PHIL 70: Social & Political Philosophy
Singer argues that proximity to those in need is not morally relevant, we have an equal obligation to help those who are far away.
According to Singer, is proximity to those in need morally relevant?
What kind of person should I be?
After centuries the search for singular one-size-fits-all ethical principle became tiresome and some philosophers switched from asking 'what should I do?' to asking what?
25% We spend more on defense and corrections than any other country in the world.
American has about 5% of the world's population and what percent of the world's prisoners?
Rawls argued, the imaginary parties would adopt what philosophers call the maximum-minimum (or "maximin") rule. Under this rule, the best choice is the highest minimum, which is society A.
Apply Rawls' 'maximin' rule to a choice between two societies: Society A: average wage of $20/hr & minimum wage of $7/hr Society B: average wage of $30/hr & minimum wage of $1/hr.
Ethics/Moral philosophy (which falls more generally under the umbrella of value theory, i.e., 'axiology'.
Are there any objective moral rules or is morality merely subjective? What branch of philosophy does this question fall under?
Metaphysics
Does God exist? If so, what is God like? Do humans have free will? What is consciousness and how if at all is it distinct from brain states? What branch of philosophy do these question fall under?
Yes, Locke says, "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." Essentially, logic and reason guarantee our right to life, liberty, and property.
Does Locke have any arguments for the atheist or agnostic in his *Second Treatise on Government?*
Have an upper front tooth pulled out. ($4,500)* Have a pinkie toe cut off. ($57k) Eat a worm. ($100k) Choke a stray cat to death with your bare hands. ($10k) Live the rest of your life on a farm in Kansas. ($300k) *The dollar amounts after is how much people would have to be paid on average.
Edward Thorndike conducted a survey that asked people how much they would have to be paid to do what sorts of things?
Arête is ancient Greek for virtue or excellence. Aristotle defined it a character trait that manifests as habitual action, which lies on a mean between two vices.
For Aristotle, what is arête?
No!, 'you' are just a function of society. 'You' are just a bundle of social labels, like 'woman', 'white', 'Catholic', 'middle-age', etc. What about someone who lived alone on a island? They would be human, but not a person, Foucault would likely say.
For Foucault, is there a 'you' independent of society?
There's an invisible leash that is pulling us to be slaves to corporate consumerism. We do thinks like drinking Coke and buying Levis & Apple products etc. and think we are expressing our individuality and freedom (but we're really not!). (Think or Ryan's example of the Coffee shop hipsters all on their apple laptops who think they are all creative unique snowflakes.)
How are advertisers an example of the dark side of normalizing power?
We emulate role models including our parents, teachers, coaches, inspirational figures, etc.
How are virtues developed?
For Romans and Modern West, science and technology is key to taming nature and building a utopia (think Star Trek). For Augustine and Lao Tzu, this is human folly!
How did Augustine and Lao Tzu's view on science and technology differ from the Romans and the Modern West?
Wilt Chamberlain, through natural talent and hard work is the main draw at basketball games. He makes a deal with the league to charge extra 25 cents per ticket (which people gladly pay) and the extra fee would go directly to him. Over the course of the season he makes $250,000 from this surcharge. Isn't it fair for Chamberlain to keep 100% of this $250K? Nozick believes so, and to take even a penny of it would be to rob him of money he deserves.
How did Nozick use the Wilt Chamberlain example to make his point about taxation?
A hunts 9 lbs/week of food. B hunts 12 lbs/week of food. Together they yield 30 lbs/week of food. (I.e., 15 lbs/week each.) Each hunter needs 10 lbs/week to survive, so each is better off to cooperate.
How did the A/B hunter gatherer example go?
Suppose you have a good end in mind: you want to reduce the amount of type II diabetes and obesity which is increasing in the US. You decide that the most effect way to do this is by gaining the most political power, by running for president. However, to win the presidency you realize it's essential to win the first party primary, which is in Iowa. Iowa is corn country so you have to kowtow to the corn farmers to win, even though ultimately your plan to ween the country off of high fructose corn syrup which substantially negatively impact their industry.
How did we apply Machiavellian thinking to the Iowa high fructose corn case?
Ideally, you could obtain and maintain power by possessing Christian virtues of being kind, tolerant, merciful, and generous, but for Machiavelli in reality you can only obtain and maintain power by possessing 'criminal virtues' like being ruthless, manipulative, sly, cunning, diabolical, and violent. For Machiavelli it's impossible to be a good person and a good politician. We need to be realists and accept the difficult (and utilitarian) truth that the greater good of political stability are worth any unsavory tactics needed to attain it, says Machiavelli. In politics the ends justify the means and nice guys finish last.
How do Christian and Machiavellian virtues differ when it comes to obtaining and maintaining power?
For Locke, rights are 'pre-political', i.e., they are had even in the state of nature. For Hobbes, all morality, including rights are 'post-political', meaning that they are only had under a social contract.
How do Locke and Hobbes differ on 'natural' rights?
There's a runaway train or trolley that will run over and kill 5 people stuck to the tracks. You can flip a switch that will send the trolley down a sidetrack, sparing the 5, but killing 1 who is stuck on the sidetrack. In the second version, there is no sidetrack. Instead, a fat man on a footbridge over the tracks is looking downward. If you push the fat man, he will fall off the bridge onto the tracks and his girth will slow the trolley enough to spare the lives of the 5. NBC's *The Good Place* portrayed this dilemma.
How does Foot's original trolley problem go? What is the fat man version? What TV sitcom portrayed this dilemma?
The state of nature for Hobbes describes what it was like for humans who lived tens of thousands of years ago in a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. It's an awful way to live; Hobbes famously described it as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." That is the disadvantage of living in the state of nature; it is living in a constant state of fear, barely surviving among competing selfish, rational, equally able people, who would steal from and kill you if it mean their survival.
How does Hobbes describe the state of nature? (Hint, think about the most famous line in Hobbes' Leviathan.) What is the disadvantage of living in the state of nature?
For Plato, it's Reason, Spirit (drive to be honorable), Appetite (drive for lower pleasures). For Hume, it's Reason vs. Passion (emotion or sentiment). For Freud, it's id (base human wants that obey the pleasure principle), e.g. "I want to sleep NOW", the superego (which obeys the morality principle) "I'm in class and it would be disrespectful to sleep" and the ego (obeys the reality principle and negotiates between the id and superego, e.g., "I will nap after class."
How does Plato's division of the soul compare to Hume's and Freud's?
Rawls' theory is consistent with taxation that is inline with the difference principle. For instance income inequality resulting from the high salaries of Bill Gates, Michael Jordan, and Judge Judy could be justified for Nozick if a large portion of those salaries were taxed to benefit the least well off members of society. Nozick is vehemently against taxation. For him, "Taxing of earnings from labor is on par with forced labor."
How would Rawls and Nozick different on taxation?
You might think Augustine's political philosophy is a non-starter because of its Christian assumptions, but even if you aren't religious, but Augustine's ideas help us be on the lookout for corruption in politics (which has led to dictators like Hitler and Stalin and wealth inequality). His ideas also keep us leery about the promise of technology touted by humanists like Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg. Technology was brought us the internet and smartphone but also nuclear war and climate change.
I'm either not Christian or not religious, why should I care about Augustine?
The saying and the case both suggest that moral human behavior is much more driven by morally arbitrary factors like recently finding change in a phone booth or whether we happened to have a hearty breakfast, and less driven by the goodness of human nature.
In our discussion of human nature, we debated about whether human nature is good (or altruistic), evil (or bad/selfish/egotistical), or neutral. What did the found money in the phone booth case seem to reveal about human nature? What about the saying "Justice is what the judge had for breakfast"?
Cudd argues that for Hobbes the contract evolved slowly over time organically and we tacitly agree just with our participation in society. For Rawls, the social contract is a hypothetical.
