Philosophy exam

moral constraints (absolute)

there is no amount of good that would make it permissible to act against constraints (no constraints may even be broken)

universalism

there is one universal truth that everyone can be expected to arrive at through exercise of their rational faculties

moral constraints (moderate)

there is some amount of good that would make it permissible to act against the constraints (constraints may be overridden in certain cases/thresholds)

moral constraints

things that cannot be done even if doing them would promote the most good (it would be wrong to do them)

James Rachels, "Does Morality Depend on Religion?" (4.2) Divine Command Theory

-God decides what is right or wrong -is conduct right because God command it or does God command it because it is right? -difficulties -this conception of morality is mysterious -this conception of morality makes God's commandments arbitrary -this conception of morality provides the wrong reasons for moral principles

principle of harm

- The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. - invented by Mill

perfect duties (Kant)

- a perfect duty to do A means that you must do A to the fullest extent possible - often negative duties - can generally be fully discharged - ex. perfect duty not to make false promises

social contract theories

- a persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live

imperfect duties (Kant)

- an imperfect duty to do A→ you must sometimes do A to some extent - ex. imperfect duty to assist those in need

negative duties

- duty not to harm/interfere with another being - dischargeable (easy to fulfill)

postive duties

- duty to help/give something - not fully dischargeable (more difficult to fulfill)

virtue ethics

- focus on the development of the moral agent over a whole lifetimes - emphasizes an individual's character as the key element of ethical thinking - the right action is the action that would be taken by the virtuous agent

deontology (non-consequentialism)

- focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves - what is right is good (doing good is performing the right action) - recognizes constraints of the pursuits of good states of affairs

scope

- how far obligations extend - who/what is covered by them

utilitarianism (consequentialism)

- morality is about producing the right consequences - the only effects of actions that are relevant are the good and bad results that they produce - goal is to maximize overall utility

egoism

- morality is concerned with the individual - there are no duties to others, only to ourselves - the promotion of one's own good is in accordance with morality

natural law theory

- morality is grounded in human nature - the right thing to do is what fulfills our nature

negative rights

- right not to be interfered with - natural right

positive rights

- right to be helped/given something - obtained by prior agreement

republican liberty

- right to non-domination - to be a liber homo, a free man, means not being subject to another's arbitrary will, that is to say, dominated by another

divine command theory

- the rightness or wrongness of an action is whatever God says is right or wrong - the source of the moral is none other than God herself

James Rachels "Ethics of Virtue" (12.5) The Problem of Incompleteness

-1. RVE cannot explain everything it should--> why should one be dependable beyond the observation that it is a virtue? -attempts to explain why often lead to other theories -2. RVE cannot tell us whether virtues apply in difficult cases -ex. suppose I heard bad news that would upset you...what would be the kind thing to do? what you prefer--being told--conflicts with what would make you feel good--not being told -RVE do not tell us what one's best interests are -3. RVE cannot help us deal with cases of moral conflict ex. suppose I get a horrible haircut and ask you how it looks--> honesty and kindness are both virtues but RVE does not help you chose what to do

James Rachels, "The Social Contract Theory" (6.5) Difficulties for the Theory

-1. The SCT is based on historical fiction: we are asked to imagine that people once lived in isolation and eventually banded together and agreed to follow social rules of mutual benefit -bound by an implicit social contract, we agree by reaping benefits of the contract -2. Some individuals cannot benefit us and we therefore (according to the SCT) may ignore their interests (ex. nonhuman animals, future generations, oppressed groups)

James Rachels "Are There Absolute Moral Rules?" (9.3) Kant's Arguments on Lying

-1. categorical imperative--> we could not will such a universal law that allows us to lie because such a law would be self-defeating (bc people would stop believing each other) -2. even if one believes that lying will yield the best result they are accountable for any consequence (however unintentional) brought about by lying

