Responsibility and Punishment Aristotle (384-322 BCE) Aristotle was a Macedonian citizen, who studied with Plato for twenty years. He went on to found his own school (the Lyceum) to rival Plato’s Academy. Unlike Plato, he sees empirical observation as vital to the pursuit of true knowledge. We have no published works by Aristotle, only his lecture notes on many different subjects: nature, the soul, politics, logic, etc. As the power of Athens faded, the might of Macedonia under Alexander the Great grew. Nicomachean Ethics Illuminated Manuscript (1331) The nature and goal of ethics The first “book” or chapter of the Nicomachean Ethics (NE) identifies happiness as the chief human good. Happiness is not a product of money, social esteem, or pleasure, though each of these must be present. Instead, happiness is “a rational activity of the soul in accordance with virtue.” So that means …? Human Happiness Like his teacher, Plato, Aristotle takes for granted the idea that the ultimate purpose of human life is the attainment of happiness. Unlike Plato, he thinks that ethics is not about constructing a theory but about identifying what types of action create a happy state. Aristotle sees good action as produced by human capacities, which are traditionally referred to as virtues. Aristotle recognizes two types of virtue: those of character (endurance, generosity, etc) and those of intellect (“prudence” or “practical wisdom”). Human Rationality As with many other ancient Greek thinkers, Aristotle sees a rational power as essential to the human person. Our word “reason” comes to use through Latin and later French, and is the translation for the Greek word “logos,” which has a very broad meaning (word, conversation, speech, proportion, organization, etc). One thing is clear: logos is recognized by A. as a uniquely human power. The word “soul” is a translation of the Greek term “anima,” which simply means the power of movement and change in any living being. So, the human being possesses a unique “rational power of the soul.” Virtue The English word “virtue” similarly reaches us through Latin and French; and means “power” (from the Latin for man, vir, as in “virile”). The Greek word for virtue is arete, which can also be translated as “excellence” and is not limited to moral attributes (e.g. a knife can have a “virtuous” – excellent for cutting – blade). Aristotle argues that every human power has its function, and this function can be performed at different degrees of excellence. This is fairly obvious when it comes to physical skills (e.g. sprinting), but A. insists it is no less the case for social and mental skills. Book II: Pleasure and Measure Happiness and Pleasure Like Plato in Republic, Aristotle argues that the ability to control our drive for pleasure is the start of moral training. Note that neither thinker considers all pleasures to be a danger to the pursuit of happiness; it is a question of the ri ...

1. Responsibility and Punishment
Aristotle (384-322 BCE)
Aristotle was a Macedonian citizen, who studied with Plato for
twenty years.
He went on to found his own school (the Lyceum) to rival
Plato’s Academy.
Unlike Plato, he sees empirical observation as vital to the
pursuit of true knowledge.
We have no published works by Aristotle, only his lecture notes
on many different subjects: nature, the soul, politics, logic, etc.
As the power of Athens faded, the might of Macedonia under
Alexander the Great grew.
Nicomachean Ethics
Illuminated Manuscript (1331)
The nature and goal of ethics
The first “book” or chapter of the Nicomachean Ethics (NE)
identifies happiness as the chief human good.
Happiness is not a product of money, social esteem, or pleasure,
though each of these must be present.
Instead, happiness is “a rational activity of the soul in
accordance with virtue.”
So that means …?
Human Happiness
Like his teacher, Plato, Aristotle takes for granted the idea that

2. the ultimate purpose of human life is the attainment of
happiness.
Unlike Plato, he thinks that ethics is not about constructing a
theory but about identifying what types of action create a happy
state.
Aristotle sees good action as produced by human capacities,
which are traditionally referred to as virtues.
Aristotle recognizes two types of virtue: those of character
(endurance, generosity, etc) and those of intellect (“prudence”
or “practical wisdom”).
Human Rationality
As with many other ancient Greek thinkers, Aristotle sees a
rational power as essential to the human person.
Our word “reason” comes to use through Latin and later French,
and is the translation for the Greek word “logos,” which has a
very broad meaning (word, conversation, speech, proportion,
organization, etc).
One thing is clear: logos is recognized by A. as a uniquely
human power.
The word “soul” is a translation of the Greek term “anima,”
which simply means the power of movement and change in any
living being.
So, the human being possesses a unique “rational power of the
soul.”
Virtue
The English word “virtue” similarly reaches us through Latin
and French; and means “power” (from the Latin for man, vir, as