Is the social contract real/historical or hypothetical. Is it tacit or explicit? What does Hobbes have to say? What about Rawls? What does Cudd say about this in the entry from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Contractarianism?
Pond case: there's a child drowning in a pond. If we do nothing, the child will die. We can save the child but we will ruin an expensive suit & pair of shoes & be late to a job interview. Oxfam case: there's children dying needless in third world countries. If we do nothing, they will die. If we sent $10 to the Oxfam charity, we can save 3 children's lives by getting them $3 hydration tablets.
Put Singer's Pond & Oxfam cases into your own words.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw4l1w0rkjs&t=1889s
Put the libertarianism debate from Sandel's Justice into your own words.
Government projects and recommendations for reform of criminal law.
Richard Brandt argues that a utilitarian framework is already used in what social and political senses?
Sandel argued that the Aristotelian way the government (or whomever) should distribute goods would be in line with the telos or purpose of the good. For instance, if there were only so many flutes, they should go to the best flutists because the purpose of a flute is to be played well. Only so many people can play in the NBA so those chosen should be the best. The telos of the NBA is basketball competition at the highest level. We read about a case about a young woman in wheelchair who wanted to be on a cheerleading squad. If you wanted to keep her off you could require that all cheerleaders must be able to do the splits, as this a common move that is part of the telos of cheerleading. You could push back and say that splits is not essential to the purpose of cheerleading, which is getting the crowd going, which a woman in a wheelchair could easily do. We looked at the 9 tennis courts at Chabot, should they go to those who can pay the most or Chabot 'bigwigs' like the president and VPs? No, for Aristotle, they would go to those who can play tennis the best, like the Chabot tennis team.
What did Sandel have to say about Aristotle's telos and cheerleading, flutes, and tennis courts? What did we add about parking spaces and the NBA?
Banned them for 200 years!
What did the Catholic Church do about Machiavelli's writings?
It taught us how there are many ways to do the social contract, i.e., many ways to tax and spend.
What did the New York Times article, "You Fix the Budget" teach us?
The term privilege may be loaded to some but it seems clear that some people's starting lines are substantially behind others through no fault of their own.
What did we learn about privilege from the John Stewart/O'Reilly clip and the race for $100 clip?
Maybe. But what if one student was born without eyebrows or fingers?
Suppose we had a class contest: whoever can pull the most hairs from their eyebrows in 60 seconds wins $500. Does the person who pulls the most hairs out in the time allotted *deserve* the $500?
Someone like Hobbes has to worry about cases like these. It might be best for them to say this kind of social contract is invalid because the person's poverty makes them too desperate to enter into a contract freely.
Take the case of a very poor person living in a third world country. There is no job for them except working in a sweatshop for slave wages. They 'freely' sign up for the job/enter a social contract, but isn't this really a sort of coercion or being forced?
The factory, the resources (e.g., raw materials like steel).
The "means of production"
The working class (who are exploited)
The Proletariat
Locke claimed that individuals have natural rights that are 'pre-political', i.e., they are had even in the state of nature. These include the right to life, liberty, and property. (Clearly this influenced Declaration of Independence author Thomas Jefferson who wrote about the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.)
What did we learn from Michael Sandel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGyygiXMzRk) & Michael Tom Richey (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2LVcu01QEU) about John Locke views on natural rights? Which founding father did this influence?
DRAFT. TO BE COMPLETED
What did we learn from Robert Reich's *Inequality for All*?
Vice of excess *Virtue* Vice of deficiency 1. Fool *Courage* Coward 2. Extravagance/Wasteful *Generosity* (with smaller sums of money) Stingy 3. Boastful *Honesty* Liar/Too modest 4. Overly flattering *Friendliness* Rude 5. Overindulgence *Temperance* Inhibitions/Abstinence 6. Vanity/Overestimating self-worth *Magnanimity* (usually means not petty/very forgiving of a less powerful rival, but Aristotle means knowing your self-worth) Underestimating self-worth 7. Overambitious *Appropriately Ambitious* Lack of Ambition 8. Buffoonery *Wit* Boring 9. Hot-head/Irritable *Level-headed/Calm* Spiritless 10. Gaudy/Wasteful spending/Showing off *Magnificence* (Generosity in spending large sums of money) Stingy (though you're wealthy, like Scrooge) 11. Shy *Modesty* (Not a 'proper' virtue for Aristotle) Shameless
What are Aristotle's virtues and corresponding vices of excess and deficiency?
Singer's Pond/Oxfam case Titanic case Peeping Tom case
What are other problem cases for utilitarians?
Philosophy of Religion Philosophy of Mind Philosophy of Science Philosophy of Math Ontology (study of being and existence and investigates questions about universals (general classes/features of the world) of things like 'redness', 'triangleness', 'animalness') and particulars (President Obama, San Jose, Coco the Gorilla). Other issues and concepts that metaphysicians study include: personal identity, free will, time, causation, nonexistence, modality/possible worlds, necessity, and contingency.
What are some branches of metaphysics and what topics and concepts are investigated in this field?
Should parking, textbooks, fees, etc. be free for all Chabot students? If so how should it be paid for? Is healthcare a right? Should we reduce military spending? Should we reduce/increase foreign aid? Should the minimum wage be increased? Is CEO pay too high?
What are some of the applied social/pol. philosophy issues we discussed?
Hobbes' state of nature. In both the first version of the PD and the state of nature there are few to no agreements, everyone is rational, selfish, and everyone is competing against strangers to survive. Because of the lack of agreement we are worse off. We are worse off in the state of nature because life is poor, nasty, brutish, and short. We are worse off in the first version of the PD because since both people are rational and want to avoid jail-time they will each testify and both end up with 5 years. (Logically/rationally speaking, it's a no-brainer to testify because regardless of what Steve does, testifying will result in less jail time. Think about it: if Steve stays quiet, then testifying gets you 0 years instead of 1. If Steve testifies, then you testifying gets you 5 years instead of 10.
What did we say that the first version of the PD was supposed to represent?
Life with agreements under the social contract, i.e., life in society. In the second version of the PD we are allowed to talk to and make agreements with Steve, and we can enter into a contract with him. This means we can agree to both stay quiet, which makes life better. Life is better under the social contract, too; we can cooperate and live in a safe, more efficient, productive community.
What did we say that the second version of the PD was supposed to represent?
1. Everyone could pay the same $ amount in taxes, e.g., everyone pays $2,000 in taxes to the federal government. In this system everyone is paying an *equal* amount. 2. Everyone could pay the same % of their income in taxes. For instance, a 'flat tax' rate, e.g., where everyone pays 15% of their income. 3. A progressive tax system, in which everyone pays their 'fair' share. Under this view, fair doesn't necessarily mean equal. Moreover, a person who makes 5 million a year might pay a higher rate than a person who makes minimum wage because the millionaire can afford it.
What different 'equal' and 'fair' tax systems did we discuss?,
An initial situation. For Hobbes, that's the state of nature; for Rawls, it's the original position behind the veil of ignorance.
What do all contractarianists accept, says Cudd?
In the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu wrote that "though there are machines that can do the work of 1,000 men, they are not needed." Many take him to mean that at best technology is unnecessary and at worst it is a dangerous temptation that will level the human soul and civilization itself.
What does Lao Tzu's Taoism from the Tao Te Ching have to say about futurism, humanism, and the role of technology?
He means that they cannot be voided or transferred. This means that it is immoral to sell myself into slavery or commit suicide. Libertarians like Nozick would completely disagree. It's your body and freedom, do with it what you will, as long as you don't interfere with the life & freedom of another.
What does Locke mean when he says these basic rights are 'unalienable'? Would Nozick and libertarians agree?
