Ch8ppt velasquez12

CHAPTER EIGHT SOCIAL ANDCHAPTER EIGHT SOCIAL AND
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHYPOLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
P H I L O S O P H YP H I L O S O P H Y
A TEXT WITH READINGSA TEXT WITH READINGS
1212thth
EDITIONEDITION
Manual VelasquezManual Velasquez
Chapter 8:Chapter 8:
“Social and Political Philosophy”“Social and Political Philosophy”

The Limits of GovernmentThe Limits of Government
• Beyond conducting war and maintaining
domestic law, the government of the United
States does many things:
– It provides loans to banks, insurance companies, and
car companies and has bought up large portions of
stock in companies.
– It provides welfare for those who are poor, disabled,
and unemployed and pays for medical services for
older adults.
– It pays for the education of all children.
• Are these legitimate functions of government?
CHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIAL ANDCHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIAL AND

Issues within Social andIssues within Social and
Political PhilosophyPolitical Philosophy
• The focus of this chapter is “Social and Political”
• This philosophy addresses the previous
question as well as the following:
– What is the source of the authority government wields
over us?
– Is it just that government should play such a large role
in regulating our lives?
– What is justice and what does justice demand that we
should do for the poor and the needy among us?
– What is the relationship of the individual to society?

The Meaning of ‘State’The Meaning of ‘State’
• When we use the word ‘state’, we are not
referring to California or Michigan.
• Rather, we generally use the word to refer to
what we today often refer to as a “nation”: a
politically organized body of people who occupy
a definite territory and whose political
organization has supreme or “sovereign”
authority over the people in that territory.
– In this sense, the United States as a whole is a state,
but California and New York are not states.

Outline of Topics in Chapter 8Outline of Topics in Chapter 8
• The remainder of the chapter focuses on
three sets of issues:
– 8.2 What Justifies the State?
– 8.3 What is Justice?
– 8.4 Limits on the State

8.28.2 What Justifies the State?What Justifies the State?
• The state is the highest authority in a society,
and has the legal power to define the public
interest and enforce its definition.
• One clear example of the state’s doing this can
be seen in the income tax system.
– The state sets priorities—that is, defines the public
interest—then, it taxes citizens to implement these
priorities.
– Not everybody agrees with the priorities of the state –
should they too be forced to pay taxes on those items
they find unacceptable?
POLTICAL PHILOSOPHYPOLTICAL PHILOSOPHY

Justifying the StateJustifying the State
• Various theories have been advanced to define
the legitimacy of the state and justify its power.
• Appeals have been made to:
– Divine authority.
• Some rulers have claimed the power to rule as a divine right,
as a kind of mandate from God.
– The public interest.
• Insofar as the state furthers the public interest, it is justified.
– An important and influential theory of justification is
social contract theory.

Social Contract TheorySocial Contract Theory
• Social contract theory says that individuals
agree to give up certain liberties and rights to
the state, which in return guarantees such rights
as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
– Contract theory is both an explanation of the origin of
the state and a defense of its authority.
– This theory has been defended by Thomas Hobbes,
John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau and more
recently by the philosopher John Rawls.

Hobbesian JusticeHobbesian Justice
• Unlike previous philosophers, Thomas Hobbes
(1588-1679) viewed the world as a mechanical
system explainable in terms of physical laws.
– Even the behavior of humans or complex societies, it
is argued, is reducible to geometric and physical
explanations.
– Accordingly, in his book In Leviathan, Hobbes
portrays humans as selfish, unsocial creatures driven
by two needs: survival and personal gain.
• Therefore, human life is characterized by constant struggle,
strife, and war, with individual pitted against individual in a
battle for self-preservation and gain.

Rational Self-InterestRational Self-Interest
• “The passions that incline men to peace, are fear
of death; desire of such things as are necessary
to commodious living; and a hope by their
industry to obtain them. And reason suggesteth
convenient articles of peace, upon which men
may be drawn to agreement. These articles, are
they, which otherwise are called the Laws of
Nature.” (546)
– Hobbes is saying that a rational concern for their own
survival and best long-term interests impels humans to
enter into a contract with one another and form society.

Irrevocable AuthorityIrrevocable Authority
• Because they recognize that otherwise their lives
are destined to be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish,
and short,” humans accept state authority outside
themselves and over them.
– The agreement that establishes this authority is
irrevocable: once set up, the political body wielding this
power exercises absolute authority over its subjects
and remains in power as long as it is able to compel
them to do what they otherwise would not do.
– Thus, the state that individuals contract with becomes
superior to the individuals.
POLITICAL HILOSOPHYPOLITICAL HILOSOPHY

Locke and Natural Moral LawsLocke and Natural Moral Laws
• John Locke (1632-17040 also believes human
beings started off in a state of nature.
• However, his assumptions about humans in the
state of nature contrasts with those of Hobbes
– Humans, for Hobbes, are naturally without morality ,
whereas for Locke they are essentially moral beings
who feel the pull of natural moral rules.
• Thus, where Hobbes saw warfare as the human’s natural state,
Locke saw our natural state as at least partly regulated by
natural moral laws.
• As a result, Locke viewed humans as free and equal by nature,
regardless of the existence of any government.