3. in “virile”).
The Greek word for virtue is arete, which can also be translated
as “excellence” and is not limited to moral attributes (e.g. a
knife can have a “virtuous” – excellent for cutting – blade).
Aristotle argues that every human power has its function, and
this function can be performed at different degrees of
excellence.
This is fairly obvious when it comes to physical skills (e.g.
sprinting), but A. insists it is no less the case for social and
mental skills.
Book II: Pleasure and Measure
Happiness and Pleasure
Like Plato in Republic, Aristotle argues that the ability to
control our drive for pleasure is the start of moral training.
Note that neither thinker considers all pleasures to be a danger
to the pursuit of happiness; it is a question of the right
pleasures.
The specific virtue of control with respect to pleasure is, in
Greek, sophrusune; literally, “mindfulness” or self-restraint.
The fact that A. does not exclude all pleasures from the moral
life means that his position is opposed to forms of asceticism.
The “golden mean”
The core idea introduced in Book Two is that moral virtue
involves striving for moderation in all things.
Moderation, for Aristotle, differs depending on the person and
her functions (e.g. running a marathon requires certain
nutrition).
Aristotle says that each person has given tendencies, which
make her miss the point of balance. We must work to correct

4. this.
For example, let’s say someone is extremely squeamish about
pain; then he must build up endurance as sometimes pain is
unavoidable.
Book III: Choice and Compulsion
According to Aristotle I am responsible for what I do when the
act is done: a) intentionally, b) with knowledge, and c) for its
own sake.
Involuntary acts are due to: a) an external force, b) ignorance of
consequences, and/or c) trying to avoid another evil.
There is a special class of actions called the “non-voluntary”:
this is where someone knowingly choses a lesser evil.
Social recognition of moral responsibility gives rise to praise
and blame. Blame becomes codified in law as punishment.
Prison Population Rates (2009)

5. James Rachels: Models of Punishment
The first model Rachels considers is RETRIBUTIVISM – “the
idea that wrongdoers should be “paid back” for their wicked
deeds” (EP, 510).
This follows the intuition that each person should be repaid
according to her “just deserts” (Nozick’s idea of “historical”
justice).
But Rachels points out that “just deserts” is distinct from other
senses of meit according to: 1) need and 2) natural capacity
(something you are born with).
“Moral deserts are deserts that one has … in virtue of one’s
more general way of dealing with other people” (512L).
Retributivism is moral desert applied within criminal
punishment: someone is liable to punishment based solely on
particular voluntary actions
Alternatives: Prevention and Rehabilitation
Jeremy Bentham, a founder of Utilitarianism, saw punishment
as a human ill only justified as prevention of further human
suffering.
Closely allied to the prevention model, is the idea of
punishment as rehabilitation (i.e. reeducating offenders to avoid
repetition).
Whereas retributivism isolates the act as the thing which

6. deserves punishment, the other models focus on the agent.
Rachels suggests three criteria against which to judge the three
models: 1) Guilt, 2) Equal Treatment, 3) Proportionality, 4)
Excuses.
Rachels claims that retributivism alone meets all criteria.
Doris: Punishment and Character
Basic contention: “the deeper rationale for determining criminal
liability relies on character assessment [rather than on
properties of actions].”
Doris argues that recent social psychology research questions
this idea.
The character theory sees criminal acts through in terms of their
expressing character traits (i.e. was it characteristic of the
agent?).
It follows that acts “out of character” should not be punished,
that is, they are classified as “excusable.”
The “moral character” evaluation of responsibility also allows
much scope of excuse under duress, as then genuine “choice” is
doubtful.
Rejecting Character Theory
Following Aristotle, character is typically seen as a collection
of enduring personal tendencies of thinking, behavior, and
emotion.
Repeated experiments in social psychology (e.g. Milgram,
1974), indicate that moral behavior is highly context dependent.
As well as moral behavior, psychological studies suggest that
moral reasoning can change when is moral situation is subject
to different descriptions.
How do we know what is characteristic for a person? The
obedience experiments suggest that “normal” characters are
easily overturned.
Doris’ conclusion: acting “out of character” is possible for all

7. persons. It is therefore not a credible excuse to evade
punishment.
Wright, Cullen, and Beaver: The US Penal System
As of 2004: around 7 million US citizens under some form of
correctional control and 2 million incarcerated.
Causes of increased criminal punishment? 1) increases in crime
in the 1980s and 90s; 2) rejection of rehabilitation; 3) popular
“choice” idea.
Huge increases in federal and state spending has led to the
current situation, where 10% of GDP is spent on the penal
system.
This situation is in large part the result of focusing on
“incapacitation” (taking offenders out of the general
population), at the tune of $23 K a person a year.
After being “disproven” in the 1970s, the approach of
rehabilitation was largely abandoned in the US, though it is
somewhat on the rise now.
Punishment that works
Four factors for effective punishment: 1)swiftly following
action; 2) predictable or certain; 3) seen as legitimate; 4)
reasonably infrequent.
The size and slowness of the justice system, along with
concentrations of crime behavior within the population, make
1)-4) hard to achieve in practice.
The authors cite social psychological factors that predict
criminal behavior: 1) criminal parents; 2) heritability; 3) in
utero neurotoxins; 4) childhood aggression; 5) antisocial
behavior disorders.
As a consequence of 1)-5) offenders behavior and mental
attitude will not likely be affected and so the deterrent rationale
for punishment fail.
Conclusion: of all approaches to punishment rehabilitation is

