Subtitles section Play video
-
When we finished last time,
-
we were looking at John Stuart Mill's
-
attempt to reply to the critics of Bentham's utilitarianism.
-
In his book utilitarianism, Mill tries to show that critics
-
to the contrary it is possible within the utilitarian framework
-
to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures.
-
It is possible to make qualitative distinctions of worth and we tested
-
that idea with the Simpsons and the Shakespeare excerpts.
-
And the results of our experiment seem to call into question
-
Mill's distinction because a great many of you reported that you prefer
-
the Simpsons but that you still consider Shakespeare to be
-
the higher or the worthier pleasure.
-
That's the dilemma with which our experiment confronts Mill.
-
What about Mill's attempt to account for the especially weighty character
-
of individual rights and justice in chapter five of utilitarianism.
-
He wants to say that individual rights are worthy of special respect.
-
In fact, he goes so far as to say that justice is
-
the most sacred part and the most incomparably binding part
-
of morality.
-
But the same challenge could be put to this part of Mill's defense.
-
Why is justice the chief part and the most binding part of our morality?
-
Well, he says because in the long run,
-
if we do justice and if we respect rights,
-
society as a whole will be better off in the long run.
-
Well, what about that?
-
What if we have a case where making an exception and
-
violating individual rights actually will make people better off
-
in the long run?
-
Is it all right then to use people?
-
And there is a further objection that could be raised
-
against Mill's case for justice and rights.
-
Suppose the utilitarian calculus in the long run
-
works out as he says it will such that respecting people's rights
-
is a way of making everybody better off in the long run.
-
Is that the right reason?
-
Is that the only reason to respect people?
-
If the doctor goes in and yanks the organs from
-
the healthy patient who came in for a checkup
-
to save five lives,
-
there would be adverse effects in the long run.
-
Eventually, people would learn about this and
-
would stop going in for checkups.
-
Is it the right reason?
-
Is the only reason that you as a doctor won't yank the organs
-
out of the healthy patient that you think, well,
-
if I use him in this way, in the long run more lives would be lost?
-
Or is there another reason having to do with intrinsic respect
-
for the person as an individual?
-
And if that reason matters and it's not so clear
-
that even Mill's utilitarianism can take account of it,
-
fully to examine these two worries or objections,
-
to Mill's defense we need to push further.
-
And we need to ask in the case of higher or worthier pleasures
-
are there theories of the good life that can provide
-
independent moral standards for the worth of pleasure?
-
If so, what do they look like? That's one question.
-
In the case of justice and rights, if we suspect that Mill
-
is implicitly leaning on notions of human dignity
-
or respect for person that are not strictly speaking utilitarian,
-
we need to look to see whether there are some stronger theories
-
of rights that can explain the intuition which even Mill shares,
-
the intuition that the reason for respecting individuals
-
and not using them goes beyond even utility in the long run.
-
Today, we turn to one of those strong theories of rights.
-
Strong theories of right say individuals matter not just as
-
instruments to be used for a larger social purpose
-
or for the sake of maximizing utility,
-
individuals are separate beings with separate lives worthy of respect.
-
And so it's a mistake, according to strong theories
-
of rights, it's a mistake to think about justice
-
or law by just adding up preferences and values.
-
The strong rights theory we turn to today is
-
libertarianism.
-
Libertarianism takes individual rights seriously.
-
It's called libertarianism because it says
-
the fundamental individual right is the right to liberty
-
precisely because we are separate individual beings.
-
We're not available to any use that the society
-
might desire or devise precisely because we are
-
individual separate human beings.
-
We have a fundamental right to liberty,
-
and that means a right to choose freely,
-
to live our lives as we please
-
provided we respect other people's rights to do the same.
-
That's the fundamental idea.
-
Robert Nozick, one of the libertarian philosophers
-
we read for this course, puts it this way:
-
Individuals have rights.
-
So strong and far reaching are these rights that they
-
raise the question of what, if anything, the state may do.
-
So what does libertarianism say about the role of government
-
or of the state?
-
Well, there are three things that most modern states do
-
that on the libertarian theory of rights are
-
illegitimate or unjust.
-
One of them is paternalist legislation.
-
That's passing laws that protect people from themselves,
-
seatbelt laws, for example, or motorcycle helmet laws.
-
The libertarian says it may be a good thing
-
if people wear seatbelts
-
but that should be up to them and the state,
-
the government, has no business coercing them,
-
us, to wear seatbelts by law.
-
It's coercion, so no paternalist legislation, number one.
-
Number two, no morals legislation.
-
Many laws try to promote the virtue of citizens
-
or try to give expression to the moral values of the society as a whole.
-
Libertarian say that's also a violation of the right to liberty.
-
Take the example of, well, a classic example
-
of legislation authored in the name of promoting morality
-
traditionally have been laws that prevent sexual intimacy
-
between gays and lesbians.
-
The libertarian says nobody else is harmed,
-
nobody else's rights are violated,
-
so the state should get out of the business entirely of
-
trying to promote virtue or to enact morals legislation.
-
And the third kind of law or policy that is ruled out
-
on the libertarian philosophy is any taxation or other policy
-
that serves the purpose of redistributing income or wealth
-
from the rich to the poor.
-
Redistribution is a... if you think about it,
-
says the libertarian is a kind of coercion.
-
What it amounts to is theft by the state or by the majority,
-
if we're talking about a democracy, from people who happen to
-
do very well and earn a lot of money.