Why Government?Why Government?
• According to Locke, human beings seek to
establish governments because three things are
missing in the state of nature:
1. a firm, clearly understood interpretation of the
natural but unwritten moral laws;
2. unbiased judges to resolve disputes;
3. a power capable of enforcing justice when one is
wronged.
• So, individuals enter into a social contract to
maintain their natural rights.

In Locke’s Own WordsIn Locke’s Own Words
• “Thus mankind, notwithstanding all the privileges of the
state of Nature, being but in an ill condition while they
remain in it are quickly driven into society. Hence it
comes to pass, that we seldom find any number of men
live any time together in this state. The inconveniences
that they are therein exposed to by the irregular and
uncertain exercise of the power every man has of
punishing the transgressions of others, make them take
sanctuary under the established laws of government,
and therein seek the preservation of their property.”
(547)
CHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIALANDCHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIALAND

Limited AuthorityLimited Authority
• The social contract human beings form is based
on the consent of the majority, and all agree to
abide by the decisions of the majority.
– Therefore, the state’s authority is limited by the terms
of the contract, which is continually reviewed by the
citizenry.
– So, unlike Hobbes’s absolutistic state, Locke’s state is
specific and limited.
– Indeed, one of the fundamental moral rights in
Locke’s political state is the right to resist and to
challenge authority.

Focus on FreedomFocus on Freedom
• Locke agrees with Hobbes that…
– humans use their reason to perceive the necessity of
entering a social contract.
– the source of the state’s authority is the the consent
of the governed.
• However, Locke emphasizes freedom more
than Hobbes.
• Locke’s version of the social contract helped
inspire the Declaration of Independence and the
American Revolution in 1776.

Rousseau’s Social ContractRousseau’s Social Contract
• Many consider Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712–
1778) to be the foremost philosopher of the
– Rousseau did not appeal to a self-evident natural
moral law as Locke had, but argued that if people are
to act morally, they must live under laws that they
freely accept.
– He thus emphasizes personal moral autonomy, and
assumes that the fundamental requirement of a
morally acceptable government is that the governed
have freely subscribed to a common body of law.

““Born in Chains”Born in Chains”
• Rousseau began his most important political
work, Of the Social Contract, with the
sensational words “Man was born free, but he is
everywhere in chains.”
– How then did we all came to be bound by the “chains”
of the all-powerful authority of the state?
– Rousseau answers this question by arguing that each
person, while by nature free and autonomous, freely
gives up their freedom to form a state.

The General WillThe General Will
• The power of the state is consistent with human
freedom if individuals freely choose to subject
themselves to it.
– For Rousseau the “general will” is the corporate
expression of this mutually agreed on decision.
• Because each citizen is an integral part of the general
will, what the general will decides and does is really
what each citizen is deciding and doing.
• Thus, in obeying the state, the individual is truly
obeying himself and is therefore free: The power of
the state is a morally justified power.

In Rousseau’s Own WordsIn Rousseau’s Own Words
• “If, then, we set aside what is not of the essence of the
social contract, we shall find that it is reducible to the
following terms: ‘Each of us puts in common his person
and his whole power under the supreme direction of the
general will; and in return we receive every member as
an indivisible part of the whole.’
• Forthwith, instead of the individual personalities of all the
contracting parties, this act of association produces a
moral and collective body, which is composed of as
many members as the assembly has voices, and which
receives from this same act its unity, its common self
(moi), its life, and its will.” (550)

The General WillThe General Will
Versus the “Will of All”Versus the “Will of All”
• The general will is not the same as the “will of
all,” or unanimity of feeling.
– A group of wills is general when each member of the
group aims at the common good.
– Sometimes, the general will and the will of all might
result in the same action, for each group member
may see his or her own best interests being served.
– But Rousseau felt that agreement is more likely when
everyone tries to determine whether a proposed
action is best for the good of all, for the general good,
rather than just for the self.

Contemporary Social ContractContemporary Social Contract
Theory: RawlsTheory: Rawls
• David Hume (1711-1776) argued that the notion
of a social contract was strictly fictional.
– If we go back in history, he pointed out, we will find no
signs of people coming together to choose their
governments.
– After Hume’s attack, most philosophers gave up on
– However, Harvard philosopher John Rawls (1921–
2002) reshaped social contract theory into a powerful
new way of thinking about the nature of government
and society.

What Social ContractWhat Social Contract
Theory is Really AboutTheory is Really About
• Rawls argues that the fictional nature of the social
contract is not important.
• The key idea in social contract theory is that it
gives us a way of thinking about what the nature
and purpose of government should be.
– In order to decide what kind of government is best to
have, social contract theory prescribes that we should
imagine that we are starting our society from scratch.
– What kind of government and society would we choose
for ourselves if we were in this starting or “original”
position?

The Veil of IgnoranceThe Veil of Ignorance
• Rawls wonders how we can conceptualize a just
government – one that is equally fair to everyone
and shows favoritism to none?
• He claims that the principles of such a
government could be decided only if we chose
them under a “veil of ignorance”
– We would have be ignorant of any characteristics that
we might possess -- for example, whether we are
male or female, black or white, rich or poor, young or
old, our religious convictions, etc.