8. the most scientifically proven and provable, can transform
attitudes, and demands accountability.
Global Justice
Our Responsibility to
Distant Others
David Hume 1711-1776
Scottish Enlightenment thinker (with Adam Smith)
Developed British empiricism
Denied chair at Edinburgh University (for atheism)
Precursor of utilitarian ethical theory (Bentham, James Mill)
Francis Hutcheson (1694-1746)
Professor of Moral Philosophy at Glasgow
A founding figure of the Scottish Enlightenment
Source of moral judgment is “moral sense” (a natural faculty
for distinguishing right and wrong)
Adam Smith (1723-1790)
Contemporary of Hume
Best known for The Wealth of Nations (1776)
First work: The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
Moral theory centered on the faculty of sympathy
Hume, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751)

9. Hume sets up the contemporary debate by stating that different
theories hold that either reason or sentiment is the exclusive
source of moral judgment.
He acknowledges that this division within ethical theory can
already be discerned within ancient (western) philosophy.
Hume’s general position: neither reason nor sentiment alone can
account for morality; they must always act in conjunction.
“Sentiment” takes the form of an “internal sense” (parallel to
the “outer sense” of sense perception), which evokes moral
reactions.
Morality and Usefulness
Hume believes that moral judgment can only be motivated by
human self-interest.
This does not mean that everything passing as morally good is
really just selfish.
Moral judgments and action relate to general human welfare,
rather than an individual’s interests alone.
As with Enlightenment thinking more generally, Hume rejects
religious theories of human morality.
The origins of justice
Hume sets out to prove “that public utility is the sole origin of
justice”.
If all people in a society could satisfy all their desires all the
time, there would be no need for justice; in other words, justice
is about balancing interests.
Justice relates to the need to distribute goods in a situation of
relative scarcity; this idea suggests immediately “social justice”
in distributive terms.
There also needs to be a sense of common interest for justice to
arise among a certain set of persons.
Finally, justice also stems from interdependence between
persons living in a society; this idea stems from the reality of

10. “the division of labor.”
The right to private property
Property rights are based on the general principle of morality:
general utility. This follows John Locke’s (1632-1704) natural
right theory.
Hume follows Locke’s idea of justice as a distribution of goods
following the labor invested to produce them.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued in his Discourse on Inequality
(1754) that unequal divisions of property were highly immoral.
In 19th century socialism certain elements of Rousseau were
developed into Proudhon’s (1809-1865) “property is theft” idea.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)
An influential political theorist
Often seen as a precursor to 19th century socialist theory
His Émile offers an early account of child-centered pedagogy
Admired by French Revolutionaries and later Romanticism
Global Poverty (under $2/day)
Life Expectancy
Net Aid/GDP (2008)

11. Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” (1972)
This is famous article argues we all have a strong moral
obligation to alleviate suffering if it is our power.
Singer’s test case is widespread famine that, at the time, was
affecting East Bengal (Bangladesh).
Singer’s basic moral principle: “if it is in our power to prevent
something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing
anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to
do it.” (614)
There are two further qualifications: 1) distance is not morally
significant, and 2) others’ ability to help is not significant.
Analysis of Singer’s Argument
Singer says that distance and the prospect that others can help
are psychologically, but not morally significant.
Singer argues that helping others in distress should be
considered morally obligatory, and not voluntary acts of
“charity.”
Objections:
This is too drastic a revision of our current moral framework.
Response: morality requires that we challenge our normal
tendencies of thought.
This might not produce the overall highest levels of well-being
or happiness. Response: equivalent moral goods of all are
respected.
Overseas aid should be the concern of governments, not
individuals. Response: both governments and individuals should
give.

12. John Arthur, “Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Code”
Arthur argues that Singer’s position rests on the implicit claim:
All human life is of equal moral consideration.
Arthur admits an element of equality in our moral thinking, but
insists that there is also an element of moral entitlement.
Equality relates to “negative” rights, which preserve the
individual against harm from others.
Entitlement relates to “positive” rights, which express what is
owed to an individual on account of their own activities (“just
deserts”).
The basic fault in Singer’s approach is that he places all the
emphasis on negative rights and fails to acknowledge
entitlements.
Analysis of Arthur’s Article
Arthur follows David Hume in seeing the “ideal moral code” as
arising out of social utility: morality is an expression of
collective self-interest.
Arthur contends that Singer is burdening our moral code with
unrealistic expectations that place altruism at odds with self-
interest.
Singer’s position is likely to produce less good: if people are
obliged to give, this may act as a deterrent to wealth generation:
why earn it to lose it?
Thus neglecting the entitlement aspect of our moral code could
have the perverse consequence of making us less capable of
helping the needy.
Thomas Pogge, “Eradicating Systemic Poverty”

