-there is the idea of taking the ordinary and adding to it philosophy, which makes you detach from action, as you detach from action, you become far more comfortable with reasoning. But this skeptical view does not lead to reason.
-consider the story of the railway, 5 people, one worker, and fat man on the bridge. Here we worry about the consequences of our action, consequential reasoning which goes back to utilitarianism. Greatest good for greatest number-Jeremy Bantham and John Stuart Mill.
-consider the organ for 5 patients, and one healthy man, now we look at our morals behind actions, which is pure reasoning my Emmanuel Kant
-cabin boy and raft with cannibalism, procedure of choosing someone, process of person choosing (categorical moral reasoning/lottery) , issue of cannibalism, issue of whether it’s right action, issue of whether its right movement, lack of consent to a fair procedure, winner and loser will be there, motivated by affection and concern for their loved ones. Look at the collected happiness as Bentham suggested, is this right or wrong?
-why does a fair procedure justify a certain result? Categorical selection of something is fine? Do we have certain fundamental rights and what is the reason for those rights? Why does consent do morally?
-utilitarian idea was cost benefit analysis and major good, John Stuart milk modifies it to look at higher benefits, higher qualitative good is also essential, it does not have to do with just the most good for all because values are different, it has to do with the whole objective of your life, and whether you are aiming for the highest right or the low ones,
-John Mill- it’s a mistake as per the humanitarian view, as per law, that individual rights are serious and fundamental, the fundamental individual right is the right to liberty, we are not available to anyone, you live as you please and you have the right to choose, that is the fundamental idea which goes beyond individual convention of value of life, choices and notions and use
-Libertarian view: Nozick: paternalist legislation, promotion of something that is commonly good is also a restriction on liberty, someone who promotes morality- all of this, if no one else’s rights are violated, is wrong as per libertarian philosophy, third- any taxation that seeks to redistribute income or wealth fro the rich to the poor- it is a coercion and theft, it is theft from state and majority from those who happen to earn a lot of money. It is fine to tax for the sake of what everyone needs, but beyond that is WRONG. taxation is taking the fruits of my labor, it this not morally the same the authority of the state to claim a portion of my labor, is it forced labor then?. this line of reasoning brings us to the fundamental principle, that you own yourself, it is the idea of self-possession, you are not a collection of preferences, the fundamental moral idea to which you will be led is that you are the owner of your own person, this is why utilitarianism goes wrong. This is why we should not have laws to live this way, that way etc. you have no right to force others to labor, charity is fine.
-there are those that are free riders, get rid of those free riders, only put out fire if it spreads and threatens home of a subscriber for a fire corporation, get the money then get the service, question here is- there was no danger but to back off according to the rules, the guy who’s house was on fire did not get to renew it then but even public goods can be isolated and exclusive to those who pay. There is a worry of coercion underlying libertarian– it calls into question the fundamental fact that we own ourselves, this is self-ownership or self-possession. Nozick begins with the idea of being your own owner
-society is really asserting a collective property right on bill gates or Micheal Jordan, then it violates the fact that we belong to ourselves– the poor need the money more (so what people have the right to property, you can be philanthropic but it cannot be coerced, need versus deserve is also a point, if you don’t like it then leave the country, democracy is fine except where fundamental rights are involved which are your personal rights,–in individual expression of religion it is fine even if you are a minority but when it comes to expression of property rights where you may lose the debate it is a problem who knows why and we have the right to free speech, but the rich made money because they made money through society that they live in ) taxation by consent is not coerced it is congress (you agreed to freedom of individuals) , the successful owe a debt to society (Micheal Jordan owed things and was a part of society, you cannot discount those around you but it is not just that it is also about building giving and therefore receiving, it is also a question of luck– the morally relevant issue is free exchange for holdings and service)
-Maybe we don’t own ourselves after all in the world. Is that the case?