1. Locke and Nozick would likely argue that those who accumulate mega wealth earned and deserve it. Reply: Warren & Rawls might argue that they may have earned some of the wealth, but a large portion should be returned back to the people on whose backs the wealth was acquired. (Plus, often times wealth is inherited.) 2. Focused & efficient usage of capital/investment. Reply: this has advantages & drawbacks, perhaps bigger drawbacks, a Buffett or Gates could focus on something good (like reducing malaria worldwide, but might miss something more important, like thwarting climate change. 3. The extremely wealthy tend to be the 'job creators' and if they have more capital, they will hire more and increase wages. Reply: Businesses with expendable resources don't always invest them in employees; it often goes to CEO pay, speculative investments (e.g., real estate & gold), R&D, dividends, and to outsourced jobs.
What are some potential benefits to a select few being extremely rich? What are replies to those alleged benefits?
1. If everyone acting in particular way leads to chaos or would be problematic, DON'T act that way. 2. Don't use people or violate their rights.
What are the 2 'loose' versions of Kant's Categorical Imperative?
1. Never act on a maxim that you cannot will to be a universal law. (A maxim is a subjective principle of action.) 2. Never treat a person (including yourself) as a *mere* means to an end.
What are the 2 formal versions of Kant's Categorical Imperative?
Does it exist? If so, what is it like?
What are the 2 important questions in metaphysics we discussed?
Liberals and Progressives tend to believe that: 1. Government regulation and taxes are important to help historically marginalized groups (e.g., women, minorities, poor, etc.). 2. Free markets are exploitative. 3. Progressive taxation is fair (and is actually key to economic prosperity). 4. We should be cynically about the motives of big-business. 5. The government spends too much on defense. 6. Equality & fairness can trump liberty. 7. Government shouldn't promote specific values (progressives favor marriage equality, women's right to choose, legalization of marijuana, etc.) 8. Reich's The When Barrett joins the court, five of the nine justices will have been appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote. The Republican senators who will vote for her represent 15 million fewer Americans than their Democratic colleagues. How is this representative government? Full disclosure: It's not. We need to abolish the Electoral College, expand the Supreme Court, end the filibuster, and balance the Senate. None of this should be controversial.
What are the basic tenets of liberals & progressives?
The Titanic has just capsized and you're a survivor floating on some driftwood waiting for rescue. To your left you notice that your child is about to drown. You're about to swim over, but then you realize that to your right there are 2 children (whom you don't know) who are also drowning. You can't both save your child and the two strangers. Who do you save?
What are the details of the Titanic case?
Metaphysics, Epistemology, Axiology (i.e., value-theory), and Logic.
What are the four major branches or 'boxes' of philosophy?
Draft to be completed
What are the main points of Magee/Dworkin overview of Hobbes, Rawls, & Nozick in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49-hUPHXRbk
Draft to be completed.
What are the main points of Nozick vs Rawls in this crash course video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0CTHVCkm90
It's a good summary of all the things we've covered (and will cover with Nozick).
What are the main points of Tamar Gendler's overview of Hobbes, Rawls, & Nozick in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm8asJxdcds?
Conservatives & Republicans tend to favor the former; liberals and democrats tend to favor the latter.
What are the political leanings of those who favor top/trickle-down/'Reaganomics' and those who favor 'middle-out' economics?
Locke argued that the people have right to revolution, i.e., to overthrow the government if the government is illegitimate, e.g., if they government violated natural rights. Locke also argued for a separation of power and a system of checks and balances. This influenced the U.S.'s system with division of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.
What does Locke say about revolutions and separations of powers?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAO100hYcQ
What does Penn Jillette have to say about Libertarianism?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnoLAMHwf2I&feature=youtu.be
What does Robert Reich have to say about myths about taxing the rich?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obts3Y-XRjg
What does Steven Pinker have to say about Libertarianism?
"Justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger." Thrasymachus was a *sophist*. Sophistry -- using, e.g., non-rational ploys (instead of reason) to persuade, deceive, & manipulate.
What does Thrasymachus say to Socrates about Justice in Book I?
Rawls: Lots of social programs. Military, police, fire, public education, public healthcare, public roads, public utilities, FDA, regulations. EPA, Nozick, bare minimum state, just enough to protect freedom (military/police/courts) that's about it.
What does the State look like for Rawls vs Nozick.
Locke was a Christian who believed in God and believed that God being our creator guarantees these rights.
What guarantees one's right to life, liberty, and property, for Locke?
Just like it was unfair for one brother to pay the bulk of the cost of neighborhood improvements while one paid nothing, it is unfair for a small minority of Americans to pay the bulk of income tax, while many pay nothing. Relevant differences: In the 3 brother's case, the brothers all had the same hourly wage, opportunities, natural talents, upbringing. This isn't the case for Americans. The argument is that those with massive incomes (e.g., the soccer star Messi makes $10,000 an hour) can he afford a higher tax rate on the portion of the money they make over $250k.
What argument by analogy was made in the 'Tale of 3 Brothers' video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6HEH23W_bM)? What might be some relevant differences between the 3 brothers case and the United States?
Axiology, i.e., value theory
What branch of philosophy does social and political philosophy fall under?
There are enough people in the contract who care about animal rights that they will have to be taken seriously.
What can the contractarian say about for animal rights?
An action is morally right iff it maximizes expected utility with respect to all affected sentient beings taken as a group.
What contemporary version of Mill's principle of utility did we examine?
They agreed that human nature is selfish but disagreed about Earthly social order. Augustine thought this was impossible but Hobbes thought it could happened under the right social contract.
What did Augustine and Hobbes agree about? What did they disagree about?
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was an 18th century French philosopher. One of his seminal works was entitled *The Social Contract* and he made contributions to political philosophy and contractarianism.
What historical background did we learn about Jean Jacques Rousseau? That is, when did he live, where is he from, and what was his seminal work, and big idea?
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) 17th century, English philosopher. Seminal work: Leviathan Big idea: The State of Nature in which life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, the Social Contract (the basis of morality and the legitimacy of the State.)
What historical background did we learn about Thomas Hobbes? That is, when did he live, where is he from, and what was his seminal work, and big idea?
What makes the State (or government) legitimate? What grounds morality? Do people have freedoms and rights? If so, what are they? What grounds rights and what rights are owed to the people by the State? What is justice? What's the best sort of government? Should there be taxes? If so, whom should be taxed and how much? What programs should the State provide for the people? What were the contributions of Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, Lao Tzu, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Bentham, Mill, Hegel, Marx, Rawls, Nozick, Foucault, etc. to social and political philosophy?
What important questions does social and political philosophy ask?
Utility is happiness or pleasure. Sentient beings are beings that can experience pain and pleasure.
What is 'utility' and 'sentient being'?
Hobbes believed that human nature was selfish and he imagined this would be clear if we could witness human behavior tens of thousands of years ago in the state of nature where there is little to no social agreements or cooperation. Rousseau argued that humans are naturally good. He is credited with the notion of the 'noble savage', i.e., a bit like the Navi are depicted in James Cameron's *Avatar*. The Navi are innocent, live in an untouched, pristine natural setting, and haven't been uncorrupted evils of capitalistic, materialistic, corporatocracy society. Some have criticized this concept as racist, as it depicts 'natives' as unintelligence, naive, and as almost sub-human without a true sense of agency, rights, and personhood.
What did Hobbes and Rousseau have to say about human nature?
She said, "There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along" Her point is that most people with massive wealth and incomes owe taxes because it was public goods (like educated workers, infrastructure, law enforcement) that made their wealth and income possible in the first place. Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsd2KT9KVC0
What is Elizabeth Warren's view on the wealthy paying high taxes?
Rawls in an American philosopher (1921-2002) who's most famous work is *A Theory of Justice*. His big ideas were: *justice as fairness*, *the original position*/*veil of ignorance*, and his *2 principles of justice*. He taught as a professor for many years at Harvard.
What is John Rawls' historical background?
