Course Content
Esquema de tópicos/temas
General
Course Introduction
Course Introduction
This course will introduce you to the basic concepts and methods of moral and political philosophy. Its primary focus is on the development of moral reasoning skills and the application of those skills to contemporary social and political issues. Although the course is organized around the central concept of justice, it uses this notion as a point of departure for discussing a wide range of philosophical topics and perspectives. Topics range from the value of human life, the moral standing of the free market, and the notion of fundamental human rights, to equality of opportunity and the conditions for a moral community. In order to investigate these topics, this course makes extensive use of Professor Michael Sandel's video lecture course on justice, delivered at Harvard University in 2009. In addition to these lectures, you will study a number of important moral and political philosophers, including Plato, Aristotle, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant, Jean-Paul Sartre, Friedrich Nietzsche, and John Rawls. This course will also examine contemporary thinkers such as Alasdair MacIntyre, Martin Luther King, Jr., and others, as well as news articles and primary source texts regarding important legal decisions. By the end of the course, you will have gained a detailed understanding of the philosophical issues involved in many contemporary debates in the public sphere, as well as a refined sense of your own moral and political positions and intuitions.
Unit 1: Murder, Morality, and the Value of Human Life
Unit 1: Murder, Morality, and the Value of Human Life
Everyone - whether they realize it or not - has some beliefs about the differences between right and wrong, or good and bad. We use these beliefs to guide our behavior, judge the behavior of others, and decide on laws and punishments in our society. Sometimes, however, situations arise that force us to call our moral beliefs into question and to debate the truth about moral behavior with our peers. It is usually the really difficult cases, in which the right thing to do is difficult to decide, and cases which divide people against one another in their opinions, that bring the differences in our moral intuitions into focus and force us to clarify our moral principles.
In this unit, we will investigate some notoriously difficult and divisive moral dilemmas involving justice, rights, and the value of human life. We will explore the moral theory of utilitarianism in depth, considering whether it can help us determine the right thing to do and how to produce a just society. Finally, this unit will introduce two ethical theories in contrast to utilitarianism: deontology and natural law.
Completing this unit should take you approximately 19 hours.
1.1: Metaethics, Normative Ethics, and Applied Ethics
1.1: Metaethics, Normative Ethics, and Applied Ethics
This chapter outlines the three broad categories of ethical systems normative ethics, applied ethics, and meta-ethics. Use the navigation arrows on the right and left side of the page to move forward through the eleven sections in this chapter. By the end of this reading, you will be able to define the three broad ethical systems and describe several approaches to ethics. Be sure you have a good understanding of the important approaches for Unit 1: deontology, consequentialism, and natural law.
1.2: Investigating Our Moral Intuitions
1.2: Investigating Our Moral Intuitions
Watch the first half of this video until 24:12. Compare your own intuitions about the cases introduced with those voiced by the students in the video. Also, note the definition of moral skepticism introduced here. This video lecture presents a classic moral dilemma: whether it may be morally permissible to commit murder - or to allow someone to die - if it is certain that doing so will prevent an even worse catastrophe.
1.3: From Moral Intuitions to Moral Principles and Back Again
1.3: From Moral Intuitions to Moral Principles and Back Again
Read this tutorial about the process of reflective equilibrium in moral reasoning. This account and the diagram that accompanies it represent the process of moral reasoning that takes place in Sandel's class discussion, in which we deliberate between principles and particular cases, revising each in the light of the other.
1.4: Consequentialist Ethics and Bentham's Utilitarianism
1.4: Consequentialist Ethics and Bentham's Utilitarianism
Watch the rest of this lecture, starting at 24:13. This lecture introduces Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian moral principle. Through the case of the shipwrecked crew, Sandel demonstrates that, far from abstract puzzles, moral dilemmas are real life problems, which demand that we strive toward coherent moral codes that can be agreed upon for social and legal purposes.
1.4.1: The Lifeboat Case: A Moral Dilemma Drawn from Life
1.4.1: The Lifeboat Case: A Moral Dilemma Drawn from Life
Read this description of the famous Queen v. Dudley and Stephens case. As you read, consider whether you agree with the ruling in this case, and if you would rule differently, as well as why you would do so. This text discusses the famous lifeboat case, which established the legality of choosing to murder out of necessity. Although the details of the case are quite graphic, this fact itself may serve as a prompt for many of us to revise our initial intuitions about the moral status of killing one to save many others.
1.4.2: Overview of Utilitarianism
1.4.2: Overview of Utilitarianism
Read this introduction to Utilitarianism and John Stuart Mill.
Read the first chapter, "Of the Principle of Utility," from this 1780 text in which Bentham justifies the principle that the morality of our actions depends on the consequences produced. The late eighteenth and early nineteenth century English philosopher Jeremy Bentham was the first to formalize the moral principle that whether our actions are right or wrong is a matter of the consequences they produce (i.e. how much happiness and how much unhappiness results from them). It is important to note that, although Bentham places a lot of emphasis on the pleasure and pain experienced by the individual person, he is not recommending that our laws should be guided purely by individual hedonism, but by a collective responsibility to improve the happiness of everyone in society.
1.4.3: Criticisms of Bentham's Utilitarianism
1.4.3: Criticisms of Bentham's Utilitarianism
Watch this lecture until 24:11. Here, Sandel introduces some important objections to Bentham's version of utilitarianism. If Bentham is right about utility being measurable, and even quantifiable, then this would seem to justify the practices of some governments and corporations in taking a dollars and cents approach to human life, which strikes many people as being in itself unethical.
1.5: Pitfalls of Consequentialist Ethics and Mill's Utilitarianism
1.5: Pitfalls of Consequentialist Ethics and Mill's Utilitarianism
Read this article which presents difficulties with calculating benefits and various utilitarian responses to those difficulties. Be able to define hedonistic and idealistic utilitarianism, soft and hard utilitarianism, and the difference between act and rule.