-John Locke proposed that in us there is consent when we live in society, but at the same time, we have fundamental rights that come to us from nature, and we must respect that and it must not be given to anyone nor taken from anyone, that is the nature of Fundamental Rights. No one can take this from you, your life, your service, your freedom to choose is fundamentally yours. The question then is one of consent to be a part of a community, that consent lasts only until your fundamental rights are intact. Other rights can be built upon by society and the community. Taxation with prior consent which doesn’t require the individual. This authority should not be arbitrary is the main thing, even with all their power over life and death, the officer cannot steal money, it would be corrupt, the officer can send you to your death for sure, but for what is the question. There was a consent to join the government and to be a part of how things are. It just cannot be arbitrary. There must be consent for each and every incident. That we have an obligation to obey and die in war. What actually looks like free exchange is actually coercion, it robs individual the ability to make a free choice, this is because there is a disproportionate benefit to a particular segment of society. Benefits and pay is also a coercive strategy to make people join. You can make patriotism the way ahead or the higher pay, but these not need work for everyone. Most people considered the civil war system as unjust.
-all volunteer army, what is the difference in principle here? Isn’t it objectionable that you are part of the all volunteer army system, in the civil war you are hired by govt and not individual. With an explicit draft, there has to be a decision and a military conscription on this regard, there is no responsibility here but there is a responsibility here. Is patriotism a higher motivation for service than money- no, mercenary can do an equally good job so you can outsource. Someone who loves the country will do a better investment in the country. One goes on to conscription if you are a patriot, or if you are a free man then mercenary
-surrogate mother service- price of quality sperm as the market wanted it a certain way, the surrogate mother didn’t know how she would feel when she made that contract when it was born– bond of nature is stronger than contract, adoption and surrogacy is a tradeoff but it is a voluntary agreement, you cannot apply objection to the coercion of this argument, emotional context and change of feelings is not relevant, the tradeoff is what the mother made, in some places market forces should not enter as it dehumanises things– it is the buying and selling of humans which is a biological right, you cannot have the natural right taken away, there is still an undeniable emotional bond that goes beyond contract, when dealing with people, these are not objects to buy and sell, there should be rights for human beings.
-the bond between mother and child is different from father and child, emotional bond is not necessarily apt here. Baby selling and adopting are unequal services. time investment given by a mom. Tainted consent because of flawed information, because of coercion or lack of relevant information, it is also dehumanising. No one had a superior bargaining power. Superior court said this contract is not enforceable, lower court said it is wrong. The higher court said it is not a fully understandable point for the mother who goes into contract, but it is fully understandable for the lower court to do so. Second profit is wrong here.
Other reasons of the issue– if people are pressured or coerced to give agreement or if they are not truly informed. In order to assess.
-Elizabeth Anderson, surrogate mother must alienate her emotion from her labor and her emotional bond with her child. Certain goods should not be treated in ways as normal market goods. Respect, appreciation, love, honour, sanctity, awe– these cannot be valued in the same way as it is normally treated. This goes back to utility or use, utility is not the only way to look at things in life. So how do we determine which ways of valuation is correct for what goods? Are there some things that should be valued higher than mere use.
-Emmanuel Kant says what matters is your moral intention and he rejects the utilitarian argument, he says human beings are rational and self-driven. He says that you can have sentiments and feelings that support the right motive, but it should not provide the reason for acting if you have multiple motive. Your greatest moral worth should be done for the sake of duty and not out of inclination. He has a stringent notion of duty. There is link of these with freedom- so my will can be determined autonomously or heteronomously, my will is determined autonomously and it should not be done with freedom. You should have capacity to give law to yourselves with reason. Reason determines your will and your law. Then the will becomes the power to choose independent of circumstance, world, dictates etc. Reason dictates the will in two ways- an imperative- ought (hypothetical imperative which uses instrumental reason), if you want a good reasoning then don’t shortchange your customers, if an action is good in itself-categorical. So categorical reason is independent, imperative is driven by a purpose that is higher.
-What is this supreme reason? 1st is formula of the universal law, act so that it becomes a maxim (a principle) of the universal law, if there are false promises then the maxim will no longer be there, this sounds like justifying a means to an end, if everyone lied then no-one could rely on anyone else’s word, it is easy to interpret him as saying that but it is not, it is the test of your maxim in order to see whether you are privileging your particular needs and desires over everyone else’s- your special circumstances do not matter as much, rational beings have an absolute value, they are worthy of respect, 2nd imperative- act in such a way such that you always treat others not just simply as a means but always as and end, people are not open to use merely as a means, you are failing to respect a person, and are manipulating the person, consider murder or suicide: this has a purpose but it does not have a respect, you violate the dignity and morally you have destroyed someone, therefore, you must respect the dignity of other people, it is not sympathy/love as they are to do with who they are in particular, It is not universal respect for different people, I must use myself as a means when you are dealing with people for the sake of advancing our interests- it should be consistent with respect to dignity of the people, this should come from the categorical imperative (I think that it will benefit the other person and therefore such an action is right, then you are acting out of freedom with an autonomy, thus you are doing good intrinsically, it is that you are subject to the law) Kant believes that if we choose freely, then we are guaranteed to come up with one and the same moral law, the choosing is done by nature (pure reason) which is nature it is not subject to external conditions, we both come to the conclusions when we choose autonomously, if we are subject to our humanity then we would be conditioned to our object of some external end that is driven by sensation.