13. Pogge’s Argument
Pogge identifies three key ways in which wealthier nations and
their inhabitants can be said to damage poorer nations:
International organizations and agreements (e.g. WTO, NAFTA)
Unequal ownership and exploitation of natural resources (e.g.
oil in Africa)
Consequences of violent, repressive historical relations (e.g.
British India)
In sum, Pogge’s argument is that those in wealthier countries
must acknowledge their moral responsibility for benefiting from
poorer countries suffering due to the causes 1)-3).
The right response to this responsibility is to reform the
international distribution of wealth to correct the current glaring
imbalance.
Holmes Rolston III, “Feeding People versus Saving Nature”
Global Population Density
Rolston’s Argument
The basic argument: the moral duty to prevent human suffering
does not necessarily take precedence over care for the
environment.
This is true for both moral and prudential reasons: we do have
moral duties relating to other species and to natural ecosystems;
we also materially rely on these for human biological viability.
If the point of anti-poverty measures is simply to allow a
constant acceleration in global population growth, this will
result in destruction for all life forms. We will therefore be
fueling our own destruction.

14. Sometimes we must prioritize the health of non-human life over
that of human populations. This involves a shift from
‘homocentric’ (human centered) to ‘ecocentric’ (life centered)
ethics.
Duties and Imperatives
The Ethics of Conflict
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
Remained his whole life in Königsberg (eastern Prussia).
Famous for his three Critiques: of “pure reason,” “practical
reason,” and “judgment”.
Proposes a duty-based, universal, “deontological” theory of
ethics.
Thought of morality and nature, values and facts as distinct.
Moral Agency
Kant insists that it is only the presence of a “good will” that
makes any act morally valuable.
He rejects rival theories that locate moral worth primarily in:
a) virtue, b) happiness, or c) sympathy.
Kant’s position is called “deontological” (from the Greek deon,
“what must be”) and focuses on absolute moral duties.
It is opposed, classically to utilitarian (more broadly
consequentialist) theories of ethics, which focus on good
results.

15. Four basic mental powers
According to Kant there are four basic human mental powers:
sensibility, imagination, understanding, and reason.
Sensibility and imagination are, respectively, capacities to be
affected by and to bring together impressions from physical
objects.
Understanding is the capacity to use concepts to organize the
sense impressions that reach the mind via the senses.
Reason, as distinct from the understanding, is the mind’s ability
to be guided by abstract ideas such as goodness, freedom, and
God.
Reason and human nature
Kant makes the traditional assumption of western philosophy:
reason is both essential and unique to human beings.
Whereas “understanding” is the human capacity for knowledge
of nature (science), “reason” is the human capacity for being
moral.
Kant insists that the test of true morality is an individual’s
ability to rise above self-interest for the sake of the rational
moral community.
Reason is what makes each of us human, and being moral is the
deliberate and consistent exercise of our rational capacity.
Morality resides “within”
Kant’s ethics is undoubtedly influenced by pietism: a religious
movement within Lutheranism highlighting intense individual
faith.
This influence may account to some degree for Kant’s idea that
morality resides in individual good will and strict duty.
While Kant as an Enlightenment figure celebrated and added to
scientific insights into nature, he saw morality a matter of
humanity’s “inner” truth.

16. But this inner truth consists in everyone respecting and acting
according to universal moral law. Kant strives to be the Newton
of morality.
Hence the paradox: morality is individual conviction following
universal law.
The solitary moral hero
Caspar David Friedrich, Wanderer Above a Sea of Fog (1818)
Questions
Why does Kant see the “good will” as the only source of pure
moral worth?
Does Kant imply that an ethical agent should be unconcerned
with human happiness?
What sense does it make to locate in human reason the capacity
to be moral?
If morality is always a question of “good will,” how can we
know when anyone is being truly moral?
Pure Practical Reason
Kant opposes empiricist explanations that insist morality is a
product of human experience.
Strictly speaking, morality and its source in pure practical
reason are not objects of knowledge.
Knowledge for Kant is a relation of the mind to the empirical
world; ethics is really a self-relation.
The mind, for Kant, is not in the empirical world, but it can
relate to this world in various ways (via perception,
imagination, understanding).
The Categorical Imperative

17. “Laws of nature” are mechanical, “moral laws” involve the
active consent of the moral agent; both types of law are
necessarily binding.
Moral laws are not necessary in the sense of leaving moral
agents no choice; instead, they constitute what it means to be a
moral agent.
A law is “categorical” when it is followed for its intrinsic (not
instrumental) value; the agent’s will is thus acting in a self-
ruling or autonomous manner.
A law constitutes an “imperative” in the sense of being
universally binding.
Formulations
“Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will
that it should become a universal law.”
“Act as though the maxim of your action were to become by you
will a universal law of nature.”
Third Formulation
“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your
own person or in any other person, always at the same time as
an end, never merely as a means.”
Test Cases
1. Taking one’s own life due to pain or misery. Cannot be
universalized.
2. Borrowing money that will not be repaid. Promise keeping is
a basic duty.
3. Failing to develop a valuable capacity. It is a basic duty to
develop useful powers.
4. Failing to aid others in distress. No one would will that they
live without any aid and sympathy from others.