1.5.1: Overview of Mill's Utilitarianism
1.5.1: Overview of Mill's Utilitarianism
Watch the rest of this lecture, starting at 24:12. Despite some powerful objections raised against it, some version of utilitarianism still seems plausible, since it seems to explain a large number of cases to our satisfaction. In this lecture, Sandel introduces John Stuart Mill's improved version of utilitarianism, which attempts to reconcile a consequentialist ethical principle with the notion of individual and minority rights. The importance of a well-informed majority for Mill's view raises questions that are fundamental to the success of a democratic society.
1.5.2: Mill, Selections
1.5.2: Mill, Selections
Read the first two chapters of Mill's Utilitarianism, "General Remarks" and "What Utilitarianism Is." After you are done reading, ask yourself if you are able to define the principle of utility, describe the difference between higher and lower pleasures according to Mill, and describe actions which are of a generally injurious class.
1.6: Alternatives to Consequentialist Ethics
1.6: Alternatives to Consequentialist Ethics
Read this description of Utilitarianism in relation to other ethical theories. After reading, be sure you are able to define deontology, describe social contract theory, and discuss the role of virtue in ethical matters.
1.6.1: Deontology
1.6.1: Deontology
We will look at deontology in more depth in Unit 3, but for now, read this basic introduction and notice the basic contrast between deontology and consequentialism. Note: Utilitarianism is a type or a subset of consequentialism. Do you think there are duties apart from consequences?
1.6.2: Natural Law
1.6.2: Natural Law
Aquinas offers a theory of Natural Law which is rooted in eternal and divine law. Notice again how Aquinas' natural law differs from consequentialism. Do you think there are any eternal natural laws?
Read Articles 4, 5, and 6 of Question 94. Be able to explain the following concepts: speculative reason, practical reason, natural law, whether the natural law is the same for all, whether the natural law can be changed, and whether the natural law can ba abolished from the hearts of us as human beings. Do you agree with Aquinas' description of a natural law? How does it relate to deontology and consequentialism?
In this famous letter, King makes a distinction between just laws and unjust laws and refers to the moral law, or the eternal law, as the basis for distinguishing between just and unjust laws. Notice how Martin Luther King draws upon the idea of a natural law to defend civil rights for all in this famous letter. Would you agree that segregation laws violate the natural law?
Unit 2: Rights, the State, and the Free Market
Unit 2: Rights, the State, and the Free Market
So far, we have predominantly considered theories of just action that base their criteria for justice on an action's consequences. Utilitarianism, as we have seen, provides a convincing justification for many of our moral intuitions, but even its more refined versions, such as the theory advanced by John Stuart Mill, start to seem unsatisfying once we realize that they reduce moral decisions to detached, rational calculations. If we want a completely adequate theory of just action, we may need to consider an alternative approach to justice and morality. Consequently, this course will continue to examine some other approaches to ethical questions which are not grounded in the consequences of an action. One such approach is represented by libertarianism, which argues that morality and justice are rooted in the natural rights of individual human beings. Consequences matter, of course, but they are always secondary to considerations of natural rights.
Libertarianism centers on the relationship between individual freedom and the laws of the state. In this unit, we will look at arguments on both sides of this question. Plato, in the dialogue known as the Crito, gives arguments that claim the individual does not have a right to defy his or her government. In contrast, contemporary proponents of libertarianism like Milton Friedman and Robert Nozick uphold individual rights and liberties. John Locke argues that the contract we have with our government can always be rescinded. Locke’s arguments have been influential in the shaping of modern western democracies, in general, and the United States in particular.
Completing this unit should take you approximately 21 hours.
2.1: Individual and the State: Plato's Crito
2.1: Individual and the State: Plato's Crito
Watch this lecture, which gives a background for the social and political theory given by Plato in the dialogue between Socrates and Crito. Socrates explains to Crito why he feels that he must remain in prison and carry out the death sentence of the court of Athens. Crito hopes that Socrates will simply leave Athens and go to live in another Greek city-state like Sparta. Socrates feels this would be wrong; above all, Socrates respects the law (the government and the courts of Athens). To disobey the law is wrong, even if he feels the death sentence they gave him is unfair.
2.1.1: Plato's Theory of the Forms and the Idea of Philosopher Kings
2.1.1: Plato's Theory of the Forms and the Idea of Philosopher Kings
Read this description of Plato's theory of the forms. What does Plato mean by "forms"?; How does this relate to justice? What does the ideal state have to do with justice?
Read this summary of Plato's Republic. Pay particular attention to the summary of Books 6,7, and 8; the Theory of Universals; to the definition of justice; and to the Ideal City. What are the four types of government which Plato rejects, and why does he reject them?
2.1.2: Plato's Ideal City and Justice
2.1.2: Plato's Ideal City and Justice
Read Book V through Book VIII from this edition of Plato's Republic. Notice that there is a section of each book, followed by an explanation by the translator. Then read the two articles from Garth Kemerling's PhilosophyPages. Pay attention to how both the translator of Republic and Mr. Kemerling treat the following concepts: justice, ideal forms, and the ideal city. Notice also the concept of the Ideal Form of the Good. What would a perfect city look like? Is this part of understanding justice and right in our own world?
2.2: Libertarianism as an Alternative Approach to the Question of Rights
2.2: Libertarianism as an Alternative Approach to the Question of Rights
Watch this lecture until 27:20. Sandel introduces the position of libertarianism as an alternative to utilitarianism. Notice that the everyday understanding of libertarianism may or may not match what philosophers mean by libertarianism: while there is a libertarian political party in the United States, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines libertarianism as a specific moral or ethical view, which assumes that agents have self-ownership and the freedom to acquire property rights and external goods and status. We have just seen how Mill argues that we should respect individual rights because it is good for the whole of society in the long run. In other words, Mill holds that individual rights are to be valued for their utility. Libertarianism, by contrast, assigns a more fundamental role to individual rights, holding that they should be valued in and of themselves, and because of this, the state should be limited in its power to restrict our right to individual liberty.
