Phil Exam 3
What are Rawls's Two Principles of Justice? Related to the Second Principle, what are the Opportunity and Difference Principle? Which of his principles have priority over the others?
-1)Liberty Principle: Each person is to have an equal right to basic liberties -2)Social end economic inequalities satisfy two conditions: A) are to be attached to offices/positions open to all (opportunity principle) and B) are to be the greatest benefit of the least advantaged (difference principle) -The 1st principle has priority over the second one.
What is Nozick's "entitlement theory" of justice? What are Nozick's three principles of justice in holdings?
-A distribution of wealth obtained in a society as a whole is just distribution if everyone in that society is entitled to what he has. 1. Acquisition: the appropriation of natural resources that no one has ever owned before. 2. Transfer: governing the manner in which one might justly come to own something previously owned by another. 3. Rectification: governing the proper means of setting right past injustices in acquisition and transfer.
How do Nozick and Kant view the value of human beings? Why would slavery be morally wrong?
-A person owns their body. A person has a right to property: right to my body's labor. Right to the things i mix my labor with. I own my body, talents and fruits of my labor, this is why slavery is wrong.
What happened during the 1842 lifeboat dilemma? Would Kant support the captain's decision?
-A ship stuck an iceberg, 30 survivors, lifeboat can only hold 7. The weakest need to be sacrificed. They saved only the strongest 7. The survivors were rescued. Kant argues that the captain did wrong. He should not have sacrificed some, for the sake of the others. So kant is not a utilitarian. He respects the dignity of human beings, we recognize the unconditional worth of every rational being.
How is Kant an absolutist? Should we ever make exceptions of ourselves? To whom do moral laws apply?
-Absolutism: a moral system that applies to everyone, Kant is an absolutist with respect to lying. It is never permissible to lie. -The moral rules apply to everyone even ourselves -There are NO exceptions, all equal.
What is Aristotle's principle of distributive justice? What conception of justice does Rawls support?
-Aristotle: Treat equals equally, treat unequals unequally -Rawls: Justice as fairness, liberal conception of justice
Why would higher salaries for doctors or subsidies to farmers be justified in Rawls's view when not everyone is given the same high salary or given extra monetary help?
-Because the doctors and farmers are helping to benefit the whole society by providing goods to everyone.
How are categorical imperatives distinguished from hypothetical imperatives? Kant states the only good without qualification is the "good will." What does he mean by this?
-Categorical Imperatives are obligated to everyone no matter the circumstances or consequences. It is universal to all persons and unconditional. Hypothetical imperatives only obligate to ones who wish for the particular goal. They are relative to each person and conditional. It means that we do good for the right intentions (rationality)
What does the prefix "deon" mean? How is Kant's ethics deontological? How does Kant's ethics differ from utilitarianism?
-Deon means duty/obligation -Kant's ethics are deontological because they are about doing one's duty, having a duty to follow rules, etc. Doing one's duty, or having a good will, is what matters -His ethics claims that the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences. Utilitarianism decides whether an action is right or wrong only by looking at consequences of the action.
For an egalitarian, what would a just distribution of goods look like? How would a utilitarian differ? Does Rawls agree with either view about how to allocate primary goods in society?
-For an egalitarian, everyone would get an equal amount of goods. A utilitarian would give unequal goods to benefit the people who need it most. Rawls argues that social goods should be equally divided unless inequality benefits all, especially the worst off.
What is the role of the government according to Nozick? When is the government allowed to use force on its citizens?
-Government should be minimalist state. -Government's role to protect from force, fraud and theft, to administer courts of law.
Does Mill think we ought to respect or care for animals? Would animal abuse be wrong? If so, how?
-John Mill was animal friendly. He doesn't agree with animal testing because it brings pain and reduces pleasure. Kant thinks animal testing is okay.
When it comes to helping out the least advantaged in society, how would the liberal versus libertarian conceptions of justice respond?
-Liberals would say that we need to help everyone, and libertarian would say that people are entitled to what they earn and have
For Kant, how are we able to discover the moral rules? Do we need religion to determine what is right or wrong?
