Sandel: Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 03: "FREE TO CHOOSE"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw4l1w0rkjs&list=SP30C13C91CFFEFEA6&index=3

Utilitarianism: Problems of individual rights and justice

Mill’s reply to refutations of Bentham’s utilitarianism: It is possible, based upon pleasure vs displeasure, to distinguish between “higher” and “lower” pleasure -- to make qualitative distinctions of worth.

Mill: Individual rights are worthy of special respect – justice is the most sacred part (most binding part) of morality.   But… why? In the long run, if we respect justice and rights, society as a whole will be better off.

But … what if we have a case where we make an exception & violate individual rights that actually will make people better off, is this alright, then? To use people?

Suppose the utilitarian calculus works out in the long run as Mill says, is this the right and only reason to respect people?

If the doctor takes the organs from a healthy patient to save 5 lives, is this right? Would the only thing that prevents a doctor from doing this be that he would scare patients away?

Or is there another reason? Having respect for the person as an individual? And if this really matters it’s not evident that Mill’s utilitarianism can take account of it.

2 worries:

1)      In case of higher or worthier pleasures - are there theories of the good life that can provide independent standards for the worth of pleasures? What would they look like?

2)      In case of justice& human rights, if we suspect that Mill is implicitly leaning on notions of  human dignity, not strictly utilitarian, we need to seek some stronger theories of rights that can explain the intuition that the reason for respecting individuals, and not using them, goes beyond even utility in the long run. We must search for it…

**********************************************

Strong theories of rights: 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.

It’s a mistake to think about justice or law by just adding up preferences or values.

Libertarianism

The fundamental right is the right to liberty for every individual. This is the right to choose freely, to live our lives as we please, provided we respect other people’s rights to do the same.

Nozick: Individuals have rights, so strong and far-reaching that they call into question anything that the state may do.

3 illegitimate Roles of government/ state:

1)      Paternalist legislation – seatbelt laws, cigarettes

2)      No morals legislation – moral values of society as whole, i.e., prohibition

3)      No taxation or redistribution of income from rich to poor.

Redistribution is a kind of coercion or theft by the state/majority from people who happen to do well, or earn a lot of money.

There can be a minimal state that taxes people for the sake of “what everybody needs” – i.e., national defense,  police force, judicial system – to enforce contracts & protect property rights, etc. BUT THAT’S IT.

Consider distribution of wealth in USA – probably most unbalanced distribution of wealth of all advanced democracies: 10% own 70% of wealth… Is this just? Libs say can’t know by just looking at end state.

What makes income distribution just (Nozick)?

1)      Justice in acquisition (initial holdings) – did they get the things they needed to make their money fairly?

2)      Justice in transfer (free market)

Nozick: Taxation = taking of earnings à morally equivalent to taking my labor = FORCED LABOR (slavery) – state OWNS me

Taxation violates principle of self-possession!! (Re-distribution args – worry about coercion: to use someone for sake of general welfare calls in to question self-possession.)

Minimal State (Milton Freedman): Many of the functions that we take for granted as properly belonging to government, don’t, i.e., Social security – you can save for your retirement.

Ways to prevent/restrict “free-riders”: i.e., insurance (Salem) – only put out fire if pay insurance or threaten other subscriber…

*******************************

What’s wrong with Libertarian case for (no or “limited”) redistribution?

1)      The poor need the money more.

2)      It’s not slavery to tax – congress taxes = consent of the governed

3)      The successful owe a debt to society.

4)      Wealth depends partly on luck, so it isn’t “deserved.”

My Critique:

1)      Based upon capitalist ideal of society – everyone depends on money – if you don’t have it, you die.

2)      “Minimal state” determines what “everyone needs” - thus, serves to protect wealth/ prevent wealth from reaching the rest of society.

3)      Reinforces a hierarchical control of “minimal state” (keeps status quo) = no democracy

4)      Agglomeration of wealth in the hands of the few = permanent crisis (at least until there is a “revolution” vs “minimal state”)

* Libertarianism = opposite extreme of utilitarianism

John Locke: accounted for “rise of private property from a state of nature” from a chain of reasoning that Nozick & Libertarians use:

Private property arises, because, when we mix our labor with un-owned things, we acquire a property right in those things. Reason: because we own our own labor – we are the proprietors/owners of our own person.