Study Guides (248,116)
United States (123,277)
Boston College (3,492)
Philosophy (239)
PHIL 1160 (2)
Final

Study Guide Final.docx

17 Pages
86 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Philosophy
Course
PHIL 1160
Professor
Matthew Mulane
Semester
Spring

Description
Justice from Aristotle • General justice founded in the common good • Triangle: legal justice, distributive justice, commutative/retributive justice • Legal: obeying laws contributes to CG, just persons are law abiding • Distributive: citizens have claim on CG, cannot be greedy, cannot be unfair, make take some burdens on, benefits are imminent • Commutative/Retributive: relationships between individuals, business/moral/legal, contracts are promises, mutual obligations, accidents/losses/injury, injury must be made whole, failure to fill responsibility • The Good:Action > habit > character > life= concern for others • Character builds/diminishes • Justice: give the other person their due with a constant and perpetual will • Natural Justice: human mind/rationality, what makes us capable of creating right laws? – We are naturally inclined to desire truth, but the why is untaught • Understanding is knowing, and we must know good- spontaneous • Plato/Aristotle- we ought not to punish but we must • Difference between punishment and cruelty • Rational Ends (purpose): 1) Retribution- injury deserves respite and to make it whole again; 2) For the safety of the community; 3) Deterrence; 4) Conversion- rational principle, right judgment measured against law; 5) rehabilitation- new habits; 6) reconciliation- offender and offended • Objective Theme: make oneself fit to live under the law • Observations: penal code- since the 1970s, closed public prisons and deinstitutionalized/privatized the prison system- created prison industrial complex • Prime mover: War on Drugs (Reagan) • 3 strike rule: go away for life- not rational nor reasonable Walzer, Rawls, maybe Isbister Communitarian v. Liberal difference John Rawls, “A Theory of Justice” • Utilitarian and libertarian- threat to the individual based in equality • Justice as fairness • Original position: certain conditions- can determine what is fair by eliminating external stimuli • No domination and no advantage • “Veil of ignorance” • no knowledge of position in future, of goal, life plans, others, privilege • Know: circumstances of justice- conflict will happen, cooperation is possible and beneficial, human nature- principles should be adhered to not arbitrary but rational • There is a mutual disinterest for others • Self interested way of being altruistic • Principles: 1) Liberty- equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with similar liberty for others; 2) social/economic inequality are to be arranged so a) it I reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage and b) but if not everyone then to they advantage of the least advantaged • Difference principle: (social disparities based on roles in society) accepted if it leads to overall better situation for society • Why is it supported? Self-interest, liberties defended • Rejects meritocracy as is it based in individual talents which one should not selfishly benefit from • The way things are does not determine the way they ought to be Isbister, Capitalism and Justice, Ch. 1, 2, 3, 6 • Distributive Justice: liberal= individual rights are the priority • Agrees mostly with Rawls • Prudent of allocation, not ideological • Triangle of Social Justice: equality, freedom, and efficiency • Justice- constant and perpetual wish to surrender to everyone their due • Social justice- 3 components often in conflict • Prudence- a mix of wants that varies dependent on the circumstances • Equality: • Moral worth based in DOI “all equal” • Of opportunity and resources (deserved) vs. of outcomes (not always deserved) • Unequal outcomes- arrive at/create unequal opportunity- must be remedied • Different compensation for different performance- Rawls is wrong on difference principle-we should receive the benefits because we earn them from moral actions based in individual will • Opportunity- no discrimination, must have fair rules, and same start, same basket of resources • Liberty/freedom: • Freedom to vs. freedom from- rights and exercises vs. hunger home poverty • Maximization is complementary- mutually conditioned, each necessary for full freedom • Efficiency: • Best utilization of resources • Hard work reaps larger benefit nd • 2 corollary (benefit the least advantaged) unnecessary • Kantian- we are all moral being having an obligation to social justice • Inefficiency in paying for natural ability beyond what encourages one to work economic injustice • Just rates of compensation- different rates for different work/performance, unequal wages are justified if the inequality persuades people to pursue further training rather than enter the work force • Marking status by pay • 600:1- should be 8:1 • Median 50k, average 90k, healthcare 12k (household) • Must unite median and average Walzer “Spheres of Justice” • Communitarian distributive justice • Insight: men and women make communities for sake of security and welfare • All goods made are first intended meaning that the good is for community • Each good occupies certain sphere ought to be distributed related to means ex) political power in sphere- voting 1 person, 1 vote • Difference between communitarian and liberalism: • >>Liberalism- individual and state policy, Hobbes/Locke/Rousseau • >>Communitarian- individual and common good; not for community, common goods, sum of all necessary conditions (intellectual, moral, spiritual fulfillment) • -Social living- produces conditions for individuals to flourish, • -Share 1) particular goods- any need/want, 2) good of order- how to make conditions happen over and over again, 3) good