Justice by Michael Sandel, Justice - Michael Sandel, Justice by Michael Sandel, Justice Ch. 6, Justice Ch. 10, Justice Ch. 9

unailenable rights

"Life, liberty and property" rights that cannot or should not be taken away by a government because they are God given; examples: Life, Liberty, pursuit of happiness

de facto

(adj.) actually existing or in effect, although not legally required or sanctioned; (adv.) in reality, actually

misanthrope

(n.) a person who hates or despises people (p. 114)

Distinguish natural duties from voluntary obligations. What does it mean to say natural duties are universal and voluntary duties are particular? Give examples of each.

- Natural duties are duties that we include to treat others with respect, to do justice, to avoid cruelty, and so on, they arise form autonomous will (Kant) or from a hypothetical social contract (rawls). They do not require consent. - Voluntary obligations are particular. they arise from consent depending on a contract made. if i agreed to paint tour house i have an obligation to do so, but i do not need to paint everyone's house

What are reparations? Give some examples. According to Sandel, what are the main justifications for paying reparations?

-Reparations are "righting the wrongs" of past determined injustices -Examples: president of Germany asked for forgiveness for the abominations against the Jewish people. 1990's Japan was forced to apologize to women for forcing them into brothels and becoming sex slaves. Australia apologizes for depriving aboriginal population from resources in the past. - to honor the memory of those who have suffered injustice at the hands or in the same of the political community - to recognize the persisting effects off injustice on victims and their descendants - to atone for the wrongs committed by those who inflicted the injustice or failed to prevent it -reparations are tangible representations of this

What else other than consent can bind someone to a contract (lobster example)?

1. Autonomy - the obligations that a contract creates carry weight because they are self-imposed, we take them upon freely. 2. Reciprocity - the obligation to fulfill contracts arises form the obligation to repay others for the benefits they provide us.

Two principles of a hypothetical contract

1. Equal basic liberties for all citizens, such as freedom of speech and religion. It takes priority over considerations of social utility and the general welfare. 2. Social and economic equality - it does not require an equal distribution of income and wealth, it permits only those social and economic inequalities that work to the advantage of te least well off members of society.

What are the two main reasons Rawls rejects the idea of moral desert as the basis for distributive justice?

1. Having talents that makes one person better than another at something is not entirely that superior person's doing. 2. The qualities that a society happens to value at any given time is morally arbitrary.

Two Principles of Justice

1. Principle of equal basic liberties (civil liberties, freedom of speech, right to vote, freedom of religion) 2. Difference principle - any inequalities in society must work in advantage for the poor in society, most accurate and best way to create a level playing field for everyone to start at the same place - objection to handicapping the talented to bring everyone to the same level which reduces incentive for people to work hard, which is what Kant objects through the difference principle

Sandel concludes the book with some suggestions about what a politics of the common good might look like. What are they?

1. citizenship, sacrifice and service - a just society requires a strong sense of community, it must find a way to cultivate in citizens a concern for the whole, a dedication to the common good 2. the moral limits of markets - we need a public debate about the moral limits of markets to protect from market intrusion in social key practices 3. inequality, solidarity and civic virtue - inequality can be corrosive to civic virtues, if you focus on this you might find political traction that arguments about income distribution 4. some consider public engagement with questions of the good life to be a civic transgression. we need more engaged civic life which will provide a stronger basis for moral respect

What is at stake, according to Sandel, in this debate between the narrative account of moral agency and the account that emphasizes will and consent? What is at stake for conceptions of human freedom and for theories of justice?

1. how you conceive human freedom, as you ponder the examples that purport to illustrate obligations of solidarity and membership., you begin to resist them. might dislike the idea that we are bound by moral ties we have not chosen, which may lead us to reject these claims.

Sandel thinks that the attempt to detach arguments about justice and rights from arguments about the good life is mistaken for two reasons. What are these two reasons.

1. it is not always possible to decide questions of justice and rights without resolving substantive moral questions 2. even where it's possible, it may not be desirable

two defects of utilitarianism

1. makes justice and rights a matter of calculation, not principle 2. by trying to translate all human goods into a single, uniform measure of value, it flattens them and takes no account of the qualitative differences among them

What are the three categories of moral obligation, according to Sandel?