Nozick is a libertarian philosopher who argues that the role of the government is extremely minimal. In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, he says that "Individuals have rights... and a minimal state limited to the narrow functions of protections against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts, and so on is the most extensive state that can be justified. Any state more extensive violates people's rights not to be forced to do things." The state's job then is to defend against foreign influences that threaten our country's freedom. Libertarians want a society with maximum individual freedom, and this means freedom from taxes. He would endorse a free market or laissez faire capitalistic economic system.
What is Nozick's libertarianism that he spells out in Anarchy State, and Utopia? What social programs are absent from this sort of system? What is the role of the State for Nozick?
Rawls' version of the social contract is one in which people in the initial situation (he calls it the initial position) make the contract. These are idealized hypothetical people. They are unbiased because they are behind a *veil of ignorance* and don't know things like their gender, race, ethnicity, socio-economical status, disability status, religion, country affiliation, sexual orientation, etc. The rules they come up with would be fair because they wouldn't cater to any particular group.
What is Rawls' Justice as Fairness.
Conservatives: The poor are lazy and are a drain on the economy. The are to blame for their poverty and not my problem. I have to help me, my family, AND lazy strangers?! No way! A liberal government would be wasteful, bureaucratic, and inefficient. Government regulations get in the way of business. Don't tax the job creators. Best way to help the poor it to lower taxes on and deregulate business so they can hire more people, instead of giving people welfare checks, give them a job. The success, wealth, and income of successful big business and the wealthy will 'trickle down' to the rest. If the part of the poor's peoples is drug addiction, the let us engage a war on drugs.
What is a colorful and perhaps 'slanted' way to describe conservatives' view on poverty?
Value theory (or axiology) investigates goodness, justice, and beauty. Subfields include: ethics (or moral philosophy), aesthetics (nature of art, beauty, and taste), and political and social philosophy.
What is axiology?
The philosophical study of reality (and being and existence).
What is metaphysics?
Normalizing power is more subtle and unseen, like an invisible lease. It's very powerful though—more powerful than repressive power. For instance, society doesn't want looting during coronavirus. They could use repressive power and use the police to intervene every time you do, but they don't have for the most part because most people don't want to loot! Why? Because through parents, teachers, advertisements etc., it has been so much ingrained in you that stealing is bad that now you don't even want to loot—that's normalizing power.
What is normalizing power?
The notion that all human beings are imperfect, whose souls are stained from with the first sin of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit in Genesis.
What is original sin?
Many academics consider to philosophy to be more an activity than a set of beliefs. It is learning to think creatively and critically about important questions -- questions that at first may seem to have straightforward answers like, Does God exist? What is art? What is justice? In attempting to answer these questions we garner views, problems, arguments, analyses, and a history of great thinkers. Philosophy has a long history with roots in Ancient Greek figures like Socrates, Plato, & Aristotle. For them, philosophy literally was the 'love of wisdom'. ('Philo' literally means 'love' and 'sophia' means 'wisdom'.)
What is philosophy?
Either there's a relevant difference between the two cases or we are being logically inconsistent because most are willing to flip the switch but not push the fat man.
What is puzzling about Foot's cases?
Repressive power is what we traditionally thinking of as power. For instance the power of the police over citizens, a parent over children, or a boss over employees. It's often physical and very visible, but in a way 'second rate' because if you were truly powerful you could get people to do your bidding without force. And if you were truly powerful, you could get people to do what you want and fool them into thinking that they want it too. This is called normalizing power.
What is repressive power?
End, goal, or purpose
What is telos, for Aristotle?
"It is much safer to be feared than loved"
What is the famous line in Machiavelli's The Prince?
The difference principle only allows inequalities that help the worst-off. You must guarantee the worse off a fair deal. Rawls is compensating for moral arbitrary natural endowments (like Michael Jordan)
What is the function of Rawls' difference principle?
Nichomachean Ethics
What is the name of Aristotle's magnum opus on moral philosophy. Hint: we read an excerpt from it.
There are many different versions of the prisoner's dilemma (PD) that have been studied by many different sorts of academics including, economists, psychologists, game theorists, and philosophers. We discussed two versions of the PD. In the first, no communication or agreements are allowed. There are two people: say you and a stranger named Steve. Both of you have been brought in by the FBI to potentially testify against each for a drug crime. (You know you are innocent and you have no evidence either way that Steve is guilty.) You both have 2 options: either testify against the other or stay quiet. If you and Steve both stay quiet, you both will get one year in prison. If you and Steve both testify against each other, then you both get five years. If you testify against Steve and he stays quiet, Steve gets 10 years and you go free. If Steve testifies against you and you stay quiet, you get 10 years and he goes free.
What is the prisoner's dilemma?
The social contract is a strategy for maximizing self interest. For Hobbes, the social contract is the set of agreements/laws/rules that grounds the State or government. These rules include the 1st amendment and other basic freedoms. They include rules like murder/theft, etc. is illegal. Or that the government will protect its citizens with military, police, and firefighters. That the government will provide public goods like roads, infrastructure, clean water, trash/recycling services, sewage, power grids, utilities etc. That the gov. will provide free and or subsidized education pre-K through 12th and college and subsidized healthcare. Will provide social security. That citizens will abide by these rules and be honest, decent, have integrity, and care for the vulnerable and underserved & represented including children. That people will be free to create, and cultivate humanities, philosophy, and art: performance (music, theater, dance, radio) and visual (painting, drawing, sculpture, photography, film/TV), and literature (novels, poetry). And will be free to pursue sciences and technology. The one disadvantage of living under the contract for Hobbes is that we give up the absolute freedom of living in the state of nature.
What is the social contract for Hobbes? What is the advantage of living under it? What's the disadvantage of living under it?
Maybe there is no difference and the only reason that we hesitate to push the fat man is because we're squeamish. That said, perhaps the first case is permissible because it's a case of indirectly letting someone die, while the fat man case is a case of direct killing. Think how at the end of *Batman Begins* Batman can't directly kill the major villain (because Batman is good), but it's okay for Batman to let him die.
What might be a relevant difference between Foot's cases?
~50%
What proportion of prisoners are incarcerated for for non-violent crimes?
With one ruler, a monarch is correct (i.e., has serves for good of the public) and a tyranny is deviant (i.e., serves only for the good of oneself). With a few ruling, an aristocracy is correct and a oligarchy is deviant. With many ruling, a educated, direct democracy is correct, and an anarchy is deviant.
What was Aristotle's take on Plato's regimes, what was his correct & deviant forms of government?
Hegel and Marx both prognosticated about the future of human civilization. The progress foreseen by Hegel would be the result of rational evolution through dialectic, i.e., the thesis, antithesis, synthesis method. For Marx the future was through and evolution through class struggle and conflict produced revolutions and ultimately a stateless, moneyless, propertyless communism.
What was Hegel's influence on Marx?
Solution: collective (state) ownership and control of business (means of production). In a communist state, not only are factories state owned, everything is, even personal property, assets, and money. That is all private sectors would be eliminated or transferred to the public sector. There would be no money or classes. This would cause classes to evaporate Have people tried Marx' solution? The USSR, China, Venezuela, North Korea, and Cuba have tried to fulfill Marx's dream but they are more socialism than full-blown communism. They all had difficulties, primarily for two reasons: a) corruption (a transition to socialism required a revolution from capitalism, revolutions require leaders, leaders are human, humans with too much power can become corrupt) and b) pushback from powerful capitalist countries (like the US, e.g., the Cold, Korean, and Vietnam Wars).
What was Marx' solution to the problems with capitalism? How is socialism really the first steps to full-blown communism? Have any countries really tried full-blown communism? Why have attempts at socialism failed?
Just like the body thrives when the all the parts do their jobs (heart pumps, ears hear, eyes see, etc.), the body thrives when reason, spirit, & appetite perform their roles at the right times, so too do we have a healthy society when the people perform the jobs they're good at: the philosophers lead, the warriors protect, and the workers & slaves perform their duties. Plato's society isn't deterministic because your role or job in life isn't just what you're naturally good at; it's what you practice and enjoy doing, e.g., a person who isn't naturally creative could end up being an artist in society if they practice it and enjoy it enough. (Aside: this seems eerily similar to the caste system of classic hinduism: priests, warriors, merchants, servants.)
