion
VI. STATE NEUTRALITY VERSUS STATE PERFECTIONISM (liberty vs. legal moralism)
Introduction: The Classical Debate
Terms:
State perfectionism (legal moralism): governments can have laws restricting private immoral behavior
Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas: The state should make people morally perfect (help citizens realize the good life and make them virtuous)
State neutrality: the state should neutral concerning particular theories of the good (and thus allow allegedly private immoral behavior)
Protectionism (Mill): the state should protect our liberties except when our conduct harms others (including allegedly private immoral behavior)
1950s British debate on homosexuality
Wolfenden Report: there exists a realm of private morality that is sacrosanct, so that the government may not intervene
Devlin: laws against immoral private behavior are necessary to protect the community from corruption and, eventually, dissolution
1. A community must have a set of rules, supported by tradition and adhered to by the majority of its people, in order to maintain social cohesion and harmony
2. Western society contains a tradition to which the vast majority subscribe, which includes the promotion of heterosexual relations but rejects homosexual relations as an approved form of sexual expression
3. Therefore, since we desire social cohesion and harmony, we ought to support the promotion of heterosexual relations but reject homosexual relations
Popper’s notion of state neutrality: the state should protect people from harm and let citizens work out their own visions of the good
Perfectionism is a kind of fascism, like Nazism
There are many kinds of good, and perfectionism falsely supposes that it has the only correct theory of how life should be lived
Arguments against Perfectionism
The argument from relativism: all moral principles are relative to culture, so we cannot impose our moral values on anyone
Criticism: there is at least a minimal core of morality that constitutes a conception of the good, which every society will need if it is to flourish
The argument from (Rawlsian) skepticism: behind the veil of ignorance, no one knows his or her conception of the good
e.g., behind the veil of ignorance, we might be gay but not know it
Criticism: we’d still know general theories of the good (similar to Rawls’s thin theories), even though we wouldn’t know our particular theories of the good (Rawls’s thick theories)
General theories: core morality, including integrity, fidelity, honor, benevolence, discipline, tolerance and non-malevolence
Particular theories: religious and ideological doctrines which are held by fail or aesthetic preference
The argument from tyranny
Popper: the criterion of morality is the interest of the state
Criticism: other theories of perfectionism are not totalitarianism (e.g., Aristotle and Aquinas argued that the state should serve the individual and promote virtue at all levels, excluding oppression)
Criticism (Michael Rosol): neutralism is no guarantee against oppression
The argument from autonomy
Wolf: perfectionism undermines autonomy
Criticism: autonomy is not a moral absolute, but may be overridden by other values (e.g., suicide intervention)
Moral vs. Legal Perfectionism
Moral perfectionism: the state has an obligation to make people morally better
Legal perfectionism: the state has an obligation to make people better by instituting laws imposing sanctions on immoral behavior
An outline of moderate perfectionism (Pojman’s theory)
Society non-coercively instills certain goods through education and special programs (e.g., national youth corps)
Two tiers of goods
First tier: health, love, friendship, education, development of talent, aesthetic enjoyment
Second tier: moral virtues that hold the first tier of good together
Fidelity, integrity, self-control, health
e.g., without fidelity and integrity, love dissipates and families are pulled apart
Conclusion
VII. RIGHTS
Introduction: The Nature and Value of Rights
Definition: a claim against others that at the same time includes a liberty on one’s own behalf
Part 1: your freedom to do
Part 2: protection from interference from others
Types of Rights and their Justification
Natural rights: rights we acquire by nature
Human rights: natural rights, or rights of humans, or moral rights
Moral rights: rights justified by a moral system
Positive rights: rights that society gives its members
Prima facie rights: fights that can be overridden by more compelling rights (e.g., smoker’s and nonsmoker’s rights)
Absolute rights: rights that cannot be overridden
Naturalist and nonnaturalist theories
1. Positive vs. natural rights
Positive rights (Bentham, Austin): all rights are created by institutions
Natural rights (Locke, Jefferson): rights grounded in natural law, which, in turn, are created by God
2. Contract-based ethical theories: rights are created in social contracts
Criticism (Dworkin): social contracts are hypothetical, and can’t generate real rights
Criticism: contracts are relative to agreements between contractors, and thus not universally valid
Criticism: nothing prevents me from breaking the contract if it doesn’t turn out the way I’d like
3. Duty-based (deontological) ethical theories: rights are implied by duties
e.g., your duty not to kill implies my right not to be killed
Criticism: some duties don’t imply rights (e.g., my duty to share my wealth with the needy does not imply your right to receive my wealth)
4. Goal-based theories: granting rights serves a goal (e.g., to maximize happiness or welfare)
All rights are prima facie, and none absolute, since one right can be overridden by another if it maximizes happiness