In Rawls’ Own WordsIn Rawls’ Own Words
• “This original position is not, of course, thought of as an
actual historical state of affairs…. It is understood as a
purely hypothetical situation characterized so as to lead
to a certain conception of justice. Among the essential
features of this situation is that no one knows his place in
society, his class position or social status, nor does
anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural
assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength and the
like. . . . Since all are similarly situated and no one is
able to design principles to favor his particular condition,
the principles of justice [for society and government] are
the result of a fair agreement or bargain.” (552)

Rawlsian Justified GovernmentRawlsian Justified Government
• Rawls has shifted our attention from the issue of
the government we actually have, to the issue of
government we should have.
– Contrary to the traditional social contract theory of
Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, the authority of our
government is justified not because we actually
consented to live under our government in the state of
nature.
– Rather, the authority of government is justified
because we would consent to live under that type of
government if we were in the original position.

The Communitarian CritiqueThe Communitarian Critique
• Communitarians criticize social contract theory,
arguing that it overlooks the social nature of
human beings, and overemphasizes the
individual.
• They claim that we cannot hope to understand
ourselves or our government apart from our
community and its cultural traditions.
• Historically, this viewpoint is first anticipated by
the holistic social philosophy of Aristotle, and
then later by Hegel.

Aristotle: the State as NaturalAristotle: the State as Natural
• Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) argued that
government is a natural outgrowth of our natural
tendency to associate with other human beings.
• Just as the family and the tribe are outgrowths of
our natural tendencies to live with one another,
so is the state:
– “We know that the state is a creation of nature and
that it is prior to the individual by the fact that the
individual apart from the state is not self-sufficient.
The individual is like a part that is dependent on the
whole.” (554)

Hegel: The State as the CompletionHegel: The State as the Completion
of Individual Freedomof Individual Freedom
• G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) agreed with Aristotle
that the state is the completion of all earlier
human associations.
• Humans cannot develop either fully or freely
without the state and its cultural practices:
– “Nor [is the state a means by which] each individual
limits his own freedom so that [every individual] can
secure a small space of liberty for himself. Rather, we
affirm, that Law, Morality, Government, and they
alone, are the positive reality and completion of
Freedom. . . .” (555)

Sandel’s CommunitarianismSandel’s Communitarianism
• The contemporary communitarian philosopher,
Michael Sandel, thinks Rawls is mistaken in
claiming that the state must support no particular
culture but leave people free to choose their own
cultural preferences.
– He argues instead each state and its government
must favor and support some set of cultural traditions.
– Thus, the government of each state must educate its
people so that they learn about these cultural
traditions and come to accept their values

In Sandel’s Own WordsIn Sandel’s Own Words
• “Participating in politics . . . means deliberating
with fellow citizens about the common good and
helping to shape the destiny of the political
community. But to deliberate well about the
common good requires more than the capacity
to choose one’s ends and to respect others’
rights to do the same. It requires a knowledge of
public affairs and also a sense of belonging, a
concern for the whole, a moral bond with the
community whose fate is at stake.” (556-557)

Communitarianism in SumCommunitarianism in Sum
• Communitarian views imply that
1. the state is not an artificial construct …
2. because without the state, humans could not
develop, for there would be no one to enter a social
contract in “the state of nature,”
3. and because our culture and traditions make us who
we are, the state should support the cultural
traditions of its people, including their religion,
morality, and cultural values.

Women’s Critique of SocialWomen’s Critique of Social
Contract TheoryContract Theory
• At the heart of contract theory is the idea that
authority over adults depends on their consent.
– A social contract is necessary to establish the state
because the contract is the means through which
citizens consent to be ruled by a government.
– But this fundamental idea raises an important question
that many women have asked: What justifies the
authority that males have traditionally exercised over
females, particularly in the family?
– How can philosophers like Hobbes, Locke and
Rousseau justify the traditional dominance of men
over women?

Public/PrivatePublic/Private
• Social contract theory, as developed by Hobbes,
Locke, and Rousseau, explicitly indicates that the
state is created by an agreement that males make
with one another.
• Why did they fail to apply their fundamental
principles to the family?
– Possibly because of a basic assumption we all
unconsciously make: that “private” or “personal”
matters, such as family matters, have nothing to do
with the “public” matters of politics—what happens to
women within the family is a private matter unrelated to
the politics that rules our public lives

PowerlessPowerless
• Traditionally, women have shouldered the major
part of the unpaid work in the "private" life of the
family: cooking, cleaning, laundry, and caring for
the children.
– Some feminists argue this frees men to engage in the
more powerful "public" life of economic and political
activities, while women are relegated to a relatively
powerless and unequal role.
– Confining women to the private and men to the public
sphere is not necessarily unfair. However, in our
society, real economic and political power is available
only in the public world.

Rethinking Social ContractRethinking Social Contract
• The problems that feminist thinkers have identified
in political theory seem to call the whole social
contract tradition into question.
– That’s because this tradition seems to be built on the
assumption that our private lives and our public affairs
are and should be separate.
– But by ignoring the private domain, the assumption
ignores the most fundamental source of political and
economic inequalities: the family.
– Is it possible to rethink social contract ideals of equality,
freedom, and consent as applied to the family?

