Narrative conception of the self is Aristotelian -- it is teleological a) the narrative conception presupposes a certain conception of the good life as a whole b) MacIntyre's conception of the good life involves following the narrative of life. In the process of determing how I ought to act, it would be wrong to step back from the particulars of my situation -- I need to look at my current situation nal Exam 20 MC questions -- broadly thematic 2 essays
Utilitarianism
- Happiness Principle
- Begins with premise that "our sovereign masters and pleasure and pain"
- Social policy: Maximize pleasure, quantitatively
- Believes that all pain and pleasure can be quantitatively measured, on the same scale, has like 6 different ways to measure
- Is an example of consequentialism -- the morality of an action has nothing to do with the motive, but only with the consequences of the action
Objection: Doesn't respect human rights
- Higher vs Lower pleasures -- measures both quality and quantity of pain and pleasures
- Higher pleasures are those that we would not relinquish even for a vast amount of lower pleasures -- they cannot be measured on the same scale
- Broadly, the higher pleasures are those related to the intellect. "Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied"
- Has a test for distinguishing between higher and lower pleasures: Ask someone who has experienced both pleasures, and ask them which one of those pleasure they would rather have
- The test is empirical
- Problem -- how do you have having "experienced" both pleasures/pains? Many people would choose the Simpsons over Shakespeare, although Mill would expect Shakespeare to be the higher pleasure, and he would probably say that anyone who chooses the Simpsons simply hasn't fully experience Shakespeare
- This is supposed to address Bentham's account of utilitarianism to try and account for rights
- He is a famous defender of freedom of speeches -- he believes he can defend rights through his distinction of higher and lower pleasures
- Strong defender of individuals rights to life, liberty, and property, independent of whether it maximizes the pleasure of society as a whole
- The right to self-ownership -- not just the ownership of my body, but also the fruits of my labor
- The minimal state -- provides a police force and army to enforce contracts and prevent the infringement of basic rights
- Note contrast between negative and positive rights. The state only has to protect the negative right to life.
- The right to life is merely the right to live as I choose, without the constraint of any other individual -- it does not mean the right to a good life
- Says that any taxation that goes beyond what is needed to support the minimal state is coercion and a violation of rights
- Connects right to property to right to life and liberty -- that the fruits of labor are equivalent to our labor and our body, which allows him to make the tie between taxation and coercion
- Says that taxation is on par with forced labor
- Self-ownership/right to life/liberty #> right to labor #> right to fruits of labor (earnings) => taxation of my earnings is equivalent to controlling my life
- Nozick is against redistributive justice -- taxation to support social welfare programs -- taxation to support other people's lives. Because then you are a slave of the majority
- So, within his framework --
- Justice in acquisition
- Justice in transfer
- Rectification of injustices
- As long as these things hold, then the current state of society is justice, no matter how wide the inequalities are
- Wilt Chamberlain example -- pick any initial just initial distribution. Then everybody pays ot see Wilt Chamberlain, such that he becomes very rich (and there is inequality). He obtained his wealth through just means -- so it would be unjust to tax those earnings
- Natural rights -- the right to life, liberty, and property (specifically these 3!)
- Purpose is to determine the legitimate extent of governmental authority
- Limited government -- limited by people's natural rights
- Unalienable rights -- we can't, even of our own free will, relinquish our natural rights. We cannot given those rights even with our own free consent. I cannot sell myself into slavery, and I cannot take my own life. In contrast, Nozick and libertarians would say that we own ourselves and that we can do whatever we choose with ourselves.
- He says that our rights come from God and that they come from reason
- Locke's state of nature: Pre-political, no common authority
- Locke's stance on slavery: He says that it would be unjust to enslave an innocent person, but that is is acceptable to enslave an aggressor, who oversteps their bounds by trying to infringe on another's rights, and thereby enter a state of war
- You punish them "as far as calm reason dictates" -- only as far as to restrain them and for reparations
- Everybody has the right to punish an aggressor, and everyone can punish as they see fit
- But then the state of nature results in chaos, and everyone's rights are insecure, so then people willingly give up some of their rights (namely, their judicial and penal rights) to form a government to secure people's rights, which allows for justice to be more fairly distributed. People lose the ability to decide on punishment and carry out the punishment on aggressors
- Right to property -- unowned things in nature come to become owned by the mixing of labor, and it is acceptable so long as I leave enough as is good for the rest of society
- Extends this to a state where people enclose the land, where people enclose more land than they need but that they sell the surplus for money so that they don't go bad, that they hire people to work the fields
- People who don't have any land and have to be day laborers -- their state is just because their standard of living is higher than it would've been, and so technically enough was left as is good
- Allows for majority rule -- says that the government can tax as much as the majority decides
- Tacit consent -- if you are born into the new society, and you stay and enjoy the benefits of society, then you tacitly consent
- Common misinterpretation -- that his categorical imperative is utilitarian, because he says you can't do those actions that would result in overall bad if everyone in society did them. But that isn't what Kant means.
- Supreme principle of morality -- that principle that is bound on all individuals. The principle of right or wrong that applies in all situations and for all people
- Argues that the only basis of morality is will -- this is deontology, in direct contrast with consequentialism of utilitarianism
- Supreme principle of morality is the categorical imperative
- Duty vs inclination -- a morally worthy action is one that is done for the sake of duty, not for inclination. Example: A shopkeeper could decide not to overcharge someone for two reasons: (1) he would be exposed and slandered (out of inclination); (2) he doesn't want to cheat people (out of duty)
- Categorical vs hypothetical imperatives: a hypothetical imperative means that you do X if you want Y. There's nothing wrong with hypothetical imperatives, but it cannot be the basis for morality
- First formulation of the categorical imperative: Act only upon that maxim that at the same time you could will to be a universal law. Tests whether the maxim places you above other people (i.e., using other people as means rather than as ends)
- Second formulation of the categorical imperative: Act always such that you treat humanity never merely as a means to an end, but always as ends in themselves. Humanity = rational nature = source of our dignity = capacity for moral judgment, to act on a categorical imperative
- My desires and preferences are not things that I have chosen out of my own free will. If we act upon our desires, then we are governed by external forces