1. natural duties - universal, do not require consent 2. voluntary obligations, particular, require consent 3. obligations of solidarity - particular, do not require consent

How do obligations arise through liberal conception?

1. natural duties we owe to human beings 2. voluntary obligations we incur by consent Narrative account response - voluntary obligations is too weak, it does not account for the special responsibilities we have to one another as fellow citizens.

What are the three possible policies that a state can take to same-sex marriage? Which one is the position of the neutral state?

1. recognize only marriages between a man and a woman 2. recognize same-sex and opposite-sex marriages 3. do not recognize marriage of any kind but leave this role to private association - this is the neutral state

On pp. 260-261 Sandel gives a concise summary of the pros and cons of the three theories of justice we have been examining throughout the course. Make sure you understand this summary.

1. utilitarians - maximizing utility and happiness 2. liberal egalitarian - respecting freedom of choice - either the actual choices people make in a free market 3. liberal egalitarian - the hypothetical choices people would make in an original position of equality

Car repair example

A car repair man charges $50 per hour whether it takes five minutes or an hour to fix it, and whether he is able to fix it or not. Even if the person had not hired him they should have still paid him. Technically he isn't hired because he can't guarantee he can fix it.

Legislature

A group of people who have the power to make laws

Why, according to Kant, is utilitarianism an inadequate basis for law? How would basing law on utility violate the Formula of Humanity? What does this have to do with the idea of a pluralistic democracy.

A just constitution aims at harmonizing each other's individual freedoms with that of everyone else, not maximizing utility. This endorses the happiness of some over others.

Hume'ss house example

A man who was renting Hume's house hired a contractor to repair issues in the house without consulting Hume, the owner. He refused to pay the bill when it was mailed to him because he has not consented to the contract.He had to pay them.

Conscription

A military draft (p. 79)

egalitarian

A person who believes in the equality of all people

Affirmative Action

A policy designed to give special attention to or compensatory treatment for members of some previously disadvantaged group.

Paternalism

A policy of treating subject people as if they were children, providing for their needs but not giving them rights.

Libertarianism

A political ideology that is opposed to all government action except as necessary to protect life and property.

Housing Bubble

A rapid increase in the value of houses followed in a sharp decline in their value

social contract

A voluntary agreement among individuals to secure their rights and welfare by creating a government and abiding by its rules.

Marriage example

A wife is cheating on the husband. There are two different ways to react - 1. You had an agreement and broke the vow and promise. 2. The husband has been completely faithful and loyal and the wife is not repaying the loyalty.

frontier

A zone separating two states in which neither state exercises political control.

Utility

Ability or capacity of a good or service to be useful and give satisfaction to someone.

tacit consent

Agreement that is expressed through silence or inaction.

good prior to the right

Aristotle we must decide what the purpose of life is, the telos, and then that will establish what the good life is, then we create laws that promote that.

Why do we reject utilitarianism in reference to the veil of ignorance?

Behind the veil of ignorance we could possibly thing about the fact that we might be in the minority. If this is true, we do not want to be the group that is sacrificed to reach the greatest amount of happiness (Christians being thrown to the lions).

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

British philosopher and economist who advocated utilitarianism

Sandel relates two different stories, one about the unibomber and his brother, and one about the Bulger brothers. What is the point of each of these stories?

Bulger brothers - William became an affluent lawyer and head of senate in Massachusetts, whitey became the head of a gang in Boston and was in jail a lot. William talked to Whitey on the phone a lot but claimed not to know about his whereabouts. Whitey was charged with 19 murders and fled arrest in 1995. William thought that the obligation to his brother was more than the duty to bring a murderer to truth. Unabomber - David realized that signals that the FBI found were related to his brother told the FBI, a Harvard-trained mathematician. ted got life in jail. family loyalty versus bringing a criminal to justice

Hypothetical Imperative

Commands to do an action on the basis of having a desired end. "If you want y, then do x."