8.38.3 What Is Justice?What Is Justice?
• Whether we believe that government rests on
individual consent or on community values, we
want government to be just.
– Justice includes both retributive justice, which looks at
how fair punishments are, and distributive justice,
which looks at how societies distribute social, political
and economic benefits, such as jobs, and economic
burdens, such as taxes.
• Embedded in any answer to the question of how these things
should be distributed is a principle of distributive justice – this
is an assumption about the proper way of distributing what is
available when there isn’t enough for all.

Formal JusticeFormal Justice
• Aristotle articulated one of the earliest principles
of distributive justice, known as formal justice.
– Formal justice is the requirement that we should treat
similar people similarly.
– For example, if Jack and Jill, carry the same amount
of water for us, then we should pay them the same.
• We should not pay Jack more merely because he is a man.
• Neither should we pay Jill more merely because her skin is
white and Jack's is not.
– This raises the question: when should we consider
people to be “the same”?

What is a Relevant Difference?What is a Relevant Difference?
• On the one hand, the formal principle of justice
tells us something about what justice and
injustice are – if we agree about what counts as
relevant difference and what doesn’t.
• On the other hand, the formal principle of justice
does not settle all the issues, because there can
be disagreement about what counts as a
relevant difference.
– There have been many conceptions of “relevant
differences” among people, -- these are called
“material” or “substantive” principles of justice.

Material JusticeMaterial Justice
• A number of accounts of material justice,
each with a different notion of relevant
difference have been defended, including:
– Justice as Merit
– Justice as Equality
– Justice as Social Utility
– Justice as Based on Need and Ability
– Justice as Based on Liberty
• Welfare Liberalism and Clssical Liberalism

Justice as MeritJustice as Merit
• Justice as merit holds that benefits and burdens
should be distributed unequally according to
people’s ability, effort, achievement, or social
status.
– From the perspective, the main “relevant difference”
among people is merit: what people deserve in light of
their talents and achievements.
– This view plays an important role in many of our
perceptions of justice.
– Can you think of any examples of this sort of justice?

Plato and Aristotle andPlato and Aristotle and
Meritocratic JusticeMeritocratic Justice
• Plato and Aristotle both offered defenses of
merit-based principles of justice.
– Plato argued that people, naturally, have different
talents and abilities, so society will function best if
each person plays the role for which he or she is best
suited.
– Aristotle also shared the assumption that individuals
are unequal and that justice is giving to unequal
individuals their unequal due.
• In his Politics, Aristotle even defended slavery on this basis.
– Is this a workable principle of justice?

Justice as EqualityJustice as Equality
• ‘Equal’ means the same.
• In the US, this idea of justice is intuitively
plausible for most of us.
– We widely believe that everyone is entitled to roughly
the same kind of basic education, that the sexes and
races should be treated the same, that individuals
should be treated the same before the law, etc.
– One reason we reject slavery on principle is because
it violates our belief that everyone is equal.
– But what does the commitment to equality imply?
•
CHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIALCHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIAL
AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHYAND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Strict EgalitarianismStrict Egalitarianism
• According to strict egalitarianism equality, in a
just society, implies that every person will be
given exactly equal shares of that society’s
benefits and burdens.
– Egalitarians say there are no relevant differences
among people, so all should be treated equally.
– Pick one area of society (e.g., employment,
education) and determine how this principle would
change that aspect of society.

Questions about EqualityQuestions about Equality
• The main challenge for strict egalitarianism, is
that people are not equal, and their inequalities
seem to sometimes demand an unequal sharing
in society’s resources.
– Human beings have different needs, different abilities,
different desires, and different virtues. They put
forward different efforts and have different skills and
different physical abilities.
– Don’t we have to take these differences into account
when we distribute benefits among people?

Moderate EgalitarianismModerate Egalitarianism
• Some egalitarians respond to these criticisms by
proposing a more moderate form of
egalitarianism which hinges on a distinction
between political equality and economic equality.
– People have political equality when they have an
equal right to participate in our political processes,
and in equal political rights (e.g., a right to due
process)
– Moderate egalitarians argue that people should have
strictly equal political rights.

Moderate EgalitarianismModerate Egalitarianism
• In applying equality to the economic arena,
moderates make a distinction between equality of
income and wealth, and equality of economic
opportunity.
– Moderate egalitarians argue against making everyone’s
income and wealth equal, although some differences
among people have to be recognized when distributing
income and wealth.
– On the other hand, moderate egalitarians continue,
everyone should have an equal opportunity to get those
jobs and positions that carry higher levels of income
and wealth.

Justice as Social UtilityJustice as Social Utility
• Another influential material principle of justice is
that justice is what promotes the general
welfare, that is, the well-being or happiness of
citizens.
– In developing his theory of utilitarianism, John Stuart
Mill (1806-1873) argued that society should always try
to minimize social harms and maximize social
benefits.
– Whatever the institution, policy, or program, its justice
depends ultimately on its expediency—the extent to
which it will be advantageous to society.

