ch8ppt velasquez12

CHAPTER EIGHT SOCIAL AND CHAPTER EIGHT SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHYPOLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

P H I L O S O P H YP H I L O S O P H YA TEXT WITH READINGSA TEXT WITH READINGS

1212thth EDITION EDITIONManual 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 AND CHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIAL AND

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHYPOLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Issues within Social and Issues 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?

CHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIAL AND CHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHYPOLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

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

CHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIAL ANDCHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHYPOLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

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?

CHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIAL AND CHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIAL AND 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.

CHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIAL AND CHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIAL AND 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.

CHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIAL ANDCHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIAL ANDPOLITICAL PHILOSOPHYPOLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

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: SOCIALAND CHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIALAND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHYPOLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

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.

CHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIAL ANDCHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIAL ANDPOLITICAL PHILOSOPHYPOLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

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 social contract theory. – 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 Will The 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 Contract Contemporary 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 social contract theory.

– 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 Contract What Social Contract Theory is Really About Theory 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 Completion Hegel: 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 Social Women’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 and Plato and Aristotle and Meritocratic Justice Meritocratic 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: SOCIAL CHAPTER 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.

•


Justice Based on Justice 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?CHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIAL AND CHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIAL AND

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHYPOLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

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 Equal The 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: SOCIALAND CHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIALAND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHYPOLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

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 the Rationale 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 Civil Unjust Laws and Civil Disobedience Disobedience

• 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 Costs Weighing the Costs and Benefits and 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

Education

state chapter

social andchapter

social andissues

word state

political organization

political philosophysocial

state sets prioritiesthat

state various theories