Introduction to Political Ethics Exam I

ethos (definition)

rules, rituals, and ways of being that hold together a culture

ethics (definition)

thick and in depth rules and norms

morality (definition)

thin and basic rules and norms

relativism (definition)

if an aspect performed by someone is considered correct in a society then it is MORALLY correct in that society

virtue ethics (focus)

focuses on the AGENT or normal/average person

deontology (focus)

focuses on what the ACT that normal/average person is performing

utilitarianism (focus)

focuses on what CONSEQUENCES are resulting from the act

utilitarianism (definition)

maximizing the most pleasure over pain, and bringing about happiness as a consequence

utilitarianism (happiness and pleasure)

happiness and pleasure are equivalent for utilitarians, meaning rightness and wrongness is relative to the scenario and its utility profile

Bentham’s Happiness Calculus

Everyone affected by the act counts for one, this is what makes utilitarianism purely quantitative

Example: mud wrestling and listening to Mozart

Act Utilitarianism

the decision making is based of the utility profile of those affected by the ACT, the utility profile changes consistently meaning right decision can always change, there is no intrinsic rightness or wrongness in the act

Rule Utilitarianism

there are certain situations where one shouldn’t commit to the act that is prioritizing pleasure, this means there must be a qualitative distinction which would most likely prioritize pleasure, however if we prioritize the qualitative distinction over the utilitarian calculus we fall into deontology as we disregard the CONSEQUENCES for the ACT

Mill’s Qualitative Distinction

takes into account the quality of the pleasure, this distinction is subjective, Mill bases his distinction off of handicapping the objectively superior pleasure, once again if we are prioritizing this qualitative distinction over the utilitarian calculus it presents as deontology

assessing utilitarianism (advantages)

impartiality since everyone counts for one, in act utilitarianism there is clear conflict resolution, in rule utilitarianism there is moral flexibility, animals are protected since they are sentient beings

assessing utilitarianism (disadvantages)

impartiality leads to issues since humans can’t be completely impartial, there is no intrinsic rightness of wrongness, measuring utility profiles is challenging

political obligation (Crito)

since socrates takes all the benefits of the state of Athens then he is not in the position to forsake this agreement between him and the state since it no longer benefits him

consent (expressed)

clear, voluntary, and informed consent to enter the state

consent (implied)

we reap the benefits of the state so therefore we should enter into the agreement to follow its rules

Libertarianism (definition)

individuals BEGIN with rights such as the freedom to dispose of yourself and your property as you see fit, the state has a primary obligation to protect individuals exercising there rights, any further done by the state is infringement on these right

Hobbes

writes during the english civil war, attempting to offer rational principles as to why people must obey the state, he argues there is NO morality in the state of nature but there is rationally due to the empirical and normative assumptions

empirical assumptions (Hobbes)

we are unequal but no one could take down everyone, we are competitive, seek safety and reputation, meaning we are innately at odds with one another, we are all rational beings

normative assumptions (Hobbes)

Hobbes DOES NOT believe in natural rights, meaning human beings have no obligations to one another

first law of nature (Hobbes)

seek peace and follow it

second law of nature (Hobbes)

in the state of nature we may do whatever we want that we see as furthering our own interests but this can also be done against us so it is in our best interest to secure our person and property, in this way we want to give up equally what we can do and what others can do to us, therefore Hobbes shows that rationally we should enter the state since no one is great enough to overpower us all

the authority of the state (Hobbes)

the state should have ABSOLUTE authority, no one violates state law, the state is the necessary condition of protection for all

consent (Hobbes)

no expressed consent or imputed consent, implied consent since a person that benefits from the state or their parents living in the state should consent to the state

state of nature (Hobbes)

a war of all against all, Hobbes aims to show how people behave when there is no common authority

social contract (Locke)

even in the state of nature human beings have rights and these rights go far beyond struggling for survival, these rights are life, liberty, and property, and you must not harm someone in regards to these rights to preserve ones self, you must preserve others when your preservation is not in question (this goes against contemporary libertarianism)

state of nature (Locke)

peaceful, this means some disobedience of the state can happen if it prevents the violation of our natural rights, this is plausible since falling back into the state of nature is far less catastrophic for Locke

divine law (Locke)

