Justice week 1
Dilemma:
- in case of conflicting moral principles
- in unknown circumstances
Hypothetical dilemmas:
- no unknown circumstances
- helping to discover moral principles
Is social inequality natural inequality?–No
- Social privileges limited consequence of own performance
- Different societies value different achievements
- Performance and skills largely determined by origin (socialisation)
Political philosophy: key question
–Should a just society strive to promote the virtue of its citizens?
Ancient times virtue
- Or…. Should the law be neutral towards different conceptions of virtue, so that citizens are free to
choose for themselves what is the best way of life for them?
Modern age freedom
Teleological theories: goals are central
- Telos is goal
- Whether an action is just or not depends on the purpose for which it is intended/achieved–
Deontological theories: the rules/duties are central
- Deon is duty
- Whether an action is just or not depends on the rule or duty behind it
You have 3 different ideas ways of thinking about justice:
1. Maximizing welfare
We care about welfare (improve our standard of living or spur economic growth) because we think
prosperity (progress) makes us better off than we would otherwise be as individuals and as a society.
To explore this idea we turn to utilitarianism: Utilitarianism is an ethical movement that measures
,the moral value of an act against the contribution it makes to the common good, whereby the
common good is understood to mean the well-being and happiness of all people.
2. Respecting freedom
3. Promoting virtue
For example: two claims for unfettered market
- Market promote the welfare of society as a whole by providing incentives for people to work hard
supplying the goods that other people want
- Markets respect individual freedom; rather than impose a certain value on goods and services,
markets lets people choose for themselves what value to place on things they exchange.
And a respond to that: two claims for banning price-gouging
- the welfare of society is not really served by the exorbitant prices charged in hard times. As a
example by a nature ramp, high pricing might lead people to stay in harm rather than flee to safety.
- under certain condition, the free market is not truly free, because a human needs basic necessities.
So to decide whether price-gouging laws are justified, we need to assess the competing accounts of
welfare and freedom. Also you have to consider a third argument, the moral component.
So what’s important to notice is that de debate about price-gouging laws is not simply about welfare
and freedom. It is also about virtue, about cultivating the attitudes and dispositions, the qualities of
character, on which a good society depends.
So when we probe our reactions to price gouging, we find ourselves pulled in 2 directions:
- we are outraged when people get things they don’t deserve. Greed that preys on human misery, we
think, should be punished not rewarded.
- and yet we worry when judgements about virtue find their way into law.
Does a just society seek to promote the virtue of its citizens? Or should law be neutral toward
competing conceptions of virtue, so that citizens can be free to choose for themselves the best way
to live?
- Aristotle: justice means giving people what they deserve. And in order to determine who deserves
what, we have to determine what virtues are worthy of honor and reward. So law can’t be neutral on
questions of the good life.
- Kant/ Rawls: argue that the principles of justice that define out rights should not rest on any
particular conception of virtue, or the best way to live. Instead, a society respects each persons
freedom to choose his or her own conception of the good life.
Conclusion: ancient theories of justice start with virtue and modern theories starts with freedom.
, How can reflections between the judgements we make and the principles we affirm lead us to
justice or moral truth?
The answer is that moral reflection is not a solitary pursuit but a public endeavor. It requires an
interlocutor (someone to talk to) (friend, citizen).
Justice week 2
Peter Singer – The why and how of effective altruism:
Effective altruism is a philosophy and social movement focused on answering one question: How can
we best help others?
Our resources are limited, so we have to use them wisely. Effective altruism is the project of:
- Using evidence and reason to find the most promising causes to work on.
- Taking action, by using our time and money to do the most good we can.
Theories on justice:
Teleological
- Goals/objectives: tele = goal/objective/purpose
- Whether an action is just, depends on the goal/objective/purpose pursued with it
Deontological
- Duties/rules: deon = duty
- Whether an action is just, depends on the line of duty that underlines it
There are two rival approaches to justice:
- the morality of an action depends solely on the consequences it brings about; the right thing to do
is whatever will produce the best state of affairs, all things considered.
- consequences are not all we should care about, morally speaking; certain duties and rights should
command our respect, for reasons independent of the social consequences.
