Philosophers

1
Philosophers Concepts

• In Value Debate

2
Values

• Utilitarianism The greatest good for the
  greatest number of people
• Life Refers to bare life, with inherent value
  regardless of quality
• Quality of Life Refers to the condition of
  living, e.g. "I'd rather die than live like a
  vegetable"
• Liberty Traditional American value, can be
  interpreted to almost anything
• Societal Welfare what is in the best interest of
  members of society
• Progress Development or improvement in knowledge
  or skill (opposite of stagnation)
• Global Security Not blowing up the world the US
  not being invaded.
• Justice Use of authority to uphold what is
  correct or true
• Human Dignity The individual ethics which make
  us human and not animals nor slaves, adherence to
  personal ethics
• Social Contract agreement between a citizen and
  his government

3
UTILIARIANISM

• Utilitarianism focuses on the effects of an
  action. The moral action is that which produces
  the greatest good for the greatest number. In
  other words, the happiness and general well-being
  of the majority should take priority over the
  individual. Utilitarianism is a theory which
  attempts to define the scope and freedom of
  individual liberty under state authority.
  Because it draws a line between the rights of the
  individual and the rights of others,
  utilitarianism is a form of justice.

4
Jeremy Bentham

• Benthams basic assumption is that humans by
  nature avoid pain and seek pleasure. He argues
  that individual happiness is the supreme good. A
  person should act in a manner that provides
  happiness for the greatest number. In other
  words, happiness would be measure by a
  quantitative scale (measure happiness by amount
  or quantity). Those who commit crimes, then,
  should be punished by the quantity of unhappiness
  they create. Punishment must produce more in
  pain than pleasure gained by committing the
  crime.
• Bentham is an act utilitarian. Act
  utilitarians uphold two ideals one, that the
  worth of an act should be judged according to its
  pleasant and unpleasant consequences two, that a
  person should act in such a way that his act will
  promote the greatest good for the greatest
  number.
• Critics argue that Benthams philosophy has two
  major short comings. First, it ignores the
  distribution of happiness. Second, it ignores
  other important values that a state ought to
  consider.

5
John Stuart Mill

• Mill believes that happiness is determined by
  the individual. In addition, he argues that no
  one individual can determine what will produce
  happiness for every individual. Thus, he
  believes that a democracy (which provides for
  maximum individual participation and creates an
  environment for the pursuit of happiness) is the
  best way to secure liberty (mans quest for his
  own good) and promote happiness. Thus, democracy
  is an avenue to provide individual happiness to
  the greatest number.
• Unlike Bentham, Mill argues that happiness
  should be measured on a qualitative scale
  (consider the overall quality of life and
  happinessnot just the quantity of happiness).
  He is hoping, then, to produce a high quality of
  happiness for the greatest number of individuals.
• To define the extent that an individual should
  be allowed to exercise his liberty, Mill refers
  to the harm principle which says that the only
  good reason for restricting a persons liberty is
  to prevent harm to others. Mill argues that
  punishment should only be used if it would lead
  to better consequences than non-punishment.
• Mill is a rule utilitarian. Rule utilitarians
  support three main ideas one, that the moral
  worth of an act is judged according to the good
  or bad consequences that result from following a
  moral rule of conduct two, that a person should
  follow a moral rule that brings more good
  consequences than another rule would and three,
  that all moral rules which produce the greatest
  happiness for the greatest number should be
  obeyed.
• Critics argue that every individual action has
  potential negative effects. Also, one could
  argue that by measuring happiness on a
  qualitative measure, Mill is no longer a true
  utilitarian promoting the greatest happiness for
  the greatest number.

6
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

• Civil disobedience is the theory that one should
  break a law or rule in order to make society
  better. The person who practices civil
  disobedience believes that the society should be
  respected overall, but that some specific parts
  of it need to be changed. He respects the idea
  of the law or rule in general, but believes that
  a specific law or rule is unjust.

7
Henry David Thoreau

• Thoreau believes that if a law or rule is
  unjust, civil disobedience is automatically
  justified. According to Thoreau, there are three
  components used to determine whether or not a law
  or rule is unjust common sense, individualism,
  and supremacy of conscience. First, common sense
  is the belief that ideas should be examined and
  re-examined. Time honored ideas shouldnt be
  viewed as sacred. Second, individualism is
  important because morality is a matter of
  individual conscience. The state does not have a
  moral worth of its ownonly what the people give
  it. It is the individuals obligation, then, to
  resist unjust laws and rules. Finally, supremacy
  of conscience is what individuals use to
  determine right from wrong.
• Another important belief held by Thoreau is that
  if an individual decides to practice civil
  disobedience, he or she must be willing to accept
  the consequences of that decision. It does not
  matter whether the consequences are positive or
  negative, the individual must be willing to live
  with them.
• Critics attach Thoreau by suggesting that
  individuals lack the courage needed to disobey
  when they should, that there is no clear standard
  of morality, that the individual is less
  important than the states, and that conscience is
  not the most important value.