of value- vital need and wellbeing- all compose the common good in civil society • Function of the good of order for socially imagined goods- historical, changes over time • Distribution autonomous according to social meaning • Difficulty of power- enemy of distributive justice • Power of dominance- possessing 1 good that gives influence in another sphere; monopoly- unchallenged dominance • Complex Equality- no one good can be converted across all social spheres, unjust; tension- between spheres, no dominating force, participatory democracy • Principle: no social good X should be distributed to people who possess Y because they possess Y and without regard to meaning of X • Ordinary methods of distribution- free exchange, cant be adjudicated by the market >>Rawls • Leaves out history, culture, memberships, citizenship • Exempts from natural relationships • Good breeds rights • Just distribution • Social goods- ought to be distributed for different reasons/ procedures/agents • Understanding of social goods and meanings • No single set of basic goods • Conceivable across all moral and material worlds0 culture differences • Meaning of goods determines their movement • All distribution is relative to meaning at stake • Evolution of social meaning Walzer “Membership” • Obligation to strangers, nature of the community is mutual aid society • Definition of a community- entered into for aid, not to be self-sufficient • Character of community- obligation to admit others when their need is community itself • Lacking membership and state • Naturalization- those already admitted, must be given an opportunity to become citizens, full members • Democracy= demands those within borders, subject to laws, must also have the opportunity to have full rights • General amnesty/path to citizenship • First thing we share with each other, every thing else follows • Stateless person desperate/infinite danger • Citizen has fundamental claim on security and welfare- part of commonwealth • We choose who’s in, immigration laws • State: neighborhood, club, family, bounded space for free association • Culture/group depends on closure • State is a club, depends on admissions committee, can freely leave • Nation vs. Country; moral vs. land • Both necessary • mutual aid- obligated to strangers, cannot exclude destitute, treat those admitted with moral obligations • refugee- fundamental need- community- best claim- take those we made refugees, persecuted for being like us, asylum seekers • anyone admitted must have an opportunity for full citizenship otherwise it contradicts principles against permanent disenfranchisement Isbister Ch 11 “Immigration” • How many should we admit, who has priority, and how should they be treated • 1-1.5 million a year • The state has no particular interest in uniting families • Claim of kinship as valid and useful • Liberal sees problem individualistically, and commutatarian sees it socially • Those who need asylum have a moral claim through common humanity • Solution- don’t give preference to extended family Catholic Social Teaching as in Hollenbach, ch 2,7,9. and compare with Farmer ch 8 and 9; Hollenbach Overview • Which comes first, rights or goods- communitarian- rights precede goods • Liberal values argued for- meaning altered • Tolerance- respect differences; Find identity in agreeing to disagree and commonalities • But language of tolerance doesn’t solve problems- dead end, leads to a lack of empathy Ch 3 “Recovering the Commonwealth” • Commonwealth of people associated in agreement (consensus) with respect to justice and a partnership for the common good • No government sufficient to unify a large group • Argue from within the liberal position • Government is part of society, but a moral conscience holds society together/commitment to the common good • Without that the government cant function • Tolerance is about we the people • Common good and good of people is the same – respect for persons; political and social dimensions • Concrete conditions that actually exists- common good, that are necessary to make all able to participate- conditions are there for us to become good- reciprocity after we are good • Common good is like language- acquired, expressed, argue, determinations, cooperation, context of language that we already share, not oppressive- but medium of expression and self determination- • Common good medium of life • Liberal wants the unencumbered self- total immunity from reciprocity • We are embedded in the common good no matter what • Tolerance includes us all in public participation of goods • Public life- human capacity for relationships > conditions for genuine friendship • Community produces friendship if there is a true common good • Authoritarian/totalitarian- lack of friendship • Deprivation of the common good is an evil • Tolerance and participation are moral norms- When followed they ensure the flourishing of the personality: key to human development • Contrast- tyranny, or retreat from public sphere (authoritarian) Chapter 7 “poverty, Justice, and the Good of the City” • Toleration- not negative immunity, but necessary virtue/good for inclusion • Geography • Gross inequity, oversight of raw factor interdependence • Not us and them- we • Attainable social mobility- not present • Social covenant- give people hope • Unequal interdependence- will deepen • Fundamental problem remove possibility of participation • Interdependence in solidarity • Intellectual conversion- face facts • Contributive, distributive- contribute to the common good, communtative between actors, all social justice • Exclusion- marginalization, no participation’ Paul Farmer Chapter 9 • Traditional cultures put up road blocks to technology • Development must be gradual • Sentiment preserves the inequality, conditions under which people suffer • 