2.2.1: Milton Friedman and Individual Freedom
2.2.1: Milton Friedman and Individual Freedom
Read this article, which provides an overview of Milton Friedman's life, his economic theory, and his political positions.
Read this article, which also shows the relation between Milton Friedman's economic theories and broader ethical matters.
2.2.2: Rights, Taxes, and the Redistribution of Wealth
2.2.2: Rights, Taxes, and the Redistribution of Wealth
Watch the rest of this lecture, from 27:21 to the end. As you watch, consider if taxation is an obligation that we have to our fellow citizens to bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number, or if it is instead an unwarranted violation of our individual rights. In this lecture, Sandel introduces the question of taxation as a test for the libertarian view of individual rights. Taxation is a case in which the state redistributes property (money) throughout society.
2.2.3: From Economic to Philosophical Arguments for Libertarianism: Robert Nozick
2.2.3: From Economic to Philosophical Arguments for Libertarianism: Robert Nozick
Robert Nozick offered philosophical arguments defending the same type of freedom Friedman advocates. Notice that he is critical of utilitarianism.
Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Nozick's most influential work, offers his suggestion of the best type of government. List the ways Nozick's ideal government would differ from Plato's.
2.3: John Locke and Fundamental Individual Rights
2.3: John Locke and Fundamental Individual Rights
Watch this lecture until 25:11. Here, Sandel introduces the conception of individual rights via the arguments of the philosopher John Locke. Locke's idea that human beings have certain fundamental rights (life, liberty, and property) by virtue of a natural law has supplied a central justification for the legal protection of individual rights, since he advanced it in the late seventeenth century. Sandel also takes pains to place Locke's views in relation to those of contemporary libertarians.
2.3.1: The Values of Democracy
2.3.1: The Values of Democracy
As you read, consider the European movement laid the groundwork for the ideals of American governments. From where did John Locke think governments derive their authority to rule?
2.3.2: Locke on Social Order
2.3.2: Locke on Social Order
Read this overview of Locke's political theory. What is the role of government with regards to property?
2.3.3: Locke on the State of Nature, Rights, Property, and Labor
2.3.3: Locke on the State of Nature, Rights, Property, and Labor
Read Chapters 1-5 of Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government. How does Locke describe the state of nature in Chapter 2, Section 4? Look to Chapter 2, Section 6, for a discussion of limitations on the state of nature. In Chapter 5, Sections 26-30 attempt to answer how it is that Locke thinks we claim ownership of the goods of the earth.
2.3.4: The Consent of the Governed
2.3.4: The Consent of the Governed
Watch the rest of this lecture, from 25:12. Consider this question: if taxes are part of a government system instead of a state of nature, then why should we have to pay them? Sandel uses Locke's account of natural rights and state formation in order to reassess the question of whether taxation amounts to an infringement of an individual's natural right to his or her property. For Locke, natural rights are something that we possess inherently from the state of nature. Taxes are part of a system of government that comes after that natural state. Compare Sandel and Locke's ideas on the consent of the governed to the notion of obedience to the state given in the Crito dialogue.
2.3.5: Locke on the Origin of Society, the State, and Property Rights
2.3.5: Locke on the Origin of Society, the State, and Property Rights
Read Chapters 8-11 of Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government. In Chapter 8, sections 95-99, how is it that Locke thinks a community or a government is formed? Why does Locke think human beings would agree to this in Chapter 9?
2.3.6: Locke on the Just Conditions of Government and When It May Be Disobeyed
2.3.6: Locke on the Just Conditions of Government and When It May Be Disobeyed
- Read Chapters 18 and 19 of Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government. In what ways does Locke explain that a government might be dissolved?
Unit 2 Discussion
Unit 2 Discussion
Post and respond to the following topics on the course discussion board, and respond to other students' posts.
- One of the most controversial areas of government power in recent years is eminent domain law. In eminent domain cases, a family may find themselves without their home, because their local government decides it is needed for a new building project or oil pipeline. Given what you now know about Locke's theory of property, is this a legitimate power of the government? Why, or why not? Explain your response.
- Is the theory of property advanced by Locke the only possible theory of property? Consider how Locke's theory relates to Native American conceptions of man's relationship to the land. Is it possible that Locke's theory can be misused to justify inappropriate policies?
- A complicated area of international law involves intellectual property rights. Some argue that with the advent of the internet, material should be made more widely available and intellectual property should become an outdated concept. Do you agree or disagree, given the theories of property and labor in this unit?
Unit 3: Morality, Markets, and Immanuel Kant
Unit 3: Morality, Markets, and Immanuel Kant
John Locke and the libertarian philosophers he inspired held that justice and morality are a matter of respecting the fundamental rights that all individuals hold in common - life, liberty, and property (including the property of one's self). Libertarians like Milton Friedman argue that these principles are incompatible with the government placing restrictions on the free market. But what happens when the market itself brings our rights into conflict with one another? In this unit, we will examine several case studies in which individual rights are disputed, and we will consider whether these cases provide sufficient reason to doubt the libertarian position.
Are individual rights enough to determine how to answer moral questions and how to propose a just society? Perhaps we need a more substantive philosophical approach to answer some of our moral and political questions. This is the position of Immanuel Kant, who suggests that we have certain moral obligations because we are human beings with moral reasoning capabilities. These capabilities lead to certain duties which we need to consider. We call Kant’s philosophy deontological, which means that it is rooted in duty.
Completing this unit should take you approximately 18 hours.