-If we are free, we recognise the autonomy of the will, which arises from the end of sensation. Because of realm of necessity and freedom, we have a gap between “what is” and “what ought” to be done. Morality is not empirical- it doesn’t come through science, morality stands at a distance from the empirical world- so it does not come from moral truth.
-lying to even the murderer at the door is wrong as per Kant- you weren’t at the door at that very moment, misleading. It true is alright? A lie and a misleading truth is a deep issue. White lie is not fine for Kant- a misleading truth is maybe okay? I’ve never seen a tie like that before- you shouldn’t have. This is driven basis a formal adherence of moral law, this is the White Lie. He does not believe he did. Bill Clinton did not lie when he misled and said that I did not have sexual relations. The idea was to look at the truth, are you going to deceive or are you going to tell the truth? You’re hoping to mislead, it pays a certain homage to duty. Even the work of evasion, is fine as per Kant, as there is an element of respect, there is a dignity in the moral evasion of the truth, there is a dignity of the moral law, you hope the person will be mislead, it did not happen, the consequences cannot be controlled. However I pursue the ends, I hope to unfold, there should be respect for the moral law.
-the contract that creates justice is the idea of reason, it is not about constitutional convention, constitutional convention has different bargaining power, is unjust, and reflects differences in bargaining power, special interests that someone may know more about politics or law. A contract that generates principles of right has practical reality, Kant doesn’t trace the origin to any social contract, what is the moral force of a hypothetical contract then?
-John Rawls: a theory of justice, hypothetical agreement is the theory of justice, like Kant Rawls hated. No welfare of society is something that follows. Principles of justice are derived. The basic rights should come about, through the veil of ignorance. Imagine that ignorance hides from us who in particular we are- race, class, place in society. Then the principles we agree to would be principles of justice is what Rawls says.
-so is it stronger or weaker than actual contracts?- how do contracts bind me? – these are not self sufficient moral instruments, the fact of the agreement is not just, the extent to which they bind us are in two ways, I owe you lobsters and you owe me 100 dollars for gathering them, then there is no reciprocal exchange- we had an agreement then we owe you shit? I have expectation that I’ll go through the work, a formal form of contract is something that is valid, morally there is no obligation to pay up, no one benefitted, if you back out it cheapens the institution of contracts, it cheapens idea of taking an obligation on myself if you back out. Moral weight which is self imposed- they are consent-based, they have an autonomy of willingness and reciprocity. So Limitation? The fact that two people agreed does not mean it is fair- no trade is complete- one can have more info that other then practice paternalism- you should therefore practice paternalism when it should be, unscrupulous contractor- sound mind judgements can be revoked later on, it’s not a sufficient condition of things being fair, an act of consent is not a necessary condition, as there should be an exchange and reciprocity 2) how do they justify the terms they have?
-segregation in admission based on background- social background/ you don’t have a choice where you are born, do they have equal backgrounds- do we want to alleviate history and therefore discriminate against another, discriminating based on past or someone else is always wrong, this has nothing to do with us today- actually it has a lot to do with us, because of past injustices we have less opportunity that other people, the artificial fixing of result is not the way, you should focus on solving the cause-it shouldn’t look equal but it should solve the real problem, but there has been nepotism and therefore injustice done, legacy admissions should not happen– white legacy over black legacy admission to a college. But this discrimination perpetuates through wrong action on people basis racial division. Giving someone a special advantage comes from bringing people to the table, racial discrimination is illegal. Look at content of character and achievements not on race, as it is unfair– there are disadvantaged white people and black people too, ethnicity or religion should not be discriminated.
