Lecture 2 Flashcards
Metoo example
- Questions of ethics we face everyday, such as ethics of sexual discrimination
- What about the ethics of non-events, who gets to “count”?
- What underlies these issues? How to debate them?
Concept
A concept is a umbrella term, like freedom. It is a value or principle, it is the basic structure. It is broad and capacious, encapsulating many different meanings. Concepts need to match our intuitions.
Conception
A conception is the particular version of a concept supported by an author, honing it down to a subset of meanings and characteristics, as in civic republican conception of liberty.
The good
Utility – ends
Substance; the good life
Happiness
Rawls theory of the good; “A person’s good is determined by what is for him the most rational long term plan of life given reasonably favorable circumstances. A man is happy when he is more or less successful in the way of carrying out this plan. To put it briefly, the good is the satisfaction of rational desire.”
The right
De-ontology – means
Procedure
Rawls theory of the right; “a conception of right is a set of principles, general in form and universal in application, that is to be publicly recognized as a final court of appeal for ordering the conflicting claims of moral persons.”
Justice and morality
o Are justice and morality identical?
o The answer is no, justice is much smaller than morality, it is a subset. Some things are morally good, but not part of justice.
o Justice vs charity example. Justice is a moral duty sufficient to justify state coercion towards an end.
Rawls’ thought experiment
o Thought experiment; original position and veil of ignorance, a kind of social contract.
o What principles of justice would you pick if you didn’t know how you were going to be affected by them. Original position imagines people choosing principles of justice, behind a veil of ignorance and thus: A) without any knowledge of ascriptive characteristics, so decision is not biased by advantage. B) they don’t know their conception of good (what makes life worth living?). You are ignorant about your interests.
Imperfect procedural justice Rawls
o Imperfect procedural justice: a criminal trial is an instance of imperfect procedural justice. People are wrongfully imprisoned, even though the law is careful, people still make mistakes. The characteristic mark of imperfect procedural justice is that while there is an independent criterion for the correct outcome, there is no feasible procedure which is sure to lead to it.
o Original position as pure procedural justice:
o Interesting outcome: hypothetical consent trumps actual contracts.
Primary goods and outcome thought experiment Rawls
o Primary goods; things that every rational man is presumed to want.
o The outcome of this is a hypothetical contract, based on essentially perfectly fair terms of deliberation. This is fair because of the underlying logic of procedural mechanism.
What would people hypothetically choose? Rawls
1) “Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.” 2) “Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both 2a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and 2b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.”
These principles are ranked by priority.
Rawls principles and maximin
The first principle pertains to liberty, all members of society are to have basic liberties. Have as many liberties as you can have without trampling others’ liberties.
In events that there are social and economic inequalities, which isn’t in itself given, the second principle kicks in to enable 2b (that all people have equal opportunity and access) and 2a (inequalities are tolerated only insofar as they benefit the worse off).
2a) the difference principle, to maximize the position of the worst off in society, also called maximin.
Risk aversion objection to Rawls
Why would we assume that people would be careful/cautious with their standing, rather than want to, say, gamble on their talents? This embeds a theory of human nature – that people are ‘pessimistic’ and ‘risk averse’.
Priority of liberty objection Rawls
Why should liberty come before economic concerns? Can we value liberty before we have food security or human security? Rawls suggests people cannot forego liberties in exchange for material gains. But what if we believe we should be able to trade off (some) liberty for economic prosperity? The preceding question; under what conditions might Rawls’s conditions make sense? And has any society qualified?
Redistribution objection Rawls
to what extent and for whom? What matters is that the worst off are as well off as can be, not whether they are better off.
Hypothetical contract objection Rawls
how is it binding? According to Rawls, you have a duty to act justly and Rawls has correctly identified what justice requires of you.