Criticisms of Social UtilityCriticisms of Social Utility
• Mill’s account of justice has been subject to many
of the same criticisms as his ethical theory,
utilitarianism.
– For example, some have argued that slavery can be
advantageous for a society under some conditions.
• In fact, some have argued that in primitive societies, slavery
gave some people the leisure needed to develop theories and
technologies that in the long run made those societies better
off than they would have been if everyone had been forced to
spend all their time laboring.
– If these arguments are correct, then the utilitarian would
have to agree that slavery in such situations is just.
• CHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIAL ANDCHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIAL AND

Justice Based onJustice Based on
Need and AbilityNeed and Ability
• Socialism is an influential political philosophy
that emphasizes public ownership of wealth and
the public control of business and industry.
• Karl Marx developed a socialist principle of
justice based on need and ability:
– “From each according to his ability, to each according
to his need.”
– Marx’s slogan is another interpretation of what
relevant difference means in the principle of formal
justice.

What Marxian Justice ImpliesWhat Marxian Justice Implies
• For Marx, the key differences that are relevant
when distributing things justly are people’s
abilities and needs.
– Justice requires that jobs and tasks should be
assigned to people according to their abilities.
• Those with few or no abilities should have light or easy tasks,
whereas those who are extremely able and talented should
have heavier and more complex jobs.
– On the other hand, the goods that society produces—
food, clothing, housing, medical care, luxuries—should
be distributed according to people’s needs.
– In what areas of life do we employ this principle?

Two ConsequencesTwo Consequences
• Marx argues that people should realize their
human potential through productive work that
exercises their particular abilities. This means:
– that work should be distributed according to people’s
abilities.
– the goods produced through work should be used first
to meet people’s basic needs and then their other,
nonbasic needs.
• What two objections to Marx have critics raised?
(572)

Justice Based on LibertyJustice Based on Liberty
• Liberalism holds that liberty is the highest value
that society and government can promote.
– Liberals support freedom of conscience, freedom of
speech, freedom of association, as well as equal
political rights and civil liberties.
– During the twentieth century, liberalism divided into
two camps:
• welfare liberalism;
• classical liberalism.
CHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIAL PHILOSOPHYCHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY

Welfare LiberalismWelfare Liberalism
• We have seen that for John Rawls, legitimate
principles of justice are those that would be
chosen behind such a “veil of ignorance.”
– He argues that only these would be fair to everyone
because without such knowledge, one would not
choose principles that advantage the rich or the poor,
the talented or the untalented, black or white, male or
female, and so on.
– Rawls argues that under these constraints, three
principles would be chosen: the principle of equal
liberty, the principle of equal opportunity, and the
difference principle.

The Principle of Equal LibertyThe Principle of Equal Liberty
• The principle of equal liberty states that “each
person participating in a [political] practice or
affected by it has an equal right to the most
extensive liberty compatible with a like liberty for
all.”
– This principle would primarily govern society’s political
institutions (e.g., its constitution and government).
– It implies that each person must have as many
political rights and freedoms as possible, as long as
everyone else can have the same (“equal”) political
rights and freedoms.

The Principle of EqualThe Principle of Equal
OpportunityOpportunity
• The principle states that desirable jobs and
positions should be open to anyone who is
qualified by his or her abilities. This means:
– that job qualifications should be related to the
requirements of the job and should not discriminate
by race or sex;
– that society should provide people with the training
and education needed to qualify for desirable jobs.
– This principle is supposed to govern a society’s
economic institutions.
CHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIALANDCHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIALAND

The Difference PrincipleThe Difference Principle
• The difference principle says that “[s]ocial and
economic inequalities are to be arranged so that
they are . . . to the greatest benefit of the least
advantaged.”(575)
– This principle also governs economic institutions.
– Unlike the political arena, where everyone must be
equal, the economic arena must allow for some
inequalities – to ensure productivity.
– But inequalities obviously raise the possibility of
unfairness and therefore of instability.

Rationale for theRationale for the
Difference PrincipleDifference Principle
• Rawls is aware that any society will include
those who are disadvantaged (those who cannot
work or who have few talents and abilities).
– These people may be disfavored by principles that
allow inequalities.
– Consequently, Rawls proposes that inequalities
should be allowed only if the plight of the
disadvantaged is relieved (through welfare programs,
for example) by the extra productivity that unequal
work incentives can produce.

Rawlsian Justice: In SumRawlsian Justice: In Sum
• The distribution of benefits and burdens in a
society is just if
– 1.each person has the most political liberty
compatible with equal liberty for all, and
– 2.economic inequalities are arranged so that
• A. everyone has an equal opportunity to qualify for
all positions, and
• B. inequalities produce benefits for the least
advantaged persons.

Classical LiberalismClassical Liberalism
• Robert Nozick (1938–2002) agreed with what
Rawls had to say about political liberty: in the
political arena, people should be equal and
should have as much liberty as is possible.
• In economic affairs, Nozick points out that Rawls
advocates a “patterned” theory of justice in
economic affairs.
– A patterned theory is one that says goods should be
distributed among the members of a society
according to a certain pattern or formula.