18. War and Terrorism
Joseph Boyle, “Just War and Terrorism”
Terrorism is acting to promote fear in order to realize policy
change.
Terrorism is morally wrong because it involves harm to
innocents.
Terrorism is, by definition, waged by non-state organizations.
Three conditions of for justly initiating any war: 1) proper
authority, 2) just cause, 3) right intent.
Proper authorities are essentially legitimate nation states.
Just cause has shifted from punishment of others to self-
defense.

19. Right intention is waging war solely to restore peaceful
relations.
Just War Theory Applied to Terrorism
If a state has not acted aggressively to another state, it must
consent to a foreign power’s desire to pursue terrorists within
its territory.
Terrorist organizations cannot conform to just war requirements
as they: 1) lack proper authority and 2) lack just cause (means
of response).
Preventive actions against terrorist conform to just war theory
when they relate to ongoing activities, but not simply potential
capacity.
The aim or intent of combatting terrorism must relate
specifically and exclusively to efforts to stop the terrorist acts.
Waging war against terrorists must be a last resort and always
recognize that the ultimate goal is peaceful relations between
parties.
Douglas Lackey, “Preventive Force”
“Preventive force” is force used against a person who might do
evil; “preemptive force” is force used against a person who will
do evil.
UN Charter authorizes only responsive force (in reaction to evil
already done); international law allows for preemptive action.
Problem: Can we clearly distinguish preemptive and preventive
force?
Any act can be divided into stages of development: 1) ideation,
2) mere preparations, 3) deciding, 4) substantial steps, 5)
consummation.
The crucial transition is 2) to 3). To use preventive force at
stage 2) is to act before a concrete decision to do harm has been
reached.

20. Against Preventive Force
Preventive force derives from thinking the worst of one’s
opponents; the problem with this is that is removes incentives
for acting better.
On the presumption that the use of violence will involve
harming innocents and should be a last resort, the evidence must
be solid.
Freedom of speech requires that generalized sentiments of
opposition not be regarded as proof of intent to harm innocents.
Morally objecting to the publicly held opinions of others is not
sufficient grounds for using “preventive force.”
Charles Beitz, “Humanitarian Intervention”
Humanitarian intervention is the use of force by states to stop
or prevent violations of human right by another state.
Both the legal and moral justification of such intervention is in
question.
UN Charter (1946): 1) collectivized decision for war, 2)
highlighted the responsibility of each nation state to protect
human rights.
Two issues: 1) there is no international authority for acts, 2)
permissibility versus moral obligation of acts against a
sovereign state.
Following just war theory, invention must involve: 1) just
purpose, 2) a legitimate authority, 3) last resort, 4) chance of
success, 5) proportionality.
William Hawk, “Moral Presumption”
Hawk argues that there is currently a moral presumption for
war, that is, an understanding that waging war is necessary for
justice.
Using the example of the French village of Le Chambon and its

21. pacifist pastor Andre Trocme, Hawk highlights non-violent
resistance.
Factors vs killing others: 1) level of knowledge, 2) unintended
consequences, 3) prejudice, 4) propaganda, 5) self-deception, 6)
self-interest.
The burden of proof must be placed on those who advocate for
war, rather than of those who call for the protection of peace.
Two types of pacifism: 1) anti-war pacificism, based on the
known evils of war and 2) personal pacificism, rejects the very
idea of “right killing.”
Questions Arising
Must humanitarian intervention be motivationally pure?
Must a policy of humanitarian intervention be even-handed or
consistent?
Is humanitarian intervention the best use of scarce resources?
Examples of morally justified humanitarian intervention in the
last twenty years?
Elementary Ethics
Justice and Distribution
Ethics as an area of philosophy
The term “ethics” is derived from the Greek word ethos,
meaning habit or character.
We will be exploring the history and key themes in the
‘western’ tradition of ethics.
Ethics is traditionally considered a principal area of philosophy,
alongside logic, epistemology, and ontology (metaphysics).
Western ethical theory is derived from Plato and Aristotle.
Plato held that moral knowledge was the key thing.

22. Aristotle by contrast emphasized character virtues or skills.
We begin with the topic of Justice. The ancient Greek term for
this is dikaiosune, which can also mean “rightness” or
“propriety.”
Jacques-Louis David, The Death of Socrates (1787)
Plato’s Euthyphro
Traditionally understood as Plato’s earliest dialogue.
The dialogue form is thought to have been invented by Plato,
initially to dramatize the way Socrates practiced philosophy.
In antiquity Socrates was renowned for his irony. This is amply
displayed throughout this early dialogue.
The theme is “piety,” that is, human behavior deemed
acceptable to the gods. Popular Greek religion was polytheistic.
The basic question: Is it the justice of a human action that
generates divine approval or divine approval that makes such
action just? (Realism or non-realism).
Distinct areas of justice relate to: a) human affairs and b) the
gods. Politics falls under (a) and religion under (b).
Plato’s Crito
This dialogue takes up the story of Socrates’ eventual execution
at the time of his incarceration (399 BCE).
Having been condemned to death by his fellow Athenian
citizens, in Crito Socrates defends his loyalty to the laws of his
city-state.
The right and just thing to do, he argues, is never to place
individual pleasure or convenience before the good of the
community or state.
In modern contexts this position would be called “legalism,”
that is, holding that all laws are necessarily morally binding.