-there is more than academics, what is wrong is that there is no control of who I am, it is fundamentally unfair. Then what you achieve, you are going to more scholarly based on your family being scholarly. Legacy as a factor- should it count or not? Should you correct for the effects of educational disadvantage? Correct for differences in educational background and the opportunities they had and so on.
-This is consistent in principle with the idea that- academic potential matters and nothing else. It is justified as a compensation for past wrongs, we should have diversity which is because there should be more people in a social mission of the university, we need to train officials, leaders, and people who will help the country as a whole. All of these are directed at the common good. (Utility)
-is it fair to ask someone to sacrifice for someone else? (Is this fair as a compensatory objection?). are there group rights or collective responsibility over time. The common good is advanced if-there is a racially and ethnically efficient student body for Harvard’s brief in Supreme Court, (rationale for upholding affirmative action). Harvard said we care about diversity as it offers us different stuff. Is there a fundamental right that is violated here?– does someone denied have a right based on our excellence, hard-work. There is no individual right that has to do with someones efforts and achieve– once a policy is determined, people are entitled to be admitted. As Harvard defined the qualities that they wanted, that is where it will go in the future–as John Rawls puts it the framework is agreed on here. This is where you have rights within it.
-what are Rawl’s principles behind the veil of ignorance then–Behind the veil of ignorance, once real life begins, we will each want to be respected, with dignity, we don’t want to be oppressed, fundamental rights, freedom of consciousness and the right, you don’t want to be an oppressed or repressed minority with other tyrannising over us–the mistake of utilitarianism, reject the fundamental rights. Do you know if you are going to be rich or poor? No. At first thought we may want to go with equal distribution of wealth, we may realise we could do better if we agree to a qualified principle of equality, Rawls calls it difference principle. Only those that are least well off are the ones that should get special privilege- other than that no other inequalities can be accepted or are just.
-if wage differentials worked to the advantage of the least well-off, having people with certain jobs will not work, strictly speaking veil of ignorance must have only these principles- bottom up, why not start from the top–you want to go with merit based system and not with others, is it regardless of, at the end of the day, the lowest base level rises. The ability to get into top schools depends on coming from a favourable background-you want to try and find how many come from bottom quarter of the income scale- only 3% come from poor backgrounds, 70% from affluent families, people hope they would wind up on top, distribution of wealth and equality and faculties should not be based on factors that are based on an arbitrary point of view, justice should come from a framework that everyone should reject.
-there should be a libertarian system and conception which gives insight into everyone having freedom, but if some people run then it will not be fair if some individuals win and others don’t, in a fair meritocracy, the society brings everyone to the same starting point right at the beginning, Headstart program, equal education, support for people on basis of fair opportunity, everyone starts from the same place, it does not go to remedy the natural lottery of life still, who would now win is going to be those that are the best, which is a natural lottery!
-then do you want to have a levelling equality behind this, do you permit or encourage, do you exercise peoples talent, and do you look at how you exercise your talents, should you then work to the advantage of the least well off? Then the system should tax away Bill Gates and Micheal Jordan, as he was better favoured by nature, it should only be done on principles of taxing
-Harvard defined its mission, and identified the qualities that count. A pvt. institution can define its mission however it wants, you have to think about ways to define it. Can a pet institution define its laws as it wants? in the past, they only admitted whites, it was taken to court back then for this, Harvard did not allow Jews, invoked the mission of the jews–he said It was against principles, –today the idea is to include and not exclude people though, or malice/judgement could be the driving factor then its wrong, in terms of policy there should be no malicious judgement based on malicious worth, isn’t it that when you compete,
-you are used in a way that has nothing to do with moral desert. distributed justice is a supposed to be based on this. They would have to write letters for this stuff, successful application based on luck and traits that arre needed at the moment, we propose to exploit your assets in this moment, you are congratulated like a lottery and thus being used in the fall (lol), if it is true that the letters reflect the philosophy underlying the policy, question of political philosophy. You setup a system where everyone benefits from others talents who happen to be lucky. No- it is not just luck, it is the fucking hard-work that brought you here, so why should I be paying more? Correcting for things should reduce incentives for people who are working their ass off. It is effort. Micheal Jordan is being oppressed for his fucking effort to get to the fucking top. Rawls says that this work ethic in itself depends on fortunate family circumstances for which we will claim no credit…! psychologists say that birth order makes a difference on work order, work ethics. Even effort striving, work ethic is shaped by birth order, then Rawls asks why should then income and opportunities be based on factors arbitrary from a moral point of view, look at markets like this and look at society like this