James Rachels "Ethics of Virtue" (12.3) Two Advantages of Virtue Ethics

-1. it provides a natural and attractive account of moral motivation -theories that focus on right action cannot provide a full account of the moral life...for that we need a theory that emphasizes personal qualities (ex. love, friendship, loyalty) -2. it doubts impartiality -should we be impartial where the interests of friends and family are concerned? -virtue ethics accounts for this--> some virtues are partial (loyalty) and other are not (beneficence)

James Rachels, "The Social Contract Theory" (6.3) Some Advantages of the Social Contract Theory

-1. morally binding rules are the ones that facilitate harmonious social living -justified by their tendency to promote harmony -does not condemn prostitution/gay sex bc they are private matters -2. we follow rules because we want others to follow them as well -3. when someone breaks the rules, he releases us from our obligations towards him (ex. if you break the law you can be punished) -4. morality consists in the rules that rational people will accept on the condition that other accept them as well (there is natural limit to the amount of self-sacrifice that the social contract can require)

Moderate non-consequentialism Shelly Kagan "Doing Harm"

-An effort to fix consequentialism so that it allows for absolute moral constraints. -There is only one absolute moral constraint and that is doing harm (classic deontologists) -Allowing vs doing harm, distinction matters do deontologists but not consequentialist -doing harm to one person is morrally worse than allowing five to die (deontological) -The new deontological constraint should be against intending harm -any limit a moderate sets for permissibility of an act is equally arbitrary as being an absolute deontologist, but she concludes with moderate as the way to most commonly have the best outcome

James Rachels "The debate over utilitarianism"

-Classical utilitarianism (Bentham, Mill, Sidgwick): consequences determine morality, consequences are measured in happiness they bring about, all individuals must be equally considered -Hedonism: pleasure is all that matters. Answer: we value other things than pleasure -Critique of consequentialism of uti: neglects justice and rights (riot in the south analogy). You can trample the individual for greater good. -Demandingness objection: if you are a true utilitarian you become a servant for others. You cannot have personal projects when someone is worse off -Utilitarianism requires you to abandon personal relationships (John Cottingham)

Liberalism and multiculturalism Brian Barry "Liberalism and Multiculturalism"

-Core of liberalism is idea of equal citizenship -In a free multicultural society, the principle of equal consideration is guaranteed unequal impact. Diversity extends to interest. -Key message: You cannot complain about the consequences of choices you have made yourself. -Does not really protect illiberal subcultures because it is harder to be a part of one when there are no special rights for them. -Values the principle of self-determination and to what extend it is available to all members of to that subculture to consider it's validity

Harm principle JS Mill "On liberty"

-Democracy is subject to tyranny, and importantly is tyranny of majority. Through government but also informal pressures -to avoid tyranny the government the government must separate between morality and politics. The state does not need to promote the morally good (libertarianism) -Principle: you can only infringe on someone's liberty to protect yourself -To encourage creativity: experiments in living. -basic idea is that people do not like to be told what to do, and by doing so we are effectively killing the opportunities they would discover for themselves if non-interfered with

James Rachels "The utilitarian approach "

-Early thinkers: Bentham and JS Mill (1861). Morality is no longer about pleasing god, but bring about the most wellbeing. -Euthanasia: In conflict with Christian morality. Utilitarian would say that if killing a terminally ill person would help the overall well-being than it is permissible and should be ok. -Weed should be ok. Less crime and it is pleasurable. -Non-human animals: "the question is not can they reason? Can they talk? But, can they suffer?" Bentham

Feminism and multiculturalism Susan Moller Okin "Is Multiculturalism bad for women?"

-Essential question: Can a liberal society accept illiberal subcultures? -culture has traditionally taken a larger role in women's lives. Aims to control women "Culture is synonmous with opression of women" -Conflict with liberalism as a core tennent of liberalism is equality. Patriarchal subcultures do not guarantee this right -Argument for: Self respect and identity is core to culture. -Okin: If a culture is providing self-respect, then it must contain some form of equality. Ends in a convoluted liberal universalism.