-Morality is based on Reason; humans can discover the moral rule by use of reason. -Do NOT need religion to determine what is right/wrong, in fact religion and morality should be kept apart
What are John Rawls's negative and positive theses, i.e. the two guiding ideas of Justice as Fairness?
-Negative Thesis: No one deserves to be born, no one deserves rich/poor, more/less gifted, male/female, minority group. No special entitlement to social goods. -Positive These: equality-based reciprocity. Citizens fundamentally equal. Social goods should be equally divided UNLESS inequality benefits all, especially worst-off.
If the enslavement of a minority group could lead to a much more prosperous nation, would it be morally permissible to allow for slavery? Why or why not?
-No because the First Principle (liberty principle: each person has equal right to basic liberties) has highest priority (over other principles that state greatest benefit)
Is it morally permissible to lie in order to save another person's life? Why is lying in conflict with other people's autonomy?
-No you should never lie -Lying is in conflict because it breaks the moral law
How does Nozick view the right to property? Is taxation or welfare programs morally legitimate?
-Nozick states that people have a right to property. Taxation and welfare programs are not legitimate. Taxation treats taxpayers like slaves. Redistribution of wealth is illegitimate
In terms of the slice of cake analogy, what would be the fair way to divide the cake in Nozick's view? What would a strict egalitarian say? How would Rawls respond?
-Nozick would say that people have a right to the cake if they made it and they have a right to sell it for money, an egalitarian would say to split it equally, Rawls would say use the veil of ignorance to get the slice of cake
In what sense is Nozick's theory historical? Why does Nozick think that others such as Rawls, egalitarians, or utilitarians present ahistorical end-state theories?
-Nozick's theory is historical because he doesn't just look at end state, he looks at background such as who made the cake. The others only look at end state.
How does Kant view the moral worth of persons as opposed to things/animals? How is a person different from a coffee mug?
-People are autonomous (self-ruling), we are our own masters. Rational persons are masters of their lives, slavery is wrong because humans have dignity and shouldn't be bought/sold -Humans are end in ourselves, not mere objects that exist to be used by others -Animals aren't rational beings, no price, may be bought/sold Animals have conditional worth. Humans are value givers.
What is the difference between perfect duties (necessary) versus imperfect (contingent, meritorious) duties for Kant? Which of his four examples are perfect and which imperfect duties?
-Perfect duties include duties not to commit suicide and not break promises. Imperfect duties include duties not to waste talent and not to refuse help. Perfect duties you must always follow. Imperfect duties are more flexible to interpretation.
What assumptions does Rawls make regarding the state of the world and human nature? What does Rawls think about reasonable pluralism?
-State of Moderate Scarcity: Limits to what you can have. Enough to survive comfortably given social cooperation, not extreme scarcity or state of war. -Natural and Social Lottery: Status at birth is matter of luck, accidental, undeserved, morally arbitrary. No one entitled. -Human Nature: o -Ppl have different world views and conceptions of the good. o Ppl want more primary goods: liberties, power, wealth, respect o Ppl are Risk-Averse o General facts about human life
What is Rawls's Maximin Strategy? How does Rawls justify taxing the wealthy in order to provide governmental assistance to the poor (e.g. welfare, food stamps, public education, etc.?
-The maximin strategy says to choose the option which has the best worst case scenario. Pick the highest floor or the minimum. Rawls says taxing is like slavery.
What is the original position? What are the people in the original position supposed to accomplish? How are the people in the original position described?
-The original position is a hypothetical situation where free and equal citizens under the veil of ignorance decide on the basic structure of government. Government by social contract. Rawls thinks that the people should be autonomous and self-legislating.
What is Kant's 1st formulation of the Categorical Imperative (universalizability principle)? How do his four examples fail under the 1st formulation of CI? What is a maxim?