Tacit consent

Concept by John Locke, a government can only be legitimate when its citizens consent to it. He claims that if anyone accepts the benefits of a government, he has tacitly consented to the burdens that government imposes on him. Ex: if you travel on the highway you automatically consent to all of the laws when on that road

Explain Michael Kinsley's position on same-sex marriage.

Defends this policy of ridding marriage as an official state function, ad a way out of what he sees as a hopelessly irresolvable conflict over marriage. his solution is to end the institution of government-sanctioned marriage, to privatize it. let people get married any way they please, without state sanction or interference.

Suppose we gathered together just as we are to decide what principles (laws and institutions) will govern our collective life. What would be wrong with the decisions we reach? Would the principles we agreed to be just? Why wouldn't they be just?

Different people would favor different principles reflecting thier various interests etc. It would be difficult to agree. Most of the agreements would be compromises that will probably reflect the superior bargaining power of some over others.

reverse discrimination

Discrimination against the majority group (p. 27)

How would a feudal or caste system distribute income, wealth, opportunity and power? What is Rawls's objection to the feudal system of distribution? What does Rawls mean by "an accident of birth?"

Distribution of power is random in these systems because people are born into positions of power.

Principle of Equal Basic Liberties

Each person has an equal right to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties which is compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for all.

What is Rawls's objection to the way the fair meritocracy distributes shares?

Even if you bring everyone to the same sstarting point, it is more or less predictable who will win the race - the fastest runners. It is a morally contingent in the same way that coming from an affluent family is contingent.

How do the moral sentiments of pride and shame presuppose situated, narrative selves?

Ex: americans traveling abroad can be embarrassed when they encounter bad behavior by american tourists even if they do not know them personally. the capacity for pride and shame in the actions of family members and fallow citizens is related to the capacity for collective responsibility. both require seeing ourselves as situated selves- claimed by moral ties we have not chosen and implicated in the narratives that shape our identity as moral agents.

Rawls has a second argument, a moral argument, underlying the thought experiment of the veil of ignorance. Explain this argument. What, according to this argument is arbitrary?

Feudal aristocracies and caste systems unequally distribute income, wealth, opportunity, and power according to the accident of birth. Everything is randomly distributed to people and people cannot control what family they are born into (become a king etc).

How would a market society, based on a libertarian theory, distribute income, wealth, opportunity and power? Is this an improvement over the feudal system? Explain the idea of formal equality. What is Rawls's objection to the way the market society distributes shares?

Free market society gives everyone a fair and equal chance at getting opportunity and positions of power. Everyone is allowed to enter the race, but those who are more privileged are able to start farther along than others. It permits distributive shares to be improperly influenced by these factors. It is better than the feudal society because it rejects fixed hierarchies of birth.

Negative Liberty

Freedom from constraints or the interference of others

What does Kant think tacit consent rests on?

Government would be legitimate only if its citizens consent to its fundamental principles from behind a veil of ignorance. Only principles of justice chosen without knowledge of one's own circumstances can be tenable. When one emerges from the veil of ignorance, though, consent becomes a different issue. In fact, without the veil, consent no longer matters. Merely by living in a society organized on principles chosen behind the veil of ignorance, one incurs a duty to that society.

Aristotle on Justice

Greek philosopher who taught that "justice means giving people what they deserve" (p. 8)

Social contract

Hypothetical agreement in an original position of equality.

Objection 1 to the difference principle: incentives

If the talented can benefit from their talented only on terms that they help the less well off, who's to say they won't work as hard so that they don't have to give away their benefits? RAWLS REPLY: the diff. principle permits income inequalities for the sake of incentives, provided the incentives are needed to improve the lot of the least advantaged.

Kan'ts "idea of reason" (imaginary contract)

It can oblige every legistlator to frame his laws in such a way that they could have been produced by the united will of a whole nation. This fixes the reasons as to why we can't base our justice on an actual contract.

How would a fair meritocracy distribute income, wealth, opportunity and power? How is this an improvement over the market society? Explain the idea of fair equality of opportunity. What is the basic premise of the meritocratic view?