Jeremy Waldron "A rights based critique of Constitutional Rights"

-First Thesis→believing in moral rights doesn't require supporting the constitutional guarantee of any of those rights -support -autonomy→makes us capable of self government→constitutions limit the power of the people to self-govern -Kant's case for rights -Second Thesis→there is no subset of moral truths so simple and obvious that it make sense to enshrine them, but not the rest of the moral truths, in a constitution -ex. free speech -not even truths about moral rights -Fourth Thesis→something of value is lost when decision that affect everyone are taken out of the hands of the people and put in the hands of judges -supposing democracy is merely instrumentally valuable -best laws will come from the amassed wisdom of the all people -all bc pluralism is valid -supposing democracy is non-instrumentally valuable -an affront to dignity as human beings -differences between judges interpreting and nullifying the law -First Objection→If the value of democracy is to be found in its distinctive procedure for resolving conflict, shouldn't at least the procedure be constitutionally enshrined? -response→If there is no constitution, then there are no rules by which to create a constitution -a constitution is only as good as the method used to enact it -Second Objection→Can't it make sense for a people to pre-commit itself? (taking a decision out of your hands to ensure that you will not err) -response→no way of knowing that one moment in time is the moment in which you're thinking clearly -Food for thought -Do Waldron's arguments have force not only against judicial review but also against constitutionalism? -Could Waldron have bolstered his argument by calling attention to how constitutions allow one generation to bind another?

Roger Crisp 'Hedonism reconsidered' and Hedonistic utilitarianism

-Hedonism is a focus on what brings about the most pleasure, what is ultimately good for any individual. The best life is the one with the greatest balance of enjoyment over suffering -Intrinsic and instrumental enjoyment -More pleasure is not necessarily rly better. Quality matters. -Internalist model of pleasure: enjoyable experiences are only those that feel good. -Philosophy of swine response: Either higher pleasures are more enjoyable or if they are for some other reason then Mill has abandoned hedonism Robert Nozick and the Experience machine: Is a life where you share the same well being better than a simulated one? -Paradox of hedonism: One gets more pleasure out of attempting to seek other goals than solely equality

Peter Singer, "Famine, Affluence, and Morality"

-If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it -charity is NOT supererogatory

Kantian ethics Derek Parfit "The golden rule"

-Kant: Supreme principle of morality, but cannot be universial law because it neglects duties to others (a judge is not wrong for sentencing a criminal) -GR2: Treat people as they rationally would want to be helped. -GR3: repeat 2 but if were in their position and similar (white hotel owner analogy) -GR5: repeat but in all of these positions and like them -Objections: Kant's consent principle (if everyone can rationally consent to an act then, they could also refuse to do so and that must be given equal weight). Seperateness of people (one can never truely understand other peoples situation"

James Rachels "The debate over utilitarianism" in defence of utilitarianism

-Often consequence are contested: riot case, utility is jot served by falsely incriminating an innocent man -principle of utility is guide to choosing rules not acts. Problem: allowing exceptions to RU defaults back into AU. -Common sense is usually wrong. Response: all consequences should matter. Utilitarianism is completely fine with peeping Toms

Paternalism Sarah Conley "Against autonomy"

-Paternalism: acting so as to cause someone to do something beneficial for herself. Coercive v. Libertarian -Thesis: Coercive paternalism is the way to go and should always be a possibility in moral cases -Everyone suffers from cognitive bias, so therefore no one is completely rational, meaning that the argument for soft paternalism and libertarianism falls short -Conley does not agree with Mill that people become more rational through advancement and acting rationally, biases will remain. -Conley takes issue with libertarian paternalism because it still interferes with liberty but is less effective -Does not believe in perfectionism, but focuses on that coercive paternalism allows the ability to set an end for the individual -Objections: assumes wrong about rationality and how it relates to policy for paternalism.

