Class Notes (994,925)
CA (574,191)
U of A (15,605)
PHIL (164)
PHIL101 (44)
Lecture

PHIL101 Lecture Notes - Wilt Chamberlain, Robert Nozick, Night-Watchman State

9 Pages
98 Views
Fall 2012

Department
Philosophy at St Joseph's College
Course Code
PHIL101
Professor
Mike Lockhart

This preview shows pages 1-2 and half of page 3. Sign up to view the full 9 pages of the document.

Loved by over 2.2 million students

Over 90% improved by at least one letter grade.

Leah — University of Toronto

OneClass has been such a huge help in my studies at UofT especially since I am a transfer student. OneClass is the study buddy I never had before and definitely gives me the extra push to get from a B to an A!

Leah — University of Toronto
Saarim — University of Michigan

Balancing social life With academics can be difficult, that is why I'm so glad that OneClass is out there where I can find the top notes for all of my classes. Now I can be the all-star student I want to be.

Saarim — University of Michigan
Jenna — University of Wisconsin

As a college student living on a college budget, I love how easy it is to earn gift cards just by submitting my notes.

Jenna — University of Wisconsin
Anne — University of California

OneClass has allowed me to catch up with my most difficult course! #lifesaver

Anne — University of California
Description
Political Philosophy Distributive Justice  Who should get what in society?  What distribution of goods is fair? Many questions dealing with just society deals with “who has what?” Two examples: 1. 2200 people in edmonton = homless, about 250 children. Unjust? 2. 1% American population very rich. Other 99% makes less than $500K/annually (wall street journal, oct. 2011) a. 99% includes the half million/yr income Many people view this as unjust  a just society wouldn’t have this  wealth = more evenly distributed Just or Unjust?  But why this this way? Why think it’s unjust that 1% of society makes $500K+ a year? o Most people have no reasons for view and just repeat it by saying “it’s wrong! It’s unjust!” o Feeling something is wrong, but don’t have much evidence for why they feel this way  Some think it’s just! o Whether think just/unjust, there must be assumptions going into it  Need evidence/theory to account for views o Otherwise, just opinion!! (like opinion on pizza toppings) o And if just opinion, no reason to talk about it seriously o Want more than have opinion, want to discuss why opinion = correct; need evidence/theory to support/reject our opinions Libertarianism: Overview  Nozick’s “Anarcchy, State, and Utopia” (1974) o w/e view is on justice, need to address Robert Nozick  Place strong emphasis on individual rights (esp. rights that should not be violated), esp. property rights (ex: ownership of one’s own body, etc.) o argue that just state = minimal state  in some cases, play minimal role in our lives… Important, but minimal o good gov’t leaves almost everything to free market o gov’t cant tax you to help other people; should be voluntary charity of individuals  View is entailed by non-controversial premises Nozick aims to take reader step-by-step to show that we accept these premises like he does And once acceptance is reached, what gov’t can/cannot be just follows naturally Background  Nozick: It’s wrong to see justice as a matter of ‘distribution’ o Wrong to think these things aren’t already owned o Not theory of pure distribution (because someone already owns it!)  What really happens is redistribution o Need to acknowledge how we can be justified in taking something from some people and giving it to other people Not just Instruments for other people’s end  Not play things o View similar to Kant  Coercive redistribution treats us as means, not ends  “society must respect our rights” reflect Kantian principle that individuals are ends and not merely means o Humans can certainly be used to help others, but as long as it’s consensual  Most important right = right to control ourselves o Right to liberty includes self-ownership o Starts with the right to control our own bodies = fundamental to everything else An Argument for Absolute Property Rights  Should be treated as ends in ourselves, not merely as means o But can consent to helping someone reach their goal, as long as it’s also our goal, etc.  Autonomy + dignity can be expressed as property right (right to self-ownership) o If own self = I own my talents o If I own self + talents = also own anything I produce  Except if produce things using other’s property = need have agreement in place o If take property from me (ex: I own wood and I carve a beaver out of it), esp. by force/coercion (without consent!!) = being used as means for someone else’s ends Example  You + brother live on isolated acreage o You’re diligent, raise beautiful crops, and have plenty of produce o Your brother smokes a lot of pot + lies in bed watching soap operas  If state steps in and distributes some of your crops and hands it to your brother = violation of your autonomy/ self-ownership o Because YOU have produced the crops with your own property (your talents/land) Justice v. Morality  Nozick distinguishes justice from morality  People tend to smush together these two things, which are meant to be kept quite separate o When people say “that’s not just!”, they most often mean “that’s not moral” o Be care not to confuse the two  Justice – how to go legitimately go about acquiring stuff, and the role the state plays in acquisition  Morality – how we should be treating others  we should all be moral (maybe that includes helping deadbeat brother either by giving food, or withholding food) o not job of government to force us to be moral people/ not their role to police us whether we lie or not, etc. o morality isn’t relationship b/w us + gov’t  relationship we have with each other  unless it has something to do with acquiring goods (fraud, theft)  ex: if contract between you + carpenter and he lied about how good he is  THEN gov’t can step in Given this distinction… Nozick says it’s hard to justify any state at all So long as people freely exchange goods they have legitimately acquired  outcome of exchange = just “whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just” – Nozick Why would any rational person let state redistribute things that one has acquired legitimately? Nozick’s Theory of Justice in Holdings  going to refer to rules, without rules being given  shows how we can legitimately come to own something, and how things we own can be legitimately transferred  formal account: sketching principles we need, without giving them content o Principle of Justice in Acquisition  need set of rules where we can acquire something justly o Principle of Justice in Transfer  Defines very clearly how we can transfer goods in just way  Primarily by exchanging goods/services o Principle of Rectification of past injustice  Need these three principles in order for just society Justice Justice about legitimate
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1-2 and half of page 3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

You've reached the limit of 4 previews this month

Create an account for unlimited previews.

Already have an account?

Log In


OR

Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit