English Notes for Justice——Version of Open Courses

Written by Xelloss

写这个笔记真的燃烧生命，前后花了三十几个小时……

Burning a whole day for this picture_(:з」∠)_

点这里看高清无码！！https://www.processon.com/view/link/5b1102f1e4b07596cf387d7a

Lesson 1.1

question A:

Suppose you are the diver of a trolley car and you notice five workers on the track. Brake does not work, so the trolley would crash into those guys and they would all die. Until you find a side track, there is one worker. You could turn the car if you want to----killing one but sparing(赦免) the five.

question B:

You turn to be an onlooker, and a fat guy stands beside you. you could give him a shove, so he would stop the trolley car but he would die. May you push this guy?

Most people wouldn’t. What become of the principle “better to save five even if it means sacrificing one?” What’s the difference?

The fat guy shouldn’t be involved in the situation, but other people in question A have been involved in the situation. ------- But, the single worker on the side track seems innocent too!

(I think the main point is that in such two questions, the degrees of involvement for “me” is different. In A, I am the driver. I have no choice but making a choice. In B, I am just a passerby. I have the right to do nothing.)

question C:

You are a doctor in an emergency room, six patients come to you. Five of them sustain(遭受) moderate injuries, one is severely injured. You could spend all day to save the latter one, or the former five.

Most students choose to save five people, and the number of advocates is more than that in question A. (I consider saving people as a doctor has less moral pressure than killing people as a driver. Thus in A, some people just give up their choice because they claim the trolley car should go on the original track without any influence by the driver. But in C, you have a completely independent choice with higher involvement and moral responsibility, if you don’t make choice, six people all would die.)

question D:

You are a transplant surgeon and you have five patients. Each needs an organ transplant to survive. And at this time, a healthy guy comes to have a check-up. You could yank out(拉出) five organs from him, so he would die but you could save the five.

No one chooses to kill this guy.

There is the consequentialist(后果主义) moral reasoning from A and C——locates morality in the consequences of an act, in the state of the world that will result from the thing you do. This is a reason of utilitarianism. (功利主义), a doctrine invented by Jeremy Bentham. (杰里米·边沁)

There is the categorical(绝对主义) moral reasoning from B and D-----locates morality in certain categorical duties and rights, regardless of the consequences. The most important philosopher for this principle is Immanuel Kant. (康德)

Lesson 1.2

The most influential consequentialist moral theory: philosophy of utilitarianism. (功利主义哲学)

maximum utility=the balance of pleasure over(subtract) pain or happiness over suffering.

Because we human like pleasure and dislike pain. We should base principle to maximize the overall level of happiness.

Thus, the greatest good for the greatest number.

(With a lot of morally intuitive appeal)

question E:

four crews (a cabin boy, a captain, a first mate, a sailor) are in a lifeboat, they have little food to eat. The cabin boy drunk seawater against the advice of the others. he became ill and appeared to be dying. So the other four killed him and ate him. They argued in effect that one should die so that three could survive. If you are a member of the jury, may you would vote “not guilty” that what they did was morally permissible?

Some believe they were not guilty, but should be reprehensible(受谴责的).---what's always moral is not necessarily against the law.

Major students vote guilty. there’s no situation that would allow human beings to take the idea of fate or the other people’s lives in their own hands.

One mentions “consent”. If other crews asked for a boy’s consent, they may be exonerated from an act of murder. But it should not be a kind of coerced consent. The boy should come up with the idea by himself. It is the only way to say moral.

The lecturer suggests if they agreed to a lottery, then the boy lost, it is morally permissible? (as a kind of consent)

1.Do we have certain fundamental rights? Who gives us?

2.Does a fair procedure justify any result?

3.What is the moral work of consent?

(I think: everybody has to be counted as an equal. most important of all, the potential sound illustrates everyone could totally have corresponding responsibilities for their consent, then others would not have to take extra responsibilities from them. But, I think this requirement overestimates the ability of most people.)

Lesson 2.1

Utilitarianism is used by companies and governments all the time. They usually use dollars to stand for utility.

Here are two questions F and G:

The government finds that they gain by having citizens smoke. The government derives various tax revenues from the sale of cigarette products, and health care savings when people die early—pension saving and housing costs for the elderly. When all of the costs added up, the government enjoys savings of over 1200$ for each person.