3.1: The Morality of the Market
3.1: The Morality of the Market
Watch this lecture until 27:06. Consider the following question: is it an abuse of the government's power for it to order citizens to risk their lives in the military? In this lecture, Sandel calls the libertarian conception of self-ownership, along with the Lockean conception of consent, into question by confronting it with the controversial case of military conscription. The problem is further complicated by the fact that military conflicts take place within a market economy. This aspect of the problem is brought out in the Civil War practice in which the wealthy hired less affluent citizens to fight in their place.
This article is a reaction to Michael Sandel's ideas on the moral limits of markets. What things do you think money should not buy? What principle should legislators use to write laws about these matters?
3.2: The Morality of Surrogate Motherhood: The Case of Baby M
3.2: The Morality of Surrogate Motherhood: The Case of Baby M
Watch the rest of this lecture, from 27:07 to the end. While you watch, consider this question: Whose rights take precedence, those of the mother, or those of the child? Motherhood immediately presents a complication to the general theory of natural rights. Everyone who is familiar with the debate over abortion knows this. The matter becomes yet more complicated when motherhood, and in a sense, children, are exchanged on the free market. In this lecture, Sandel introduces the case of Baby M, in which a surrogate mother's claim to the baby she has carried came into conflict with the claim of the baby's biological father.
Read this description of the Baby M case from the New Jersey Supreme Court.
Additional description of the case of Baby M.
3.3: Humans Organs as Commodities
3.3: Humans Organs as Commodities
Read this article describing the ethical questions surrounding kidney transplants. List the ethical dilemmas which arise surrounding the donation and scarcity of kidneys. Write a one paragraph position paper about one of those issues, arguing for your position with concrete arguments.
3.4: Grounding Moral Action in Rational Principles: Immanuel Kant
3.4: Grounding Moral Action in Rational Principles: Immanuel Kant
Watch this lecture until 28:25. This lecture introduces a third major approach to morality: Immanuel Kant's deontological, or duty-based, ethics. In contrast to the utilitarians, Kant holds that an action's consequences are not what make it right or wrong, but rather the principle on which the action was based. Kant's view is similar to Locke's in that he ascribes fundamental rights to persons, but what really sets Kant apart is his insistence that even if we do the right thing, we still have not acted morally unless we have also done it for the right reason.
3.4.1: Overview of Kant's Moral Theory
3.4.1: Overview of Kant's Moral Theory
Watch this lecture from 21:17. The lecture introduces Kant's moral theory and his conception of duty, maxims of action, and categorical imperatives. Kant holds that actions should be guided by principles.
3.4.2: Kant's Motive of Duty
3.4.2: Kant's Motive of Duty
Read the Preface and First Section of Kant's 1785 text about morality. Attempt to answer the following questions in your own words:
- What does Kant say is the only thing good without qualification?
- What types of actions does Kant reject as examples of pure duty?
- What are the three propositions of morality?
What Kant argues here is that the only absolutely good thing in the world is good will, or the human desire to act morally, and that this desire is only possible for us because we are rational beings. According to Kant, we have an absolute duty to act on the basis of the moral principles that are the result of our own rationality. This is, in fact, what separates us from the animals, and it is why Kant so opposes the utilitarian view, which seems to make human beings into the slaves of their desires for pleasure and to avoid pain.
- What does Kant say is the only thing good without qualification?
3.4.3: How a Kantian Decides on the Right Thing to
3.4.3: How a Kantian Decides on the Right Thing to
Watch this lecture from 28:26 to the end. Pay attention to the distinction Sandel draws between hypothetical and categorical imperatives, since this is what sets Kant apart from the utilitarians. Sandel helpfully breaks down some of the complexity of Kant's moral philosophy by illustrating the major contrasts that Kant uses to develop it. Although he gives three different versions of it, Kant thinks of his categorical imperative as a singular rational principle for deciding how to act. As long as we follow the categorical imperative, we are acting out of duty, and we are respecting ourselves and others as rational beings.
Watch this lecture from 28:26 to the end. Pay attention to the distinction Sandel draws between hypothetical and categorical imperatives, since this is what sets Kant apart from the utilitarians. Sandel helpfully breaks down some of the complexity of Kant's moral philosophy by illustrating the major contrasts that Kant uses to develop it. Although he gives three different versions of it, Kant thinks of his categorical imperative as a singular rational principle for deciding how to act. As long as we follow the categorical imperative, we are acting out of duty, and we are respecting ourselves and others as rational beings.
3.5: Kant's Metaphysics of Morals
3.5: Kant's Metaphysics of Morals
Read the Second Section from Immanuel Kant's Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals. Kant says five things are clear:
- The origin of moral concepts is entirely a priori in reason.
- Moral concepts cannot be abstracted from empirical knowledge.
- The non-empirical, pure, nature of moral concepts dignify them as being supreme practical principles.
- This value of moral concepts as pure and thus good practical principles is reduced if any empirical knowledge is added in.
- One must derive for oneself and apply these moral concepts also from pure reason -- unmixed with empirical knowledge.
Do these claims seem as clear and correct to you as they do to Kant? To what does Kant's concept of the Categorical Imperative refer? Kant gives a second version of the categorical imperative. He calls it the "practical imperative" there, and interpreters sometimes call it the imperative of dignity or of human dignity. Can you describe that version of the categorical imperative?
Kant says these two versions of the categorical imperative ultimately say the same thing. Can reason why he might think this?
Unlike the method you have been employing so far in this course, Kant's view is that morality is not something that can be derived from examples. What he wants is to find universal principles of morality that spring wholly from reason and not from experience. This is why he calls his system metaphysics of morals. In the second section, Kant argues forcefully against utilitarian (or popular) moral theories, and he puts forward his own, absolutely binding moral principle: the categorical imperative. In Kant's ethical theory, a categorical imperative is a universal command, a principle that should be followed by anyone in any situation. If a command like "always tell the truth" can be chosen and represents a moral rule we all should follow, then it has the status of a categorical imperative, and is therefore a duty. Kant's examples in this section are meant to show that actions can only be considered truly moral if they are motivated by the duty to follow this imperative.
