Lecture 1A
● Question: what is the right thing to do?
○ Contextual: not a single answer, it depends on the context you are functioning in
○ Three domains you can approach this question: law, justice, morality (interrelated)
● (1) Morality: informal, public system of ideas applying to people
○ Aimed at achieving the good life and governing behavior that affects oneself and people
one interacts with
○ Includes moral rules, ideals, virtues: set of theories concerning the good life
○ Informal: no established procedure or authority that can settle all controversial questions
○ Overwhelming agreement on majority of issues: no external actor who can give the final
answer, but not a problem because we mostly agree more than we think we do
○ Public system: should be distinguished from private
■ All those to whom it applies must understand it and it shouldn’t be irrational for
them to use it in making decisions/judging others to whom the system applies
■ But basic set of rules should be clear to do so
■ Some morality can be private/personal: guiding my behaviour without consulting
others (morality in a public consultation)
○ Problem: not morality but moralities
■ Rawls: “We should accept the fact of pluralism of religions and ideas of the good
life.”
■ There is a plurality in our societies, can’t deny: when we talk about morality, we
take specifics (i.e. Christian morality, blue-collar morality)
○ Religion: subcategory of morality
■ Following the rules of religion provides a better life
■ It is a culturally-mediated yet universal feature of human condition
■ Even though religions are written down, they are still informal
● (2) Justice: informal public system of rules, concerning the correct way of collectively organizing
formal institutions in society
○ Rawls: distributing the burdens/benefits of social cooperation in society
■ Membership to such is not voluntary, no real exit option (going to another
country is not it, there is no rule-free space in the world)
■ Since it is involuntary, we should strive to make the rules just for all of us
● Not good life for us as a person but a just-society
○ Informal: a political debate between theorists
○ Public system: the rules should be discussed with others
○ Morality vs. justice
■ Morality is how one should live one’s life and treat others, it is about interactions
in daily lives
■ Justice is how we as members of society organize society to have just rules
● (3) Law: a formal system of public rules, explicitly written down, within a society
○ This explicit part distinguishes law from morality and justice
○ Formal system: unlike morality and justice
■ There is a specific decision procedure that can settle controversial questions
○ It is clear who can make law and by what procedure
, ■ Law making by parliament, adjudicating by judges
○ More consistent, binding, and robust than other two
○ Formal but not set in stone
■ Legislation is a necessary closure of public/political debates
■ There is always law until new law/interpretation
■ “Stroboscopic” alteration with every new, relevant piece of legislation (the
moment decision is made, that is a binding law)
○ Legal positivism: best ways of understanding law vs. justice/morality
■ law/legal order, set of rules laid down by specific people within institutions with
law making authority
■ Whether the law is made by the correct institution:
● only think that is relevant, not that it is moral/just, no legal impact until
translated to law
■ Just because they are reasonable rules doesn’t make it a recognized source of law
■ Primary reason why we treat legal rules as laws is their source: source thesis
●
Morality Justice Law
private/public: can be public public
understood as set of
rules
Informal: no final informal formal
actor to determine
what is correct
Subject The good life The just society A specific set of
binding rules
determined by a
specific set of
institutions
Academic field Ethics Political philosophy Legal studies
● Interrelations: no convincing moral theory, justice, or law without determinance
○ They overlap, but separation of them is helpful in resolving disagreements:
■ “a heuristic division of the inseparable”
● Ordinary life: as citizens, we accept the rules made for us
○ We can disagree, but being a part of society implies that most of the time law is binding
○ Rule-following behavior, but we also critically reflect on law, discuss in public, propose
legal reform
● Rule-breaking alternatives:
○ Criminals: concealed rule breaking, more convenient to break the rule but not necessarily
dispute the rules
○ Civil disobedience: bringing the rules visibly to bring it into discussion done to change
rules
, ○ Vigilantism: illegitimately acting as law enforcer without legal authority
■ (breaking the rule that the state has the monopoly of using force)
○ Revolution: whole set of rules broken, based on considerations of morality or justice
● Theories of justice have very specific roles in society as membership in a society is involuntary
● How do we organize society in a just way? Why do we need the state in the first place?
○ It is a social construction
○ Rules that we make together to organize our lives
○ Basic facts of the conditions of human life: these make necessary for state to emerge
■ Scarcity: equality of need, limited altruism, we want ro help but ensure that our
family and ourselves are okay as well
● If all of us were altruists, we wouldn’t need rules to distribute resources
or natural resources
■ Moral plurality: so we need state
■ Essential equality of human power: not a single strongest person (natural leader
doesn’t exist, so we need a way to organize leadership without fights, civil war)
○ We need something that governs all of us: so a state
○ It is evident for the majority that we need a state, so current political theorists focus on
the question: if the state is justified, how should the government be organized to represent
a just state?
● Do we have an alternative to the current state?
○ Hobbes/Locke: only alternative is the “state of nature,” romantic idea, we live together
without formal legal limitation (no law)
■ No one to help us, we figure it out on our own.
■ This might look attractive, but when you realize you aren’t the only one liking
that way, it generates insecurity, mistrust, violence
■ So state of nature is an unpleasant place to be
■ Why would I invest in long-term plans if anyone can violate?
