This content explores the limitations of utilitarianism in accounting for individual rights and justice, introducing libertarianism as a strong theory of rights that emphasizes self-possession and individual liberty, arguing against paternalistic, moral, and redistributive legislation.
Mind Map
点击展开
点击探索完整互动思维导图
[Music] [Applause]
[Applause] [Music]
[Music]
when we finished last [Music]
[Music]
time we were looking at John Stewart
Mills attempt to
reply to the
critics of bentham's utilitarianism
in his book
utilitarianism mil tries to show that
critics to the contrary it is
possible within the utilitarian
framework to distinguish between higher
and lower Pleasures it is possible to
make qualitative distinctions of worth
and we tested that
idea with The Simpsons and the Shakespeare
Shakespeare
excerpts and the results of our
question Mills
distinction because a great many of
you reported that you prefer The
Simpsons but that you still consider
worthier pleasure that's the
dilemma with which our experiment confronts
confronts
Mill what about Mill's attempt to
account for the specially weighty
character of individual rights and
Justice in chapter five of
utilitarianism he wants to say that individual
individual
rights are worthy of special
respect in fact he goes so far as to say
that Justice is the most sacred part and
the most incomparably binding part of morality
morality
but the same
challenge could be put to this part of Mills
Mills
defense why is
Justice the chief
part and the most binding part of all
morality well he says because in the
long run if we do justice and if we
respect rights society as a whole will
be better off in the long run well what
what if we have a case where making an
exception and violating individual
rights actually will make people better
off in the long run is it all right then
to use
people and there's a further objection
that could be raised against Mill's case
for justice and rights suppose the
utilitarian calculus in the long run
works out as he says it
will such that respecting people's rights
rights
is a way of making everybody better off
in the long run is that the right reason
is that the only reason to respect
people if the doctor goes in and Yanks
the organs from the healthy patient who
came in for a checkup to save five
lives there would be adverse effects in
the long run eventually people would
learn about this and would stop going in
for checkups
is it the right
reason is the only reason that you as
the doctor won't yank the organs out of
the healthy
patient that you think well if I use him
in this
way in the long run more lives will be
lost or is there another reason having
to do with intrinsic respect for the
person as an
individual and if that reason
matters then it's not so
clear that even Mills
utilitarianism can take account of
it fully to examine these two worries or
objections to Mill's
defense we need to we need to push
further and we we need to ask in the
case of higher or worthier
Pleasures are there theories of the good life
life
that can provide independent moral
standards for the worth of
Pleasures if so what do they look like
that's one
question in the case of justice and
rights if we suspect that Mill is
implicitly leaning on Notions of human
dignity or respect for person that are
not strictly speaking
speaking
utilitarian we need to look to see
whether there are some stronger theories
of rights that can explain the intuition
which even mil shares the intuition that
the reason for respecting individuals
them goes beyond even utility in the long
run today we turn to one of those strong
theories of
Rights strong theories of Rights say
individuals matter not just as
instruments to be used for a larger social
purpose or for the sake of maximizing
utility individuals are separate beings
with Separate Lives worthy of
respect and so it's a mistake according
to strong theories of Rights it's a
mistake to think about Justice or law
by just adding up
preferences and values the strong rights
Theory we turn to today is libertarianism
libertarianism
libertarianism takes individual rights
seriously it's called libertarianism
because it says the fundamental
Liberty precisely because we are
separate individual beings
were not
available to any use that the society
might desire or devise precisely because
we are individual separate human
beings we have a fundamental right to
Liberty and that
means a right to choose freely to live
our lives as we please provided we
respect other people's rights to do the
same that's the fundamental
idea Robert noik one of the libertarian
philosophers we
read for this course puts it this way
individuals have rights so strong and
far-reaching are these rights that they
raise the question of what if
do so what does libertarianism say
about the role of government or of the
state well there are three things that
most modern states
do that on the libertarian theory of
rights are
illegitimate are
unjust one of them is paternalist
legislation that's passing laws that
protect people from themselves seat belt
laws for example when motorcycle helmet
laws the libertarian says it may be a
good thing if people wear seat
belts but that should be up to
them and the state the government has no
business coercing them us to wear seat
belts by
law it's
coercion so no paternalist
legislation number one number two no morals
morals
legislation many
laws try to promote the virtue of
citizens or try to give expression to the
the moral
moral
values of the society as a
whole Libertarians say that's also a
violation of the right to
Liberty take the example of well a
classic example of legislation offered
in the name of promoting morality
traditionally have been laws that
prevent sexual intimacy between GS and
lesbians the libertarian says nobody
else is harmed nobody else's rights are
violated so the state should get out of
the business entirely of trying to
legislation and the third kind of
law or policy that is ruled out on the libertarian
libertarian
philosophy is any
taxation or other policy that serves the
purpose of redistributing income or
wealth from the rich to the
poor redistribution is a kind if you
think about it says the libertarian is a
kind of
coercion what it amounts to is
theft by the state or by the
majority if we're talking about a
democracy from people who happen to do
money
now nosik and other Libertarians allow
that there can be a minimal state that
taxes people for the sake of what
everybody needs the National Defense
police force judicial system to enforce
contracts and property rights but that's
it now I want to get your reactions to this
this
third feature of the libertarian view I
want to
see who among you agree with that idea
and who disagree and why but just to
make it concrete and to see what's at
stake consider the distribution of
wealth in the United
States United States is among the most
inegalitarian societies as far as the
distribution of wealth of all the advanced
advanced
democracies now is this just or