It removes obstacles to achievement by providing equal educational opportunities o that those from poor families can compete on an equal basis with those from more priveledged families. It eliminates the ability to start at a better position, in the free market system.

How does JFK's view of the role of religion in politics differ from Barack Obama's?

JFK believed that religion was someone's private affair, separate from government. he would make decisions based on national unity, not through his religion. Obama thought that it is impossible to deny religion from politics.

TWO famous Utilitarians

Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill

What do Kant's idea of an autonomous will and Rawls's idea of hypothetical agreement behind a veil of ignorance have in common?

KANT - to be free is to be autonomous, to be governed by a law i give myself. it is more demanding than consent. wen i will the moral law i do not simply choose according to my contingent desires or allegiances, instead, i step back form my particular interests and attachments, and will as a participant in pure practical reason. RAWLS - the choices we make often reflect morally arbitrary contingencies. someone's choice to work in a sweatshop might reflect dire economic necessity. if we want society to be a voluntary arrangement, we cannot base it on actual consent, we should ask instead what principles of justice we would agree to if we set aside our own interests and chose behind the VEIL OF IGNORANCE. BOTH- conceive the moral agent as independent of his or her particular aims and attachments. when we will the moral law (kant) or choose the principles of justice (rawls), we do so without reference to the roles and identities that situate us in the world and make is the particular people we are.

right prior to the good

Kant / Rawls we must have rights and moral law before we can decide what the good life is

According to Kant, if not on utility, on what should laws establishing justice and rights be based?

Kant's idea of a contract is that it can't be an actual contract. This is because it isn't practical - its hard to prove historically that in history any contract ever took place. Moral principles can the derived from facts alone. The mere fact that a group of people in the past agreed to a constitution is not enough to make that constitution just.

Why do we reject libertarianism in reference to the veil of ignorance?

Laissez-faire would give people a right to keep all the money they made in a market economy. Most would avoid the possibility of being homeless and on the streets because the government plays no role in helping the poor.

According to Locke, how can we say that our government rests on the consent of the governed?

Legitimate government arises from social contract among men and women who, at one time or another, decide among themselves the principles that will govern their collective life.

Robert Nozick

Libertarian

Libertarianism

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that takes individual liberty to be the primary political value. It may be understood as a form of liberalism, which seeks to define and justify the legitimate powers of government in terms of certain natural or God-given individual rights. The central philosophical issue is not individuality versus community, but rather consent versus coercion.

Locke and Kant consent

Locke - tacit consent Kant - hypothetical consent

Squeegee men example

Men in NYC who would descend on cars waiting at lights - wash their windshield then ask for money and payment often without permission of the driver to do so. Without consent and a contract, the difference between performing a service and panhandling blurred.

Explain MacIntyre's narrative conception of a person and say how it differs from the voluntarist's conception of a free and unencumbered self.

Narrative: - Human beings are storytelling beings, we live our lives as narrative quests. all narratives have a certain teleological character. This does not mean they have a fixed purpose or end laid down by some external authority. -encumbered self - good is prior to the right -Aristotle, MacIntyre, Sandel, Communitarians - The good is prior to the right, The state decides what the good life is - State is not neutral on these matters - You are not a self prior to its ends, you are embedded in a set of different communities Voluntarist: -unencumbered self -self is prior to its end - kant and rawls - right is prior to the good - A self is prior to its end - NEUTRAL STATE The right is pain as the good Takes on obligations by choosing its ends

What does Rawls mean by "the natural lottery?"

Natural distribution of personal attributes that give us talents and challenges (diseases etc). People do nothing to control this on their own.

Difference principle - Objection to leveling the playing field by handicapping the talented.

Objection to handicapping the talented to bring everyone to the same level which reduces incentive for people to work hard, which is what Kant objects through the difference principle.

Discuss obligations of citizenship, obligations to your children, obligations to your parents, patriotism, obligations to your community. Do you think these obligations exist? Can they be accounted for on the basis of consent alone?

Obligations of citizenship - children - parents took care of the children and have an obligation to be responsible for their welfare parents - the parent took care of you and gave you resources therefore you are obligated patriotism - community - french bomber ordered to bomb his hometown, he says no, we admire for his stance of recognition of his encumbered self. community - two kids born on either side of the rio grande - one in usa one in mexico. the kid in usa has much more benefits

What can lead to a bad (unfair) deal?