Ford Pinto(a kind of car) had one problem; the fuel tank would explode in rear(后面的) collisions. People were killed and injured. Ford had long since known the issue, but after counting, comparing with installing shields for each car, they would benefit more by indemnifying all kinds of losses.

Several opinions:

they did not count suffering and emotional losses by the families and they were wrong to put any number at all (I think this thought is stupid political correctness).

there should be a number put on human life in order to make decisions somehow.

the rights of the minority should not be less valuable than that of the majority. So utilitarianism is not right. Their rights should not be traded off for the sake of utility.

question H:

In Ancient Rome, people threw Christians to the lions in the Colosseum for sport. Christians suffered enormous excruciating pain, but Romans gain more happiness.

Some believe this behavior violated the rights of Christian. (other people's rights)

Some believe the pleasure that the Romans take is abased, corrupt, degrading. (lower pleasure)

There are two different objections to utilitarianism:

1.Fails to respect individual/minority rights.

2.Not possible to aggregate all values into money and preference.

(I think the key point in 1 is that no one who likes the god could accurately know the value of everything in every aspect. And those values are considered with certain time and space. We estimate the value of either majority or minority only on limited sights. For 2, some values or virtues are difficult to translate into utilitarian terms.)

Lesson 2.2

To focus on objection 2. Isn't there a distinction between higher and lower pleasures?

We should be nonjudgmental and egalitarian? Bentham said the so-called higher pleasures or nobler virtues are simply stronger, longer pleasure. He had a famous phrase: The quantity of pleasure being equal, pushpin(针戏，一种儿童游戏) is as good as poetry.

John Stuart Mill(约翰·穆勒), another utilitarian, said: The sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable is that people actually do desire it.----that means, our de facto(实际上) empirical desires are the only basis for moral judgment. And if you have tried both lower and higher pleasures, you would prefer the higher one naturally.

(I think the key point is that pleasure can not be equal to meaning. the aim of life for the human is to pursue meaning, not pleasure. Those pleasures are byproducts of following basic desires or feelings in the process of pursuing aim. The point of sight by utilitarian, I think, are more animalized and underestimate the spirit of humans.)

In the lecturer's instance, most people would think Shakespeare provides higher pleasure but they prefer watching The Simpsons.

Maybe a kind of pressure from cultural convention influenced our judgment of what works of art are great.

Lesson 3.1

Mill believe values of individuals are important is due to larger social purpose or for the sake of maximizing utility. Some theories argue it is a mistake to consider justice or law by adding up preferences and values.

One of them is libertarianism(自由主义，自由意志). people have a fundamental right to liberty, and that means a right to choose freely to live our lives as we respect other people’s rights to do the same.

Robert Nozick(罗伯特·诺齐克), a libertarian philosopher, raised a question: What the state may do. Something states do are illegitimate or unjust.

No paternalist legislation (the government has no business coercing us to wear seatbelts by law)

No morals legislation (laws try to promote the virtue of citizens)

No redistribution of income from rich to poor (theft by the state)

How did Nozick think about what makes income distribution just?

1, Justice in acquisition (initial holdings---how to gather the wealth initially)

2.Justice in transfer (free market---just distribution)

Inference:

Taxation = taking of earnings

Taking of earnings = forced labor

Forced labor = slavery

*The fundamental principle for the libertarian case of rights is the idea that I own myself. We are the owners/proprietors of our own person.

Opponents'(include me) points:

Gift and resources: rich guys work hard as someone doing laundry, but they earn more, because of their inherence or other resources.

Redistribution: if the government doesn't redistribute wealth, it allows rich guys to amass much wealth that poor people never have equal footing for the rest of their lives.

Motivation: if masses will be no genuine equality of opportunity, they are prone to lead a shiftless life, then the whole society could be bleak due to lack of class mobility.

Lesson 3.2

Milton Friedman(弥尔顿·佛里德曼), the libertarian economist. He points out that many of the functions we take for granted don't belong to the government. He argued for minimal state(小政府)---only provide basic public services like police protection and fire protection.

libertarian's opposite points below:

1.The poor need the money more

need != deserve, poor need helps, but they don't deserve help. --- In an ideal society everyone's needs would be met.

2.Taxation by consent of the governed is not coerced.

democracy is fine, except where fundamental rights are involved. Individual freedom is a given, it does not require a vote.

the benefits of an action don't name the action just.