-The universalizability principle: "act only according to that maxim which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction." -Formula of Universal Law (what moral code everyone should follow) A general criterion or test that determines which moral principles are correct. -Contradiction (breaking promises): how can you "promise" something when "promises" would no longer exist? -Contradiction (wasting your talents) : One's rational nature seeks to develop gifts. Contradicts one's willing to waste one's gifts. -Contradiction: (failing to help others) Can you will that everyone not help anyone when some day you may want or need help from others? -Maxim is just a rule that guides your action. What's the general rule that stands behind a particular action?
In what sense does Nozick agree with Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative?
-Treat humanity always as an end and never merely as a means. Respect individual rights. People have rights, it is unjust to use a person as a thing or object for the good of others.
What can a person know and not know under the veil of ignorance? What is the purpose of the veil?
-Under the veil of ignorance, a person can know nothing. They are ignorant of their personal characteristics, interests, and circumstances. Don't know your occupation, interests, family, political or economic situation, gender, intelligence, social class, age, disabilities, religion, race, preferences, hobbies, etc, -purpose- embodies reasonable conditions, within which the parties can make a rational agreement.
According to Kant's 2nd formulation, are you ever allowed to use a person as a means to your end? If so, under what conditions? What is the difference between ends-in-themselves and mere means?
-Using one another can be okay, we do it all the time. It is perfectly fine as long as we use one another in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Need to respect as rational, autonomous beings. (WRONG to manipulate) 1) Obtain informed consent 2) Offer information ( no deception) 3) Seek Permission ( no coercion) 4) Be aware of their goals and their ends 5) Promote rationality and autonomy (people are autonomous self-ruling, law making, we are our own masters)
Would prostitution violate the 2nd Formulation of the Categorical Imperative?
-Violates because prostitute is using herself as a means, a means to sell her body -Does not promote rationality and autonomy
What is Kant's 2nd formulation of the Categorical Imperative (respect for persons or the formula of humanity)? Should I be lazy and waste my talents in Kant's view? Should I make a lying promise? Why or why not?
-We respect persons: we should act in such a way that we treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means. We should treat people as if they are intrinsically valuable. Unconditional worth. Not for our own benefit or happiness. -Kant says that would be morally wrong because you are not respecting yourself, you're wasting your potential and natural gift. You are supposed to treat humanity as an end and not just a means. You should value who you are -No, maxim does not pass second CI. breaking promises is wrong because when you break a promise the other person has not consented to be treated this way. When you make a promise and then break it it is as if you are only using the other person to obtain your goals. You want the money so you lie to them. It is just for a means to your end. Kant thinks this is wrong. We should treat all humans with dignity. -Respect Persons
What happens in the Wilt Chamberlain story and what point is Nozick trying to make?
-Wilt makes a profit off of price of admissions and he is entitled to the earning. No injustice because money paid voluntarily.
Is Kant an egalitarian with respect to human value? What gives humans intrinsic worth? Is it ever morally justified to sacrifice some persons for the sake of making the majority happy?
-Yes, Kant was an egalitarian when it came to human value. He believes humans are equal in worth. -Intrinsic worth, worth given if rational beings. Treat humans at the same time as an end, never just as a means -Wrong to sacrifice some people for the sake of others because it is using them as means to some end. Human being CAN'T be sacrificed, even if it's for greater good. Can't sacrifice one twin for sake of the other.
Why should we help other people, according to Kant? What should motivate us if our actions are to be morally worthy? Are sympathy and love good motives?
-Yes, we should help people. We should be motivated by the sake of principle to do the right things. We should be motivated if our actions are morally worthy out of respect for moral law and from desire to do ones duty. No sympathy and love are not good motives.
What does Nozick think about Locke's view regarding our bodies and the fruits of our labor?
-he agrees with him. Our property is totally an extension of ourselves. We have a RIGHT to do what we want with our body and our property. I own my body, talents and fruits of my labor.
Which of the three principles would permit or forbid the following: a) paying the pizza delivery guy, b) giving Native American tribes a billion dollars, c) federally funded low-income housing, d) inheriting a million dollars from your parents?
a. Permitted by justice in transfer b. Permitted by justice in rectification c. d. principle 2: Justice in rectification