-theories of distributive justice: libertarian justice, many people who notice this unfairness of different starts, find that there should be meritocratic system of fair equality, still bad as some people are just really good, then you should go to egalitarian conception which is defined by the difference principle-compensate with levelling of gain and then they give to the least well off, this is based on pay differentials, David letterman makes more than a school-teacher of the same age and everything, if there is no incentive for Micheal Jordan or David letterman why will they do it? It is the effect on the top of the pie, gifted to be trained and incentivised for their efforts, so don’t take too much but take stuff from them for sure, that is the test. What about people working hard because they deserved it? Libertarian objection: The objection comes from self-ownership, I own myself and you cannot treat my assets as yours, I own me. Life is not fair and government cannot rectify shit. Answer is to have a levelling equality of outcome, it would be a disaster- natural distribution is neither just or unjust- these are natural facts, what is an issue is how institution deals with facts is what Rawls claims of this. Libertarian objection 2– Nozick said that it might be a good think to create Headstart programs to start things at the same place, that may be good, but if you tax people against their will, it is a form of theft. We have to own our talents, maybe we don’t own ourselves in the thoroughgoing state after all basis our freedom as people. Self-ownership gives way when we own ourself in the sense that you have a privileged claim on the exercise of our rights. We can defend rights, uphold dignity, without embracing self-possession. Meritocratic conception- people who work hard to develop their talents deserve the benefits of the exercise that come from the use of talents–work ethic comes from the family and the world around, you cannot claim credit for this. No defender of meritocracy will say a small and scrawny worker deserves more for same effort as the big man. It is contribution, how much do you contribute? It is natural talent and ability which is not thus in our hand.
-But now, Rawls argument means we must ensure, that moral dessert and entitlements to legitimate expectations arre different.pure chance. In lottery, you do not morally deserve this shit. In a game of skill, you deserve this shit because I worked my ass off for this shit. Did you win only on skill? Entitlement to legitimate expectation– a just scheme answers to what men are entitled to which is not based on their intrinsic worth but on their work. The principles of justice do not mention moral worth. The principles of justice do not mention moral dessert, there is no tendency for distributive shares that correspond to it–so there is a second contingency, it is to whose credit that you get ahead, we also live in a society that puts a great premium on a erratic joke, this is luck of society for which you don’t claim credit this factor is arbitrary as fuck, it depends on laws of supply and demand which is not anyones doing or moral dessert. What country as contributing is what this or that society happens to prize.
-in capitalist society- have entrepreneurial drive, bureaucratic one- get along easily with superiors, mass democratic society- look good on tv and speak in song bytes. Our talents would not get us far in different societies. So are we less worthy or deserving than others of less prestigious positions? You can have different principles basis society. Don’t value qualities that society values in abundance in a certain way. What about distribution and access to elite education– you worked hard but it was not just that, it was a lot of factors that got you there. The moral status of your claim is not complete. Entitlements to legitimate expectations are based on justifications of those who enjoy them- doing so benefits others in society as well. Question of opportunities to go to top colleges and universities, a debate which comes to affiirmative action.
-Is it possible to detach distributed justice, moral desert or virtue.? Can we set aside philosophy, and look at redistribution and all that. All philosophers agree that justice is not a matter of rewarding or honouring virtue or moral desert. This is not for egalitarian reasons, tying justice to virtue will lead to a lack of freedom. In order to assess shared assumption, there is an issue with combining virtue and moral desert (The word is related to justice, revenge, blame, punishment and many topics central to moral philosophy, also \”moral desert”.)
Aristotle rejected the separation– give people what they deserve, find the proper fit between persons and their apt social roles. Give people what they deserve, what are the ground of what they deserve?- persons who are equal should get what they deserve, who should get the best things in life then– the ones who are best in the relevant sense, there is discrimination in the task being done, then this discrimination should be on the basis of the virtue of excellence of the individual, it would be unjust to discriminate on any other basis–nobility, chance, beauty, lottery, those that have the quality should get the best flute, Aristotle did not say this on utility, he based it on what the flutes are for- to be played well, side effect is that it can be enjoyed by others in the world, it looks to the purpose of flute playing. The greek for end- “telos: goal, end” that is what defines a just discrimination, this is teleological moral reasoning. Reasoning from the end. best folk should be based on end goal and real ability
-How does it go about actually?