One of the parties may be a better negotiator, or have a stronger bargaining position or know more about the value of the things being exchanged.

Objection 2 to the difference principle: effort

People's efforts are not getting rewarded because they are better than others, but they worked hard to develop those skills. RAWLS REPLY: even effort may be the product of a favorable upbringing. One will put in more effort if their family and social circumstances are more positive.

Why can't we base our justice and rights on an actual contract, according to Kant? Give two reasons, one practical and one philosophical.

Practical: it's hard to prove, historically, that any social contract ever took place. Philosophical: moral contracts can't be derived on empirical principles alone. Principles of justice cannot be dependent in the interests or desires of a community.

price gouging

Pricing products unreasonably high when the need is great or when consumers do not have other choices.

Immanuel Kant

Professor in East Prussia, argued that morality is about "respecting persons as ends in themselves" -- respecting human freedom (p. 105)

What would Rawls say to Milton Friedman's assertion that life is unfair, that some people are born with more talents and advantages, and we should just get over it?

Rawls says that the distribution of natural talents and the contingencies of social circumstance are unjust, and this injustice must inevitably carry over to human arrangements. This reflection is offered as an excuse for ignoring justice. the natural distribution is neither just nor unjust, nor is it unjust that persons are born into society at some particular position.

Difference Principle

Rawls' suggestion that society should reward behavior that provides the most benefit to the community as a whole

Sandel claims that both Democrats and Republicans invoke the idea of the neutral state but they do it in different ways. Explain how they differ.

Republican - invoke the idea f neutrality in economic policy, argued against government intervention in free markets on the grounds that individuals should be free to make their own economic choices and spend their money as they pleased Democrats - applied it to social and cultural issues, rejected the notion tat free markets and neutral along ends and defended a greater measure of government intervention in the economy

But all political debates are not about life and death issues. Are there non-life and death issues that can only be settled by taking a stand on moral and religious issues?

Same sex marriage is one, it is not life and death but relates to moral and religious issues. it also depends on the telos and point of the marriage.

Veil of Ignorance

Temporarily prevents us from knowing anything about who or what we are. We do not know our class, gender, race, ethnicity, political opinions or religious ideas. We also do not know our advantages or disadvantages in life. If no on knew these things we would choose from an original position of equality. Since no one would have a superior bargaining position, the principles we would agree on would be best.

hedonsim

The belief that pleasure, or the absence of pain, is the most important principle in determining the morality of a potential course of action.

Leaky toilet example

The contractor charged an elderly woman $50,000 to repair a leaky toilet. The contractor was arrested for the ridiculous charge after a bank teller told the woman it was a ridiculous cost. She did agree to the contract. Two points: the fact of an agreement does not guarantee the fairness of the agreement. Also, consent is not enough to create a binding moral claim.

Alternative to handicapping the gifted

The difference principle - encourage the gifted to develop and exercise their talents, but with the understanding that the rewards of these talents reap in the market belong to the community as a whole. The benefits must be shared with those less fortunate.

What according to Kant is the test of the rightfulness of every public law?

The imaginary act of collective consent among a nation.

Does the mere fact of consent make the terms of a contract fair?

The mere fact that you and I make a deal is not enough to make it fair. Example: the fact that a constitution is ratified by the people does not prove that its provisions are just. It was ratified by the PA delegates and then the states. The defect can be traced to a flaw in the consent - African Americans were not included in the constitutional convention nor were the women. More representation at the convention would have produced a more just constitution.

How would an egalitarian society based on the difference principle distribute income, wealth, opportunity and power? How is this an improvement over a fair meritocracy?

The ones who reap benefits use their endorsements to develop facilities and give back to the poor so they can develop their skills as well. The organization of society can be rearranged so that the least advantaged in society reap benefits as well. The naturally advantaged are that way so that they can give to the poor.

Explain why a hypothetical contract made behind a veil of ignorance is morally more powerful than an actual contract.