Locke believes in the divine and thinks it is the inspiration for our rights but rejects the idea that God reveals the laws to us, instead we use our own reason which could be influenced by God to determine what these laws are

property (Locke)

we may use what we need when we need it, mixing labor with the state of nature takes away common ownership, for Locke you are not just entitled to the crop you are entitled to the land you grow it on, that’s how common land becomes private land

negative rights

government must not interfere

positive rights

government should aid

Proviso

“enough and as good left in common for others”, labor can’t be mixed with everything else, as inequality develops alongside private property the state is NECESSARY to ensure safety of self and property, during Locke’s time there was no shortage of land but instead food

moving into the state (Locke)

we need someone to interpret natural law, we need an unbiased settler of disputes, there must be a power to punish those who don’t conform to law and the state has a monopoly on violence, the LEGISLATIVE branch is privileged since it represents the people, there must be a limit on the executive branch, otherwise the power will remain in the hand of the executor

consent (Locke)

when you consent to the state you must consent to the majority of the people (legislature), consent is provisional meaning the state has an obligation to respect individuals natural rights, the state has no more authority than any one individual has, the state can’t interfere with natural rights, the state can’t take a persons property

dissolving the state (Locke vs Hobbes)

For Locke we have a duty to dissolve the state when it infringes upon the natural rights of its citizens, since an authoritarian state can be worse than the state of nature. For Hobbes we must not dissolve the state since the state of nature is so treacherous

Nozick

political philosophy was not very prevalent, strong libertarian viewpoints and disagreed with the liberal egalitarianism of Rawls

Anarchy, State, Eutopia (Nozick)

how can the state rule over us consensually, the minimal state is a state funded to protect and enforce natural rights (police force, military, judicial), the anarchy is how we back into the minimal state without our rights being violated, the state whether anything more than the minimal state is justified, and the eutopia is that the minimal state is lit asf

Nozick Vs. Lock (similarities)

both believed that we have the natural rights of life liberty and property

Nozick Vs. Lock (differences)

first Nozick rejects the divine in general but believes in innate rights (doesn’t justifty) while Locke rejects divinity but believes the divine grounds our rights, secondly Locke suggests there is a positive right but Nozick does not believe this since he only believes in negative rights

distributive justice

presupposes that somebody is in a position to make an assumption of what distribution should look like, Nozick DOES NOT LIKE this

justice in holdings

this term Nozick DOES LIKE, based on justice in acquisition, justice in transfer, and justice in rectification

historical principles (Nozick)

whether a distribution is just or not depends on how it came about

end result principles (Nozick)

how things are actually distributed at the current time determines their justification

patterning

end result principles are patterned, there is some pattern of distribution that needs to be met, historical principles can be patterned as well, Nozick DOES NOT care about the ultimate pattern

liberty upsetting patterns

Lebron James example if the distribution was just before the exhibition, then what makes it unfair after?

three claims (Nozick)

distributions coming from voluntary transactions are just, the notion of violating patterns requires constant interference, and enforcing patterns violates liberties making distributions just

redistribution and property rights (Nozick)

anything more than the minimal state is justified, redistribution through taxation is a violation similar to forced labor

Nozick vs Locke’s Theory of Acquisition

the Lockean strong version is enough and as good to APPROPRIATE, and Nozick’s weak version is enough and as good to USE, meaning Nozick makes ownership easier to come by, Nozick sets the bar so low that it can never be violated since there is always enough as as good to USE

Satz

markets for libertarians are the epitome of freedom, markets optimize efficient outcomes for individuals, people can buy, sell, choose what they want, Satz wants the background conditions of the markets to be considered, and therefore noneconomic values should be considered

noxious markets

two categories, consequences of markets meaning harmful for the individual or the society, and then sources of markets meaning weak agency, and extreme vulnerability

equal status in democracy (Satz)

there needs to be certain preconditions that allow individuals to function in a democracy, all individuals have equal rights in a democracy, even if a market checks all the boxes for the two categories but does not allow for equal status in the democracy it can be regulated or blocked

regulating or block markets (Satz)

how to deal with markets is impossible to predict until they manifest

voluntary slavery example

they don’t account for background conditions that the bonded labor arises from, many people would volunteer due to diminshed capacity, there’s extreme vulnerability, weak agency, and extreme individual harm, voluntary slavery could also never be regulated or left alone, so it must be banned

Libertarianism (markets)

according to libertarians the state has no requirement to aid these people because it would require redistribution which violates the baseline taxation for a minimal state and is considered theft, voluntary slavery therefore passes this since all people are willing to expel themselves as they see fit

Paretian Welfare Economics

based off Pareto optimality meaning at least one person will be better off and no one will be worse off, voluntary slavery passes this since both parties are better off due to this arrangement