What was Plato's argument for the tripartite society that focused on cultivating the natural skills of people? How does Plato's society avoid determinism of role at birth?
They may have only been possible because of free time to think, philosophize, and write made possible by money from his friend, Friedrich Engels (whose money was from his father's cotton business). So strangely communist was financed by capitalized.
What was ironic about Marx' ideas about communism?
We said that it's a problem if our intuition or common sense doesn't align with a moral theory. If a moral theory is an iPhone, then problem cases are like 'cracks'. What are your three options when you have a cracked phone? You can: 1. Repair it. (I.e., revise your moral theory) 2. Replace it. (I.e., abandon your moral theory for something better) 3. Deal with it. (I.e., bit the bullet and stick with your theory)
What was the 'cracked iPhone' analogy for what to do if a moral theory faces a problem case (i.e., does not align with intuition or common sense)?
Contractarians claim that the initial contract must be made fairly. But fairness doesn't exist until the contract is made. Fair by definition is just abiding by the contract or acting in accord with contract. How can we act in accord with something before it's written?
What's the circularity problem that Cudd discusses?
Social justice and harmony are only possible in the City of God (i.e., in heaven with God). They are not possible on Earth in the City of Men, which is invariably corrupt. Human life can't be perfected and societies can be just because of Origin Sin.
What's the difference between Augustine's City of God and City of Men?
See: https://money.cnn.com/2012/09/21/pf/taxes/romney-tax-return/index.html. Essentially, Romney, a mulimillionair former presidential candidate only paid ~14% in federal taxes. This was legal because most of his income was from capital gains (more or less, investments), which get taxed at a lower rate then job earnings. Some like Warren Buffett say this isn't fair. Buffett pays less than his secretary in taxes: https://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/index.html.
Why do some ultra affluent people like Mitt Romney pay low effective tax rates?
Intuition: helping others is good for its own sake (and just not good instrumentally). Hobbes: helping others is only good instrumentally (and not for its own sake). In other words there's a motivation problem for Hobbes: We are doing good things but for the wrong reason. You shouldn't, e.g., help the poor just because the social contract says so or just because it indirectly is in your self-interest. You should help others like the poor because this is inherently good.
Why does Hobbes' theory have a problem with helping others, says Cudd?
Traditional philosophers describe the world and the nature of reality and humanity. Marx' believed that philosophers should be proactive and attempt to change the world for the better.
Why is the Marxist style of philosophy different than traditional philosophy?
First people who are considered to be powerless are often mischaracterized. E.g., give them a level playing field (access, accommodations and they flourish). Second, there is a potential benefit to living in a society that takes care of all. Put a different way, if you could choose a society that let's persons with disabilities fall by the wayside vs. one that enables them (but it will cost you a bit more), people tend to prefer the latter. Also, we could become that way, it could have been us, we might have relatives, we feel good in doing it, and their are stakeholders who do care.
Why might those in protective of rights for persons with disabilities find Hobbes' view unpalatable?What can be said for those who are powerless or who can't hold their weight? What motivation do we have to help them?
No. Hobbes rejects Plato's moral realism/objectivism. Hobbes denies that morality is human/mind-independent. For him morality is grounded in human/social agreements that evolved into the web of agreements that is our current social contract.
Yes or no: For Hobbes does morality exist outside of the social contract?
*Western religion*: God/divine. *Moral relativists*: culture/Individual preferences. *Kant*: morality is grounded in reason, moral truths can be deduced like mathematical axioms. *Hume*: morality is grounded in human psychology: desire, emotion, and or sentiment. *Sophists* (like Thrasymachus): justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger, i.e., might makes right. (Marx echoes this thinking.)
Besides the views of Hobbes & Plato. What are other views about what grounds morality?
The capitalist class (e.g., the factory owner) owns "the means of production"
Bourgeoisie
It might be impossible to escape the grip of normalizing power, but being aware of it makes one a bit more autonomous. Also, Foucault endorsed Marxism and pushed for a revolution against the bourgeoisie (capitalist class), which would put the normalizing power in the hands of the working class, which for Foucault would be a unpresedented improvement.
Can one escape the chain of normalizing power?
It's true that it's not your fault that some people are naturally athletic or talented, but similarly it's often not entirely people's fault for being less athletic and talented.
Couldn't a Jordan or an Oprah say "It's not my fault I make millions, the people gave me the ratings and bought my tickets" Why am I being punished for that?
Consider a carpenter pre-industrial revolution. They would could take pride in and be more connected to the finish complete product (like a chair or table). Suppose that carpenter is put out of business after the industrial revolution, so they take a job on the assembly-line at a furniture factory. It's harder to take pride in just, say, attaching the upper-left leg of a chair over and over again.
Explain Marx's concept of alienation
*Hobbes*: For Hobbes, what grounds morality and makes the State legitimate are human agreements, i.e., the Social Contract (thus morality is human or mind-dependent). This view is called contractarianism. Take the moral belief or proposition that "lying is wrong". That belief or proposition is made true by the *fact* that there's a social contract, an agreement between humans. (Again beliefs and propositions are *truth-bearers* and the social contract is a *truth-maker*.) *Plato*: What grounds moral is mind-independent; morality is grounded by the way the world is independently of humans/society. This is view is called moral realism (or moral objectivism). Take a belief that "lying is wrong". That belief is made true by the moral *fact* that lying is wrong. This fact is a part of the way the world is, a part of reality. Just like there are math and science facts, there are moral facts. None of these depend on humanity.
For Hobbes, what grounds morality and makes the state legitimate? In other words, for Hobbes, what is the truth-maker for moral beliefs and propositions? Contrastingly, what is the truth-maker for moral beliefs and propositions according to *Plato's moral realism*?
*Hobbes*: For Hobbes, what grounds morality and makes the State legitimate are human agreements, i.e., the Social Contract (thus morality is human or mind-dependent). This view is called contractarianism. Take the moral belief or proposition that "lying is wrong". That belief or proposition is made true by the social contract, an agreement between humans. (Again beliefs and propositions are *truth-bearers* and the social contract is a *truth-maker*.) *Plato*: What grounds moral is mind-independent; morality is grounded by the way the world is independently of humans/society. This is view is called moral realism (or moral objectivism). Take a belief that "lying is wrong". That belief is made true by the moral *fact* that lying is wrong. This fact is a part of the way the world is, a part of reality.
For Hobbes, what grounds morality and makes the state legitimate? In other words, for Hobbes, what is the truth-maker for moral beliefs and propositions? Contrastingly, what is the truth-maker for moral beliefs and propositions according to *Plato's moral realism*?
For Plato, there is perception (like the Matrix, Truman Show, & Inception, particular greens, cats, & circles) and there is Reality or the realm of the *Forms*, which are properties (or universals/categories/kinds/classes), e.g., the form or property of greenness, circle-ness, or being a cat. For Plato, a particular green, circle, or cat aren't as real as the Form.
From those same Gendler clips, what did we learn about Plato's forms?
Logic
If all As are Bs, does that mean that all Bs are As? What branch of philosophy does this question fall under?
Just because one has a right doesn't mean it will be respected. Locke says we need government to protect these rights.
If we have rights to life, liberty, and property in the state of nature, then why do we need government, for Locke?
This is a difficult question to answer. In the ST universe there is nearly free and unlimited energy and replicators. There's no more need to earn money for housing, food, or transportation. Thus, no more poverty or hunger. If people don't have to work for these things, then what would they work for? The dream is that people would work to cultivate and better one's self and humanity as a whole.
If we lived in a post-scarcity economy, like that of the Star Trek Universe, would it lend itself to a communist world?
The utilitarian argues that you aren't being harmed. Someone like Kant might say even if you are unaware, your right to privacy was violated.