The veil of ignorance with the hypothetical contract ensures the equality of power and knowledge that the original position requires. By ensuring that no one knows his or her place in society, his strengths or weaknesses etc, the veil of ignorance ensures that no one can take advantage even unwittingly, of a favorable bargaining position. It is a pure form of an actual contract.

Implications of moral desert idea

There is a tendency for common sense to suppose that income and wealth, and the good things in life generally, should be distributed according to moral desert, justice is happiness according to virtue. distributive justice is not about rewarding virtue or moral desert. It is about meeting the legitimate expectations that arise once the rules of the game are on place.

\What are obligations of solidarity? Give some examples.

They are obligations that are particular depending on the situation but to not require consent Ex: 2 children are drowning, one is your child and one is not. you only have time to save one. most would say it is not wrong to save your own child. lying behind this we see that parents have special responsibilities for the welfare of their child.

Baseball card example

Two brothers traded baseball cards but the older brother knew more about the value and worth of the players being traded, so then dad approved each trade before it happened to make sure they were fair and not cheating the younger brother.

Explain Rawls's distinction between moral desert and "entitlements to legitimate expectations." Use the difference between games of chance and games of skill to make this distinction clear.

Unlike a desert claim, an entitlement can arise only once certain rules of the game are in place, It can't tell us how to set up the rules in the first place. In a game of skill, the person is rewarded by the exercise and display of certain virtues. With a game of chance, there can be a difference between who is entitled to the winnings and who deserved to win.

What is the "principled argument" against paying reparations that Sandel focuses on?

We are responsible for what we ourselves do, not for the actions of other people, or for events beyond our control. we are not answerable for the sins of our parents or our grandparents or, for that matter, our compatriots. Draws on moral individualism

What principles would we reject if choosing as self-interested, rational persons in the original position behind a veil of ignorance?

We set aside our moral and religious convictions for purposes of the thought experiment.

Original position of equality

Where people are under the veil of ignorance and are equal. Both parties are completely equal and can make just agreements and contracts. Differences in our original position depend on our inner views.

moral dilemma

a conflict in which you have to choose between two or more actions and have moral reasons for choosing each action

free market

a market with few government restrictions on how a good or service can be produced or sold or on how a factor of production can be employed

John Rawls

advocated egalitarianism (equality to all people)

omnipotent

almighty, having unlimited power or authority

bail out

an act of giving financial assistance to a failing business

Utopia

an ideal society

Categorical Imperative

an unconditional moral obligation that is binding in all circumstances and is not dependent on a person's inclination or purpose. (p. 119)

If Michael Kinsley's disestablishment of marriage position were taken by the state, who would be allowed to marry?

anyone could marry, and none of it no matter which combination would be officially sanctioned by the government

reparations

attempting to right a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged. (p. 63)

empirical

based on practical experience rather than theory

virtue

behavior showing high moral standards

instrinsic

belonging to someone or something by its very nature (p. 39)

dissonance

conflict

elusive

difficult to find, catch, or achieve difficult to comprehend or define

Sandel argues that both egalitarian liberals and libertarians agree on the priority of the right over the good. Explain this.

egalitarian liberals favor civil liberties and basic social and economic rights - rights o health care, education, employment, income security etc. enabling individuals to pursue their own end requires that government ensure the material conditions of truly free choice. Libertarians argue for a neutral state that respects individual choice. they disagree with egalitarians about what policies these ideals require. they defend the free market and that people are entitled to keep the money the make.the welfare state does not enable individuals to choose their own ends, but coerces some for the good of other. BOTH - aspire to neutrality have a powerful appeal.

justice

fairness; rightfulness

Consequentialism

form of utilitarianism where right and wrong is determined by the outcome

Postive Liberty

freedom to act autonomously

monetarily

having to do with money

What does Sandel think of moral individualism?

he thinks the concept of the freedom right is flawed, that we cannot just ignore past injustices because they are not sins of our doing.