Explain what Kant means by autonomy and heteronomy. Kant gives a third version of the categorical imperative in this section. What is this version? Kant is concerned here that our principles of morality must come from ourselves and from our own rationality. However, he thinks of our rationality in universal terms, not as our own individual persuasion or opinion. Rationality and rational morality is always an objective science for Kant.
In the Third Section, Kant presents his view of what human freedom consists in, namely, following our rational principles rather than being guided by our appetite for please and our desire to avoid pain. Because Kant has based both freedom and morality on rationality, this means that to be free is to be moral. Or, in other words, to be free is to be bound by our duty to ourselves.
- The origin of moral concepts is entirely a priori in reason.
3.5.1: A Kantian Analysis of Lying
3.5.1: A Kantian Analysis of Lying
Watch this lecture until 22:29. While you watch, consider this question: can Kant possibly be right that it is never permissible to lie? At first, Kant's idea that duty and autonomy are compatible seems very counter-intuitive. In this lecture, Sandel helps us make some sense of this view, and he applies it to the example of lying. Ordinarily, we might think that lying is morally impermissible most of the time, unless it would help us avert some worse harm. Kant famously denies this commonsense view, asserting that even if we were sure that some great harm was to result from our failing to tell a lie at the right moment, the lie would still be immoral, since it would mean that we failed to respect the moral law that springs from our rationality.
3.5.2: The Ethics of Lying
3.5.2: The Ethics of Lying
Read this section, which shows some of the difficulties of an objective, "categorical" approach. Do the circumstances affect the morality of lying, or is it always wrong to lie? Is it really lying if Weinstein chooses not to write the book? Is there conflict between telling the truth and the imperative of dignity in Weinstein's dilemma?
Unit 3 Discussion
Unit 3 Discussion
Post and respond to the following topics on the course discussion board, and respond to other students' posts.
- Philosophers who are critical of Kant have noted that Kant's theory often leaves us with two conflicting duties. Imagine a student who is trying to finish his college degree, and he then receives a phone call informing him that his mother has been diagnosed with cancer. The student's first instinct is to go home and take care of his mother. His mother says, "stay, I want you to finish school, do not come home." How would Kant advise us in choosing between these two duties (duty to mother and duty to finish school)?
- In the past, doctors would sometimes omit telling patients the truth about their condition. For example, a patient diagnosed with a terminal illness who is about to leave on a long-awaited vacation might not be told about his terminal illness until he returned from his trip. Such decisions by doctors are now considered to be unethical and a violation of the patient's right to actively participate in his or her own treatment. Do doctors have a duty to tell their patients the truth, no matter what? Why, or why not?
- One of Kant's famous examples, illustrating the need to always act from duty, is the two shopkeepers example: one shopkeeper gives correct change even when she might be tempted not to, whereas another shopkeeper always gives correct change but does it to be liked and because she wants to be elected to city council someday. For Kant, the first shopkeeper without external motivation is actually more morally praiseworthy. Does this same distinction apply to companies? Should companies always act from the right intention, and not to increase their market share? Explain your response.
Unit 4: John Rawls' Theory of Justice
Unit 4: John Rawls' Theory of Justice
In the 1970s, John Rawls put forward what is widely considered to be the most important contemporary theory of justice. Rawls' theory is an update of the traditional social contract approach, but its starting point, rather than the natural rights of individuals, is the deceptively simple idea of fairness. Who would disagree with the proposal that a just society should be a fair one?
As we shall see in this unit, Rawls' theory is both convincing and controversial. We will begin with Thomas Hobbes, one of the most well-known proponents of social contract theory in the history of philosophy. For Hobbes, life before the social contract, or life before government, is "nasty, brutish, and short." Hobbes makes this claim, because he finds that human nature itself tends towards selfishness and cruel treatment of others, especially without a contract with a government that keeps the peace and punishes those who break contracts. Rawls has a somewhat more positive view of human nature: he is an advocate of political liberalism, and his political philosophy conflicts with many popular contemporary ideas and ideologies. Therefore, we will be looking at issues of equality in society and the questions of whether certain social goods - such as income, education, and opportunity - should be redistributed in order to ensure fairness.
Completing this unit should take you approximately 19 hours.
4.1: Social Contract Theory in Historical Focus: Thomas Hobbes
4.1: Social Contract Theory in Historical Focus: Thomas Hobbes
Read Chapters 13, 14, and 15 from Hobbes' Leviathan. He describes what people are like in the absence of authority, especially government authority. Hobbes finds that life before a social contract is inherently negative but that people will tend to seek social contracts and peace. He finds that there are laws of nature, and these laws of nature will mitigate our destructive tendencies in the end.
Watch this lecture, which gives a background on Hobbes' view of the state of nature and human nature before the social contract.
Read Chapters 17 and 18 from Hobbes' Leviathan. Hobbes describes the civil society and common wealth that results when people form a social contract with their government. Individuals in this relationship with their government give up some of their rights to the sovereign, or to the great leviathan made up of the citizens as a whole.
Watch this lecture, which gives additional information about the transition from life in Hobbes' state of nature to life in the social contract.
Read this article, which contrasts Hobbes' views with those of Locke. What is the difference between Locke's view of the state of nature and Hobbes' view? What is the difference between Locke's and Hobbes' conception of the social contract?
4.2: Social Contract Theory without the Contract: John Rawls
4.2: Social Contract Theory without the Contract: John Rawls
John Rawls is famous for devising a contemporary version of social contract theory that does not rely on the existence of any actual social contract or historical state of nature. He is similar to Kant in that he thinks we can derive a theory of justice from reason itself by imagining that we need to define the principles of a fair society without knowing in advance what position we will occupy in that society. Rawls' thought experiment is known as the veil of ignorance.