Future generations Derek Parfit "The non-identity problem"

-People not concieved within a month of eachother cannot possibly become the same person -You cannot harm someone who never existed (it implies that you can do whatever because the future people does not matter) -To solve that problem one must adjust the principle of beneficence into theory x (effects of policy of an action is bad if it is bad for people, but that will not be why it is bad)

Iris Young "Polity and groups> a criticism of universal citizenship" (affirmative action lady) equality of citizens

-Public v. Private thought: Republicans view the distinction as an obstacle to rationality though debate *universalism". Aggregationists do not accept this distinction due to human selfishness. Young agrees with neither but argues that disagreement is unavoidable with diversity of social groups (plurality). -Vehemently opposes universalism. Rejects universalism as generality (because universalism will lead to tyranny of majority, can only be achieved with group rights). Blindness of the law leads to unfair arrangements, to fix special rights is needed. -A just society is one where minority rights are elevated in order to avoid tyranny of the majority.

Peter Singer "All animals are equal"

-Speciesm, we do not extend the same level of equality to animals as we do ourselves -Equality does not always entail rights, but must follow equality of consideration. A pig do not need the right to vote. -Equality is a moral ideal, does not depend on capacity to understand situation -Every being effected by an action should be considered -Hedonistic outlook on moral equality. Sentience is what makes someone an equal. -Ex: experiments should be ok with using foetuses if they are ok with other animals. Eating meat are speciesim

James Rachels, "Ethical Egoism" (5.4) Three Arguments against Ethical Egoism

-That it Endorses Wickedness -if a paramedic gave a patient injections of sterile water instead of morphine so he could sell the morphine, then this would benefit him -That it is Logically Inconsistent -D and R example -That it is Unacceptably Arbitrary -tries to explain why the interests of others should matter to us -principle of equal treatment--> we should treat people in the same way unless there is a good reason not to -ethical egoism divides into groups (us and others) and says to value one above the other

Mary Ann Warren «on the moral and legal status of abortion»

-The violinsit case thomson poses is only valid in rape cases -a genetic human is not a moral human -6 criteria for personhood: sentience (conscious experience of pain), emotionality, reason, capacity to communicate, self-awareness, moral agency. Need not all of them need to be present, but none disqualifies personhood. -If you recognise that a foetus is a person, then the implication is that it must be treated as an equal. -no matter the potential person's right to life, actual person outweighs potential (space traveler analogy)

James Rachels "Ethics of Virtue" (12.4) Virtue and Conduct

-What can a theory about virtue tell us about right action? -1. it can be paired with Utilitarianism/Kantianism and supplement their prescriptions -2. it can act as an alternative to the other theories (Radical Virtue Ethics) -reasons for or against an action would always be connected with/explain using virtues -the right thing to do is whatever a virtuous person would do

Robert Nozick, "Distributive Justice" The Entitlement Theory

-a distribution is just if it arises from another just distribution by legitimate means -rectification of injustice in holdings -proper rectification may take the form of rough payments to classes of people whose members are worse off than they otherwise would be because of historical injustices—payments that would be funded by taxes upon classes of people whose members are better off than they otherwise would be because of those historical injustices -the holdings of a person are just if he is entitled to them by justice in acquisition and transfer or by the principle of rectification of injustice

James Rachels, "The Social Contract Theory" (6.4) The Problem of Civil Disobedience

-according to the social contract theory, we are obligated to obey the law because we each participate in a social system that promises more benefits than burdens -when the disadvantaged are denied the benefits of social living, they are released from the contract that would require them to follow society's rules

Kimberly K. Smith, "Governing Animals" The Limits of Criminal Law

-charge of animal cruelty as a common way to establish minority group as barbaric -tradition of animalization of black people -harsher sentences for animal abuse would likely fall the hardest on low income minority communities bc said communities are heavily policed and people are less likely to have lawyers -association of manliness with ritualized violence