Utilitarianism

highest principle of morality that maximizes happiness while limiting pain and suffering (as much as possible) (p. 34)

Utilitarianism

idea that the goal of society should be to bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people

arbitrarily

in a random manner

autonomous

independent (p. 107)

What is moral individualism and how does it relate to the paying of reparations? What conception of the self does it assume?

it does not assume that people are selfish. it is rather a claim about what it means to be free. for the moral individualist, to be free is to be subject only to obligations i voluntarily incur, whatever i owe others i owe by virtue of some act of consent, a choice or a promise or an agreement i ave made, be it tacit or explicit. We should assume ourselves as independent beings, unbound by moral ties, capable of choosing an end for ourselves.

What is a neutral state? Would Aristotle support it? How is it related to the idea of the freely choosing independent self?

it is a departure from ancient conceptions of politics and it says that the government should be neutral on what it means to lead the good life. Aristotle does not agree with this idea, and thinks the purpose of politics is to ease economic exchange and provide for the common defense as well as cultivate good character and for good citizens. it is related to the idea of the freely choosing self because when the government is neutral you are completely free to decide who you want to be. when the government is involved they have influence on who we choose to be and we are not independent.

Can you decide whether the state should recognize same-sex marriage without entering into moral and religious controversies about the purpose of marriage and the moral status of homosexuality?

it is based on whether gay and lesbians deserve the rewards and honors of our society.the underlying moral question is unavoidable.

Explain how the "pro-choice" position on abortion is not really a neutral position. What is the key moral assumption about personhood that it makes?

it should take no stance on when someone becomes a person and the government should let people do what they want. pro-choice is saying that it is not truly neutral on the underlying moral and theological question - it implicitly rests on the assumption that the catholic church's teaching on the moral status of the fetus - that it is a person from the moment of conception - is false

what does the libertarian theory solve

it solves making justice and rights a matter of calculation, but till has an issue about which rights should outweigh utilitarian considerations.

Relativists

justice is whatever a particular community defines it to be

benign

kind and gentle

categorical

locates morality in certain duties and rights

consequentialist

locates morality in the consequences of an act

Veil of Ignorance

making decisions with a blind eye to extraneous factors that could affect the decision (p. 141)

Reciprocity

mutual exchange (p. 144)

Outsourcing

obtain (goods or a service) from an outside or foreign supplier, especially in place of an internal source.

proprietor

owner

consent

permission to do something

arbitrary

random (p. 153)

quasi

resembling; seeming; half "So Joe is what? What would you call yourself, a compassionate quasi libertarian?"

The case of Robert E. Lee provides an example of an obligation of solidarity competing with a natural duty. Explain how.

robert e lee was asked by lincoln to lead the union army, an obligation of solidarity because lincoln asked him, but he is a native of virginia therefore had the natural duty to fight for the confederacy. we have to take loyalty seriously, as a claim with moral import. to have character is to live in recognition of one's encumbrances.

hedonism

self indulgence; pleasure-seeking

Is Marshal taking a neutral stand on the issue of gay marriage? If not, why not? Is a neutral stand possible? Why not take such a stand?

she does not pretend to be neutral on the purpose of marriage, but offers a rival interpretation of it. the essence of marriage is not procreation but an exclusive, loving commitment between 2 partners, be they straight or gay.

How does Margaret Marshal, chief justice of the Mass. Supreme Court make this decision?

she recognizes the deep moral and religions disagreement the subject provokes, and implies that the court will not take sides in this dispute. she describes the moral issue - as a matter of autonomy and freedom of choice. the issue as she holds is the right of the individual to make it, to marry their chosen partner. marriage does not require one to procreate (produce young). homosexual relationships are worthy of the same respect heterosexual couples receive.

interlocutor

someone who participates in a conversation (provides new perspective) (p. 28)

dogmatic

stubbornly opinionated (p. 27)

Epistemology

study of knowledge

Kantianism

suggests that decisions and actions are bound by a sense of duty

Heteronomy

the belief that one is entirely dependent on others for happiness and meaning in his life (p. 109)

Paternalism

the policy or practice on the part of people in positions of authority of restricting the freedom and responsibilities of those subordinate to them in the subordinates' supposed best interest.