Nozick’s ObjectionNozick’s Objection
• Nozick objects that any patterned theory will
always require the unjust use of force and
coercion.
– People’s free choices will always change any pattern
that society tries to establish.
– Then, government will unjustly have to force some
individuals to give their goods to others until the
required distribution is achieved again.
– How does Nozick illustrate his criticism using the
example of Wilt Chamberlain? (575-576)

Nozick’s ObjectionsNozick’s Objections
• He raises a number of specific objections to
Rawls’ theory:
– First, Rawls is using the better-off people in society as
means to ensure the welfare of the worst-off. – this is
fundamentally unjust because it uses people as
means.
– Second, against Rawls’ claim that wealthier
individuals may have to give up some of their money,
Nozick argues they are not entitled to keep what they
own.

Nozick’s PrincipleNozick’s Principle
• Nozick holds the following principle, which we
may take as the principle of justice of classical
liberalism:
– Benefits and burdens are distributed justly when
society allows every individual the freedom to do what
he chooses to do for himself or for others, the
freedom to keep what he makes for himself or what
others choose to give him, and the freedom to keep
what he has or give it to whomever he chooses.
(576)

The Importance of Free ChoiceThe Importance of Free Choice
• Nozick gives gives priority to free choice.
• He argues that justice is respecting people’s free
choices.
– Thus, any distribution of economic benefits and
burdens is just if it is the result of individuals freely
choosing to exchange with each other the goods that
each person already owns.
– How does Rawls reply to Nozick? (577)

8.48.4 Limits on the StateLimits on the State
• Are there any other limits on the authority of the
state?
– Can citizens resist state authority through acts of civil
disobedience, when the laws of the state are unjust?
– What limits do the right to freedom and other human
rights impose on the authority of the state?
– Are there are any moral limits on the use of violence
between states, in acts of war, and states and
individuals in acts of terrorism?

Unjust Laws and CivilUnjust Laws and Civil
DisobedienceDisobedience
• According to the dictionary, law means a general
rule or body of general rules that is enforced by
government and that regulates the behavior of
citizens.
– Clearly, the laws that governments enact are not
always just.
• The laws of the United States, for example, once supported
slavery.
– Are we obligated to obey such laws? Can disobeying
unjust laws be morally legitimate?

Justifying DisobedienceJustifying Disobedience
• According to Thomas Aquinas, a human law is a
true law only when it does not violate the moral
law or force its citizens to violate the moral law.
– Morality, for Aquinas, is built into our very nature in
the form of various inclinations toward the basic
goods in which we find our happiness.
– Accordingly to say that a law violates the moral law, is
to say that it violates the natural law that directs us
toward those goods in which we find our happiness.

Justified LawsJustified Laws
• For Aquinas, laws are just and must be obeyed
only when:
1. they serve the common good of the whole
community;
2. they do not exceed the authorized power of the
lawmaker;
3. they do not unjustly discriminate against some and
unfairly advantage others;
4. they do not require citizens to violate their religious
beliefs.
– If a law fails on any of these counts, it is no law at all
and so citizens have no obligation to obey it.

Legal PositivismLegal Positivism
• Many philosophers have strongly objected to this
way of linking law and morality.
– For example, the British legal philosopher John Austin
(1790–1859) argued that a law is nothing more than a
command issued by the ruler, backed by threats of
punishment and maintained by a habit of obedience.
– Consequently, once a law has been issued by a ruler
who has the power to punish and whom citizens
habitually obey, it is a valid law whether or not it is
moral, and whether we like it or not.

Disobeying Unjust LawsDisobeying Unjust Laws
• The critique of civil disobedience made by legal
positivists has not convinced everyone.
– A number of political leaders have continued to
embrace the view of Aquinas, particularly those who,
suffering under unjust or discriminatory laws, have
advocated disobeying such laws in favor of the
“higher law” of conscience.
– Explain the justification of civil disobedience given by
Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi ? (582-583)

More than EfficiencyMore than Efficiency
• If we valued only efficiency in government, then
any evaluation of the rightful limits of
governmental authority would be relatively
simple.
– Evaluated strictly on social utility, it is entirely possible
that the most authoritarian government might prove
the most efficient.
– Yet clearly our society is concerned with more than
efficiency-- we are also concerned with justice and
individual freedoms, issues that are not always
compatible with efficiency.

In Defense of FreedomIn Defense of Freedom
• Contract theory regards both justice and
individual liberty as of paramount importance.
– But contract theory is not clear about how justice and
other kinds of moral considerations should be
balanced against important individual liberties.
– The liberties that concern us here are political and
social freedoms, including freedom of thought, and
being able to live as one wants without interference
from others.

Tyranny of the MajorityTyranny of the Majority
• Freedom finds its classic defense in John Stuart
Mill’s essay On Liberty.
• Mill’s central concern in this essay is the extent to
which government and society must be prohibited
from interfering with an individual’s life.
• His concern for freedom grew out of his fear of what
he called the “tyranny of the majority,” the tendency of
government—and society in general—to persecute
and suppress any forms of life or ways of thinking that
it dislikes, and to force individuals to conform to what
the majority wants.