23. Socrates’ stance seems surprising, given that other portrayals of
him (by Plato and others) often show him challenging authority.
Under what circumstances do you think someone is morally
justified in opposing laws? What of civil disobedience and
freedom of conscience?
Plato’s Republic
Republic is a wide-ranging work generally considered Plato’s
masterpiece.
While Socrates is still the main dramatic character, the style is
considerably more elaborate than in the early dialogues.
Republic begins with an investigation into the nature of justice.
Justice is first defined as “returning what is owed” and becomes
“doing what best benefits one’s society.”
The famous “ring of Gyges” (ring if invisibility) story is
introduced to further the argument: people only behave properly
because they fear the legal and social consequences of not doing
so.
The character Glaucon is elaborating the “might is right”
argument introduced by Thrasymachus earlier on.
Glaucon wants to pressure Socrates to give a robust defense of
the intrinsic (i.e. non-instrumental) value of justice.
John Rawls: A Theory of Justice (1971)
A Theory of Justice is one of the most influential books on
ethical/political theory from the second half of the 20th century.
Its overall task is to offer a liberal account of social justice
(ensuring the well-being all community members) without
violating basic individual rights.
In the 1970s the political middle ground was further to the left
that it is today, so Rawl’s account can be seen as more
representative than Nozick’s.
Rawls takes a rigorously theoretical approach to the question of
justice, seeking to formulate general principles of what is called

24. “procedural” justice.
In fact, his theory really rests on a basic thought experiment: if
you did not know you social position, how would you want
society to be organized.
Rawls often questions the utilitarian approach, arguing it is
predisposed to violate individual rights in the name of the
general good.
Rawls’ principles of justice
Rawls is adapting the “contract” theory (formulated by Hobbes
and Rousseau (17th and 18th centuries), which holds justice to
derive from an implicit social agreement.
What these earlier thinkers called “the state of nature” Rawls
calls “the original position”: the situation in which individuals
enter into agreement.
What Rawls refers to as “the veil of ignorance” amounts to the
key assumption that no person knows or can predict what social
position she will occupy.
First principle of justice: equal right to most extensive liberty.
Modern liberalism sees individual liberty as a key prerequisite
of a just society. But liberty must be affirmed as a right for all,
thereby placing obvious limits on it.
Second principle of justice: any inequality is only tolerable if
all benefit from it. This states that lack of social and economic
equality is only just where everyone is better off. In other
words, equality is necessary to justice unless its absence is
universally beneficial.
Robert Nozick: Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974)
Whereas Rawls is building on a broadly communitarian tradition
of social justice, Nozick appeals to the modern founders of
libertarianism, especially Hayek.
Hayek’s theory proclaims the virtues of the free market to
circulate social goods in the best way, freed from the prejudices

25. of any central state authority.
Anarchy, State, and Utopia, along with the popular works of
Milton Friedman (also an adherent of Hayek) brought free
market position into the political mainstream.
Nozick’s basic question is: by what right does someone make a
legitimate claim to a social good (what he calls “holdings”)?
Nozick argues that all questions of distribution must be
historical, in the sense that they follow previous actions of
agents worthy of holdings.
However, he also argues that we can never establish a pattern
for distribution, such that some central agency of distribution
could give according to moral merit.
Justice as Entitlement
Rather than pre-established principles of distribution (as set out
by Rawls), Nozick puts forward his entitlement theory of
justice, a theory focused on production.
Nozick points out that each thing to which social value is
attached already has entitlements attached to it; in other words
it is not free-floating property.
The mistake of social justice communitarianism, he insists, is
that it looks at property and wealth always from the point of
view of worthy recipients.
Nozick’s counterpoint is this: there is no agency capable of
deciding who deserves something, and in fact this is already
decided in a free market through ownership.
Applying his justice as entitlement idea to taxation, he likens
this to “forced labor.” When a government collects tax it forces
me to work more to get what I want. The only source of justice
stems from the free choice of the earner.
For Nozick, the money I earn is really a promissory note for
property. Taxation violates the promise by taking the decision
out of my hands by force.

26. I. M. Young: Justice and the Politics of Difference (1990)
Iris Marion young was an influential political theorist who
advanced the theory of deliberative democracy in the 1980s and
90s.
She argues that the tradition progressive concern about social
justice focused excessively on issues around redistribution of
wealth.
While questions of distribution are important, of equal weight
are questions of participatory justice. She agrees with Nozick
that justice is not all about receiving.
Reflecting on her theoretical and practical work on social
exclusion, she insists that a genuine democracy involves the
active participation of all affected by decisions.
Young’s approach is clearly communitarian, in that it sees
justice as a question of the welfare of the whole of society; but
follows the German thinker Habermas in emphasizing inclusion
within public discussion and decision-making.
One thing that emerges from her work is the recognition of the
key role played by public space within any healthy liberal
democracy.
I. M. Young: Justice and the Politics of Difference (1990)
The distributive paradigm tends to see justice purely in terms of
the possession of material goods.
However, social roles and prestige are very important in
determining how just a society actually is.
The answer is not simply to expand the talk about distribution
to include social and cultural goods and their fair dispersal.
A case in point is the status of women in society. The injustice
involved is not adequately addressed when women have equal
material means.
“Rights are not fruitfully conceived as possessions. Rights are
relationships, not things … Right refer to doing more than
having.”