-
Now, Nozick and other libertarians allow that there can be
-
a minimal state that taxes people for the sake of what everybody needs,
-
the national defense, police force,
-
judicial system to enforce contracts and property rights,
-
but that's it.
-
Now, I want to get your reactions to this third feature
-
of the libertarian view.
-
I want to see who among you agree with that idea and who disagree and why.
-
But just to make it concrete and to see what's at stake,
-
consider the distribution of wealth in the United States.
-
United States is among the most inegalitarian society as far as
-
the distribution of wealth of all the advanced democracies.
-
Now, is this just or unjust?
-
Well, what does the libertarian say?
-
Libertarian says you can't know just from the facts I've just given you.
-
You can't know whether that distribution is just or unjust.
-
You can't know just by looking at a pattern or a distribution or
-
result whether it's just or unjust.
-
You have to know how it came to be.
-
You can't just look at the end stage or the result.
-
You have to look at two principles.
-
The first he calls justice in acquisition or in initial holdings.
-
And what that means simply is did people get the things they used
-
to make their money fairly?
-
So we need to know was there justice in the initial holdings?
-
Did they steal the land or the factory or the goods
-
that enabled them to make all that money?
-
If not, if they were entitled to whatever it was
-
that enabled them to gather the wealth,
-
the first principle is matched.
-
The second principle is did the distribution arise from
-
the operation of free consent, people buying and trading
-
on the market?
-
As you can see, the libertarian idea of justice corresponds to
-
a free market conception of justice provided people got what they used
-
fairly, didn't steal it, and provided the distribution results
-
from the free choice of individual's buying and selling things,
-
the distribution is just.
-
And if not, it's unjust.
-
So let's, in order to fix ideas for this discussion,
-
take an actual example.
-
Who's the wealthiest person in the United States...
-
wealthiest person in the world? Bill Gates.
-
It is. That's right. Here he is.
-
You'd be happy, too.
-
Now, what's his net worth? Anybody have any idea?
-
That's a big number.
-
During the Clinton years, remember there was a controversy donors?
-
Big campaign contributors were invited to stay overnight
-
in the Lincoln bedroom at the White House?
-
I think if you've contributed twenty five thousand dollars or above,
-
someone figured out at the median contribution that got you invited
-
to stay a night in the Lincoln bedroom,
-
Bill Gates could afford to stay in the Lincoln bedroom every night
-
for the next sixty six thousand years.
-
Somebody else figured out, how much does he get paid on an hourly basis?
-
And so they figured out, since he began Microsoft,
-
I suppose he worked, what 14 hours per day, reasonable guess,
-
and you calculate this net wealth, it turns out that his rate of pay
-
is over 150 dollars, not per hour, not per minute
-
150 dollars, more than 150 dollars per second
-
which means that if on his way to the office,
-
Gates noticed a hundred dollar bill on the street,
-
it wouldn't be worth his time to stop and pick it up.
-
Now, most of you will say someone that wealthy surely we can tax them
-
to meet the pressing needs of people who lack in education or lack enough
-
to eat or lack decent housing.
-
They need it more than he does.
-
And if you were a utilitarian, what would you do?
-
What tax policy would you have?
-
You'd redistribute in a flash, wouldn't you?
-
Because you would know being a good utilitarian that taking some,
-
a small amount, he'd scarcely going to notice it,
-
but it will make a huge improvement in the lives and in the welfare
-
of those at the bottom.
-
But remember, the libertarian theory says we can't just add up an
-
aggregate preferences and satisfactions that way.
-
We have to respect persons and if he earned that money fairly without
-
violating anybody else's rights in accordance with the two principles
-
of justice in acquisition and in justice in transfer,
-
then it would be wrong, it would be a form of coercion to take it away.
-
Michael Jordan is not as wealthy as Bill Gates but he did
-
pretty well for himself.
-
You wanna see Michael Jordan. There he is.
-
His income alone in one year was 31 million dollars and then
-
he made another 47 million dollars in endorsements for a Nike
-
and other companies.
-
So his income was, in one year, $78 million.
-
To require him to pay, let's say, a third of his earnings to
-
the government to support good causes like food and health care and
-
housing and education for the poor, that's coercion, that's unjust.
-
That violates his rights.
-
And that's why redistribution is wrong.
-
Now, how many agree with that argument, agree with the libertarian argument
-
that redistribution for the sake of trying to help the poor is wrong?
-
And how many disagree with that argument?
-
All right, let's begin with those who disagree.
-
What's wrong with the libertarian case against redistribution?
-
Yes.
-
I think these people like Michael Jordan have received
-
we're talking about working within a society and they receive
-
a larger gift from the society and they have a larger obligation
-
in return to give that through redistribution, you know,
-
you can say that Michael Jordan may work just as hard as some who works,
-
you know, doing laundry 12 hours, 14 hours a day, but he's receiving more.
-
I don't think it's fair to say that, you know, it's all on him,
-
on his, you know, inherent, you know, hard work.
-
All right, let's hear from defenders of libertarianism.
-
Why would it be wrong in principle to tax the rich to help the poor?
-
Go ahead.
-
My name is Joe and I collect skateboards.
-
I've since bought a hundred skateboards.
-
I live in a society of a hundred people.
-
I'm the only one with skateboards.
-
Suddenly, everyone decides they want a skateboard.
-
They come to my house, they take my
-
they take 99 of my skateboards.
-
I think that is unjust.