The Harm PrincipleThe Harm Principle
• Against this tendency of society to impose a
“tyranny” over the individual, Mill proposed a
fundamental principle that is now sometimes
called the “harm principle.”
• The harm principle imposes a significant limit on
the power of government:
– “…the only purpose for which power can be rightfully
exercised over any member of a civilized community,
against his will, is to prevent harm to others. . . .”
(584)

Three Domains of FreedomThree Domains of Freedom
• Mill identified three domains where society has
only an indirect interest :
– the inward domain of consciousness demanding liberty
of conscience, thought and feeling.
– The domain of tastes and pursuits, of framing the plan
of our life to suit our own character; of doing what we
like . . . without impediment from our fellow-creatures,
so long as what we do does not harm them.
– The ability to connect and unite with individuals, so long
as no one is harmed.
– What objections might be raised to Mill’s defense of
liberty? (586)

Human RightsHuman Rights
• Uncertainty about notions such as “harm to
others” have led philosophers and social critics
to seek a firmer basis for determining the limits
of the law.
– Many have argued that the law should also be judged
by the respect that it shows for human rights.
– All people, they believe, have certain basic rights, and
the law should show respect for such rights.
– Some people have held that when a law fails to
respect human rights, the law is evil and need not be
obeyed.

Rights and DutiesRights and Duties
• The philosopher H. J. McCloskey has defined a
right as a justified entitlement or claim on others.
– For example, if I have a right to privacy, then I have a
justified claim to be left alone by others.
– The flip side of a right is a duty: if someone has a
right to something, then others have certain duties or
obligations toward that person.
– So, rights are always correlated with duties.
• Thus, if I have a right to privacy, you have a duty not to
invade my privacy.

Legal and Moral RightsLegal and Moral Rights
• There are two kinds of rights.
– Legal rights depend on the laws of a nation or
country.
• For example, the laws of the United States give all citizens a
legal right to equal treatment under the law.
– Moral rights, or, as they are sometimes called, human
rights, are rights that all people have simply because
they are human beings.
• These rights are justified or supported by moral principles
that impose the same obligations on all human beings.

Negative and Positive RightsNegative and Positive Rights
• Some philosophers further divide human rights
into two groups:
– Positive rights are rights that guarantee people certain
goods.
• These include the right to an education; the right to adequate
medical care, food, and housing.
• They impose a positive duty.
– Negative rights are rights that protect freedoms of
various kinds.
• These include the right to privacy, the right not to be killed.
• They impose a negative duty.

Justifying RightsJustifying Rights
• Immanuel Kant offered a defense of positive and
negative rights based on the claim that every
human being has a worth or a dignity that must
be respected.
– Because of their fundamental human dignity, then, all
persons have positive as well as negative human
rights.
– On this basis, government may legitimately levy taxes
to care for the welfare, education, and development of
persons “who are not able to support themselves.”

What does Dignity Imply?What does Dignity Imply?
• Other philosophers have agreed with Kant that
everyone has a basic dignity, but interpreted the
notion of human dignity more restrictively.
– For example, Robert Nozick has argued that human
dignity implies only that people should be free from
having others interfere with their lives.
– From this perspective, the only rights that humans
have are negative rights to be left alone.
– Therefore, government should guarantee only
people’s negative rights and not their positive ones.

Three Conditions for RightsThree Conditions for Rights
• Still others have agreed with Kant’s conclusions,
but not that rights have a basis in dignity.
• Thus, Thomas Donaldson holds that people
have both negative and positive human rights,
on the basis of three conditions:
1. They must protect something of very great
importance to human beings;
2. They must be subject to substantial and recurrent
threats;
3. The obligations they impose on others must be fair
and affordable.

Donaldson’s List of RightsDonaldson’s List of Rights
1.The right to freedom of
physical movement.
2. The right to ownership of
property.
3. The right to freedom from
torture.
4.The right to a fair trial.
5.The right to
nondiscriminatory
treatment
•
6. The right to physical
security.
7.The right to freedom of
speech and association.
8.The right to a minimal
education.
9.The right to political
participation.
10.The right to subsistence

Disagreements About RightsDisagreements About Rights
• The distinction between negative and positive
rights helps clarify many of the intense social
controversies that confront our society.
– Many people today believe that the law should
enforce only negative rights.
• What things would they tend to favor and disfavor?
– Many other Americans believe that government
should do more than enforce these negative rights.
• What they things would they tend to favor or disfavor?

War and TerrorismWar and Terrorism
• The text has discussed some of the moral limits
on what the state may do to its citizens.
• We now turn to a consideration of the state’s
relationship to other states or to the citizens of
other states?
– For example, is it ever wrong for nations to use
violence or force upon each other?
– Are there any moral limits on what warring nations can
do to each other?
– What events in recent news raises these questions?

Political RealismPolitical Realism
• Political realism, sometimes called “realpolitik,”
is the view that there are no moral limits on what
one nation may do to another in pursuit of its
own interests.
– The classic proponent of this view is Thomas Hobbes,
who wrote that nations exist in a “state of nature,”
without an international government.
– In this state of nature, war is the norm, and there can
be no binding moral obligations to constrain nations.
– Instead, the only constraint on one nation’s behavior
is the force or power of other nations.