coercion

the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats

What does it mean to say that the right is prior to the good? Explain where the Utilitarians, the Aristotelians, the Kantians, the Rawlsians stand on this issue.

the principles that specify our duties and rights should not be based on any particular conception of the good life. Kant - if we are to think of ourselves as autonomous beings, we must first will the moral law. Only then, after we've arrived at the principle that defines our duties and rights, can we ask what conception of then good are compatible. RIGHT IS PRIOR TO THE GOOD Rawls - the liberties of equal citizenship are insecure when founded upon teleological principles. RIGHT IS PRIOR TO THE GOOD utilitarian - it takes the good to consist in maximizing pleasure or welfare and ask what system of rights is likely to achieve it. Aristotle = to reason about justice is to reason from the telos, or nature, of the good in question. We can't frame a just constitution until we first figure out the best way to live. GOOD IS PRIOR TO THE RIGHT

What is Sandel's main objection to the liberal conception of freedom?

the vision of freedom is flawed as well as the aspiration to find principles of justice that are neutral among competing conceptions of the good life. he does not think that freedom if choice is an adequate basis for a just society. the attempt to find neutral principles of justice seems misguided.

Can a theory of justice be morally neutral? Are Kant and Rawls moral relativists? What values are embodied in the philosophy of Kant and Rawls?

theories of justice that rest on a certain conception of the good life are at odds with freedom, they fail to respect persons as free and independent selves, capable of choosing their own purposes and ends. They are not moral relativists, because they rest that no theory of justice and rights can be morally neutral.

What is the more far-reaching implication, for justice in general, of the idea of a freely choosing, independent self?

thinking of the moral agent in this way carries consequences for the way we think about justice more generally. the notion that were are freely choosing, independent selves supports the idea hat the principles of justice that define our rights should not rear on ant particular moral or religious conception - try to be neutral among competing visions of the good life.

How is the debate about stem cells like the abortion debate?

those who would ban embryonic stem cell research argue that, whatever its medical promise, research that involves the destruction of human embryos is morally impermissible. the case fr permitting embryonic stem cell research cannot e made without taking a stand in the moral and religious controversy about when person hood begins. It also involves the depiction of religious and moral beliefs.

How does Sandel think we ought to go about deciding which conception of the self is better?

through moral deliberation, to interpret my life story instead of exerting my will .it involves choice but the choice issues from the interpretation. this helps us decide which path of life will best make sense of my life as a whole.

What is the test Rawls suggests to determine whether our political arguments meet the requirements of public reason?

to check whether we are following public reason we might ask: how would our argument strike us presented in the form of a supreme court opinion? this is a way to make sure that our arguments ere neutral in the sane that liberal public reason requires.

mitigate

to make less severe (p. 67)

subsidize

to support by giving financial aid (p. 76)

How did the moral majority portray the Democrats? What values do the Democrats support?

tolerance, fairness, freedom of choice, did not connect with the moral and spiritual yearning abroad in the land, or answer the aspiration for a public life or larger meaning

communitarians

we can't reason about justice by abstracting from our aims and attachments. they rejected Rawls and the idea of the freely choosing and unencumbered self. good is prior to the right

According to Rawls's argument in Political Liberalism why should we not bring our religious and moral convictions to bear when debating justice and rights?

we should do so in order to respect the fact of reasonable pluralism about the good life that prevails in the modern world.

3 approaches to justice

welfare, freedom, virtue (p. 19)

welfare

well-being; good of a group

What does Sandel think is the real issue in the gay marriage debate?

whether same-sex unions are worthy of honor and recognition by the community - whether they fulfill the purpose of the social institution of marriage. it is a matter of social distribution -the distribution of honors and offices.

Is solidarity simply a prejudice for one's own kind, a kind of collective selfishness? Do obligations of solidarity point outward as well as inward? Give an example.

yes, to an extent. at times it is for the good of oneself and the experiences one has had , and at the same time it may be exclusion. some of the special responsibilities that flow from the particular communities i inhabit i may owe to fellow members, but others i may owe to those with whim my community has a morally burdened history. collective apologize and reparations for historic injustices are good examples of the way solidarity can create moral responsibilities.