This course explores the theme of Justice through ethical dilemmas and philosophical discussions, primarily contrasting consequentialist and categorical moral reasoning.
A trolley car is hurtling down the track at 60 mph.
Five workers are positioned on the main track.
You can switch to a side track where only one worker is present.
Decision: Should you turn the trolley onto the side track, killing one to save five?
Majority supports steering the trolley to the side track.
Reasons for this choice often revolve around the principle of saving the greater number of lives.
You are an onlooker on a bridge.
You can push a heavy man off the bridge to stop the trolley from killing five workers.
Poll results tend to show that most are unwilling to push the fat man.
The difference in willingness to act suggests a distinction between actions taken directly (pushing) versus indirectly (pulling a lever).
Morality is evaluated based on outcomes and consequences.
Implicitly follows the principle:
Maximize Utility:
U = Ppleasure − Ppain
Morality based on duties and rights, regardless of consequences.
Example: It is wrong to kill regardless of numbers involved.
Developed by Jeremy Bentham.
The goal is to achieve "the greatest good for the greatest number."
Formula for Utilitarian Calculus:
$$U = \sum_{i=1}^n H_i -
S_i$$
where H represents happiness and
S represents suffering.
Developed by Immanuel Kant.
Focuses on universalizing actions: “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
Situation arose from a maritime disaster, leading to cannibalism for survival.
Defendants argued necessity justified their actions.
Was the act of killing justifiable under necessity?
Should consequences influence moral judgment?
Many would vote them guilty, reflecting societal norms against murder regardless of the circumstances.
Debate around whether dire circumstances can justify morally objectionable acts.
Exploring how the idea of consent contributes to moral reasoning.
Questions about the nature of agreement and collective decision-making.
The subject of justice is intertwined with individual moral philosophies and societal norms. Through the exploration of consequentialism and categorical reasoning, this course aims to deepen understanding of ethical decision-making processes.
Reading will include works by key philosophers, including Aristotle, Locke, Kant, and Mill, alongside contemporary debates on political and legal issues.
Funding for this program is provided by additional grants and support. In our last discussion, we explored the case of R v. Dudley and Stephens, colloquially known as the "Lifeboat Case." It is a pivotal case discussing the ethics of cannibalism at sea, which introduces pertinent arguments in moral philosophy.
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist philosophy primarily associated with Jeremy Bentham, born in England in 1748. Bentham’s early education included attending Oxford at the age of 12 and law school at 15, resulting in his admission to the bar at 19. However, Bentham never practiced law, focusing instead on jurisprudence and moral philosophy.
Bentham’s version of utilitarianism is succinctly expressed through the principle of maximizing utility. In brief:
The highest principle of morality is to maximize the general welfare or collective happiness, encapsulated by the phrase:
Maximize Utility
Bentham argues that all human actions are motivated by the pursuit of pain and pleasure. He posits that any moral system must account for these motivations:
Moral decision-making should be guided by the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number.
To evaluate potential policies, Citizens and legislators are urged to ask:
If we sum all benefits and subtract all costs, which option maximizes the balance of happiness over suffering?
This approach is frequently operationalized as cost-benefit analysis, a method extensively used in both corporate and governmental contexts.
A recent case study in the Czech Republic involved analyzing the financial implications of smoking. Philip Morris commissioned a cost-benefit assessment that concluded that public financing benefited from the continuance of smoking due to:
Tax revenues from cigarette sales.
Savings on pensions and healthcare costs associated with early mortality.
The analysis claimed a net positive financial outcome for the government, raising ethical concerns regarding the valuation of human life and suffering in utilitarian calculations.
The notorious Ford Pinto case illustrates flaws in utilitarian calculations. Ford determined, via
cost-benefit analysis, whether to install a safety shield for the Pinto’s vulnerable fuel tank. Calculating
costs and potential benefits, the company opted not to invest in safety, resulting in numerous fatalities
due to preventable accidents.
The ethical implications spark numerous debates about the legitimacy of placing a dollar value on human
life.