Utilitarianism
Bentham (1748-1832)
–Founder of utilitarianism
–In reaction to ‘natural rights’ or ‘natural laws’
Dilemma:
- in case of conflicting moral principles
- in unknown circumstances
Hypothetical dilemmas:
- no unknown circumstances
- helping to discover moral principles
Is social inequality natural inequality?–No
- Social privileges limited consequence of own performance
- Different societies value different achievements
- Performance and skills largely determined by origin (socialisation)
Political philosophy: key question
–Should a just society strive to promote the virtue of its citizens?
Ancient times virtue
- Or…. Should the law be neutral towards different conceptions of virtue, so that citizens are free to
choose for themselves what is the best way of life for them?
Modern age freedom
Teleological theories: goals are central
- Telos is goal
- Whether an action is just or not depends on the purpose for which it is intended/achieved–
Deontological theories: the rules/duties are central
- Deon is duty
- Whether an action is just or not depends on the rule or duty behind it
You have 3 different ideas ways of thinking about justice:
1. Maximizing welfare
We care about welfare (improve our standard of living or spur economic growth) because we think
prosperity (progress) makes us better off than we would otherwise be as individuals and as a society.
To explore this idea we turn to utilitarianism: Utilitarianism is an ethical movement that measures
,the moral value of an act against the contribution it makes to the common good, whereby the
common good is understood to mean the well-being and happiness of all people.
2. Respecting freedom
3. Promoting virtue
For example: two claims for unfettered market
- Market promote the welfare of society as a whole by providing incentives for people to work hard
supplying the goods that other people want
- Markets respect individual freedom; rather than impose a certain value on goods and services,
markets lets people choose for themselves what value to place on things they exchange.
And a respond to that: two claims for banning price-gouging
- the welfare of society is not really served by the exorbitant prices charged in hard times. As a
example by a nature ramp, high pricing might lead people to stay in harm rather than flee to safety.
- under certain condition, the free market is not truly free, because a human needs basic necessities.
So to decide whether price-gouging laws are justified, we need to assess the competing accounts of
welfare and freedom. Also you have to consider a third argument, the moral component.
So what’s important to notice is that de debate about price-gouging laws is not simply about welfare
and freedom. It is also about virtue, about cultivating the attitudes and dispositions, the qualities of
character, on which a good society depends.
So when we probe our reactions to price gouging, we find ourselves pulled in 2 directions:
- we are outraged when people get things they don’t deserve. Greed that preys on human misery, we
think, should be punished not rewarded.
- and yet we worry when judgements about virtue find their way into law.
Does a just society seek to promote the virtue of its citizens? Or should law be neutral toward
competing conceptions of virtue, so that citizens can be free to choose for themselves the best way
to live?
- Aristotle: justice means giving people what they deserve. And in order to determine who deserves
what, we have to determine what virtues are worthy of honor and reward. So law can’t be neutral on
questions of the good life.
- Kant/ Rawls: argue that the principles of justice that define out rights should not rest on any
particular conception of virtue, or the best way to live. Instead, a society respects each persons
freedom to choose his or her own conception of the good life.
Conclusion: ancient theories of justice start with virtue and modern theories starts with freedom.
, How can reflections between the judgements we make and the principles we affirm lead us to
justice or moral truth?
The answer is that moral reflection is not a solitary pursuit but a public endeavor. It requires an
interlocutor (someone to talk to) (friend, citizen).
Justice week 2
Peter Singer – The why and how of effective altruism:
Effective altruism is a philosophy and social movement focused on answering one question: How can
we best help others?
Our resources are limited, so we have to use them wisely. Effective altruism is the project of:
- Using evidence and reason to find the most promising causes to work on.
- Taking action, by using our time and money to do the most good we can.
Theories on justice:
Teleological
- Goals/objectives: tele = goal/objective/purpose
- Whether an action is just, depends on the goal/objective/purpose pursued with it
Deontological
- Duties/rules: deon = duty
- Whether an action is just, depends on the line of duty that underlines it
There are two rival approaches to justice:
- the morality of an action depends solely on the consequences it brings about; the right thing to do
is whatever will produce the best state of affairs, all things considered.
- consequences are not all we should care about, morally speaking; certain duties and rights should
command our respect, for reasons independent of the social consequences.
Utilitarianism
Bentham (1748-1832)
–Founder of utilitarianism
–In reaction to ‘natural rights’ or ‘natural laws’
