HF Political Philosophy - Liberty and Rights Notes PDF

**HF Political Philosophy -- Liberty and Rights Notes:** **John Rawls: "A Theory Of Justice"** -- *tldr: interested in creating a fair society through the semi-Utilitarian principal of wealth distribution through blind distribution of opportunities etc. Hard to summarise; look at writing.* +------...

**HF Political Philosophy -- Liberty and Rights Notes:** **John Rawls: "A Theory Of Justice"** -- *tldr: interested in creating a fair society through the semi-Utilitarian principal of wealth distribution through blind distribution of opportunities etc. Hard to summarise; look at writing.* +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Argument Line** | **Evaluations** | +===================================+===================================+ | [Fairness and | | | Justice] | | | | | | We all care deeply about fairness | | | and justice, even children as | | | young as 3 are able to recognise | | | this. | | | | | | Rawls is very interested in | | | justice, and sees justice as | | | synonymous with fairness. | | | | | | He recognises that the world is | | | full of inequality; inequalities | | | that stem from the lottery of | | | birth. | | | | | | He thus asks the question *"How | | | are the benefits that a society | | | produces to be distributed?"* | | | | | | In order to answer this question, | | | Rawls proposes two principals of | | | justice | | | | | | 1. [Each person is to have equal | | | right to the most extensive | | | system of equal basic | | | liberties with a similar | | | system for all.] | | | | | | "basic liberties" = right to | | | vote, freedom of thought, | | | freedom from psychological | | | and physical oppression, | | | right to hold personal | | | property. | | | | | | 2. [Social and economic | | | inequalities are to be | | | arranged so that they are | | | both] | | | | | | | | | | | | a. [To the greatest benefit of | | | the least | | | advantaged,] - | | | ***\[ the difference | | | principal\]*** -- This | | | principal is put in place to | | | encourage some sort of | | | incentive and possibility of | | | economic | | | [growth]. Ie; | | | that economic inequality is | | | justified so long as those | | | who are least well of would | | | be even worse if these | | | inequalities were removed. | | | | | | b. Attached to positions under | | | conditions of fair equality | | | of opportunity. | | | | | | Note: Rawls theory is | | | [egalitarian] -- *as | | | it emphasises the equality of | | | liberty, opportunity, and the | | | difference principal, and | | | recognises inequalities but | | | attempts to minimise their | | | effect.* | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | [Argument for the Difference | [Some Consequences and | | Principal] | Questions] | | | | | The argument for Rawls' | - What about inequalities that | | principals of Justice is called | lie in people's natural | | the "original position" | talents and abilities, for | | | example, sporting prowess, | | [Original Position:] | intelligence, music, etc? | | | | | - Suppose a group of people | Idea of Rawls: | | setting up a new country need | | | to outline a political | - Rawls believes that as a | | constitution for their | consequence, society should | | society in order to ensure | give more attention to those | | its fairness. | with fewer native assets. | | | Greater resources should be | | - There a two assumptions in | spent on the less intelligent | | this position | than the more intelligent. In | | | effect, an agreement to | | | regard the distribution of | | | natural talents as a common | | - First: that the people in the | asset. Further, those who | | original position are | have been favoured by natural | | self-interested and rational. | assets -- like intelligence | | They are concerned about | -- should only make gain from | | what's important for | it if it improves the | | themselves, and will act in a | situations of those who have | | way that will promote their | lost out. | | own best interests. | | | | [Challenge of this | | - Second: That in order to | generally:] | | eliminate this bias, the | | | committee would choose the | Posed by communitarians -- | | principals of justice behind | philosophy that highlights the | | a *'veil of ignorance.'* This | connection between the individual | | veil of ignorance, according | and the society -- is that don't | | to Rawls, would ensure that | our talents, abilities and | | each individual would promote | preferences make us who we are? | | values that allow for anyone | | | -- regardless of fortune, | What would an individual even be | | gender, intelligence, | if all this identity had been | | strength -- to lead a good | abstracted from them? | | life. This is because the | | | parties would be unaware of | [Another Objection by | | what their position in the | Communitarians:] | | world would be. | | | | Rawls' understanding of justice | | The original position creates a | is based on seeing society as a | | situation where the choosers are | set of isolated individuals. He | | forced to choose impartially. | believes that they may be | | | co-operating, but only out of | | Almost out of fear for | necessity. Thus Rawls ruled out | | self-preservation, they would | the idea of society being | | choose values that would benefit | intrinsically good, rather than | | anyone/ would not discriminate | merely a necessary means to | | against anyone, as they | individual advantage. What is bad | | themselves have no idea what | about this? | | their position in society would | | | be. | [Surfer - Brain Surgeon Analogy | | | Objection] | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ['Maximin' Principal] | - Rawls believes that our | | | talents are arbitrary and | | Consider the difference principal | that we shouldn't really be | | in more detail: | rewarded for them as they are | | | already an inequality that is | | Maximin is a rule for choice | in our advantage. Yet despite | | under uncertainty. If you are | this, Rawls has built into | | choosing between alternatives A,B | his theory of justice -- the | | and C in circumstances where your | difference principal -- an | | information is severely | incentive for economic | | restricted, then the Maximin rule | incentives. In this case, the | | says: Look at the consequences of | talented can acquire an | | A, B and C and then choose the | unequal share of economic | | one whose worst consequence is | welfare so long as it | | better than the others. | benefits the lowest in | | | society. | | Maximin helps us create a society | | | where the least well off still | - Thus, a brain surgeon who | | have a relatively high/ elevated | would rather be on his | | life position. \--\> Limited | surfboard all day, would be | | knowledge behind the veil of | able to charge more money | | ignorance helps ensure a decision | from people to receive his | | where we are concerned with the | medical expertise -- and | | minimum someone will receive, and | considering that those who | | hence, we are incentivised to | are ill are considered worse | | play it safe and to ensure a good | off in society, and that | | life for those at the bottom of | receiving medical treatment | | society. | is beneficial -- it is | | | permissible in such a | | | society. | | | | | | - Many object to this, saying | | | that clearly the surgeon is | | | committing blackmail as the | | | patients are forced to pay | | | this fee in order to stay | | | alive, and hence, they object | | | to Rawls' principals of | | | justice. | | | | | | [Contemporary Rawlsian | | | Response] | | | | | | Well spotted, that is why we | | | wouldn't allow such injustices, | | | instead, creating just basic | | | institutions that would be able | | | to serve those in need. Whilst we | | | wouldn't force the surfer to get | | | off his board -- as that would | | | infringe upon his first principal | | | of liberty -- there is no | | | absolute need to pay him more if | | | he does go and use his talents as | | | he ought to. | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ **Robert Nozick: - Libertarian:** *tldr*: *A minimal state, limited to protecting individuals against force, theft, fraud, and enforcing contracts, is justified. Any state that goes beyond these functions violates individual rights.* +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Argument Line** | **Evaluations** | +===================================+===================================+ | [Self-Ownership] | [Objection by Cohen in Wilt | | | Chamberlin Analogy] | | - Nozick agrees with Rawls and | | | believes that justice comes a | Cohen objects to the analogy of | | just *process.* But he | Wilt Chamberlin earning an extra | | dislikes what he calls | \$250,000 through his argument | | 'patterned' distributions of | that Nozick exploits '*rhetorical | | justice, which are about | sleight-of-hand'* to illustrate | | end-results much like Rawls' | his point. | | | | | - Nozick believes that justice | Whilst it may seem just to us | | is the proper respect of | that Wilt gets the \$250,000, we | | rights; and that our rights | don't actually live in a society | | stem from the fact that we a | with a just initial distribution | | self-owning individuals. We | of wealth like that of Rawls. | | can do whatever we want with | | | our property -- and that | Maybe in our society, where kids | | extends to our body. | who grow up in disadvantaged make | | | good with their own raw talent, | | - He contends that we all | we *don't mind* these types of | | deserve to have this right | inequalities. | | respected, and it would be a | | | violation of justice if it | However, under Rawls' principals, | | were not. | we would no longer have an | | | initial unfairness, and hence, it | | - It does not matter what the | becomes far harder to justify | | inequalities are in a | unfair distribution of wealth in | | society, so long as the route | a society where people are mostly | | to said positions in society | even | | we a just one, then the | | | outcome is also just. | [Counter -- counter:] | | | | | [Wilt Chamberlin | Intuitive rebut using Rawls' | | Analogy:] | logic of the difference principal | | | | | Suppose that in a given | - Lowest people are benefited | | basketball season, Wilt | by watching this game | | Chamberlin asks for an additional | | | 25 cents to be paid to him for | - Inequality of wealth is | | any game ticket in which he is | created, but also brings up | | playing in. Let's imagine that | those at bottom who receive | | all the basketball fans are happy | entertainment through the | | to pay this amount, and that by | game. | | the end of the season, Wilt | | | amounts an additional \$250,000. | [Gap in