Born in 1806, John Stuart Mill was influenced by his father and attempted to refine utilitarianism by addressing its shortcomings. Mill’s key contributions include:
Recognizing the need to distinguish higher pleasures from lower ones.
Advocating for the protection of individual rights within a utilitarian framework.
Mill asserts that the quality of pleasures should be weighted, and he argues that an informed preference is superior. He proposed that those who have experienced both types of pleasure tend to prefer the higher variety, thus supporting his argument for qualitative distinctions.
Mill famously stated:
“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a
pig satisfied.”
He introduces a criterion for judging pleasures based on the informed
preferences of those who have experienced both.
Critics argue whether Mill’s distinction between higher and lower pleasures stands up to scrutiny. They raise questions about:
The potential biases in cultural perceptions of "higher" pleasures.
Whether subjective experiences can serve as an objective standard in moral evaluation.
An illustrative case involves ancient Roman practices of gladiatorial games, questioning the moral basis of judging collective happiness against individual suffering.
Utilitarianism has sparked significant debate and offers insightful frameworks for moral reasoning, yet it evokes complex ethical quandaries. Bentham’s ideas laid the groundwork for utilitarian logic, while Mill attempted to enrich this framework by embedding individual rights and qualitative pleasure into the discourse.
The philosophical journey will continue as we delve further into rights-based ethical theories, contrasting them with utilitarian principles in subsequent discussions.
We begin with John Stuart Mill and his attempts to address critiques of Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism, particularly in his book Utilitarianism.
Mill argues against the critics by attempting to show:
It is possible to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures.
Qualitative distinctions of worth can be made within the utilitarian framework.
We previously tested Mill’s assertion using cultural examples (e.g., The Simpsons vs. Shakespeare), where results indicated that many preferred The Simpsons yet regarded Shakespeare as the higher or worthier pleasure.
This raises a dilemma for Mill: If one can prefer lower pleasures but still recognize the higher ones as more worthy, what is the basis for Mill’s qualitative distinctions?
In chapter five of Utilitarianism, Mill contends that individual rights deserve special respect. He describes justice as:
“the most sacred and incomparably binding part of morality.”
Despite Mill’s assertions:
Can justice truly be the chief binding part of morality?
What if violating individual rights leads to a better outcome for society at large?
Mill suggests that respect for individual rights leads to societal benefits in the long run. However, the question remains:
Is that the only reason to respect rights?
For example, consider a scenario where a doctor could save five lives by sacrificing one healthy patient.
To examine these issues further:
Are there independent moral standards for assessing the worth of pleasures?
Are there stronger theories of rights that articulate the importance of human dignity and respect for individuals, transcending mere utility?
Today, we turn to one of those robust theories: Libertarianism.
Libertarianism posits that:
“individuals matter not just as instruments for society but as separate beings with their own rights.”
The fundamental right in libertarianism is the right to liberty, allowing individuals to live freely while respecting others’ rights.
Three types of legislation are deemed illegitimate under libertarianism:
Paternalistic Legislation: Laws that protect individuals from harming themselves (e.g., seatbelt laws).
Morals Legislation: Laws that aim to enforce a particular moral standard or virtue (e.g., anti-LGBTQ legislation).
Redistributive Taxation: Any taxation meant to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor is considered coercive.
The libertarian view emphasizes:
The importance of how wealth is acquired (‘Justice in Acquisition‘).
The necessity of free consent in transactions (‘Justice in Transfer‘).
Consider Bill Gates as an illustration:
You can’t assess justice merely by looking at wealth distribution; you must consider how it was acquired.
The libertarian stance is that wealth inequality as seen in modern democracies doesn’t equate to injustice unless the wealth was acquired unjustly.
Aside from the wealth inequality argument:
Critics argue that wealthy individuals owe a debt to society for their success.
Taxation in a democracy is inherently different from coercion.
Libertarians respond that:
Taxation is a violation of property rights, which could be seen as a form of justified coercion.
This raises profound questions about individual self-ownership, originating from thinkers like John Locke.
As we reflect on the discussion:
The core issue is whether we own ourselves.
Understanding the implications of self-possession may clarify challenges faced by libertarians.