James Rachels, "The Social Contract Theory" (6.2) The Prisoner's Dilemma

-confession dilemma (pg. 86) -if you're selfish while others are benevolent , you get benefit without having to return favor -if everyone is benevolent you lose advantage that comes from ignoring others interests but would be treated well by others -if everyone is selfish you would try to protect your own interests without much help from others -if you're benevolent and everyone else is selfish then you would come out on the short end every time

Kimberly K. Smith, "Governing Animals" Animal Sacrifice and Liberal Toleration

-conflict relating to animal sacrifice--> infringes upon freedom of religion -argued that sacrifice (when done correctly) is humane--> are not looking for an exemption from laws but asking that laws be drafted to avoid prohibiting practices that are (in their view) consistent with the general moral norm of avoiding cruelty to animals -sacrifice is culturally important to Santeria as it differentiates the religion from Catholicism

Robert Nozick, "Distributive Justice" Historical Principles and End-Result Principles

-current time-slice principles of justice -justice of distribution is determined by how things are distributed as judged by some structural principles -all that matters when judging justice of distribution is who ends up with what -any two structurally identical distributions are equal just (i have 10, you have 5 is equal to you have 10, i have 5) -unhistorical principles of distributive justice (current time-slice principles)--> end result principles -historical principles--> past action/circumstance of people can created differential entitlements or differential deserts to things

Rosalind Hursthouse, "Normative Virtue Ethics"

-defends virtue ethics as a normative theory -1. right action -VE are actor-centric -An action is right iff it is what a virtuous agent would characteristically (i.e. acting in character) do in the circumstances. -A virtuous agent is one who acts virtuously, that is, one who has and exercises the virtues -virtues are a,b,c, etc. -virtuous individuals can guide imperfect actors to make the correct decision -2. the conflict problem -'conflict' is merely apparent, or prima facie...a proponent of virtue ethics employs the same strategy: according to her, many of the conflicts result from a misapplication -3. Conclusion -defending the existence of normative virtue ethics I have not attempted to argue that it can 'tell us what we should do' in such a way that the difficult business of acting well is made easy for us - in some cases, moral wisdom is required if the v‐rules are to be applied correctly and apparent dilemmas thereby resolved

James Rachels, "Ethical Egoism" (5.3) Arguments for Ethical Egoism

-does not tell you to avoid helping others (sometimes interests will coincide) -does not imply that you should always do what you want to/what offers you the most short term pleasure -Altruism is Self-Defeating -everyone aware of their own wants/needs and is in the best position to pursue them, people misunderstand the wants/needs of others imperfectly and will do more harm than good -looking out for others in an intrusion of privacy -making other people the object of charity is degrading -Ayn Rand's Argument -altruism is a denial of the value of the individual -Ethical Egoism as Compatible with Commonsense Morality -the duty not to harm others--> if we do not harm others they will not harm us--> in our best interest not to harm

James Rachels "Are There Absolute Moral Rules?" (9.2) The Categorical Imperative

-hypothetic imperatives (Kant)--> tell use what to do provided that we have the relevant desires -categorical imperatives (Kant)--> act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law

libertarian paternalism

-idea that it is both possible and legitimate for private and public institutions to affect behavior while also respecting freedom of choice -if you don't like the suggestion of behavior then you don't have to follow it

James Rachels "Are There Absolute Moral Rules?" (9.5) Kant's Insight

-if you accept any considerations as reasons in one case, then you must accept them as reasons in other cases as well -moral reasons (if valid) are binding on all people at all times -a person cannot regard herself as special from a moral point of view, she is not permitted to act in ways that are forbidden to others

Liam Murphy and Thomas Nagel, "The Myth of Ownership" Chapter 2 §VII

-it is logically impossible that people should have any kind of entitlement to all their pretax income -some of the other factors contributing to economic success are not the responsibility of an individual and therefore can be said to have produced advantages that are not deserved -everyday libertarianism-->unexamined and generally non‐ explicit assumption that does not bear examination and should be replaced by the conception of property rights as depending on the legal system that defines them -Since that system includes taxes as an absolutely essential part, the idea of a prima facie property right in one's pretax income—an income that could not exist without a tax‐supported government—is meaningless