3.The successful owe a debt to society.

they did something that society valued highly, so society has already been providing for them.

4.Wealth depends partly on luck so it isn't deserved.

it is not a morally relevant issue. they have received what they have through the free exchange.

(I like this strong point against the libertarian)

we're assuming that a person has self possession when they live in a society, but actually you give up that right when you live in a society. self possession is only to a certain extent.

so the question focuses on an account of private property and self ownership.

Lesson 4.1

John Locke(约翰·洛克), he argues that the right to property is not the creation of government or of law. it is a natural right in the sense that it is pre-political. we are free and equal in the state of nature. we follow natural law by god, which means we can not our own life or liberty or property. Thus we own our labor, that whatever we mix our labor with that is un-owned becomes our property, including land his labor encloses from the commons.

But what becomes of our natural rights once we enter into society.

We enter into society by consent and agreement and to be governed by the majority, a system of laws.

But those laws are only legitimate when they respect our natural rights.

But what counts as our property, liberty, and life? Do these be defined by the government? What legitimate government looks like for Locke?

Lesson 4.2

Under natural law, people could judge their own cases, but they tend to get carried away. (On the other hand, people would be more subjective for judgment of justice).

To escape from the state of nature is to undertake an act of consent where you agree to give up the enforcement power to create a government.

But even the majority can't violate your inalienable rights: life, property, and liberty. Thus how much power enforced and limited with consent.

property is a sort of natural right, but what counts as the property is up to the government. consent gives the power to the government. In Locke's view, once a legitimate government is based on consent, the only limits are on arbitrary takings of natural rights. But if the majority promulgates a generally applicable law, then there is no violation.

The fundamental question is what is the moral force and limits of consent?

Lesson 5.1

How government conscript citizens to go fight in wars. (if we have an obligation to obey.)

1.Increase pay and benefits

2.Shift to military conscription

3.Outsource - hire mercenaries

The majority prefer 1, but I think 2 is more just. 2 and 3 are two poles of considering coercion and obligation. 1 is in the middle. if everyone's natural rights are invaluable, we all need to be involved in the war regardless of poor-rich division. There would be a moral duty for everyone. Otherwise, rich guys may not feel obligated to take part and defend the country because they don't lack money. market activity is just a medium to tackle concrete affairs.

what inequalities of society undermine the freedom of choices people make to buy and sell their labor?

what are the obligations of citizenship? Is military service one of them? Does it come from consent or other civic obligations?

Lesson 5.2

a woman refuses to give back a child who artificially inseminated by herself to a child's parents.

in this case, philosopher Elizabeth Anderson(伊丽莎白·安德森) suggests that certain goods should not be treated as open to use or to profit. they are properly valued in other ways than using. this aspect includes respect, appreciation, love, honor, awe, sanctity. we could not treat them as utilitarianism way.

not just because of tainted consent, certain goods (surrogacy involving emotional tie) are properly valued in a way higher than mere use.

Tips:安德森的民主模型把平等主义的范围从平等分配财富变为促进有差异的人实现平等的自由。

Lesson 6.1

Immanuel Kant(康德) thinks that individual person has a certain dignity that commands our respect. The reason for these rights doesn't stem from that we own ourselves, but instead from the idea that we are all rational beings. We are being as capable of acting and choosing freely.

Kant admits the utilitarian were half right, but pain and pleasure are not our sovereign masters. it is our rational capacity makes us distinctive.

Kant has a stringent demanding notion of to be free. When we follow the satisfaction of the desires or the avoidance of pain, we're really acting as the slaves of those appetites and impulses. ---And for Kant, freedom is the opposite of necessity.

Autonomy

to act freely = to act autonomously = to act according to a law I give myself

not according to the laws of nature or the laws of cause and effect.

Heteronomy

to act according to desires I haven't chosen myself

Utilitarian would be upholding justice and right within instrumental reason(工具理性-为实现功利最大化而服务的理性). It would still be using people as means(手段), rather than respecting them as ends in themselves.

about morality

The motive confers the moral worth on an action. The only kind of motive is duty(职责动机 do right things). the opposite would be our inclinations.

(I think Kant has lofty expectations of human beings. Actually a few people could be autonomous. And his reason is a common notion that we could share as human beings. Thus if you follow the reason, you would get the same end with others. ---- It's a purely practical reason.)

This reason delivers what moral law? what is its content?

Lesson 6.2

1.What is the supreme principle of morality?

*motive: duty vs. inclination

what confers moral worth is precisely our capacity to rise above self-interest and prudence and inclination, but they are not mutually exclusive.

*determination of will: autonomous vs. heteronomous

reason determines my will. but how? by two imperatives. categorical imperative needs a will of itself accords with reason.

*imperatives: hypothetical imperative vs. categorical

the former use instrumental reason--- means-ends reasoning.

the later is represented as good in itself which means without reference to or dependence on any further purpose.

the categorical imperative includes three formulations:

1.The formula of Universal Law (for oneself)

a rule explains the reason for what you're doing. you should not privilege your needs and desires over everyone else’s.

a way to test the difference between two imperatives is to universalize it. if the maxim would undermine itself. if yes, it is a hypothetical imperative.

instance: if everybody made false promises with they needed money, then nobody would believe those promises. those promises were undermined.

2.The formula of Humanity as End

human beings as rational beings are ends in themselves, not open to use merely as a means.

instance: murder and suicide are at odds(不合) with the categorical imperative. we use a person (including myself) as a means. we fail to respect humanity as an end. --- that capacity for reason commands respect. that is the ground of dignity.

And as we respect others' dignity, we could use other people as means.

(Kant does not care about the particular qualities of a person; he respects human reason. He also does not care about the consequence. He bases on formal adherence to the moral law.)

Lesson 7.1

As an object of experience, I belong to the sensible world. My actions are determined by the laws of nature and regularities of cause and effect. --- realm of necessity

As a subject of experience, I inhabit an intelligible world. I am capable of autonomy, of acting according to a law I give myself. --- realm of freedom

(only from the second standpoint can I regard myself as free)

A French philosopher Benjamin Constant responded to Kant. --- What if a murder came to your door looking for your friend who was hiding in your house?

You can tell the murder a lie or an evasion, a true but misleading statement. Kant says they are different.

there is some element of respect for the dignity of the moral law in their careful evasion.

Lesson 7.2

John Rawls, the idea of the "Veil of Ignorance"

How do actual contracts justify the terms that they produce? No. Actual contracts are not self-sufficient moral instruments.

How do contracts bind obligation?

a. consent-based --- autonomy （Kant's moral philosophy）

b. benefit-based --- reciprocity (utilitarianism)

"Veil of Ignorance" impartially considers such two parts.

(I think Rawls' idea based on a bonding rule of mutuality, not the same as a subjective moral duty.)

Lesson 8.1

Rawls' principles of justice.

first principle

Rawls writes Utilitarianism makes the mistake--- of forgetting, or at least not taking seriously the distinction between persons. We wouldn't trade off our fundamental rights and liberties for economic advantages.

second principle

Difference Principle(差异原则), only social and economic inequalities are permitted that advantaged individual work to the benefit of everyone especially those at the bottom.

Because even if you bring everyone to the same starting point, the fastest runners would win. That means it still permits the distribution of wealth to be determined by natural abilities and talents. The rich can make billions, but they can't think that they somehow morally deserve that wealth. (I'm moving that most students in the video agree with this standpoint. I think it is a voice of conscience from intellectuals)

Lesson 8.2

objections to difference principle.

1.What about incentives?

to adjust the tax rate to improve incentives and to reach a balance. natural differences are simply natural facts. justice depends on how institutions deal with these facts.

2.What about effort?

people who invoke effort don't really believe that moral desert(道德应得) attaches to effort. Defender of meritocracy(精英制度) will not look at the effort. They care about contribution. But it takes us back to natural talents and abilities which don't relevant with effort.

3.What about self-ownership?

We may not own ourselves in that thoroughgoing sense. The only respect in which the idea of self-ownership must give way comes when we're thinking about whether I own myself in the sense that I have a privileged claim on the benefits that come from the exercise of talents in a market economy. We don't. (唯一能够让自我所有权让步的，是在于我们开始思考，在市场经济条件下，是否真的能拥有它。这取决于自己是否对天赋所带来的成功有优先权。事实上，没有，所以我们没有完整的自我所有权。)

What is the difference between moral deserts and entitlements?

What our talents will reap depends on the law of supply and demand.

But our talents would not be less worthy regardless of different kinds of society, although we would be entitled to less or more.

it's a mistake and a conceit to suppose that we deserve corresponding rewards in a certain society.