27. Modern theories of justice tend to reduce it to the relative
advantages held by individuals; ancient theories, by contrast,
see justice in terms of a whole society.
Jonathan Wolff: Economic Competition (2007)
Wolff’s article can be seen as a response to Nozick, who
assumes that free market distribution is automatically just.
The 19th-century liberal theorist John Stuart Mill claimed (On
Liberty, 1859) that liberty is morally constrained by harm to
others’ interests.
Leftist critiques of the free market point to the patterns of
worker exploitation (a version of “harm”) within the workings
of the modern industrial economy.
Wolff remarks: “The core of exploitation is making some sort of
wrong or unfair use of another person purely for your own
benefit” (p. 605)
Wolff’s area of application is international trade and whether a
consumer can be said to be harming exploited producers.
The accusation of harm can only be avoided if it is true that my
benefiting from the produced good does not harm the interest of
the producers.
Group Activity
Get together in groups of 4 or 5 and discussion the following:
Identify the last three things you bought.
Who made them? Where did they come from? How important
are they to you?
Do you think anyone was exploited in making them? Could you
have bought a more “ethically produced” alternative product?
What is the moral status of taxation on earnings? Do you think
you are entitled to keep all your earnings? What are the positive
arguments in favor of taxation on earnings?
What do I owe (morally speaking) to others in my immediate
community?

28. John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism (1861)
Influential defender of progressive liberalism
Elaborated on the experimental method in relation to the human
sciences
Long term partner was Harriet Taylor, who inspired Mill’s The
Subjection of Women (1861)
Educated by his father, James Mill, and Jeremy Bentham, the
founder of utilitarianism
The Basic Principle: Happiness = Pleasure
Mill’s formulation: “Actions are right in proportion as they tend
to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse
of happiness” (p. 229).
Psychological claim: “Pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the
only things desirable as ends.”
Mill’s defense of utilitarianism initially takes the form of
providing a broad and rich interpretation of “pleasure.”
In particular, Mill is keen to stress the importance of what he
calls “intellectual pleasures” as opposed to physical pleasures.
Pleasure and Value
Why take pleasure as the basic human good and how can one
type of pleasure be more valuable than another?
On the first question: Mill, as an empiricist, thinks that it is a
self-evident truth of observation that people desire pleasure and
shun pain.
Similarly, his argument for more or less valuable pleasures rests
on the simple principle of social preference: whatever is

29. generally regarded as more valuable, simply is more valuable.
But there is a condition: only someone acquainted through
direct experience with different kinds of pleasure is competent
to decide on their relative value.
Socrates and … the pig
Pleasure and Self-Interest
Mill, as many thinkers before him, thinks that the drive for
pleasure must be rationalized through the cultivation of
prudence (foresight).
Alluding to a passage in Plato’s Republic, Mill says that
utilitarian pleasure does not propose the life of a “satisfied
pig.”
What he’s saying is that pleasure may be “hard won” and
involved hardship and sacrifice. All “higher pleasures” are like
this, in fact.
This idea brings us back to the notion of “intellectual
pleasures”: none of them can be gained without effort and
discipline.
A corollary of this is that pain can be willed without
contradiction, as long at it is a credible means to greater net
pleasure.
The Greatest Happiness Principle
Another potential criticism of utilitarianism is that it does not
really offer a moral standpoint, but in fact promotes selfishness.
Mill states: “[The utilitarian standard] is not the agent’s own
greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness
altogether” (234).
In other words, it is the balance of social happiness that counts.

30. This is consistent with individual self-sacrifice for the common
good.
It is worthwhile remembering, that Bentham originally devised
utilitarianism as an account of enlightened public policy.
The Politics of Utilitarianism
Mill served a brief term (1865-8) as a British member of
parliament and championed progressive causes, especially
popular education.
Like other traditional liberals, he felt that a truly democratic
society should allow all voices to count; but the people must
first be educated.
For “the greatest happiness” to become a workable reality, what
is needed is a vigorous policy of social and educational
improvement.
In his great work of political philosophy, On Liberty (1859),
Mill asserted that education should be privately run, with the
help of centralized governmental coordination of information.
Discussion Questions
Utilitarianism requires us to be “strictly impartial” when
judging between our own and others’ happiness. Is this
possible? (239)
Is Mill right to insist that “the motive has nothing to do with the
morality of the action”? Think of Kant’s “good will.” (240)
Mill claims utilitarianism is a modern interpretation of the