Next time, we’ll delve deeper into Locke’s account of property rights and how it influences contemporary discussions on justice and rights.
Today, we turn to John Locke. On the face of it, Locke is a powerful ally of the libertarian perspective.
Locke believes that there are certain fundamental individual rights that are so important that no government, even a representative government, can override them. These rights include:
The natural right to life
The natural right to liberty
The natural right to property
“The right to property is not merely a creation of government; it is a natural right that attaches to individuals as human beings, even before government comes on the scene.”
Locke describes the state of nature as a state of liberty where all human beings are free and equal.
In the state of nature, there is a law, specifically the law of nature that constrains what individuals can do.
The law of nature states that:
Individuals cannot give up their natural rights.
Individuals cannot take the life, liberty, or property of others.
Individuals cannot take their own life, liberty, or property or give arbitrary power over themselves to others.
Locke provides two justifications for the constraints on natural rights:
Theological Argument: Individuals are the property of God, the omnipotent creator.
Rational Argument: Reflecting on what it means to be free leads to the understanding that freedom cannot mean doing whatever one wants, as it leads to harm against others.
Locke asserts that our natural rights are inalienable, meaning:
“It is not for us to alienate or give away our rights.”
This leads to a profound understanding of ownership of rights.
Locke outlines how even before government, private property can arise through the mixing of one’s labor with
unowned resources:
Property = Labor + Unowned Resources
Locke specifies that acquisition of property must follow certain rules:
There must be enough and as good left for others.
Critics argue that Locke’s justification of property rights may facilitate colonization by rationalizing the appropriation of land that was not cultivated or enclosed by others, such as Native Americans.
Locke claims that legitimate government is founded on consent. The transition from the state of nature to civil society requires individuals to consent to govern themselves.
Consent entails:
Agreement to create a government with the authority to make and enforce laws.
Agreement to abide by the majority’s decision.
Locke emphasizes that governments cannot violate the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. This creates a unique tension:
“The supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent.”
Locke differentiates between natural property rights and conventional property rights as defined by government.
Natural rights are fundamental and cannot be disposed of.
Conventional property rights are defined within the laws of society.
Locke’s liberal ideas provide a foundation for understanding the limits of political authority and the significance of consent. However, critical examination reveals complexities regarding property, rights, and government authority:
While Locke advocates for limited government, he allows for a significant degree of governmental power over defining and enforcing property rights.
As we explore further, we will engage with questions of consent in practical arenas such as markets.
Discussion centered around John Locke’s idea of government by consent.
Key question: What are the limits on government power that cannot be overridden by majority consent?
Locke argues that a democratically elected government has the right to tax, provided it is taxation with consent.
Taxation does not require individual consent at the time of enactment but relies on a prior act of consent to join society.
Individuals accept their obligation to be bound by majority rule upon joining the society.
Important moral question: Can the government conscript individuals and compel them to fight?
Locke’s view: The government can mandate conscription, provided it is not arbitrary.
Illustration: A sergeant has the authority to command a soldier into danger (e.g., facing artillery).
Distinction: Government can impose duties (like conscription) but cannot arbitrarily seize personal property (e.g., a soldier’s money).
Three potential solutions to recruitment challenges:
Increase pay and benefits for soldiers.
Implement military conscription (draft).
Outsource military roles to mercenaries.
Polling on preferences for recruitment methods showed a majority favored increasing pay, with fewer supporting conscription.
Hybrid system during the Civil War allowed for conscription with a buyout option (paying a substitute).
Arguments for and against the system:
Against: It commodifies human life (paying for exemption).
For: Individuals can freely choose to pay for their own exemption, hence legitimatized by voluntary agreement.
Coercion Argument: Inequalities in socioeconomic status influence the freedom of choice in military service.
Patriotism Argument: Military service should not merely be a paid job; it bears civic obligations.
Discussion on whether human reproductive capacities (e.g., sperm and egg donation) should be commodified.
Case example: Egg donor advertisements offering substantial compensation for specific traits.