-all of nature and social life in greek world was meant to be in meaningful order, the idea was to find the telos, with modern science it gets harder to think of justice in this way, children have to be educated to learn this natural way of looking at the world, this needs to be thought of, why to be a bee, why to make noise like a bee, bee does what is to make honey, only reason to make honey is for bear to eat it, teleological reasoning, we grow up and are talked out of this way of thinking and behaving, isn’t there something intuitively and morally plausible, is it to reason from the telos of social practice?
-then can we apply this to Harvard admissions- it is indispensable to think about it?
-David Hume scorned the original social contract of John Locke: its fucking noobish- bill of painting to Hume as he hadn’t consented to painting work- this is no good answer without consent of landlord so lol he didn’t like that there couldn’t be obligation to pay basis, but he failed and had to pay this. We don’t have an agreement! For a social contract that you didn’t start- you say it’s a different question after hiring, and benefit based if you didn’t pay then it’s not fair.
Consent needs definition?
-moral outrage for man in van with wife on a road- you deserve better than her, or, but you promised.
-that would isolate the pure benefit of the mind, actual contracts have their moral force in autonomy and reciprocity, every contract may fall short on ideals falling short in the first place, ideal of reciprocity and ideal of autonomy. Are these guaranteed, ever? This needs parties equal and power and knowledge, that is the idea of Rawls claim that there should be equality by ruling out or forgetting for the moment the power or knowledge, in principle resulting to itself, this is the principle of justice. Veil.
-Aristotle says look at the telos of institutes, today politics and institutions have to consider teleological statements.
-political offices: what qualities and excellences will be honoured, debates of telos are debates of honor, character, right to rule, distributive justice-to know how political authority should be distributed, find the purpose or point of politics, politics is about forming good character-it’s about the good life. Politics is for realising for the good life. Kant&Rawls said respect our freedom to choose our ends, Aristotle says objective good. So it should not be a covenant that makes members good and just. It’s not to promote mutual injustice or exchange. Those who contribute the most to the association of good character should have the most good done to them. Then they should get to lead.
-Why isn’t it possible for people to live a good life w/o partaking in politics. It should help us realise our nature. This allows us to understand our language. Man who is self sufficient must be either a beast or a god. We only fully open our capacity when we use our faculty of language. Why only the capacity for language.
-political deliberation, ruling and being ruled, is necessary to virtue, it is not maximising the pleasure over pain, but an activity of soul. Shaping the soul is an object of legislation in a good city. Can’t we learn moral principles at home/books- virtue isn’t acquired that way, it comes by exercising and doing.
-jokes come with practice, experience is the way, discerning particulars of a feature, no precept can shape you. Virtues can come through exercise and habits in you and then engage in deliberating the nature of the good. This capacity to deliberate comes from living a life alone.
-it is not that Pericles has the dominant say for XYZ reason, the greatest measure should come from the fullest extent, it is the basis of his virtue.
-the case of Casey Martin (golfer) and the job kart brings out the purpose of what qualities should be honoured: does CM have a right to allow golf kart because of disability?
-you don’t remove the disadvantage by walking the course, as it is painful, there is no purpose to golf though, so anyone can play how they want or don’t want. The problem of person is anti Aristotle- does golf mean walking? Whether walking means golf is athletics, does not walking mean an advantage?
-ruining golf by making it an issue to allow them to play. Or go play in the special Olympics, deciding whether there is a right of Aristotle, is walking essential to golf? What’s at stake here- is honor too. This goes back to the point- professional golfer as to whether their sport is a sport- if everyone rode in a kart, it would be clear that golf is not a sport but a game of skill. This the teleological feature, what’s essential to golf are debates of allocation of honor. Purpose is not to amuse spectators- it is to award people who have the highest honours. There is no object but amusement is wrong, the purpose to serve the people.
-a good walk spoiled is what the purpose spoils, the games and sports, it’s not possible to make sense of a debate about the sense of these arguments, matching virtues for apt honours and recognitions.