James Rachels, "Does Morality Depend on Religion?" (4.4) Religion and Particular Moral Issues

-it is often difficult to find specific moral guidance in the Scriptures -people's moral views do not come from their religion but rather from their own opinions supported by manipulations of scripture/church tradition

Kimberly K. Smith, "Governing Animals" Protecting the Vulnerable

-link between domestic abuse and animal abuse -emphasis should be on protecting the vulnerable/helping them flourish not on prohibiting mistreatment -by supporting strong communities, animal-friendly workplaces, and more functional families, a culture that supports animal companionship can be created -the liberal state's coercive powers can play only a limited role in moving us toward a better, more fully realized animal welfare state

James Rachels, "The Social Contract Theory" (6.1) Hobbes Argument

-morality is a solution to the practical problem that arises for self-interested human beings -morality consists in the set of rules, governing behavior, that rational people will accept, on the condition that others accept them as well

Kant intro to political philosophy

-patriotic government: only way to ensure rights and secure a benevolent ruler. -negative and positive rights -The social contract is the foundation of government -principle of external freedom, equality and autonomy -Through reason the people will arrive at a universal conception of morality -Natural rights as a matter of ideal. Political rights as a matter of reality

liberalism

-people should be free to do what they want to do -equality

Brad Hooker, "The Demandingness Objection"

-the demandingness objection--> in order for a moral theory to be justified to us, it must cohere with moral convictions we have after careful consideration (ex. some moral theories are accused of being too demanding (objection to impartial maximizing act consequentialism) -objection to act consequentialism--> intuitively seems that morality doesn't demand making contributions constantly for the sake of aggregate welfare impartially assessed -if one is required to do whatever if favored by impartial utilitarian calculation, then where is the room in our lives fo individual projects, commitments, and concerns? -it is demanding to figure out which particular act was the greatest expected value -impartial act-consequentialism unreasonably requires you to sacrifice your good for the sake of others even when said benefit is negligible -act-utilitarianism requires the one person in a position to help others to do so whenever the benefit to others would be greater--> enormous sacrifice

James Rachels "Ethics of Virtue" (12.1) The Ethics of Virtue and the Ethics of Right Action

-the possession of virtues makes someone a good person -replaced by Moral Law (ex. Ethical Egoism, SCT, Kant's Theory)

Julia Annas, "Virtue Ethics and the Charge of Egoism" slide II

-the truly virtuous person will not explicitly think about performing a virtuous action--> will act in habit or respond to situation -however, the beginner will have explicit thoughts about virtue as they need to taught -conclusion: it is not egoistic

James Rachels, "Does Morality Depend on Religion?" (4.3) Theory of Natural Law

-the world has a rational order -the laws of nature describe not only how things are but also how they ought to be -moral rules are derived from the laws of nature (ex. gay sex is morally wrong because the natural purpose of sex is procreation) -difficulties -what's natural can be bad (ex. people are inherently selfish) -is and ought are logically different notions -conflicts with modern science

James Rachels "Ethics of Virtue" (12.2) The Virtues

-virtue--> a commendable trait of character manifested in HABITUAL action (ex. benevolence, civility, prudence) -moral virtue--> a trait of character, manifested in habitual action, that it is good for anyone to have -virtues are important because the virtuous person will fare better in life -certain virtues will be need by all people in all times

Julia Annas, "Virtue Ethics and the Charge of Egoism"

-virtues contribute to eudaimonia (flourishing/happiness)--> contribute to final end of the individual -however, the exercise of virtues need not benefit the individual or contribute to eudaimonia -if the reason for having virtues is to contribute to eudaimonia then virtue ethics will make the wrong recommendations -virtues cannot be switched off when the interests of the individual are not at stake -if someone is acting virtuously in order to benefit their interests they cannot have the right ethical motivation -then it would not be virtuous and does not apply