California Cryobank’s model and operations:
Compensation: 75 dollars
per specimen, up to 900 dollars a month
Ethical implications of commodifying reproduction and surrogacy:
Surrogacy contracts and their enforceability challenged due to emotional bonds and informed consent.
Reference to the Baby M case, where a contract for surrogacy was contested in court.
Agreement on voluntary contracts where all parties are informed and consenting.
Emotional bonds and informed consent are crucial; a mother may not fully grasp her feelings for the child pre-birth.
Ethical concerns regarding commodification of reproduction.
Consent is a powerful moral instrument that influences political authority.
Both socioeconomic factors and ethical considerations must be examined when discussing rights and obligations in military service and reproductive rights.
Future inquiries will further explore civic obligations and their implications for contracts involving human life.
Today’s lecture focuses on Immanuel Kant, a pivotal figure in modern philosophy.
Kant rejects utilitarianism, arguing for a duty to respect individual dignity.
He contends that human beings should not be treated merely as means to an end.
Kant excelled in his studies at the University of Königsberg at the age of 16.
He became an unsalaried lecturer at the age of 31, earning income based on student attendance.
His significant works include:
Critique of Pure Reason
Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals
Kant’s philosophy presents two key inquiries:
What is the supreme principle of morality?
How is freedom possible?
Kant argues that all human beings possess dignity and inherent worth due to their capacity for reason.
He distinguishes between two types of action:
Autonomy: Acting according to a law one gives oneself.
Heteronomy: Acting according to inclinations or desires that are not chosen.
Freedom, for Kant, is the ability to act according to rational principles and laws one sets for oneself.
Freedom is contrasted with mere acting on desires or physical necessities, which he equates to being a slave to those impulses.
The categorical imperative is the foundation of Kant’s moral theory; it commands action objectively and unconditionally.
Formulations of the categorical imperative:
Formula of Universal Law:
Act only on that
maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal
law.
Formula of Humanity as an End:
Act in such
a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other,
always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means.
An action’s moral worth depends on the motive behind it; actions driven by duty have moral value.
Actions done out of inclinations or self-interest lack true moral worth.
A goodwill is good in itself, not based on the outcomes it brings.
Kant uses the example of a shopkeeper to illustrate that acting correctly for self-serving reasons does not confer moral worth.
Shopkeeper Example:
A shopkeeper who behaves honestly to maintain his reputation lacks moral worth because his motive is self-interested.
Suicide and Murder:
For Kant, suicide is morally equivalent to murder since both violate the dignity of rational beings by treating life as a means to an end.
Kant’s emphasis on the motive of duty has faced criticism for its potential stringency.
Questions arise regarding how to uphold moral laws universally while allowing for subjective interpretations of duty.
Kant’s framework asserts that respect for others and oneself is foundational to moral actions.
Understanding Kant’s moral philosophy provides valuable insights into ethics and the nature of human dignity.
The upcoming discussions will further explore the implications of the categorical imperative in diverse contexts.
Kant’s moral theory is primarily centered around the concept of duty and autonomy. To fully understand Kant’s perspective, it is essential to address three critical questions:
How can duty and autonomy coexist?
What is the great dignity in responding to one’s duty?
How many moral laws exist, according to Kant?
Kant posits that true autonomy arises when we act out of duty, not for personal gain or pleasures. The distinction between acting from duty and merely adhering to one’s desires is vital in grappling with Kant’s moral framework.
Kant asserts that:
D = A ⟹ F
Where:
D represents duty,
A denotes autonomy, and
F symbolizes freedom.
According to Kant, we act freely when we impose moral laws upon ourselves derived from reason. Thus, our understanding of the moral law transcends individual circumstances.
Kant insists that moral laws are not contingent on subjective conditions; rather, they are universal and
supreme:
Moral Law = Universal Law
The application of pure
reason ensures that moral laws are universally applicable to all rational beings.
Kant introduces the categorical imperative, a key element in his moral philosophy. The categorical imperative
asserts that:
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same
time, will that it should become a universal law.
Thus, any moral decision must be made
considering whether it can be universally applied.
Kant presents his moral theory in light of two standpoints:
The sensible world, where actions are determined by the laws of nature.