5 Ideals (Baier, Brandt): rights are claims and liberties included in an ideal moral system chosen an ideal observer who is omniscient, omnibenevolent and absolutely impartial
Rights that we should strive to realize (e.g., the right to paid vacation for all)
Criticism: depend on ideal conditions that may not be practicably realizable
Hohfeld’s Classification of Rights
Claim right: a claim against some person
e.g., the claim against you to pay me for the car I sold you
Liberty right: the liberty to perform some action
e.g., the liberty to park my car in a spot if no one else does first
Power right: the power to bring about some consequence
We have an ability or authority to do something
e.g., the power of a physician to treat patients and write prescriptions
Immunity right: an exemption from some consequence
e.g., immunity from criminal conviction; immunity from being tortured
A Critique of Rights Language
Feinberg’s view of rights (from previous section):
Rights are important since they give us a claim against others
Imagine a city, Nowheresville, where people didn’t have a conception of rights; what they’d lack would be a claim against others
Rights give us dignity insofar as we have a claim against others
Primacy of rights over duties (i.e., rights are foundational, and duties are derived from rights)
Criticism (Elizabeth Wolfgast): rights are impersonal
The language of rights is based on consumer relationships, which turns us into economic atoms rather than recognizing our relationships of trust with each other
e.g., a patient’s right to be free from malpractice vs. the patient’s need for a relationship of openness and care
Criticism of the primacy of rights over duties: some duties have no corresponding rights
1. Charity: I have a duty to donate to charity, but no one has a right to charity from me
2. Posterity problem: duties to future generations do not focus on identifiable people; rights typically require identifiable people as rights holders
3. Animals: some animals don’t have rights, but we still have duties towards them (e.g., the duty not to harm them)
(Similar to duties to environmental collections, which have no corresponding rights)
Conclusion
VIII. PUNISHMENT
Introduction
Definition of punishment: five points
Punishment is an evil: involves suffering
Punishment is for a violation of a rule: someone breaks a rule
Punishment is done to the offender: punish the guilty, not the innocent
Punishment is carried out by a personal agency: no natural forces, such as lightning
Punishment is imposed by an authority: recognized authorities, such as a government
Retributivism: punishment is based upon what one deserves, not upon any social benefit
Retributivism is backward-looking (what one did), not forward-looking (how to improve society)
Three elements of retributivism
Only the guilty may be punished
Everyone who is guilty should be punished
Punishment should be equal to the moral seriousness of the offense
Kant’s strict equality justification: by universalizing the maxim of his action, the offender wills a like action on himself
Strict equality of punishment (lex talionis): literal eye for an eye
Criticism: impractical to carry out, and impossible to know how much harm has been done
Herbert Morris’s fair play justification: the offender has disrupted social equilibrium of social cooperation, and punishment restores the equilibrium
The argument
1. In breaking a primary rule of society, a person obtains an unfair advantage over others
2. Unfair advantages ought to be redressed y society if possible
3. Punishment is a form of redressing the unfair advantage
4. Therefore, we ought to punish the offender for breaking the primary rule
Whereas Kant focuses on the gravity of the harm done, Morris focuses on the unfair advantage
Doesn’t require strict equality of punishment, only proportionality
Criticism: some criminal acts do not involve gaining an unfair advantage (e.g., sadistic acts which leave the criminal worse off than the victim, e.g., suicide bomber)
Desert
Revision to point 3 of the strict equality” justification:
Punishment should be proportionate to the moral seriousness of the offense (punishment fits the crime)
We rank the seriousness of crimes (e.g., murder, rape, theft, perjury), but it is difficult to give them absolute ratings
Justice is traditionally defined as giving to each is due, which is connected with punishment
Not based on hate or vengeance
Utilitarianism: punishment is justified by social utility
Utilitarianism is forward looking (how to improve society) not backward looking (what one did)
Key elements
Social utility is a necessary condition for judicial punishment (if you punish someone, it must serve social good)
Social utility is a sufficient condition for judicial punishment (if something is socially good, then it can be enforced through punishment)
The proper amount of punishment to e imposed on the offender is that amount which will do the most good
Only three grounds:
Prevention: prevent repetition
Deterrence:
Reform: make the criminal a better person
Desert:
By recognizing and rewarding merit, we promote efficiency and welfare
Utilitarian considerations can also be used to override merit
Criticism:
Justifies punishing people who are predisposed crimes, even before they do
Justifies killing innocent people
Reply: punishment is logically connected with a crime, so that the one punished must be presumed guilty
Rehabilitationism: criminals require rehabilitation, not punishment
Crime is a disease, and the criminal is a sick person who needs to be cured, not punished
Criticism: Mislocates the victim
e.g., psychiatrist says this to a mugging victim: “Oh, this is awful! Tell me, sir, who did this to you? He needs help.”