If you never find out about being spied upon (like Rachel's peeping Tom case), how are you being harmed?
21 years
In Norway, what is the maximum prison sentence?
These programs and laws cost a lot! This likely means an increase in taxes. The counterargument is that people end up paying for them anyway in the private sector. The government can do some things better than private sector: education/healthcare, making products, no. Some argue that European countries are smaller and have different demographics than the US, so maybe what works for them won't work for us.
In general what are the advantages & disadvantages of moving toward European Democratic Socialism?
California community colleges collect some money from student fees, but the vast majority of the cost is funded by the State government (which comes from tax dollars). How that money is allocated to each college depends on the purpose or 'telos' of community college. The long standing view is that the purpose of CCs is to provide access to higher education to all Californians. Thus, community colleges were funded by how full-time equivalent students (FTES) they had. Now 60% of Chabot's funding is FTES, 20% is need/equity -based (e.g. how many students are low-income?), and 20% is success-based (e.g., how many degrees & certificates were awarded?). Is this the proper telos of Chabot? It's debatable. We can think about this in a *descriptive* (how it's actually been) or *prescriptive* sense (how it ought to be).
In light of the State's new funding model, what's the telos of Chabot and of community colleges in general?
It would seem so. Though there is a lot of overlap between legal and moral rules (e.g., it's illegal *and* immoral to abuse children), the concepts come apart, (e.g., it's immoral break a promise to a friend or cheat on a boyfriend or girlfriend, but those things are not illegal).
Is morality distinct from the law? That is, are moral rules distinct from legal rules?
No, because science (especially medicine & psychiatry) is done by scientists who are not immune to normalizing power. Doctors and psychiatrists are victims of normalizing power (when they are trained) and perpetuate normalizing power (when get to decide what is normal and abnormal). For instance, a hyper kid might be normalized by diagnosing them with a mental health disorder and prescribing them Ritalin. In Foucault's time, people who identify as LGBT were diagnosed with a mental health disorder.
Is science free from normalizing power?
This is an empirical question and the answer depends on what sort of correction and how much is done. Perhaps taxing 85% of all income would undermine work ethic. But if you're only taxing 85% of income above 10 million dollars, that may be a different story.
Might correcting for luck or 'things that aren't our doing' or things arbitrary from a moral point of view undermine uncentive to work hard? I.e., the Michael Jordans, Bill Gates, Oprahs, etc. will just leave our society?
GUT (Grand Unified Theory) TOE (Theory of Everything)
Most ethics classes focused on Mill and Kant's views and downplayed Aristotle's moral philosophy until Philippa Foot repopularized virtue ethics in the 1970s. Until then, moral philosophers were almost exclusively after a singular one-size-fits-all ethical principle to guide all human actions. This is similar to dream from theoretical physicists who are searching for GUT and TOE, which are?
Socrates taught Plato. Plato taught Aristotle.
Out of Socrates, Plato, & Aristotle, who taught whom?
Public higher education, i.e., UCs & CSUs.
There's been a recent trend in California, corrections spending has dramatically increased and is now on par with how much California spends on what?
Aristotle would like agree that if you're eudaimon, then you are virtuous, because developing the virtues is a requirement for thriving. (I.e., there is no shortcut to thriving; you must cultivate virtue.) However, Aristotle would likely not accept that if you're virtuous, then you are eudaimon. For instance, you could imprison a virtuous person, and it would be hard for them to thrive. Virtuous people could develop cancer, lose a child, get stranded on a desert island. Any of these circumstances beyond one's control would impede upon one's flourishing Think about the logic of the following iff statement: A person is eudaimon if and only if they are virtuous. Would Aristotle agree with both directions of this biconditional?
Think about the logic of the following iff statement: A person is eudaimon if and only if they are virtuous. Would Aristotle agree with both directions of this biconditional?
14th/15th century, Renaissance thinker who wrote *The Prince.* The term 'Machiavellian' is named after him. Machiavelli wrote about the realities of political life. He argued that we need to stop being naive about politicians because it's impossible to be a good (Christian) person and a good leader. To be a good politician you need to be sly, cunning, ruthless, and engage in sophistry and 'criminal' virtue. Politics is messy and sometimes you have to break some eggs to make an omelet. He said it's better to be feared than loved and was a realist not an idealist.
Watch (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUlGtrHCGzs), (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOXl0Ll_t9s), and (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMagDqJDcLc). Who was Machiavelli and what major contributions did he have to the history of political philosophy?
Sandel says that for Rawls distribution of of wealth, should not be based on factors *arbitrary from a moral point of view*, that is, things that are not your doing, like, e.g. where you fall in a feudal aristocracy, caste-system. So what a 'meritocracy', where its about how much effort that expend. However, even how much effort you put in could be base on factors beyond your control, e.g, birth order and how wealthy your parents are. (Only 3% of student bodies at top colleges are from the poorest 25%.) Effort can be connected to privilege, too (think about the Buzzfeed 'Check your Privilege' activity (https://www.buzzfeed.com/regajha/how-privileged-are-you). Meritocracies are only fair if we all begin the race at the same point. But even that isn't fair because of the natural lottery (think of the natural gifts of a Michael Jordan). So to make up for natural gifts do we lead their shoes? No, for Rawls, we can permit, even encourage inequality but only if it helps everyone, especially the least off (often this is in the form of taxes). Rawls system corrects for moral luck in this way.
Watch Harvard Professor Michael Sandel's "A Fair Start" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcL66zx_6No) and Crash Course's video on "Justice" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0CTHVCkm90." What is Rawls' problem with a system that reward's natural talents? What about a merit-based system? Further, what would Rawls say about the high salaries of Judge Judy, Bill Gates, & Michael Jordan? Can they be morally justified on his view?
(a) Logos/reason; (b) Spirit; (c) Appetite (a) Philosopher Kings/Guardians; (b) Soldiers; (c) Workers/Servants (a) Loves truth (pleasures of the mind) ; (b) Loves honor; (c) Loves pleasure (of the flesh) Classical Greek cardinal virtues: (a) Wisdom, (b) Courage, (c) Moderation
Watch Tamar Gendler for minute 6-29 of (https://oyc.yale.edu/philosophy/phil-181/lecture-5) (Back up link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6Kkq7xULSo). What did we learn about Tripartite soul and society of Plato's Republic? What does each love and what cardinal virtues are associated with each?
Glaucon is a moral skeptic. He believed that 'justice' is a necessary evil and if we could get away with acting unjustly, we would. He tries to prove this with a thought experiment in which there is a magical ring that would make the wearer invisible. (Sound like Lord of the Rings? -- it is!) Give the ring to even the most just person and it will only be a matter of time before even they become corrupt. This sentiment was echoed by British Historian, Lord Acton's saying: "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Glaucon argues that we do whatever we can get away with. Justice is just a means to an end and only has instrumental value (Hobbesian) whereas for Plato/Socrates justice has instrumental *and* intrinsic/ultimate value.
Watch Tamar Gendler, Yale Philosophy Professor, during 11-16:30 min of this video: (https://oyc.yale.edu/philosophy/phil-181/lecture-1) (Here is a second link if that doesn't work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUHYlyacMmA). What is Glaucon's challenge and how does the Ring of Gyges story go?
1. There is growing wealth inequality in America. 2. There a select few at the top that have *obscene* amounts of wealth. 3. Worldwide, 8 men have as much wealth as half of the world. 4. In the US 3 men have more than bottom half. 5. TIMES: The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%—And That's Made the U.S. Less Secure 6. Rawls and Nozick would have very different things to say about the morality of 1, 2, & 3.
Watch the YouTube clip on wealth inequality:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM (wealth inequality) and read Oxfam's report: https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2017-01-16/just-8-men-own-same-wealth-half-world. What was the key lessons from these reports? https://inequality.org/great-divide/bernie-3-billionaires-more-wealth-half-america/ https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/
1. Repressive Power 2. Normalizing Power
Watch: "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keLnKbmrW5g". What were Foucault's two categories of power?