3 options for healthcare delivery • 1- Charity- meets immediate need without looking at the structures that led up to it, perpetuating list of patients • 2- Development- Structural violence- medical intervention is managing inequality • 3- Social justice - Social analysis- picture of the needs of people- medical, social, eco, political • 1 and 2 manipulation, domination • rejects cultural relativism when it is used as an excuse for suffering- cant ignore based on research principle in anthropology- masking problem • how does a proposed course of action affect those most marginalized • traditional ways the first world looks at healthcare, is failing to understand the concrete situation of the patient – preferential option for the poor because active principle • miss the point about inequality if we follow the bougeoise POV • solidarity with the poor- rejection of comfortable relativism • desire to make common cause with those in need- pragmatic- reflection and consideration • universities natural partners Chapter 8 • protocols have to follow the states, must have informed consent for modern medicine • first world research, some people are expendable for greater good • Physician and anthropologist • Catholic social teaching and liberation theology  • Pragmatic solidarity with the poor o Not for, but WITH o Have to be effective o In a social justice way • 3 basic models for Healthcare delivery: 1. Charity­ fulfills immediate need a. Not ideal b/c ignores social matrix in which these ppl are living 2. Development a. We have some understanding of need for infrastructure b. But traditional cultures tend to put up road blacks against swift development  (innovation) 3. Social Justice a. Need social analysis of place you want to bring healthcare to b. Need accurate pic of ppl, social, political, economic, medical needs c. If you are practicing medicine w/o social analysis, you are making problem  worse • Cultural relativism  d. Let the ‘other’ present themselves, without values of the researcher getting in  the way  e. Not everything is relative, there should be some kind of standard ( suffering  etc) • Preferential option for the poor f. In any analysis/policy…how does proposed course of action effect those most  marginalized/vulnerable  g. Will solve issues and better understand what’s going on on the ground • Liberation theology h. 1) Requires solidarity with poor; rejection of comfortable relativism i. 2) Those engaged have to support/be voice of poor when communication is  controlled by elite j. 3) Necessary to act on our findings in order to change the world • To solve issues, the movement itself would be better served by focusing on social and  economic issues, later go to political and civil rights (What HR groups are focusing  on) • 1) If we start w/ health, we will surely get to others • 2) If we start w/ rights attached to HC, we will be more aware of social suffering,  structural violence • 3) Natural partners for this movement should be UNIVERSITIES; w/ social space  and time to search for truth in these situations  Collins and McDonough: compare Walzer and McDonough on Health Care. McDonough “Catholic Social Teaching” • Natural law basis • Moral obligation in civil society • Social question- Pope was concerned about the relationship between the classes (owners and proletariat) pauperization of the proletariat in Europe • Without specific reference to theological belief- can enter the public sphere on equal footing with other perspectives about the social questions; argue in reason • Treating people as means and not ends • ‘Comodify’ persons • Obliterate social values • Confusion of wants and needs in the market • Special obligation to poor • What is the upside for treating healthcare as a commodity- fundamental issue- modern medicine: rise of antibiotics, vaccinations, mortality rates dropped, people are living longer- technological innovation • The good life now entails a long life- guaranteed by modern medicine- cultural shift • Acceptance the medical research is a social good • Good is public if consumption by one person doesn’t diminish consumption by another, nonexclusive, nonrival • No one can afford healthcare as a commodity • Some system of public and private insurance- England- only socialized healthcare, employed by the state • Public- covers basics, preventive medicine • Private- bought, covers various things • What is the role of suffering and death in human life- without appreciating suffering and death, the value of healthcare will become impossible to meet- medicine will keep us alive forever- death is preventable • Normative guideline for policy decision • ----CALLAHAN---- • In Talking about Callahan: is our desire for healthcare even achievable as a public good? Good of value • Good of order, particular goods (McDonough) • Postponement of death • Health: 2 definitions- WHO state of complete physical mental social wellbeing not just the absence of disease, Callahan- health as a functional norm or ideal; Healthy enough to perform tasks distinguished from optimal may be impossible to reach; • Put health in the context of the social good • Bodily, psych, social needs • Curative- restore bodily function, Caring needs- social/psych when curing cannot happen • Distribution according to meaning, pluralistic principles • Healthcare is not a right • Death as a biological fact, death as a moral evil –we will all die, no moral evil, must get rid of this sentiment • Backing medical research because we have that notion- if we can, we ought to • No obligation to research- not based in fact, medical research is only one kind of social good- may not be better than public education • Society has a sufficient level of health when so
More Less

Related notes for PHIL 1160

Log In


OR

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