Watch this lecture from 22:30 to the end. In this lecture, Sandel discusses the concept of social contracts, social compacts, and mutual agreements in civil society. These are compared to the kinds of agreements that are the hallmark of justice for Rawls and the foundation of civil society for Locke and Hobbes. Just laws, which are laws that are in accord with justice, come from these kinds of agreements. For Kant, contracts that generate justice are "ideas of reason." This allows Kant to provide an objective basis for contracts and laws, a way to describe laws as over and above subjective preferences.
4.2.1: Overview of Rawls' Theory of Justice
4.2.1: Overview of Rawls' Theory of Justice
The following remarks were delivered by Bill Soderberg at the Peace and Justice Studies Association Annual Conference on October 16, 2015. Professor Soderberg describes John Rawls' overall approach to justice and his views on just war in particular. There are two principles to notice from Rawls' Theory of Justice: the veil of ignorance and the difference principle. What do each of these mean? What does ius ad bellum mean? What is ius in bello? Notice Rawls' eight principles on whether to go to war and his six principles on conduct within war. List three of each and comment on whether or not you think these principles concerning war are right.
4.2.2: Rawls' Idea of the Original Position
4.2.2: Rawls' Idea of the Original Position
Read pages 1-7 of these excerpts from John Rawls' 1971 text. Stop when you reach the subheading on page 7, "Two Principles of Justice." Rawls aims to provide a theory of justice that is even more general than that of Locke or Kant, since it is based on purely hypothetical original position. How would we choose to organize society, if we had no idea what position we would have in it? Rawls' idea is that we should try to make it as fair as possible so that no matter what position we ended up in, we would have the same resources and chances as everyone else.
4.2.3: Rawls' Difference Principle: Leveling the Playing Field
4.2.3: Rawls' Difference Principle: Leveling the Playing Field
Watch this lecture until 24:35. As you watch, consider what a genuinely fair society would look like. One plausible answer is that it would be a society in which everyone had an equal opportunity to succeed. Societies in which success is a function of each individual's abilities, or meritocracies, gives an unfair advantage to those who are born into positions of privilege or greater natural ability. According to Rawls, the technique of reasoning from the original position demonstrates that social benefits will always need to be redistributed in order to benefit the least well-off.
4.2.4: Rawls' Two Principles of Justice
4.2.4: Rawls' Two Principles of Justice
Read pages 7-14 of these excerpts, beginning with the subheading on page 7, "Two Principles of Justice." In these selections, Rawls presents his two principles of justice: first, everyone should have an equal right to basic freedoms, and second, resources and institutions should be arranged to benefit the least well-off in order to create equality of opportunity. These principles are a far cry from the minimal government intervention advocated by libertarians.
4.3: The Question of Distributive Justice
4.3: The Question of Distributive Justice
Watch the rest of this lecture, from 24:36 to the end. Contingencies will always exist that make the social playing field uneven. As you watch, ask yourself: should we as a society allow these inequalities to continue, or should we try to correct for them? This lecture deals with a highly divisive issue, namely whether the wealth of the most successful members of society should be redistributed through taxation to benefit the most disadvantaged. Sandel examines the libertarian, meritocratic, and egalitarian approaches to this question, and he asks students to decide which one they think is the most just.
4.3.1: Different Approaches to Justice: Retributive and Restorative
4.3.1: Different Approaches to Justice: Retributive and Restorative
Read this article, which describes the key differences between retributive and restorative justice. In social and political philosophy, there are traditionally two major types of justice: distributive justice describes how the status, wealth, and goods in society will be portioned out from the beginning, and retributive justice describes punishments, penalties, and restitution for situations where someone wrongs someone else and breaks a social contract. In recent years, retributive justice theory has been contrasted with restorative justice: retributive justice focuses on punishment and penalty, while restorative justice focuses on restitution and restoring community relationships.
Read this article which describes restorative justice. What are the benefits of this approach over retributive justice? What are some of the pitfalls or risks?
4.3.2: Income Inequality in the US
4.3.2: Income Inequality in the US
The income gap between the highest earning and the lowest earning Americans has increased. Read this article and respond to the following questions: To which era of modern American history is the current level of income inequality frequently compared? What events tend to precipitate the widening of income inequality? What percentage of the wealth in the United States do the top 20% earners own? The bottom 20% earners?
4.3.3: Affirmative Action as Distributive Justice
4.3.3: Affirmative Action as Distributive Justice
Watch this lecture until 25:50. In this lecture, Sandel tackles the controversial policy of affirmative action as a form of distributive justice. The question is, does affirmative action create a more just society by helping a disadvantaged group compete on a more level playing field, or is it, as its opponents claim, a form of reverse racism, because it singles out one group for special treatment?
4.3.4: Affirmative Action Opposed: The Case of Cheryl Hopwood
4.3.4: Affirmative Action Opposed: The Case of Cheryl Hopwood
Read the following segments from the US Court of Appeals' decision in the case of Hopwood v. Texas: sections I, II, and III (A.) on pages 1-34. Then, skip ahead and read part VI on pages 67-70. This US Court of Appeals decision involved a group of white students who sued the University of Texas School of Law on the grounds that the school selected several minority students instead of them despite the fact that they had superior academic qualifications. Thus, the plaintiffs argued that they had been discriminated against based on their race. The court decided in their favor, and although the decision was later overturned, the court's statement provides a reasoned argument for the idea that affirmative action constitutes racial discrimination.
Read the syllabus of Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the decision handed down in Hopwood. What did Grutter argue in the case? Did the Court uphold her argument or reject it? Who must analyze government racial qualifications? Is student body diversity a compelling state interest? What is a narrowly tailored plan?