1. Workers (the proletariat) are exploited and 2. expendable, they work for very low wages and the gains virtually all go to the factory owners (the bourgeoisie, who control the means of production) . 3. Alienation: people aren't as connected to their work anymore. You don't make a chair, you make the left back leg of a chair on an assembly line, over and over again. 4. Industry is efficient, which should mean more leisure time, but worker conditions and hours worsen. 5. Capitalism is bad for marriage; it makes it more about controlling assets than love. 6. Capitalism: instills bad values: like leisure time is laziness; More than 2 or 3 weeks of vacation is lazy. Also that one's worth is judged solely in terms of material possessions. These values cause anxiety and unhealthy competitiveness.
Watch: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSQgCy_iIcc) and (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrtDZ-LOXFw). What are 6 problems did Karl Marx notice about the capitalism that fueled by the industrial revolution?
Even though the ancient Greeks invented democracy, Socrates & Plato were not fans. Ship analogy. Better to have an expert run the ship, then have everyone vote. Uneducated masses can't resist the allure of sophists and demagogues, and the democracy collapses into tyranny. Say you were framed in a very sophisticated way, would you want a jury of 12 random people from off the street to decide your fate or an educated, discerning judge? Should we say that you need an 8th grade education to vote? This was used to discriminate against blacks during the Jim Crow era. What about now when education is free and compulsory for children? What if we require people research propositions before voting? Advantage: more informed voters. Disadvantage: this would discriminate against people who have less time to get educated, like someone who, for historical reasons, lacks of opportunity and, e.g., has to be a full-time student, while working and or taking care of children.
Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLJBzhcSWTk. Why did Socrates hate democracy? What do we think of Socrates'/Plato's idea. Should we, e.g., require education to vote?
St. Augustine was 4/5th century C.E. Christian Philosopher who lived toward the end of Roman Empire in Hippo a city in Northern Africa. His city was vandalized by the German 'vandals', but they left his Church and library.
Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBAxUBeVfsk. What was some historical background on St. Augustine?
Conservatives typically believe that: 1. Large government a threat to individual liberty 2. A free market is best for all -- business, consumers, and general public. 3. Taxes -- especially on those connected to business should be low 4. Nationally security should be well funded. 5. State and local governments should have autonomy (see Robert Reich 6. Traditional patriotic & religious values should be held in high esteem.
Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_k_k-bHigM, the Crash course on conservatives & liberals. What are the basic tenets of conservatism?
Hobbes' view that life in society and under the social contract is better and that people will honor their agreements is not jeopardized by the Golden Balls defectors. It's a false analogy: the contestants in the game show hardly know each other, which makes it much easier to be deceitful. In real life the agreements made are often with people with whom we know extremely well and with whom there is substantial trust.
We watched clips of the British game show, *Golden Balls*. The contestants were allowed to converse and make agreements, yet often they would be deceitful; they would promise to *split* and then *steal*. This seems to run counter to what Hobbes would say should happen when agreements are allowed. How can we defend Hobbes in light of these Gold Balls 'defectors'?
1) Principle of Equal Liberty: Each person has an equal right to the most extensive liberties compatible with similar liberties for all. (Egalitarian.) 2) Difference Principle: Social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of equality of opportunity.
What 2 principles of justice would people in the original What principle would those in the original position choose?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR4Vp8SY8-A
What Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Tax Plans Could Mean For Growth And Inequality
Should the state pay for 8 weeks of vacation? Paid maternity & paternity leave? Rehab therapy spa for workers with mental health issues? Should there be a law that no employee may be contacted after hours? Should 1/2 of company boards have to be workers?
What Company-related issues raised in Michael Moore's *Where to Invade Next*?
Should the State legalize drugs & pay for free treatment for those with drug problems? Should the State abolish the death penalty, have max prison sentences, and push for rehabilitation over punishment?
What Drugs & Corrections-related issues raised in Michael Moore's *Where to Invade Next*?
Should the state pay for: Quality, nutritional school lunch? Debt free college? Should abstinence only sex ed be banned in public school? Should school have less homework and shorter school days and school year, Should they have fewer standardized tests? Should private schools be banned?
What Education-related issues raised in Michael Moore's *Where to Invade Next*?
Mental, intellectual, sustaining, long-term, e.g., accomplishing goals, unconditional love, playing chess, brain teasers, stimulating conversation, enjoying 'high-brow' art and music, opera, jazz, poetry, museums, classical music, and, no surprise, doing philosophy.
What are 'high' pleasures?
Pleasures that are bodily, instinctual, ephemeral, instant gratification, e.g., food, warmth, sex, sleep, etc.
What are 'low' pleasures?
In a phrase, socialism is communism light. It is as Marx put it, a precursor to communism. Arguably, there has never been a pure communist country, the U.S.S.R, China, Cuba etc. all maintained levels of socialism but not full-on communism where there is not even private property. European countries and even the US have elements of socialism, e.g., in the domains of education (like Chabot, CSUs and UCs), welfare, retirement (social security), safety & national security (fire/police/military).
What's socialism's relationship to communism?
*1. There is more to freedom than consent.* The article presented challenging cases for the libertarian who maintains that an unfettered free market is ideal. For instance, in a truly free market, there is no minimum wage. Say that you are working a fast food job for $10 an hour. This good for you because any less than $10 and you won't be able to pay rent. Unfortunately for you, a single mother of 3 moves to the area and is desperate to provide for her children. She tells the manager of fast food restaurant that she will work for $8 an hour. You get fired and now can't pay your rent. Later, someone from a different country comes from the area and will work for $4/hr. Now the single mom is out a job, and with no alternative decides to prostitute herself. The person who makes $4/hr lives in their car by the way. Now the Libertarian might be quick to point out, "Hey if the restaurant is paying its employees less, then it can lower their prices and consumers saves money." Unfortunately, in this case, the owner of the business just pockets the extra profit. "But the owner would likely spend or invest the money, which is good for the economy." Possibly, but not if the invests in foreign markets, or gold, or speculative goods.
What was the first (of four) challenges presented in the New York Times article, "Questions for Free-Market Moralists, present to Nozick and libertarians?
They demonstrated a difficulty in using a utilitarian framework in government policies and projects, namely, that to use the framework, you have to know what increases utility for people, but this varies from person to person, i.e., seems pretty subjective (e.g., I'd eat a worm over strangling a cat, but vice versa for you.)
What was the lesson of the Thorndike's findings?
From worst to best: tyranny, democracy, oligarchy (wealthy rule), timocracy (land-owners rule), aristocracy (a few well-educated prudent people rule).
What were Plato's 5 regimes and rank them?
Kant argued that point of punishment is retribution. People deserve it (just desert). This is a 'backward-looking' view on punishment and is eye for an eye reasoning. Mill & utilitarians argued that punishment should only be for public safety, deterrence. This a 'forward-looking' view, which focuses on rehabilitation.
What were the differences Kant and Mill on punishment?
The author of this piece argues that that: *2. There is such a thing as nonviolent exploitation.* For instance, a case where one inherits a plot of land and hires a poor neighbor to plow, till, and sow it for $1/day for a year (which is the best option for the person). Then the owner sells the land for $50,000. Since the exchange was free, there is nothing exploitative or immoral about it. *3. People shouldn't be rewarded and punished for accidents of birth.* Like being 1st born, or having wealthy parents. *4. We have moral obligations that extend beyond those we contractually incur.* Like Singer's Pond case. If everyone had the same opportunities, natural talents, and upbringing; and if there wasn't discriminations against individuals for one's gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, etc., then the Libertarian, free-market, meritocracy might work. In the real world, the libertarian system works well for those with privilege and not so well for those without it.
What were the other 3 challenges in the NYT article?