■ So nothing would evelop: no culture, navigation, knowledge
■ No time to do so because we would try to get food and not be attacked by others,
rather than building knowledge
● So state: apparatus that protects one from others
○ Hobbes: social contract (beginning of institution of law)
■ People come into an agreement consisting of the set f rules that allow peaceful
social order
■ Rules that both limit us and protect us: limiting opportunities of both myself and
others, but I don’t have to worry about my security
■ We all accept to give up some freedom to the state to be protected from others
who might attack us
○ Rousseau's social contract: more romantic
■ When we become citizens in a state, we become a different person
■ We get rid of instincts of take whatever you can
■ Thus, your acts get morality
■ Once you are protected by the state you can start investing your time to fruitful
things
, ■ Entering civil society makes you a “person,” intelligent being (not merely a
human being)
● Earlier theories of justice explain why we need the state, but current discussions take states for
granted and talk about how we can organize states so that they are just
● State is primarily there to provide public goods:
○ Public goods are non-excludable (important to exclude people)
■ Non-rivalrous (one’s use doesn’t limit others)
■ Security as the most fundamental public good (Hobbes)
■ Problem: public goods open room for free-riding (having such goods without
paying): as they are non-excludable, even if one doesn’t pay they can use it
○ Private goods can be distributed through market
Tutorial 1A
● Moral reasoning meets legal reasoning
○ Sandel: moral reasoning is the ability to develop sound moral principles
● Origins of the legal system: how did law come about?
● Origins of civil law legal systems: Western Europe
○ Roman law
○ Canon law (church law)
○ Commercial law
○ Revolutionary law
○ Legal science
● Codification allows for legal certainty: presumed security that law will be applied consistently
● Origins of common law:
○ civil (not strict) vs. common law traditions (more developed by judicial law-making)
● Sources of law:
○ Customary law
○ Natural law
○ Positive law (always stems from a legitimate actor/source)
■ Something that we decide to create, not something floating in the universe
■ Dominant in the 19th century
■ From a purely positivist perspective: Nazi law is valid
● So we need to go beyond positivism
● Source thesis: if a rule stems from an official source, it is a legal rule.
○ Moral thinking shouldn’t be involved
● Status: laws passed by parliament through official procedures
● Private law: presumed equality within parties
○ Property law
○ Contract law
○ Tort law
○ Family law
○ Law of commerce
○ Private international law
● Public law: difference between the equality of parties involved
○ Criminal law: shields to protect individual from overwhelming power of state
● Question: what is the right thing to do?
○ Contextual: not a single answer, it depends on the context you are functioning in
○ Three domains you can approach this question: law, justice, morality (interrelated)
● (1) Morality: informal, public system of ideas applying to people
○ Aimed at achieving the good life and governing behavior that affects oneself and people
one interacts with
○ Includes moral rules, ideals, virtues: set of theories concerning the good life
○ Informal: no established procedure or authority that can settle all controversial questions
○ Overwhelming agreement on majority of issues: no external actor who can give the final
answer, but not a problem because we mostly agree more than we think we do
○ Public system: should be distinguished from private
■ All those to whom it applies must understand it and it shouldn’t be irrational for
them to use it in making decisions/judging others to whom the system applies
■ But basic set of rules should be clear to do so
■ Some morality can be private/personal: guiding my behaviour without consulting
others (morality in a public consultation)
○ Problem: not morality but moralities
■ Rawls: “We should accept the fact of pluralism of religions and ideas of the good
life.”
■ There is a plurality in our societies, can’t deny: when we talk about morality, we
take specifics (i.e. Christian morality, blue-collar morality)
○ Religion: subcategory of morality
■ Following the rules of religion provides a better life
■ It is a culturally-mediated yet universal feature of human condition
■ Even though religions are written down, they are still informal
● (2) Justice: informal public system of rules, concerning the correct way of collectively organizing
formal institutions in society
○ Rawls: distributing the burdens/benefits of social cooperation in society
■ Membership to such is not voluntary, no real exit option (going to another
country is not it, there is no rule-free space in the world)
■ Since it is involuntary, we should strive to make the rules just for all of us
● Not good life for us as a person but a just-society
○ Informal: a political debate between theorists
○ Public system: the rules should be discussed with others
○ Morality vs. justice
■ Morality is how one should live one’s life and treat others, it is about interactions
in daily lives
■ Justice is how we as members of society organize society to have just rules
● (3) Law: a formal system of public rules, explicitly written down, within a society
○ This explicit part distinguishes law from morality and justice
○ Formal system: unlike morality and justice
■ There is a specific decision procedure that can settle controversial questions
○ It is clear who can make law and by what procedure
, ■ Law making by parliament, adjudicating by judges
○ More consistent, binding, and robust than other two
○ Formal but not set in stone
■ Legislation is a necessary closure of public/political debates
■ There is always law until new law/interpretation
■ “Stroboscopic” alteration with every new, relevant piece of legislation (the
moment decision is made, that is a binding law)
○ Legal positivism: best ways of understanding law vs. justice/morality
