Political Philosophy section midterm

what is the traditional picture if the political landscape?

The traditional picture of the political landscape views that political principles as one that falls in a single line which stretches from left to right. People on the left believe in equality and are considered some form of socialist. Those who are on the right believe in freedom and are considered some form of free-market capitalism. In the middle, they believe in a mix of both equality and freedom putting them at some form of liberal. A traditional aim of political philosophy was to find coherent and comprehensive rules for deciding between conflicting political values.

what is the egalitarian argument for utilitarianism?

A theory is egalitarian if it accepts that the interests of each member of the community matter and matter equally. The theories require that the government treat its citizens with equal consideration. The egalitarian argument says we maximize utility, not because it is important on its own, but because of the preestablished argument to treat people as equals. The argument says, “If everyone’s welfare matters and matters equally, then we should give equal weight to each person’s preferences when deciding what we as a society should do. If we should give equal weight to each person’s preferences when deciding what we as a society should do, then we should satisfy as many people’s preferences as possible. Therefore, if everyone’s welfare matters equally, then we should satisfy as many people’s preferences as possible.” This argument is valid since it follows the valid argument form of hypothetical syllogism. Kymlicka believes the first premise is false because he thinks we should not give equal weight to each person’s preferences. This argument is concluded to be unsound since premise 1 was proved to be false, as external preferences should not be given the same weight as personal preferences. Utilitarians can respond to this is in 2 ways. Either accept objection but deny that rights should be protected because they do not maximize human welfare. Or deny objection but argue rights should be protected only if they maximize human welfare. 

what is the difference between descriptive and normative premises?

Descriptive premises describe how the world is or tends to be. We use empirical evidence like data or observations to determine whether the claim is true or false. Normative premises tell people how the world should or should not be. We use counterexamples or illustrative examples to show whether the claim is true or false. Normative premises are broken into two categories: prescriptive claims and evaluative claims. Prescriptive claims tell people what they should or should not do. Evaluative claims provide judgments of other people or society at large. All of these statements can be true or false as they are declaring something. 

what is basic equality?

Basic equality says that each persons life matters and matters equally. A person would believe that at the fundamental value we are all the same. Basic equality says that everyone should have equal opportunity to lead a good life. Equality can however be misinterpreted with the term equally. Treating people equally would imply we treat everyone the same but equality says that all human beings possess equal fundamental worth, forming the foundation for equal opportunities, even if specific outcomes or circumstances may differ. 

What is utilitarianism?

One of the just ways we arrange society is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is defined as the morally right act, policy, or institution is the one that produces the greatest amount of human welfare. This means that a society is just when its institutions are arranged in a way that maximizes human welfare. The three things that make utilitarianism an attractive theory are human welfare matters, everyone’s welfare matters equally, and consequentialism. Since utilitarianism is not dependent on God, it allows everyone to be included. Consequentialism says that if you argue something is morally wrong, you have to show how it can harm someone. 

What is hedonism and what are the objections to it?

Hedonism is defined as a good life is a life that is full of pleasure and free of pain. We define pleasure as a positive feeling you get and pain as all the negative feelings experienced. The three virtues of hedonism is simplicity, clarity, and unity. Simplicity is seen as only one thing is fundamentally good in life. Clarity means there is no mystery why happiness is good. Unity is all good and bad things are good or bad for the same reason. Although hedonism seems ideal, people argue whether pleasure is the only thing that matters. The two objections to it are a persons life can have more pain then pleasure and still be good. For example, Jesus had a lot of pain and suffering but still had a good life. The second is a persons life could have more pleasure then pain and yet be bad. For example, Nozicks experience machine where you can experience all the pleasure you want but you are hooked up to a machine for life.

what is the preference satisfaction theory?

The second account for human welfare is the preference-satisfaction theory. This theory was built in response to the problems with hedonism. It says a good life is a life in which our preferences are satisfied, and so we achieve what we most desire. This theory posits that a good life is characterized by actual achievements, not just positive experiences. Although positive experiences matter, they are not what make our lives good. The immediate objection to this theory is that preference satisfaction does not always make your life go better if you are ill-informed. For example, a drug addict may want drugs, but their life is not good.

what is the informed preference satisfaction theory?

The objection to the preference satisfaction theory is that if we are ill-informed, preference satisfaction may not always make our lives better. This, in turn, led to the revised informed preference-satisfaction theory. This theory says that a good life is a life in which our informed preferences are satisfied, so we achieve what we have most reason to. Satisfying informed preferences makes us better off and increases welfare. 

What are personal vs external preferences?

Personal preferences are defined as goods or services one wants for themself. For example, I don’t like cheese so no ordering pizza. External preferences are defined as goods or services one wants for others. For example, I don’t like cheese so you can not have pizza either. More simply, personal preferences say how you wany your life to go while external preferences say how you want other peoples lives to go. The problem here is that some external preferences are prejudiced like some people not wanting Black people to use the same water fountains as White people.

What was the Bowers v. Hardwick case?

The Bowers v. Hardwick case occurred when a man, Hardwick, who lived in Georgia got a ticket for public drinking. He paid the fine, but his paperwork got misplaced so a warrant was issued for his arrest. His roommate answers the door and lets the cop in and leads him to Hardwicks room where he is caught having sexual relations with another man. At the time, this went against the anti-sodomy law which said that a person is guilty when they have consensual gay sex. Both men were convicted but Hardwick appeals his conviction. Then the Georgia court appeals as well causing the supreme court to step in. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 saying that the 14th amendment does not prevent states from criminalizing sexual conduct. There were two reasons for the 5-4 decision which were legal and pilisophical. The legal reason defends that no text in the consitution or previous case allows sexual conduct in the privacy of own bedroom. The philisophical reason says that aside from the constitution, Hardwick thinks the citizens are passing the law because they think gay relations are immoral but thats not a good enough reason. Which leads to the idea that if a majority has an external preference, they can use that to create a law to tell you what you can do. This then concludes with the idea that the majority's preferences are a sufficient reason for criminalizing homosexual sex.

What are rights?

To have a right is to have a certain morally protected status in society. This basically means those certain things you do can not be violated. Those rights say that there are certain things you MUST be allowed to do and certain things other people MUST NOT be allowed to do. A right entitles you to perform certain actions. Although rights allow you to do certain things, there are no rights without duties. It first says 1. if I have a right to do X, then I am morally permitted to do X (even if it does not maximize human welfare) 2. If I have a right to do X, then others have a duty not to prevent me from doing X. Rights protect the freedom of a person from the will of the majority. More generally, rights express the inherent value or dignity of a person. A person is entitled to respect as an autonomous being who can rationally determine how to live their lives as long as the conduct does not harm others. This brings me to the conclusion that rights at the core are anti-utilitarian. Since rights can occur even if they do not maximize utility.

What is the correlativity thesis?

Although rights allow you to do certain things, there are no rights without duties. It first says 1. if I have a right to do X, then I am morally permitted to do X (even if it does not maximize human welfare) 2. If I have a right to do X, then others have a duty not to prevent me from doing X. The correlativity thesis puts these two statements together. In simple terms, the correlativity thesis says for every right there is a corresponding duty. For example, the right to freedom of speech, 1. gives the right to speak freely, 2. there is a duty to not prevent them from saying what is on their mind.