The intelligible world, independent of those laws, where autonomy and moral laws govern.
The distinction is crucial for understanding freedom in moral decisions. If one were only an empirical being, one would not possess the freedom to act morally.
Freedom, for Kant, is facilitated by the idea of moral law, which differentiates us as rational agents. He argues that morality is not empirical and remains distanced from the world of causes and effects.
A prevalent challenge to Kant’s position involves the scenario of a murderer asking about a potential victim’s whereabouts. Kant maintains:
Lying is fundamentally wrong, regardless of circumstances.
The moment we account for consequences, we risk sliding into consequentialism, undermining the moral framework.
Kant differentiates between outright lying and misleading truths. He posits that while both might aim to deceive, a misleading truth can align with moral law by not outright violating it.
Kant extends his ideas of morality into political theory through the concept of the social contract:
He argues that just laws arise not from actual contracts, but from an idealized social contract.
This contract operates under the presumption of equality and rationality of all involved parties.
Kant’s analysis suggests that an actual contract may lack the fairness necessary for justice, stating:
$$\text{Actual Contracts} \not\Rightarrow \text{Fair Terms}$$
He contends that moral obligation cannot solely derive from the existence of an agreement.
Kant’s moral framework, deriving from duty, autonomy, and the categorical imperative, challenges us to consider the moral implications of our actions beyond mere consequences. The discussions around cases like the murderer at the door and the essence of social contracts reveal the complexity and rigor of Kantian ethics.
Distributive justice addresses how income, wealth, power, and opportunities should be distributed within a society. John Rawls provides a substantial framework for understanding and assessing these distributions through principles that would be agreed upon from a position of equality.
Rawls begins with the hypothetical scenario called the original position, where individuals decide on principles of justice without knowledge of their personal circumstances. This ignorance about one’s social status, abilities, and preferences is encapsulated in what Rawls terms the veil of ignorance. This ensures fairness in selecting principles because no one can tailor them to benefit themselves.
1. First Principle: Equal Basic Liberties
Fundamental rights include freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and conscience.
Individuals behind the veil of ignorance would reject utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number) because it risks the oppression of minorities.
2. Second Principle: Differences Principle
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged to benefit the least advantaged, expressed as:
Socioeconomic inequalities are justifiable only if they benefit the
least well-off.
Utilitarian principles focus on the total welfare maximization but disregard individual rights, which is why individuals in the original position would reject such principles.
While meritocracy values individual effort and contribution, Rawls criticizes it for not adequately addressing the moral arbitrariness of natural talents and background.
This concept mitigates some inequalities but fails to account for variations in natural ability, leading to disparities in success even among similarly educated individuals.
Incentives: Critics argue high taxes may disincentivize success. However, Rawls maintains that the difference principle accommodates sufficient incentives to ensure the least well-off benefit from economic activities.
Effort and Moral Desert: The argument that hard work justifies rewards overlooks the impact of uncontrollable factors (e.g., social class, family background) on efforts.
Libertarian Rebuttal: Libertarians argue that redistributive taxation is coercive. Rawls counters that justice configurations must address the results of an inherently unequal starting position.
Rawls distinguishes between moral desert and entitlements based on legitimate expectations:
Moral Desert: Related to virtue and deservingness, not impacted by factors beyond an individual’s control.
Entitlement: Based on established rules and agreements within society, leading to rightful claims on resources or opportunities.
The discourse on distributive justice invites reflections on how society values contribution and how to create an equitable structure that accounts for the individual yet acknowledges the arbitrariness of natural endowments. Rawls’s framework provides a comprehensive method to evaluate justice, allowing us to challenge existing disparities and reconfigure societal norms to favor the least advantaged.
Discussion focuses on distributive justice, moral desert, and affirmative action.
Distinction between:
Moral Desert: Claims based on what individuals deserve based on their actions or virtues.
Entitlements to Legitimate Expectations: Claims based on rights that individuals have under the law or social contracts.
Cheryl Hopwood applied to the University of Texas law school with a strong academic record but was denied admission.
The law school employed an affirmative action policy that considered race and ethnicity among various factors in admissions.