■ law/legal order, set of rules laid down by specific people within institutions with
law making authority
■ Whether the law is made by the correct institution:
● only think that is relevant, not that it is moral/just, no legal impact until
translated to law
■ Just because they are reasonable rules doesn’t make it a recognized source of law
■ Primary reason why we treat legal rules as laws is their source: source thesis
●
Morality Justice Law
private/public: can be public public
understood as set of
rules
Informal: no final informal formal
actor to determine
what is correct
Subject The good life The just society A specific set of
binding rules
determined by a
specific set of
institutions
Academic field Ethics Political philosophy Legal studies
● Interrelations: no convincing moral theory, justice, or law without determinance
○ They overlap, but separation of them is helpful in resolving disagreements:
■ “a heuristic division of the inseparable”
● Ordinary life: as citizens, we accept the rules made for us
○ We can disagree, but being a part of society implies that most of the time law is binding
○ Rule-following behavior, but we also critically reflect on law, discuss in public, propose
legal reform
● Rule-breaking alternatives:
○ Criminals: concealed rule breaking, more convenient to break the rule but not necessarily
dispute the rules
○ Civil disobedience: bringing the rules visibly to bring it into discussion done to change
rules
, ○ Vigilantism: illegitimately acting as law enforcer without legal authority
■ (breaking the rule that the state has the monopoly of using force)
○ Revolution: whole set of rules broken, based on considerations of morality or justice
● Theories of justice have very specific roles in society as membership in a society is involuntary
● How do we organize society in a just way? Why do we need the state in the first place?
○ It is a social construction
○ Rules that we make together to organize our lives
○ Basic facts of the conditions of human life: these make necessary for state to emerge
■ Scarcity: equality of need, limited altruism, we want ro help but ensure that our
family and ourselves are okay as well
● If all of us were altruists, we wouldn’t need rules to distribute resources
or natural resources
■ Moral plurality: so we need state
■ Essential equality of human power: not a single strongest person (natural leader
doesn’t exist, so we need a way to organize leadership without fights, civil war)
○ We need something that governs all of us: so a state
○ It is evident for the majority that we need a state, so current political theorists focus on
the question: if the state is justified, how should the government be organized to represent
a just state?
● Do we have an alternative to the current state?
○ Hobbes/Locke: only alternative is the “state of nature,” romantic idea, we live together
without formal legal limitation (no law)
■ No one to help us, we figure it out on our own.
■ This might look attractive, but when you realize you aren’t the only one liking
that way, it generates insecurity, mistrust, violence
■ So state of nature is an unpleasant place to be
■ Why would I invest in long-term plans if anyone can violate?
■ So nothing would evelop: no culture, navigation, knowledge
■ No time to do so because we would try to get food and not be attacked by others,
rather than building knowledge
● So state: apparatus that protects one from others
○ Hobbes: social contract (beginning of institution of law)
■ People come into an agreement consisting of the set f rules that allow peaceful
social order
■ Rules that both limit us and protect us: limiting opportunities of both myself and
others, but I don’t have to worry about my security
■ We all accept to give up some freedom to the state to be protected from others
who might attack us
○ Rousseau's social contract: more romantic
■ When we become citizens in a state, we become a different person
■ We get rid of instincts of take whatever you can
■ Thus, your acts get morality
■ Once you are protected by the state you can start investing your time to fruitful
things
, ■ Entering civil society makes you a “person,” intelligent being (not merely a
human being)
● Earlier theories of justice explain why we need the state, but current discussions take states for
granted and talk about how we can organize states so that they are just
● State is primarily there to provide public goods:
○ Public goods are non-excludable (important to exclude people)
■ Non-rivalrous (one’s use doesn’t limit others)
■ Security as the most fundamental public good (Hobbes)
■ Problem: public goods open room for free-riding (having such goods without
paying): as they are non-excludable, even if one doesn’t pay they can use it
○ Private goods can be distributed through market
Tutorial 1A
● Moral reasoning meets legal reasoning
○ Sandel: moral reasoning is the ability to develop sound moral principles
● Origins of the legal system: how did law come about?
● Origins of civil law legal systems: Western Europe
○ Roman law
○ Canon law (church law)
○ Commercial law
○ Revolutionary law
○ Legal science
● Codification allows for legal certainty: presumed security that law will be applied consistently
● Origins of common law:
○ civil (not strict) vs. common law traditions (more developed by judicial law-making)
● Sources of law:
○ Customary law
○ Natural law
○ Positive law (always stems from a legitimate actor/source)
■ Something that we decide to create, not something floating in the universe
■ Dominant in the 19th century
■ From a purely positivist perspective: Nazi law is valid
● So we need to go beyond positivism
● Source thesis: if a rule stems from an official source, it is a legal rule.
○ Moral thinking shouldn’t be involved
● Status: laws passed by parliament through official procedures
● Private law: presumed equality within parties
○ Property law
○ Contract law
○ Tort law
○ Family law
○ Law of commerce
○ Private international law
● Public law: difference between the equality of parties involved
○ Criminal law: shields to protect individual from overwhelming power of state