Outside of MoralityOutside of Morality
• If we accept political realism, then morality has
no place in international relations.
– Thus, the use of violence between nations and even
some acts of terrorism can never be condemned as
morally wrong or unjust, but only as imprudent or not
in the nation’s best interests.
• What objections do critics of political realism
raise?
• How do political realists respond to them?
• (591-592)

PacifismPacifism
• Pacifists claim that there are moral limits that
govern relations and violence between nations.
• There are two forms of pacifism:
– Absolute pacifism is the view that war is always
wrong;
– Conditional pacifism is the position that war—
especially modern war—is generally wrong, but there
may be some rare situations in which war might be
justified.

Absolute PacifismAbsolute Pacifism
• Some forms of absolute pacifism have a religious
basis:
– Many Christians have held, for example, that the
teachings of Jesus—“Love your enemies” —directly
prohibit the use of violence, even in self-defense.
• Other pacifists appeal to utilitarian grounds:
– They point to the fact that the destructive
consequences of war far outweigh the benefits that
supposedly produce. Therefore, war is always morally
unjustified.

Absolute PacifismAbsolute Pacifism
• Still other pacifists make a deontological
argument for pacifism:
• They use Kant’s theory and argue that because of the
dignity or sanctity of the human person, every human
being has a right not to be killed and a right not to
have violence used against him or her. Thus, because
war necessarily involves violence and killing, war is
absolutely immoral.
• Explain Jan Narveson’s criticism of the deontological
argument for absolute pacifism
• What do critics say about absolute pacifism? (593-594)

Conditional PacifismConditional Pacifism
• Conditional pacifists agree with critics of
absolute pacifism that in some extreme and
extremely rare situations, war might be justified.
– It is possible, of course, to imagine an ideal war
between ideally decent enemies, in which the benefits
of fighting the war might outweigh its horrible costs.
– But conditional pacifists point out that modern wars
are fought with weapons that necessarily inflict
widespread injuries and suffering on numerous
innocent parties: civilians, children, the aged.
– This implies that modern wars cannot be justified.

Weighing the CostsWeighing the Costs
and Benefitsand Benefits
• Critics point out that conditional pacifists admit
that to properly evaluate the justice of a war, one
needs to weigh its costs against its benefits.
• Once this is admitted, then the conditional
pacifist has opened the door to the possibility of
a just, moral war.
– And if war is sometimes justified, then we must ask
this question: Under what conditions is war justified?
– Just war theory tries to answer that question.

Just War TheoryJust War Theory
• Just war theory is a middle way between political
realism’s claim that there are no moral limits to
war, and the pacifist rejection of war as virtually
always immoral.
– According to just war theory although war is evil
because killing is wrong, it is sometimes morally
justified for a state to engage in war because the
state has an obligation to defend its citizens, protect
the innocent, and enforce justice.
– Just war theory then sets out a number of principles
to determine when war is morally justified.

Principles of Just War:Principles of Just War:
Jus ad bellamJus ad bellam
• Augustine, Aquinas and other modern thinkers,
have developed just war theory, arguing that
going to war is morally justified when:
1. It is declared by a legitimate authority;
2. It is fought for a just cause;
3. It is fought with a right intention;
4. It is fought as a last resort;
5. there is a real and certain danger;
6. It has a reasonable probability of success;
7. the end is proportional to the probable harm.

Principles of Just War:Principles of Just War:
Jus in belloJus in bello
• In addition to the principles governing going to
war, there are also principles that constrain
nations when they are already fighting a war:
1. The means used must be proportional to the end;
2. Combatants must not intentionally target
noncombatants and must be able to discriminate
between combatants and noncombatants.
• Explain the perspectives on just war developed
by Eastern philosophies, such as Sikhism?
(597-598)

CriticismsCriticisms
• Pacifists have argued that, historically, the
theory has been used only as an excuse for
going to war and has not been used to avoid
war.
– Consequently, the pacifist claims, just war theory has
encouraged war instead of having served to limit war.
• What other criticisms of just war theory have
been made? And how do just war theorists
respond? (598)

TerrorismTerrorism
• Terrorism has been defined as…
– Acts of violence designed to create terror among the
members of a society; forms of violence in pursuit of a
political goal such as a more just government;
intentionally directed actions against noncombatants.
• C.A. J. Coades defines terrorism as:
– Intentionally targeting noncombatants with lethal or
severe violence to achieve political purposes, perhaps
through the creation of fear and perhaps including the
targeting of property that is related to life or security.

The Verdict on TerrorismThe Verdict on Terrorism
• What does each of the approaches to war we’ve
covered so far say about terrorism? (pgs 600 ff)
– Political Realism?
– Pacifism?
• Absolute / Condition
– Just War Theory?
• What does just war theory imply about the
permissibility of extreme punishment techniques,
such as waterboarding?

Ch8ppt velasquez12

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Ch8ppt velasquez12

More from dborcoman

Recently uploaded

Ch8ppt velasquez12