Statistics showed that minority applicants with lower scores than Hopwood’s were admitted, leading to her claim of unfair treatment based on her race.
Central question: Is it fair for the admissions policy to consider race?
Corrective Argument:
Addresses disparities in educational opportunities.
Suggests that grades/test scores do not accurately reflect potential for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Compensatory Argument:
Seeks to rectify historical injustices, such as slavery and segregation.
Diversity Argument:
Promotes a diverse learning environment that benefits all students.
Justifies race as a factor in creating a law school that reflects the diverse society it serves.
Individual Rights Argument:
Arguments against using race in admissions emphasize that it violates individual rights based on factors individuals cannot control.
Past versus Present:
Some argue that past injustices shouldn’t affect current individuals who were not complicit in those injustices.
Discussion on whether distributive justice should consider moral desert.
RS argues that desert should not govern distribution because it fails to account for equal abilities or rights.
Example:
Distributive Justice = Entitlements ≠ Moral
Desert
Aristotle posits that justice involves giving people their due based on merit:
Justice = f(Merit) ⟹ Assign resources based on
suitability
Example: Allocating flutes to the best flute players.
Aristotle argues for a teleological approach, where justice relates to the purposes of social roles and practices.
The allocation should reflect the purpose of the resource:
Best use
of resources → Best outcomes for the community
Social practices should aim at achieving the common good without violating individual rights.
The debate around affirmative action encapsulates deeper questions of justice, entitlement, and the moral order.
Considerations about the social mission of institutions must be balanced against the rights of individuals.
Ongoing discussions challenge us to think about how justice can be defined beyond mere moral desert, encouraging a broader understanding of fairness and equity in society.
Aristotle’s theory of justice contrasts with modern theories that separate justice from moral desert and virtue. He posits that justice fundamentally involves giving individuals what they deserve based on their contributions to the community.
Aristotle argues that the goal or purpose (telos) of social practices and institutions must be considered when discussing justice. Justice, therefore, is closely linked to the ends of these practices.
Justice requires us to determine:
Equal in What Respect? Aristotle emphasizes that while justice requires equal treatment for equal persons, we must examine what characteristics justify these equalities.
Purpose of Distribution: For instance, in the distribution of flutes, the best flutes should go to the best flute players as a recognition of their virtue and excellence.
Aristotle views distributive justice not primarily as the distribution of wealth but as the distribution of political offices and honors, based on how well individuals fulfill the purpose of the political community.
Cultivation of Virtue: Politics aims to form the character of citizens and facilitate the good life, rather than merely preventing injustice or ensuring economic exchange.
Human Nature: Aristotle states that humans are social beings by nature and are meant to live within a political community.
Aristotle’s teleological framework asserts that:
J(x) = f(T(x)),
where
J represents justice, T
represents the telos, and x refers to individuals in society.
Aristotle argues that those who contribute most to the common good deserve greater political authority, which aligns with the end of encouraging goodness within the community.
Virtue must be practiced within the community through engagement in political life. Aristotle asserts:
V = Practice + Deliberation,
where V is virtue, indicating that it is developed through active
participation and engagement.
The debate regarding Casey Martin’s right to use a golf cart highlights differences in understanding the essential nature of the game of golf:
Arguments Against Cart Use: Some argue that walking is intrinsic to the game and essential for competition.
Justice and Rights: The lens through which this debate is viewed can either align with a teleological understanding of justice or with modern, individualistic rights-based frameworks.
Critics argue that Aristotle’s approach limits individual freedom by imposing roles. This raises the question:
Does matching virtues to roles restrict an individual’s right to choose their life path?
Aristotle’s defense of slavery springs from the belief that it serves necessary social functions and that certain individuals may be naturally suited to this role, which many modern readers find ethically troubling.
The debate between Aristotle’s teleological view of justice and contemporary notions of rights goes beyond mere academic discourse; it touches on essential questions about human nature, freedom, and the virtues recognized within societies.
Aristotle’s Perspective:
Aristotle believes the purpose of law is to shape character and cultivate virtue among citizens.