31. Christian teaching to “treat your neighbor as you would be
treated.” Is this defensible? (244)
It is unrealistic to suppose that individuals can perform the
“utility calculation” in actual situations? (246)
Is Mill right to say: “No reason can be given why the general
happiness is desirable, except that each person … desires his
own happiness”? (249)
Mill, On Liberty (1859)
Published four years before Utilitarianism, On Liberty is Mill’s
brilliant defense of the individual’s right to non-interference
from others.
The basic tenet is the “harm principle”: that a person has a right
to do anything she wishes as long as it does not harm others.
This principle is applied to an array of issues, including free
speech.
Mill’s basic assertion is that speech much clearly cause or incite
harm to others in society to justify its restriction or suppression.
Mere “offence” – causing distaste – does not constitute harm in
a relevant sense. Differences of taste must be tolerated.
Speech and the limits to knowledge
Recall that, for Mill, matters pertaining to human society can
only be known by degrees of probability and never with
absolute certainty.
Those who dogmatically claim to know what is absolutely right
for society are really imposing their view and suppressing those
of others.
The positive situation Mill is defending is one of lively
diversity of opinions within social discourse; this is a hallmark
of a truly liberal society.
As in scientific advancement, knowledge is most likely to
improve when dominant notions are constantly challenged.
The basic social virtue Mill is advancing is one of humility and

32. acceptance of fallibility with respect to all claims to social
knowledge.
Altman, “Pornography, Autonomy, Equality”
Basic claim: “The right to pornography should be understood
primarily as an element of … sexual autonomy” (387L).
While Altman acknowledges there is some relevance to
discussions about freedom of speech, it is for him really a
question of sexual freedom.
He asserts that moves to restrict access to pornography should
be resisted because they are unjust infringements of individual
liberty.
He acknowledges that pornography: 1) is mostly directed
towards men, 2) mostly depicts women, and 3) portrays female
subservience to men.
He claims that empirical study does not show a clear causal link
between exposure to pornography and violence against women.
Pornography and liberal society
Altman argues that the prevalence of pornography is essentially
a sign of a genuine, robust liberal society.
He compares the US to Saudi Arabia, and claims that in the
latter case there is little pornography and yet much repression
of women.
Against critics who assert that pornography promotes violence
against women, he cites the hypocrisy of greater tolerance of
other violent images.
Violence against women who work within the pornography
industry is regrettable but many other sectors of work involve
repression of women.
Altman concludes: “Women are far better off in societies where
a liberal sexual morality dominates than in traditional societies”
(395).

33. Brison, “Pornography and Harm”
Brison offers a direct rebuttal of Altman’s argument claiming:
pornography sexualizes violence against women and should not
be tolerated.
She defines pornography as “violent degrading misogynistic
hate speech (where “speech” includes words, pictures, films,
etc.)” (379).
She challenges Altman’s notion that women involved in making
pornography are simply exercising free choice as autonomous
persons.
Beyond the direct harm to women Brison also insist there is
clear indirect harm to all persons who are exposed to
pornography.
She points out that the current legality of pornography in no
way settles the moral question, no more than legalized slavery
was a moral justification.
The right to pleasure
Brison points out that, more generally, we do not assert a right
to feel any kind of sexual pleasure, e.g. toward minors or
genocide victims.
To insist that sexuality be entirely free in its modes of
expression is to ignore the fact that sexual behavior is socially
conditioned and not just a raw biological drive.
Anthropologists and social psychologists have long studied the
ways in which sexual behavior is subject to strict codes of
conduct.
Seeing all sexual behavior as instances of legitimate free speech
is to grant individual rights to autonomy that clearly conflict
with equal rights to happiness.
Just as we have come to legally proscribe “hate speech,” liberal
societies are justified in preventing pornography as something
promoting hate towards women.

34. Elementary Ethics
Answer FOUR questions. Each question is worth 10 points.
1. What are some of the features of Plato’s theory of justice as
set out in his Republic? How can these features of justice be
applied to the opposed views on distributive justice according to
the positions developed by Rawls and Nozick?
2. Explain Aristotle’s three-way distinction of human action as
a) voluntary, b) involuntary and c) non-voluntary. Give
examples of each kind of action. How can Aristotle’s theory of
human agency be applied to the three models of punishment:
retributivism, deterrence, and rehabilitation.
3. Explain the nature and role of ‘moral sentiment’ in Hume’s
outline of morality. What role, if any, is played by reason in
Hume’s account of moral action? In light of Hume’s theory,
reconstruct the debate between Singer and Arthur.
4. Explain Kant’s two formulations of the ‘categorical
imperative’ according to a) universalizability and b) non-
instrumentalization. How might these formulations be applied to
the question of preemptive international conflict. Give examples
to illustrate these applications.
5. What is Mill’s concept of the basic ethical principle
according to utilitarianism and what is his proof of this
principle? What are Mill’s views on the freedom of speech and
thought and how do these shed light on the debate about
pornography between Altman and Brison?