-Rawls rejects teleological justice: they threaten equal basic rights of citizen, really? So is it at odds with freedom? Reason to worry is Aristotle’s Defense of slavery: it has to be necessary in society he said as someone should be free. Some have to do hard and difficult and menial shit. He says sadly some are cut out to be slaves- who are meant to be ruled, Aristotle knew it is dodgy. He acknowledges that those who disagree may have a point-some people may be losers in a war, it’s unjust and is a misfit, it’s a kind of coercion and they don’t belong there.
-In principle on can have slaves- but it is wrong. Pirate-like guy must be a pirate not an investment banker. Justice should leave a framework of the conceptions of the good.
-What if someone is wants to take beating freedom for roles away from nature, should t you define what roles are suitable to us? Kant & Rawls say ppl disagree on what’s a good life, so don’t tie justice to a particular good, it doesn’t leave room for freedom.
-we need to investigate this, do I stand as an agent of choice or stand to discover what my nature really is?
-narrative conception of the self, you are free but then you are obligated as you are a part of community no matter what, so once you accept this narrative aspect of moral reflection. Then we will approach the morals as bearers of social identity, what is good for me is what is good for these roles. But I must chose to accept responsibility, others say it is a blindness to collective responsibilities, which flows from historic memories. You say- I never owned any slaves so it has nothing to do with me as a white man today. This assign moral abdication and this must be sorted out. This life history defines us. This don’t tie to the history of this narrative.
-liberal- there are natural duties of persons that are universal, there are also voluntary obligations we owe to others, through a promise, deal or a contract
-consent- based on signed documents only
-communitarian/membership they argue that construing all obligations as natural or voluntary fails to capture solidarity, you must live by it as it is inseparable from the particular person you are. eg. Ones to do with the family-relations between children and parents, traceable to consent? No. what is the moral significance of national boundaries? Membership matters because of patriotism, it’s an expression of citizenship. Competing obligations- we are members of the human community and not the smaller ones, be a human being, then you can evaluate which ones are most important to you.
-universal obligation? or is it family first? First the family then the world?
-the narrative of citizenship and family is a constructed one, so which one should you take a part in. In general you should see where your moral obligations arise from- kin
-sentimental ties don’t carry moral weight later, it is random that things happen a certain way, shaky moral ground, what if parents are good or bad, then what to do?
-its possible our obligations will sometimes conflict, then which one to choose is a question. patriotism and communal love are liberal ideas, you don’t need the non-voluntary obligations, rawls says that if someone runs for office they are making a voluntary choice, there’s no obligation for citizens but it is a liberal ideal, so we can choose if we want to provided we don’t do any injustice to the universal duties, obligations are a collective prejudice and selfishness
-if you are not satisfied with your society, then you have a means of exit, we don’t owe things anything unless what society owns us, we can give a blank cheque when the debate doesn’t matter, there must be a sense of civic virtue, you can despise the way the country is acting, you can engage the members through argumentative criticism, to take patriotic communism, we don’t pick and choose, there is no loyalty if there is here.
-so you can reject the course of the community if you don’t agree with the community, there should be more moral worth to virtue as well
-can this loyalty compete and outweigh the universal principles of justice? Can a loyalty that can and should compete with universal moral claims? Roommate cheating is wrong I would not turn him in, why not? As you are a community. This is ethic of loyalty now– be loyal and actually lie or do you tell the truth?
-Robert lee, share miseries of family and in defence of his people he will share but he will defend them, lee fights even though he doesn’t need to, when you have conflicting communities there will be a choice, people choose for the community that is more important, so it is the people at a local as it is the weightier moral (in terms of trend), so have loyalty.
-you don’t care of truth but loyalty, can you take the multiple truths and hold them, that is the greatness of you, then there is no clear principle. Can we take this than on a case by case basis? The scale of the community cannot be the decisive factor.
-worries of multiple objections to moral weight, there is no way of finding principles of justice that are detached from the conceptions of the good life, as they may be lived in any way. Then is justice a creature of convention? Michael waltzer, it is relative to society and its shared understandings of the members, there should be independence in thought first then there is loyalty or belief in other at any given time
-is that an adequate way of thinking of justice? – it is a disturbing for an idea of the southerners living in a certain way, so will you choose to live in your own way or in the communal one?