He posits that to investigate the ideal constitution, we must understand the best way to live.
Kant’s Rejection:
Kant argues that laws and rights should not promote any particular conception of the good life, as this risks coercion.
He emphasizes a fair framework of rights allowing individuals the freedom to pursue their own conceptions of the good life.
Aristotle:
Freedom is defined as the capacity to realize one’s potential and find a fit between individuals and their roles.
Kant:
Freedom is characterized as autonomy – acting according to a self-imposed law.
Kant’s philosophy presents a self that is free and independent, unbound by tradition or inherited status.
Communitarian critics argue that Kant’s conception of the unencumbered self misses critical dimensions of moral life:
Alasdair MacIntyre’s Narrative Conception:
Individuals are narrative beings, defined by their stories and communities.
The self’s narrative identity means individuals cannot fully understand their obligations without acknowledging their histories and communal ties.
Communitarianism posits a third category of moral obligation beyond Kantian frameworks:
Natural Duties: Duties owed universally to all persons.
Voluntary Obligations: Ranging from contracts to promises.
Obligations of Solidarity: These obligations arise from membership in particular communities.
Examples of obligations:
Dilemmas in familial relationships, e.g., saving one’s child over a stranger.
Political obligations, e.g., conflicts faced by a French Resistance pilot who refuses to bomb his home village.
Discussion around loyalty and the moral significance of patriotism, including:
The tension between universal moral obligations and particular loyalties.
Case Studies:
Billy Bulger’s loyalty to his brother, Whitey Bulger.
Robert E. Lee’s choice to side with Virginia over the Union.
The debate surrounding the obligations of membership versus individual autonomy raises significant questions about justice, freedom, and moral responsibility. Kant’s framework suggests rights must not favor any conception of the good life, while the communitarian critique emphasizes the importance of narrative identity and community ties in shaping moral obligations.
The narrative conception of the self posits that individuals derive their identity from their personal narratives.
Obligations of solidarity or membership can exist without explicit consent or contractual agreements.
The argument focuses on the validity of these obligations and their implications for justice and moral philosophy.
Discussion involved the idea of whether obligations can exist independently of voluntary consent.
Counterexamples: Southern segregationists in the 1950s felt a strong obligation to defend their traditions based on their historical narrative.
This raises the question: Can we consistently support the narrative conception of the self when confronted with morally objectionable narratives?
Voluntarist conception: Emphasizes autonomy, encouraging universal respect for persons without prejudice.
Narrative conception: Stresses the importance of personal and collective histories in shaping identity and moral obligations.
The relationship between justice and the good is crucial to understand.
There are two ways to connect justice to the good:
Relativist approach: Justice defined by the norms of a particular community.
Non-relativist approach: Justice tied to universal moral worth and the intrinsic good.
The first approach leads to conventionalism, which can undermine justice’s critical role.
Central controversy around the purposes of marriage and the implications of recognizing same-sex unions.
Arguments presented by those against same-sex marriage often emphasize procreation and traditional roles.
Notable points of contention:
How can society hold to traditional views when exceptions (e.g., infertility) exist?
A call for governments to detach from endorsing contract forms of marriage altogether.
Victoria’s Argument: Justice should not impose religious values on civil law—civil unions should be recognized as legitimate.
There exist conflicting conceptions of how society should regard moral and religious beliefs in lawmaking.
Chief Justice Margaret Marshall’s opinion on same-sex marriage argues against the sole focus on procreation in defining marriage.
The notion of marriage as a public institution involves questions of autonomy and the recognition of intimate unions.
John Rawls’s method of reflective equilibrium is crucial for navigating moral reasoning and disputes over justice.
This method involves:
Balancing particular judgments with general principles.
Revising either to achieve coherence and mutual support in our moral views.
Acknowledgment that individuals in a pluralist society can hold reasonable disagreements about both justice and the good life.
Moral philosophy cannot resolve all disputes regarding justice and the good life, but engaging in discourse is essential.
Respecting differing moral convictions should involve active engagement, not mere tolerance.
The course emphasized the persistent nature of philosophical questioning and the importance of grappling with complex ethical issues.