4.3.5: Affirmative Action and Racial Profiling
4.3.5: Affirmative Action and Racial Profiling
Read Professor Chappell's remarks on the ethical difficulties with racial profiling. What is the difference in considering an individual versus a group?
The following article is excerpted from Race, Reputation, and the Supreme Court: Valuing Blackness and Whiteness by Fran Lisa Buntman. What is the impact of blackness and whiteness on reputation and in the legal system?
Unit 4 Discussion
Unit 4 Discussion
Post and respond to the following topics on the course discussion board, and respond to other students' posts.
- In times of financial crisis, some governments have chosen to use debtor's prisons as a way to both punish those persons who default on debts and as a deterrent to those who might willingly default on debts in the future. Is this a legitimate use of the government's power to punish those who break social contracts, in reference to Hobbes and Rawls? Why, or why not?
- Local governments in the past would sometimes not provide fire department services to members of the community; instead, private fire departments would sell yearly subscriptions as a form of fire insurance. Is this a legitimate form of social contract, or would you argue that fire protection is so important to the public good that a government should always provide such services? Explain your response.
- In Rawls' second principle of justice, much attention is given to the concept of social mobility, the idea that if we do have to have inequality in society, then we should be able to move up by work and education. What do you think Rawls might say about recent lawsuits involving colleges and universities and affirmative action policies used to choose new students?
Unit 5: Ethics and Politics of Virtue
Unit 5: Ethics and Politics of Virtue
Prior to any of the theories we have considered so far, most accounts of what it is for a person to be moral, or for a society to be just, centered on some conception of virtue. The most famous proponent of virtue as the basis for living a good human life and creating a good state is Aristotle. Although recently, Alasdair MacIntyre and a growing number of moral and political theorists have been returning to the concept of virtue as an antidote to what they interpret as an over-emphasis on individual rights and freedoms and a neglect of community and tradition in political thought since the Enlightenment. But can we as a society come to agree about what living virtuously means?
In this unit, we will examine Aristotle's theory of a society organized on the basis of virtue, as well as some modern communitarian extensions of his general line of thought. We will contrast Aristotle's notion of virtue with the existentialist concepts of will to power (as in Friedrich Nietszche) and radical freedom and radical responsibility (as in Jean-Paul Sartre). We will see how these theories bear on certain controversial topics of our day. Upon completing this course you will be able to consider these type of difficult controversies with a much richer and more informed perspective.
Completing this unit should take you approximately 27 hours.
5.1: Aristotle as a Champion of Merit-Based Justice
5.1: Aristotle as a Champion of Merit-Based Justice
Watch the rest of this lecture, from 25:51 to the end. Sandel addresses some of the arguments made in the debate over affirmative action as a form of distributive justice. He then introduces Aristotle as an advocate of a very different theory of distributive justice, namely, that social goods, such as jobs, political positions, and material goods, should be distributed based on their purpose. That is, Aristotle would argue that the University of Texas Law School should accept only those who are best suited to studying the law.
5.1.1: Overview of Aristotle's Political Theory
5.1.1: Overview of Aristotle's Political Theory
Read this article for an overview of Aristotle's Politics.
5.1.2: Aristotle: A Social Order Based on Virtue
5.1.2: Aristotle: A Social Order Based on Virtue
Read Book One of Aristotle's Politics. Notice what Aristotle says about the family and politics in the first few chapters. Beginning with Part V, what does Aristotle say about slavery. Finally, notice Aristotle's comments about property, both in theory and in practice.
5.2: Justice Is Respect for Virtue
5.2: Justice Is Respect for Virtue
Modern and contemporary theories of justice, such as those of Mill, Kant, and Rawls, typically divorce the idea of justice from the idea of virtue, implying that what virtues individual people possess should not be a factor in deciding how to organize society. Aristotle, on the other hand, makes virtue the basis for his theory of justice. Distributive justice, in Aristotle's account, becomes a way of honoring people for their excellence of character.
Watch this lecture until 27:01. Aristotle's notion of good personal ethics and virtue directly relates to his theory of the state. The state has a vested interest in the virtuous behavior of the citizens who live in it, so the state has the power to make paternalistic laws that will moderate people's behavior. The purpose of the human being is to lead a virtuous, flourishing life, and the state has an interest in rewarding the virtuous development of those in the state.
5.3: Virtue vs. Disability: The Case of Casey Martin
5.3: Virtue vs. Disability: The Case of Casey Martin
Read this ruling by the Supreme Court on the case of PGA Tour, Inc. v. Casey Martin. The Aristotelian conception of justice as honoring an individual's virtues is called into question in the case of Casey Martin, who sued the PGA for refusing to allow him the use of a golf cart during the tour. In this case, the court decides in favor of Martin, or, in other words, against a purely virtue-based policy of distributive justice.
5.3.1: Does Respect for Virtue Mean Sacrificing Freedom?
5.3.1: Does Respect for Virtue Mean Sacrificing Freedom?
Watch the rest of this lecture, from 27:02. In this lecture, Sandel addresses a major challenge to Aristotle's virtue-based theory of justice. What happens if people want to do something other than what they are best suited for? Should they be denied that freedom in order to maintain an ideal society? Or, is this curtailment of personal freedom itself unjust? Aristotle's surprising view of natural slavery has led many to accept the latter view.
5.3.2: Aristotle on Citizenship, Justice, and the State
5.3.2: Aristotle on Citizenship, Justice, and the State
Read Book Three of Aristotle's Politics. Aristotle begins by defining what the state is and what the conditions for citizenship are. The second half of the book is devoted to the topic of justice, and it is here that Aristotle makes his famous argument about equality. For Aristotle, justice is not simply a matter of respecting the equality of all citizens, but of determining in what specific ways people are said to be equal or unequal.