Quentin Skinner "A Third Concept of Liberty"

First, republican freedom does not consist in the activity of virtuous political participation; rather, that participation is seen as instrumentally related to freedom as non-domination. Secondly, the republican concept of freedom cannot lead to anything like the oppressive consequences feared by Berlin, because it has a commitment to non-domination and to liberal-democratic institutions already built into it. Republics need a constitution to ensure that there is no interference resolves the idea that one may have negative liberty in a dictatorship, as there is still the conscience knowledge of possible domination

Julia Annas, "Virtue Ethics and the Charge of Egoism" Thomas Hurka

Hurka 1. VE is committed to accepting that it has an egoistic end (in which case it is not a satisfactory ethical theory) -if this is true then aiming at ones own flourishing is acting and living virtuously 2. if VE is not committed to accepting that it has an egoistic end then it is committed to being a two level theory (the person is both the arch-angel (manipulating other part into acting with consequentialist effects) and the prole (the one being manipulated) -if one aim at living a good life, one is aiming at being just and generous and thus focusing on others rather than oneself

principle of sanctity of life

implied protection regarding aspects of sentient life which are said to be holy, sacred, or otherwise of such value that they are not to be violated

paternalism

acting so as to cause someone to do something beneficial for themselves

coercive paternalism

forcing someone to do something for their own benefit

negative liberty

freedom from interference by other people

multiculturalism

minority cultures should have special rights that will allow them to be equal with all other cultures

principle of equal consideration

one should both include all affected interests when calculating the rightness of an action and weigh those interests equally

hard paternalism

paternalism of someone who is in full possession of their faculties and full relevant information

soft paternalism

paternalism of someone who lacks either full faculties or full relevant information (ex. child, adult suffering from mental deficit)

Cass Sunstein

respect for private preferences, rather than collective deliberation about public values or the good life, does seem to be a distinguishing feature of American constitutionalism since people were such bad decision makers we should nudge them in the direction of their own desired goals by orchestrating their choices so that they are more likely to do what achieves their ends Endogenous Preferences. By this term I mean to indicate that preferences are not fixed and stable, but are instead adaptive to a wide range of factors-including the context in which the preference is expressed, the existing legal rules, past consumption choices, and culture in general. The phenomenon of endogenous preferences casts doubt on the notion that a democratic government ought to respect private desires and beliefs in all or almost all contexts SUBJECTIVE WELFARISM should attend exclusively to conceptions of welfare a subjectively held by its citizens This is wrong because existing laws help set peoples preferences true welfarism (tied to utilitarianism) insists that welfare and preference satisfaction are entirely different things government should set legislation that can better its population Interpersonal collective action problems tv should be regulated to open fair and equal debate

stringency

strictness of obligation

social contract theory

the foundation/legitimacy of government is based on a social contract between citizens

positive liberty

the freedom to live one's life in accordance with own genuine, true self

constitutionalism

the idea that government can and should be legally limited in its powers, and that its authority or legitimacy depends on its observing these limitations

Isiah Berlin "Two Concepts of Liberty"

two types of liberty 1. Negative, classic type, from Mill You are free from interference 2. Positive, Hegel, You are free to, you are free to be ur own master Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows--> some peoples liberty must be curbed to free everyone else increase in other things, like economic equality can come at the hands of liberty, regardless of whether it is good it is still a net loss of liberty negative liberty can exist with tyrant positive liberty more tied to democracy However, if like Hegel we believe that our true self is our rational self, then everyone who is rational can exist due to their rationally determined purpose, similarly those who aren't rational should be made rational thus limiting their liberty not connected to their rational higher self, also if a rational ruler makes a rational law it should automatically be accepted by all those who are rational thus a rational dictator can be resolved with positive liberty Berlin rejects this on the concept of values pluralism pluralism best entails negative liberty and is safer as values monoism tho appealing has bad consequences paternalism is at odds with both negative and positive liberty