Political Philosophy

Societal Justice accoring to Rawls

• Self sufficient organization of persons who have to find binding rules of conduct.

  • Well organized & just

Rawls perfect procedural justice

• there is an independent fact about what is just, and a procedure for finding it.

Rawls Imperfect Justice Procedure

• there is an independent fact about what is just, but no procedure for finding it.

Rawls Pure Procedural Justice

• There is a procedure that decides the facts about what is just.

Singer’s definition of true morality:

True morality must include the principles of justice as fairness

Rawls believes that parties in the original position and the principles of justice will?

Reach decisions that will determine the facts about what principles of justice are true

Rawlsian theories of justice include the rights to:

Rights to personal property but no guaranteed rights to ownership of businesses or other means of production

Fried’s belief of Left Lockean for basketball:

Because other people contributed to the value of Wilt Chamberlain’s talents, it would be unfair to Wilt Chamberlain to keep the full market value of what others are willing to pay him

Nozick’s view on patterned principles of justice:

Maintaining any patterned principle will require interference with the free choices of persons, so patterned principles are unjust.

The two big values for Rawls

Liberty and equality

Benevolent Sexism

attitudes that appear positive but ultimately reinforce traditional gender roles

Jessica Flannigan Freedom Taylor Swift Argument

Swifties using their money makes Taylor a billionaire, if the government were to interfere, then it would interfere with the rights of Swifties and Taylors occupational rights

Jessica Flannigan Prosperity Taylor Swift Argument

Taylor’s billionaire status is indicative for innovative and productive freedom,

Flannigan: Comparative Taylor Swift Argument

If the government institutes taxes to take her billionaire status, they won’t use the money better then she will

Fried’s objection to Nozick

the idea of transfer being “morally permissible” is ambiguous,

• You didn’t earn your talents.

• You didn’t choose your upbringing.

• You didn’t create the society that gives your skills value.

So the idea that your wealth is 100% yours, simply because you earned it in a free market, ignores all the unchosen advantages you benefited from.

Right Locke Wilt Chamberlain

If Wilt owns the land, he gets the appreciation value of the land

Left Locke Wilt Chamberlain

The labor of society causes land appreciation. We don’t know if Wilt Chamberlain owns his body and his talents.

Koteb defines principles as

Universal and aim to protect persons, you can die for these

Koteb defines abstractions as

beliefs as transmitted as kinship and transmitted memories. dying for these is a problem.

Violinist Example

• you wake up in a hospital, somebody’s attached to your organs, if you detach yourself then they will die. If you choose to stay, you’ll be stuck for 9 months. You did not consent to this. 

Rapidly Growing Baby

• mother in house with baby that is expanding way too fast and will kill the mother if the mother doesn’t shoot it. Implication, it can be permissible to take innocent life if one’s life. A right to life isn’t a right to be killed. 

People Seeds

•  if a person's seed blows into your home and sprouts, you don’t have responsibility for it. If you put up screens to keep it out, you don’t have special responsibility and you didn’t consent to having a child. 

Thomson Henry Fonda

Should VS Can

Pattern Principle

Nozick hates these because they focus on the outcome of transfer, like taxes. If everyone gives Wilt a dollar, he keeps the dollars.

Left Lockean transfer pattern principle

Was the aquisition of goods just?

Right Lockean pattern Principle

The acquisition doesn’t matter

Wolff Recognition Respect

Only respecting a state or an authority because they issue authority

Wolff Appraisal Respect

something that is good and excellent

Rawl’s Difference Principle

the difference in life prospects can only be justified if the difference in expectation is still to the advantage of the worst off person

Kateb’s concession to MacIntyre

Developing moral value from participating and gaining identity from a community is good, but ultimately patriotism damages democracy and sloughs off the burden of selfhood.

Rawls Effective Equilibrium

Balancing Marxism and liberalism

Wolff Social Contract

Thinks that the social contract can never determine facts about justice

Mills Harm Principle

The only reason society or the government should interfere with someone’s freedom of action is to prevent harm to others.

Nozicks definition of owning something

As Locke says, if you mixed your labor with something! it’s yours

Objection to TS Freedom Argument

The exchange is a positive sum game, the government can absolutely take some of her wealth because we like, need the government

Taylor Swift Luck Argument

Nobody deserves to be a billionaire because life is a big lottery

Non-desert moral TS Billionaire argument

extreme wealth is BAD REALLY BAD

Does Kateb think that patriotism has value?

Yes, but that doesn’t rid it of its negative aspects. It’s not a virtue

Why does Rawls reject utilitarianism?

He can’t justify a few people potentially being REALLY bad off

What are Mill’s two claims about Freedom of Speech?

1.Silencing an opinion is always wrong, even if the opinion is false.

2. Accepted truths must be open to challenge, or they risk becoming “dead dogma.”

In “On Liberty,” what are the three liberties that Mill defends?

1. Liberty of thought and Expression

2. Liberty of pursuits

3. Liberty of association

Rawls Liberty Principle

requires equality to the assignment of basic rights of duties

Hypothetical Consent:

what someones would hypothetically consent to in the original position

Taylor Swift Social Nature of Achievement Argument

since billionaires rely on the work of past generations and societies structure to success and not just their own efforts they don’t truly deserve to be billionaire

Nozick’s Lockean Proviso

A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition is entitled to that holding

Nozicks Big Care about Transfer

The History of what you got doesn’t matter, as long as someone gave it freely. He cares more about how you get it, not where it came from.