Criticism: rehabilitation doesn’t
There are limits to what socialization and medical treatment can do; socialization it works on infants, but not on older people
Criticism: even if it did work, such treatment raises questions about a person’s autonomy
Application to the death penalty
Retentionists: capital punishment is justified on retributive and utilitarian grounds
Abolitionists: capital punishment does not deter and is not necessary for retributive justice; judicial system is vulnerable to prejudice and error
Theoretical issue: is the death penalty ever morally justifiable
Practical issue: does the death penalty deter (the evidence is inconclusive)
Conclusion
IX. NATIONALISM, COSMOPOLITANISM, AND WORLD GOVERNMENT
Introduction: An Overview of Global Anarchy
Independent states are like individual people in the state of nature
Political realism: politics based on practical factors rather than on ethical objectives
Kill or be killed; might makes right; nice guys finish last
Brazen rule: do to others before they get a chance to do it to you
Machiavelli: rulers should do whatever they can to survive, including deception
Need for a global organization
To prevent genocide within countries
To regulate environmental problems
Multinational corporations erode national boundaries
Globalization through the internet and free market trade
The Cosmopolitan Spirit
Greek cynics and stoics saw themselves as cosmopolitan
Tolstoy: condemns patriotism as a superstitious and dangerous emotion; it falsely supposes that one’s nation is superior to all others
Maritan: nation states are dysfunctional and should be replaced with a world government that guarantees peace and justice (all rational human beings recognize a universal natural law)
Universally applies moral principles
The Promise of Nationalism
Argument for self-determination: people should be in charge of their own destinies and people should govern themselves locally as much as possible
Criticism: this supports autonomy (limited self-governance), not absolute self-determination; a world government could extend autonomy to ethnic groups
Argument from personal identity: identifying with a national group seems to give us something that we deeply need, i.e., a permanent and larger extended self, like our families
MacIntyre: we generate ethics from these group relationships (universal moral principles are too abstract to justify our obligations to family, community and nation)
Criticism: we discover morality through communal interaction, but this doesn’t undermine universal moral principles
In the U.S., all immigrants and ethnic groups can come to identify with the countries history and culture, and can commit to a common purpose
Argument from self-defense: we need to preserve and protect our culture and our people from harm and destruction
May be a necessary evil to protect a people against racism
e.g. Jewish race, culture and religion is best preserved through a Jewish nation-state
Criticism: racism could be driven underground or eliminated in a cosmopolitan system
Argument from multiculturalism; The world is a better or more interesting place if it contains diverse cultures
Criticism: this supports autonomy, not a nation-state
An Assessment of the Debate between Nationalism and Cosmopolitanism
Problem for nationalism: countries aren’t deserving of their boundaries or natural resources
In a world government, nations might be made stewards of their land and resources, but not permitted complete sovereignty over their uses
Problems for cosmopolitanism
1. What kind of institution would be needed to redistribute wealth?
2. How could we be sure that the redistributed wealth went to the poor? How can we compare what constitutes a good life in different kinds of societies?
3. It’s difficult to compare what constitutes the good life in different cultures
Interventionism: intervene in the affairs of national disputes
Even accepting the principles of national sovereignty, intervention may be justified
Two kinds of nationalism
Hard nationalism: the nation is altogether justified as the ultimate locus of political obligation; internationalism is imply confused or immoral
Soft nationalism: we have some obligations to people everywhere, there is still a need for a nation-state
Open to a world government but cautious to ensure local autonomy and cultural identity
Conclusion
X. INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM AND THE MORAL RESPONSE
Introduction: The Day of Ignominy (i.e., Sept. 11)
Lots of international terrorism in recent years
Hama Rules: Background Rules of Terrorism
Syrian ruler Hafez Assad leveled the town of Hama to eliminate a band of Muslim guerillas called “the brotherhood of Hama”
“A life for an eye, two lives for a tooth”
Clash of Cultures (religious motive Muslim terrorism)
Islamic fundamentalism against Western culture
Religion, not nationalism, may become the dominant threat to world peace and stability
The doctrine of jihad (holy war) may predispose Islam towards violence
A Definition of Terrorism
Terrorism employs horrific violence against unsuspecting civilizations, as well as combatants, to inspire fear and create panic, which in turn will advance the terrorists’ political or religious agenda.
Causes of Terrorism
Religious ideology, despair, sense of hopelessness rooted in oppression, ignorance, poverty, perceived injustice
Suicide bomber motivation
Peer pressure, religious sanctions, hierarchical command-obedience structure
Modern weaponry increases the damage
Mass communication give it widespread media coverage
A War on Terrorism
Possible solutions: root out the underlying causes of terrorism, i.e., poverty, ignorance, oppression, and injustice
Problem: ignorance is rooted in religious fanaticism
Terrorism and Just War Theory
Jus ad bellum: moral grounds for going into war
1. Declared by a legitimate authority
2. Declared for a just cause
3. Declared as a last resort
4. Declared with the intention of brining peace and holding respect for the enemy
Jus in bello: right conduct while engaged in a war
5. Proportionality: no more force than necessary to achieve the just goal (can’t justify pillage, rape, torture, nuclear war)
6. Discrimination: distinguish between combatants and noncombatants
Problems
It’s often unclear what a legitimate authority is (condition 1)
Utilitarianism might justify torture (condition 5)
Utilitarianism might justify attacking non-combatants or shooting civilian shields (condition 6)
The Moral Response to Terrorism
Short-term strategies
Make no concessions to terrorists and strike no deals
Bring terrorists to justice
Isolate and apply pressure on states that sponsor terrorism, forcing them to change their behavior
Bolster the counterterrorist capabilities of those countries that work with the United States and require assistance
Long-term strategies
National conscription in defense and civil service programs
Spreading the message of a universal morality with human rights
The cosmopolitan moral imperative: the possibility of world government
Conclusion