5.3.3: Aristotle on Virtue, Pleasure, and Pain
5.3.3: Aristotle on Virtue, Pleasure, and Pain
Read sections 1-3 of Book II from Nicomachean Ethics. In these passages, Aristotle discusses his idea that moral virtue is a matter of habit. He also mentions that the role of good legislators is to instill good habits in the citizens they govern. But in order for the legislators to help citizens develop their virtues, they would first need to know what it means to live virtuously and what specific virtues there are.
5.4: Constrained Freedom: Justice within the Bounds of a Community
5.4: Constrained Freedom: Justice within the Bounds of a Community
Watch this lecture until 24:00. Sandel introduces Kant's criticism of Aristotle's political theory. Kant agrees that the role of the state is to cultivate a virtuous citizenry, but he disagrees that the state should decide in advance what it means to be virtuous. Instead, Kant advocates a framework in which individuals are free to pursue their own visions of what the good life. Communitarians, inspired by Aristotle, resist Kant's (and Rawls') view of individual freedom as too radical and believe that some moral obligations result from the communities of which individuals are a part.
5.4.1: Alasdair MacIntyre and the Virtuous Community
5.4.1: Alasdair MacIntyre and the Virtuous Community
Read this article on Alasdair MacIntyre. MacIntyre has been influential in pointing to a retrieval of virtue ethics. What is the central question of virtue ethics as described in the article? What is one of the major points of his book, After Virtue, concerning the failure of the Enlightenment?
Read this article describing virtue ethics. Define "eudaimonia." What were the four cardinal virtues in Ancient Greek ethical thought? Define "arete." What is meant by the contemporary aretaic turn?
5.4.2: Patriotism: Virtue of Loyalty or Collective Selfishness?
5.4.2: Patriotism: Virtue of Loyalty or Collective Selfishness?
Watch the rest of this lecture, from 24:01 to the end. Certain communitarian theories would urge that patriotism is an important component of justice and morality, since national traditions and a sense of collective belonging inform the identities of each citizen to some extent. Critics of patriotism argue that it is a kind of prejudice at best, and at worst, can lead to persecution and injustice on a massive scale. In this lecture, Sandel explores the intricacies of this issue as students argue both for and against patriotism.
5.4.3: Ethical Issues Surrounding Patriotism
5.4.3: Ethical Issues Surrounding Patriotism
Read this short piece about patriotism in England. Define patriotism and nationalism. How are these concepts alike and how are they different? What are the positive characteristics of patriotism? What are some of the dangers or pitfalls?
5.5: Justice, the Good, and the Problem of Agreement
5.5: Justice, the Good, and the Problem of Agreement
Watch this lecture until 24:01. While you watch, ask yourself: how can we establish a just society without arriving at some kind of consensus about what the good is -- in this case, the good for same-sex couples and other members of the moral community? In this lecture, Sandel makes the case that questions of morality and justice cannot be separated from questions about the good. The problem, though, is that all members of a society seldom agree on what the good is. This leads to a discussion of same-sex marriage, which was a hotly contested issue in the United States.
Read the syllabus from the 2003 Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas. In this decision, the Supreme Court struck down a previous ruling and affirmed that state laws against sodomy violate the constitutional right to due process. The decision was seen as a major advance for equal rights among the LGBT community. Arguments in the case centered on how we ought to understand the basic concept of liberty.
5.6: Cultural Relativism
5.6: Cultural Relativism
Stop after you read the first three sections of Chapter 4 and answer the following questions: What was Nietzsche's most famous quote? Define "cultural relativism." How does Nietzsche's eternal return challenge traditional religious beliefs about rewards? Are Wallace Souza's actions immoral? Why or Why not? After you have written an answer in your notes, continue on and read sections 4.4 through 4.6. What three contemporary approaches to ethics offer alternatives to cultural relativism? Which of these alternatives is the best direction? Attempt the exercises at the end of each section.
5.7.1: Friedrich Nietzsche
5.7.1: Friedrich Nietzsche
Watch this lecture, from 10:23. This lecture gives an introduction to Nietzsche's critique of morality. Nietzsche finds that modern morality is dominated by a limited view of Christian ethics as a passive and subservient rather than powerful. He describes the will to power as a necessary part of living as a fully actualized noble soul.
5.7.2: Jean-Paul Sartre
5.7.2: Jean-Paul Sartre
Read this lecture for a sense of Sartre's conception of existence. For Sartre, first we exist, and then we shape our essence through our choices in life.
5.8: The Relation between Morality and the Law
5.8: The Relation between Morality and the Law
Watch the rest of this lecture, from 24:02 to the end. In this lecture, Sandel concludes the discussion of justice by asking what cases like same-sex marriage and abortion can tell us about the relation between morality and the law. As you view this video lecture, consider the questions that follow. Is it possible to legislate without imposing moral judgments and unfairly restricting freedoms? In other words, can the government be neutral about divisive moral issues?
Unit 5 Discussion
Unit 5 Discussion
Post and respond to the following topics on the course discussion board, and respond to other students' posts.
- Consider someone with unusual opinions or unusual goals in life, for example, someone who chooses never to marry. How does this person's decision relate to existentialist ethics (as in Sartre's radical freedom and radical responsibility)? How should this person behave toward people he or she dates? Explain your response.
- How would you weigh economic arguments in favor of same-sex marriage? For example, consider the argument that when people pair up and take care of each other in old age, it decreases financial burdens on our society and government as a whole. Or, consider a student who is applying to college and filling out their financial aid paperwork. If the student is the child of a same-sex couple, then is that student only obligated to report the lower income of one parent, because both parents are not legally married? Is this fair to other students who must report the income of their opposite-sex married parents who need the same financial aid resources?
- Should the state be able to involve itself in cases where citizens, who are adults and who are able to give informed consent, choose to harm themselves? For example, note the different state policies on physician assisted suicide/euthanasia. Explain your response.
Unisant OnLine