unjust well what does the libertarian
say libertarian says you can't know just
from the facts I've just given you you
can't know whether that distribution is
just or
unjust you can't know just by looking at
a pattern or a distribution or a
result whether it's just or
be you can't just look at the end State
or the
result you have to look at two
principles the first he calls Justice in
acquisition or in initial Holdings and
what that means simply is did people get
the things they use to make their
money fairly so we need to know was
there Justice in the initial Holdings
did they steal the land or the factory
or the goods that Ena them to make all
that money if not if they were entitled
to whatever it was that enabled them
to gather the
wealth the first principle is matter the
second principle is is did the
distribution arise from the operation of
free consent people buying and trading
on the
market as you can see the libertarian
idea of Justice corresponds to a free
market conception of
Justice provided people got what they
used fairly didn't steal it and
provided the distribution results from
the free choice of individuals buying
and selling
things the distribution is just and if
unjust so let's in order to fix ideas
for this discussion
take an actual
actual
example who's the wealthiest person in
the United States wealthiest person in the
world Bill Gates
it is that's
is you'd be happy too now what's his net
worth anybody have any
idea that's a big
number during the Clinton years remember
there was a controversy donors big
campaign contributors were invited to
stay overnight in the Lincoln bedroom at
the White House I think if you contribute
contribute
$25,000 or above someone figured out at
the median contribution that got you
invited to stay a night in the Lincoln
bedroom Bill Gates could afford to stay
in the Lincoln bedroom every night for
years somebody else figured out how much
does he get paid on an hourly
basis and
so they figured out since he began
Microsoft uh suppose he worked what 14
hours per
day reasonable guess and you calculate
this net wealth it turns out that his
rate of pay
is over
$150 not per hour not per minute $150
more than $150 per
second which
means which means that if on his way to the
the
office Gates noticed a $100 bill on the
street it wouldn't be worth his time to
stop and pick and pick it [Applause]
[Applause]
up now most of you will say someone that
wealthy surely we can tax them to meet
the pressing
needs of people who lack an education or
lack enough to eat or lack decent
housing they need it more than he
does and if you were a
utilitarian what would you do what tax
policy would you have you'd redistribute
in a Flash wouldn't
you because you would know being a good utilitarian
utilitarian
that taking some a small amount he's
scarcely going to notice it but it will
make a huge Improvement in the lives and
in the welfare of those at the
remember the libertarian Theory
says we can't just add up and aggregate
preferences and satisfactions that way
we have to respect persons and if he
earned that money fairly without
violating anybody else's rights in
accordance with the two principles of
Justice in acquisition and Justice in
transfer then it would be wrong it would
be a form of coercion to take it
away Michael Jordan is not as wealthy as Bill
Bill
Gates but he did pretty well for
himself you want to see Michael Jordan
there he
is his income alone in one year was $31
million and then he made another $47
million in endorsements for Nike and
other companies so his income was in one
year 78 million to require him to pay
let's say a third of his earnings to the
government to support good
causes like Food and Health Care and
housing and education for the poor
that's coercion
rights and that's why redistribution is
wrong now how many agree with that
argument agree with the libertarian
argument that redistribution for the sake
sake
of trying to help the poor is
argument are all right let's begin with
those who
disagree what's wrong with the
redistribution yes I think these people
like Michael Jordan have received um
we're talking about within working
within a society and they received a
larger um gift from the society and they
have a larger obligation in return uh to
give that through redistribution you
know you can say that Michael Jordan may
work just as hard as someone who works
um you know doing laundry 12 hours 14
hours a day but he's receiving more um I
don't think it's fair to say that you
know it's all on him on his you know
inherent you know hard work all right
let's hear from Defenders of
libertarianism why would it be wrong in
principle to tax the rich to help the
poor go
ahead my name is Joe and I collect
skateboards I've since bought
skateboards I live in a society of 100
people I'm the only one with skateboards
suddenly everyone decides they want a
skateboard they come into my house they
take my they take 99 of my skateboards I
think that is unjust now I think in
certain circumstances it becomes
necessary to overlook that unjustice
perhaps condone that unjustice as in the
case of the cabin boy being killed for
food if people on the verge of dying
Perhaps it is necessary to overlook that
Injustice but I think it's important to
keep in mind that we're still committing
unjustice by taking people's belongings
or assets are you saying that taxing
Michael Jordan say at 33% tax
rate for good causes to feed the
hungry is
theft I think it's unjust yes I do
believe it's theft but perhaps it is
necessary to condone that theft but it's
why is it theft
Joe because why is it like your
collection of
skateboards it's theft because at least
in my opinion and by the libertarian
opinion he earned that money
fairly um and it belongs to him so to
theft all right let's hear if there's
yes go
ahead I don't think this is necessarily
a case in which you have 99 skateboards
and the government or you have 100
skateboards and the government is taking
99 of them it's like you have more
skateboards than there are days in a
year you have more skateboards than
you're going to be able to use in your
entire lifetime and the government is
taking part of those and I think that if
you're operating in a society in which
the government's not in which the
government doesn't redistribute wealth
that that allows for people to amass so
much wealth that people who haven't
started from this very the equal footing
in our hypothetical situation that
doesn't exist in our real Society get
undercut for the rest of their lives so
you're worried that if there isn't some
degree of redistribution if some are
left at the bottom there will be no
genuine equality of
opportunity all
right the idea that taxation is
theft nosac takes that point one step
further he agrees that it's
theft he's more demanding than Joe Joe
says it is theft maybe in an extreme
case it's
Justified maybe a parent is Justified in
stealing a loaf of bread to feed his or
her hungry family so Joe is a what would
you call yourself a compassionate quasi libertarian