The person on the side track is (or at least seems to be) more a part of the same predicament as the other 5. The tracks are connected after and trains will often use both tracks. The footbridge is less a part of the trolley system, in fact it's function is to avoid the system. Because the sidetrack is a part of the regular track system, naturally, we'd pick the sidetrack person (call them 'Bob') to die. If we are mistaken and Bob is legitimately not involved, then perhaps flipping the switch is wrong. To wit, Bob might say, it *seems* like I'm wrapped up in this trolley problem, but I'm really not. It also might matter how Bob ended up on the tracks. We've stipulated that it's through no fault of his own, but we might need more info. Compare, for instance, Bob being kidnapped and forced onto the sidetrack by an evil man as opposed to Bob walking across the tracks and getting his shoe stuck. We all accept that there is a risk when we cross train tracks. So if you get stuck, it's to some extent (though not 100%) your fault. The random kidnapping is less your fault. Just like if you got cancer from using a cell phone, you are more at fault than if you got cancer that was hereditary. The fat man's situation seems more akin to the latter.
What's 'Ryan's difference'?
You own yourself and thus you own your talents, effort, and your *labor.* Thus if you create something with your labor, you have at least partial ownership. This serves as the basis of Locke's account of personal property rights.
What's Locke's view on property?
In short: what we believe, say, and write is made true by the way the world is. Beliefs and propositions are examples of *truth-bearers* and are made true by *the world*, *the facts*, *reality*, and or *state of affairs*, which are *truth-makers*. For instance, my *belief* that the Sun is larger than the Earth is true, and it is made true by reality, by *the fact* that the Sun *is* larger than the Earth.
What's Mulligan, Simons, and Smith's view on *truth-makers* vs *truth-bearers*?
The initial contract should be whatever maximizes joint interests. So it doesn't need to be fair, it just needs to maximize the joint interest of all parties.
What's a reply to the circularity problem?
We might ask, "What if everyone did that?" or say, "If everyone did that, there would be chaos/disaster, i.e., it would be problematic."
What's a way to explain the problem with the following? Cutting in line Running red lights (that had just changed from yellow) Taking handfuls of candy from a Halloween bowl that says 'Take only 1' Movie hopping Not Voting
Students are using a teacher as a means to their end of getting a grade, an education, a step toward their career goal, etc. If they showed up on time, were respective, put in effort, didn't cheat etc., then they are not treating the teacher as a mere means to their end. If they show up late, talk & text during class, cheat on exams, etc., they are treating the teacher merely as a means to an end.
What's an example of students treating a teacher as a means to an end, but not merely so. What's an example of students treating a teacher *merely* as a means to an end?
This is problematic for utilitarians because they would demand you save the 2 stranger children over your own (as that would result in more net utility). This doesn't align with our moral common sense. In general, this case shows that utilitarianism doesn't allow bias for loved ones (because their happiness isn't any more valuable than a stranger's).
What's problematic for utilitarians about the Titanic case?
Top-down theory promotes tax breaks for big business and the wealthy. The thinking being that this frees them up to stimulate the economy by expanding their businesses, hiring more, increasing wages, lowering costs, and making greater investments that are good for Americans overall (like in other American businesses and charities). The thinking is that these tax breaks create wealth at the top that will 'trickles' down to everyone else. Middle-out theory promotes heavy taxes on the wealth and taxes breaks from the middle class. The thinking is that trickle-down might sound nice in theory but it doesn't work in practice; the trickle never quite makes it to the middle class, let alone the poor. Better to instill economic policies that directly benefit the vast majority of Americans (the middle class, which is the country's backbone). Further, if 80%+ of the economy is consumer spending, then the best way to stimulate the economy is to keep and put money in the pockets of the middle class who spend most of there money and do so locally (on things like housing, food, transportation, property/sales taxes, etc.) One reply to this thinking is that it would likely mean that the vast majority of tax revenue would be paid by a small portion of citizens.
What's the difference between top/trickle-down/'Reaganomics' and 'middle-out' economics?
Income is money coming in each week, month, year, etc. Wealth is the accumulation of money (or any net assets) over time. You could be a prince who is extremely wealthy yet be unemployed and have no income. You could a make $250K/year but have no wealth if you spent in all on things that don't retain value (like traveling or illegal drugs).
What's the difference between wealth and income?
Just as it's immoral to do nothing in the pond case, it's immoral to do nothing in the Oxfam case -- especially since the latter requires much less effort and money.
What's the lesson of Singer's Pond & Oxfam cases?
The vast majority of poor people are stuck because of discrimination, historical endemic institutionalized racism, unfair justice & jury system, and a lack of opportunity. The solution is a war on poverty and the legalization/regulation of most drugs. Mental healthcare and drug/alcohol services needed to be provided as well as free and widely accessible education.
What's the liberals response?
The Categorical Imperative
What's the name of Kant's major ethical principle?
Actual historical contracts have often been racists, sexists, discriminatory, and biased in all sorts of ways, e.g., slavery, apartheid, women not being able to vote, Jim Crow laws, bans on gay marriage.
What's the problem with actual/historical social contracts?
There seems to be an epistemological (or knowledge) problem, that is, it isn't clear or obvious what the hypothetical or ideal social contract would look like. I.e., we don't really *know* what it would say; we can only make an educated guess, which might lead to a lot of disagreement.
What's the problem with ideal social contracts?
In 20th century France.
When and where was Michel Foucault live and write?
The War on Drugs began in the 1970s and was fully waged in the 80s & early 90s. Politicians could lose elections if they didn't prove to be 'tough on crime'. Many argue that this war on drugs was an utter failure and that it might have been much more prudent to couple drug legalization with addiction treatment and rehabilitation. Some argue that the War on Drugs is discriminatory against young men of color because it targets drugs that are used more in poor black neighborhoods (like crack) and target less drugs used by whites (cocaine), even though the drugs aren't that dissimilar. The War on Drugs lead to more arrests, meaning more prisoners, and the need for expanding and increasing the number of prisons. When the public is out of resources it turned to the private sector, which meant an opportunity for big business to profit from the WoD.
When was the 'War on Drugs' going strong? Was it successful? What did some argue it was racist?
Karl Marx.
Which political philosopher did Augustine influence?
Instead of vast spending on prisons and the war on drugs, some argue that it would be much more prudent to couple drug legalization with addiction treatment and rehabilitation. People typically commit crimes when they are desperate and have few options. Perhaps the a true war on drugs would be to give people options by fighting poverty and funding education, health care (esp. mental healthcare), and providing living wages and job opportunities (esp. for people in low-income areas).
While it might be expensive in the short run. Spending on what in the long run might be a smarter and cheaper way to fight crime?
Major figure in utilitarianism. Disciple of Jeremy Bentham. English, lived 1806-1873, early feminist.
Who is John Start Mill?
St. Augustine of Hippo
Who is credited with the notion of 'original sin'?
Mill. Bentham thinks that when it comes to pleasure there is only the matter of quantity, not quality.
Who put high and low pleasures on two 'incommensurate' scales?
Because they don't control the means of production.
Why are workers exploited, says Marx?
To compare and contrast Bentham vs. Mill on 'low' and 'high' pleasures. If you believe that Hamlet is objectively preferable because it is 'higher' art and more mentally stimulating, then you support Mill's view that we should prefer high pleasure (and that it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied). If you believe that there's no problem with preferring the Kardashians over Shakespeare that you agree with Bentham that there's no right or wrong when it comes to pleasure and preferences.
Why did we talk about *The Simpsons*, *Keeping Up with the Kardashians*, and a film adaptation of Shakespeare's *Hamlet*?
If you think of utilitarianism and Kantian ethics as heath care plans, utilitarianism has broader coverage, that is, it covers all sentient beings, including dogs, cats, pigs, chickens, cows, dolphins, etc. Kant's 'kingdom of ends' only includes rational agents, which are beings who can reason as well as healthy adult humans.
Why do animal rights people tend to prefer utilitarian ethics to Kant's?