Taxing the | | | Rich] | | Nozick asks -- how could this be | | | unjust? Everyone consented to | Using Nozick's concept of just | | paying said amount, and no force | distribution, we could never tax | | was used to make people pay the | rich people and us it for | | amount. | anything that they would not also | | | benefit from. If we were, for | | To complain about the unequal | instance, to take money from | | distribution of wealth to Wilt -- | millionaires to buy food for | | and to try and redistribute it -- | starving children, the | | would be an injustice. | millionaires, according to | | | Nozick's reasoning, would be the | | To interfere, in the words of | slaves of the children. This | | Nozick, would to be to | seems counterintuitive. | | unjustifiably mingle in the acts | | | between consenting adults. | [Astronaut Example:] | | | | | [Entitlement | Suppose an astronaut lands on an | | Theory:]\ | uninhabited, yet liveable planet. | | Justice in holdings consists of | According to Nozick, the | | three principles: | astronaut can claim this planet | | | as their own. Now suppose that | | - **Acquisition:** Resources | another astronaut ended up on the | | are justly acquired if they | planet after the first. There is | | are unowned and acquired | nothing for them to eat, drink, | | without harming others. | or sleep on that doesn't belong | | | to the first astronaut. Unless | | - **Transfer:** Holdings are | the first astronaut is charitable | | justly transferred if done | to the second, the second must | | voluntarily. | become the first's slave in order | | | to survive. This looks unjust. | | - **Rectification:** If past | | | injustices occurred, they | [Eyes Analogy:] | | should be rectified according | | | to a principle of justice. | Imagine a state where no one is | | | born able to see. Now, the state | | | has a patent on a design of | | | artificial eyeballs that allow | | | people to see. Shortly after | | | people are born, they are given | | | such eyes. The eyes remain the | | | state's property, yet they let | | | people borrow them for free over | | | their lifetimes. | | | | | | Now, suppose that someone loses | | | both of their eyes, and that the | | | state runs a lottery that | | | randomly gives an eye from | | | someone else to the person with | | | none. If your number is pulled, | | | the state comes and plucks one of | | | your eyeballs out to donate to | | | the other. Now, you may think | | | that this is unjust -- but if you | | | do, then this shows it is *not | | | the idea of self-ownership at | | | work,* but rather, some other | | | idea about what a state can and | | | cannot do. | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ **Mill: "On Liberty"** +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Argument Line** | **Evaluations** | +===================================+===================================+ | [Mill Core Values:] | [Vagueness of Harm | | | Principal] | | [Liberty and | | | Autonomy] | Mill\'s harm principle is too | | | vague to apply effectively in | | Mill believes that above all | practice. What constitutes | | else, personal freedom is | \"harm\" is often subjective and | | paramount | culturally dependent. For | | | example: | | - How does he come to this | | | position? | - Does harm include indirect or | | | emotional harm, such as | | - He ties the importance of | offense or psychological | | freedom to its practical and | distress? | | moral benefits | | | | - Can societal harms, like the | | a. In general, being able to | erosion of social norms, | | make choices for yourself | justify limiting freedom? | | furthers human progression | | | \--\> You need people to do | [Positive vs Negative | | and say stupid things so we | Freedom] | | can refute said actions and | | | discover what is the best | [Objection]: Mill | | outcome, and hence, what is | focuses on **negative freedom** | | best for our society. | (freedom from interference) but | | | neglects **positive freedom** | | b. Mill adds that individuals | (the ability to act on one's own | | need liberty as you know what | potential). Critics argue that | | is best for yourself. You as | liberty is meaningless without | | your own person know what the | the resources or conditions to | | pros and cons are of certain | exercise it. | | actions. You are in the best | | | position to decide what to | - Example Critic: **Isaiah | | do. \--\> You, as an | Berlin** distinguishes | | independent agent, know how | between negative and positive | | to best serve yourself. | liberty, suggesting that | | Unlike a government who will | Mill\'s approach neglects | | have biases, you act in | social and economic | | accordance with the greatest | inequalities that restrict | | interest of yourself. | meaningful freedom. | | | | | c. The Measure of humanity is | | | exercising our freedom. \--\> | | | Making a poor choice isn't a | | | one off action, it's a | | | process. Making bad decisions | | | and growing from them make us | | | more human; Mill argues that | | | they are what make us human. | | | | | | Mill Has one exception to this | | | freedom though, and it what he | | | calls the 'Harm Principal' | | | | | | Mill is okay with reducing | | | someone's personal freedom if | | | they were to use said freedom to | | | harm someone else. | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+