Lesson 9.1

If we consider race and ethnicity as a factor in admissions.

1.Corrective - for differences in educational backgrounds (give a weighting to students from disadvantaged background)

2.Compensatory - for past historical wrongs

If it's fair to someone today to make the sacrifice for compensation. Where is the boundary of collective responsibility?

3.Diversity - for diverse educational experience/social purpose

But does individual rights be violated? No, nobody deserves to be admitted.

Rawls rejects the moral desert as the basis of distributive justice. The university defines its mission and admission policy, and people who fit those criteria are entitled. But no one deserves its mission. because they happen to have corresponding qualities.

Lesson 9.2

Why Rawls wants to detach justice from desert. many philosophizes all agree that justice is not a matter of rewarding or honoring virtue or moral desert. They think it will lead away from freedom.

Aristotle(亚里士多德) disagrees with them. He ties justice to honor, honoring virtue, merit and moral desert. Persons who are equal should have equal things assigned to them. Equal depends on the sort of thing we're distributing. --- the best flutes go to the best flute players. --- because that's what flutes are for, to be played well. Not the best flute players could play the best music.

reasoning from the "telos" of what we are distributing is called "teleological reasoning"(目的推理论)

What the proper appropriate purpose of a university education consists in?

Lesson 10.1

We're mainly concerned with the distribution of income and wealth and opportunity.

Aristotle took justice to be mainly not about income and wealth, but about offices(职位) and honors.

He argues to know how political authority should be distributed, we have first to inquire into the purpose, the telos of politics.

He thinks politics is about forming good character, about cultivating the virtue of citizens, about good life, which is different from modern theorists of justice to respect our freedom to choose our goods, our values, our ends.

Thus those who contribute the most to an association of this character should have a greater share in the political rule and in the honors of polis. (about fit)

Why political life is essential to living a good life?

to exercise the virtues through the practice of deliberating with citizens about the nature of the good and honor, which we couldn't be alone. that's what politics is ultimately about.

(But I think virtues is not like cooking, improved by practicing or deliberating.)

Lesson 10.2

What room does teleology leave for freedom? fit to is not the same as should to. (people like instruments that used to meet the fit of society)

much modern political theory concludes that justice and rights and constitutions should not be based on any conception of the good or the purpose of political life. Instead, to provide a framework of rights that leave people free to choose their conceptions of good.

If the right is prior to the good?

What does it mean to be a free person, a free moral agent?

Lesson 11.1

For Aristotle, we are free insofar as we have the capacity to realize our potential.

Kant thinks freedom as the capacity to act autonomously, according to a law I give myself.

Alasdair MacIntyre(阿拉斯代尔·麦金泰尔) mentions narrative conception for the self(自我叙述观点). The self is encumbered by history, the tradition, the communities. Without attending to these features about us, we can't make sense of our lives in thinking about what we are to do, not only as a psychological matter but also as a moral matter.

(I think he hopes that people could consider a high level of social and historical identity, but it's hard to demand individuals do so in vulnerable cultural backgrounds)

Moral and political obligations arise in three ways.

1.natural duties of respect for persons qua persons.

2.voluntary obligations that we owe to particular others(underprivileged) through a promise or a deal or a contract.

3.boligtions of solidarity or loyalty or membership. (like patriotism)

Lesson 11.2

Rawls acknowledges that for ordinary citizens there is no political obligation except in so far as some willingly undertake or chooses such an obligation. But there should be an independent principle of justice.

Michael Walzer(迈克尔·沃尔泽:多元正义理论) says: "Justice is relative to social meanings. A given society is just if its substantive life is lived in a certain way, in a way that is faithful to the shared understandings of the members."

consent, reciprocity, universal duty, loyalty/solidarity

Lesson 12.1

Is it necessary and unavoidable when arguing about justice to argue about the good?

the lecturer's answer is yes.

How to link justice with the conception of good?

1.on the value happened to prevail at given moment in a certain place. (But it leaves justice the creature of the convention)

2.depend on the moral worth or intrinsic good. (But people disagree about the good.)

Lesson 12.2

Rowls advances the notion of reflective equilibrium(反思均衡) --- moving back and forth between our considered judgments about particular cases to revise the principles or judgments.

He applies that to questions of justice, not morality and good life. He committed to the priority of the right over the good, because he thinks it can't generate shared judgments about the good life, comprehensive moral and religious question.