8
John Rawls

• Rawls uses civil disobedience to test his theory
  of justice. He argues that civil disobedience
  should be used when there is a conflict between
  having to comply with laws and defending
  liberties. Rawls believes that when this
  conflict arises one of two principles (which
  compose his theory of justice) has been broken
  equal liberty or fairness. Equal liberty is the
  belief that everyone should be granted the same
  freedoms and rights to begin with. Fairness is
  the idea that these freedoms should be equally
  distributed to all persons. If a person had on a
  veil of ignorance and had to make a decision
  not knowing what social class he would be in, he
  would make a fair decision.
• Unlike Thoreau, Rawls does not assume that civil
  disobedience is automatically justified. Rawls
  lists three conditions under which civil
  disobedience is permissible one, it is limited
  to instances of substantial and clear injustice
  two, it must be used as a last resort after all
  normal appeals within the system have been made
  (except in extreme cases) and three, the intent
  of civil disobedience must be balanced with the
  possible ill effects so that it wont endanger
  society.

9
Rawls Veil of Ignorance

• In A Theory of Justice, Rawls argues that the
  moral and political point of view is discovered
  via impartiality. He invokes this point of view
  by imagining persons in a hypothetical situation.
  In the original position, behind the veil of
  ignorance, one is denied any particular
  knowledge of ones circumstances, such as ones
  gender, race, particular talents or disabilities,
  ones age, social status, ones particular
  conception of what makes for a good life, or the
  particular state of the society in which one
  lives. Persons are also assumed to be rational
  and disinterested in one anothers well-being.
  Because no one has any of the particular
  knowledge he or she could use to develop
  principles that favor his or her own particular
  circumstances, the principles chosen from such a
  perspective are necessarily fair. For example, if
  one does not know whether one is female or male
  in the society for which one must choose basic
  principles of justice, it makes no sense, from
  the point of view of self-interested rationality,
  to endorse a principle that favors one sex at the
  expense of another, since, once the veil of
  ignorance is lifted, one might find oneself on
  the losing end of such a principle.

10
Social Contract

• The belief that a person enters into society to
  secure rights and/or protection (depending on the
  philosopher). The concept of a social contract
  represents the agreement between the individual
  and society. The terms of this contract differ
  between philosophers.

11
Socrates Social Contract

• In the early Platonic dialogue, Crito, Socrates
  makes a compelling argument as to why he must
  stay in prison and accept the death penalty,
  rather than escape and go into exile He has
  acquired an overwhelming obligation to obey the
  Laws because they have made his entire way of
  life, and even the fact of his very existence,
  possible. They made it possible for his mother
  and father to marry, and therefore to have
  legitimate children, including himself. Having
  been born, the city of Athens, through its laws,
  then required that his father care for and
  educate him. Socrates' life and the way in which
  that life has flourished in Athens are each
  dependent upon the Laws. Importantly, however,
  this relationship between citizens and the Laws
  of the city are not coerced. Citizens, once they
  have grown up, and have seen how the city
  conducts itself, can choose whether to leave,
  taking their property with them, or stay. Staying
  implies an agreement to abide by the Laws and
  accept the punishments that they mete out.
  Importantly, the contract described by Socrates
  is an implicit one it is implied by his choice
  to stay in Athens, even though he is free to
  leave.

12
John Lockes Social Contract

• For John Locke, 1632-1704, the State of Nature is
  a very different type of place, and so his
  argument concerning the social contract and the
  nature of men's relationship to authority are
  consequently quite different. While Locke uses
  Hobbes methodological device of the State of
  Nature, as do virtually all social contract
  theorists, he uses it to a quite different end.
  Lockes arguments for the social contract, and
  for the right of citizens to revolt against their
  king were enormously influential on the
  democratic revolutions that followed, especially
  on Thomas Jefferson, and the founders of the
  United States.

13
John Lockes Inalienable Rights

• Locke assumes that all men have certain natural
  rights that existed before society was created
  and that those rights are good in and of
  themselves. In the natural state (no
  government), however, mens rights conflict and
  this conflict leads to war. As a result, men
  enter into society and form a social contract.
  He also assumes that since man senses the need
  for self-restraint, he is by nature good and
  rational.
• The natural rights that are protected under
  Lockes social contract are life, liberty, and
  property. Property, according to Locke, includes
  both material possessions and personal
  fulfillment. Property, then, is similar to the
  pursuit of happiness. To protect these rights,
  government is created. Government serves three
  purposes one, it establishes laws two, it acts
  as an authority and settles conflict and three,
  it applies consistent justice.
• According to Locke, government does not cause
  minority suppression. Rather, it enlarges
  liberty since, in the state of nature, freedom is
  limited by the conflicting rights of individuals.
  To achieve this end, government should promote
  justice, operate according to the majority rule,
  and promote equality.
• Critics argue that there are two flaws with
  Locks idea of social contract. One, there is no
  proven instance where people first got together
  and gave their consent to the social contract.
  Second, people who were born under the government
  are not at liberty to create another one.

14
Locke and The State of Nature

• The State of Nature, the natural condition of
  mankind, is a state of perfect and complete
  liberty to conduct one's life as one best sees
  fit, free from the interference of others. This
  does not mean, however, that it is a state of
  license one is not free to do anything at all
  one pleases, or even anything that one judges to
  be in ones interest. The State of Nature,
  although a state wherein there is no civil
  authority or government to punish people for
  transgressions against laws, is not a state
  without morality. The State of Nature is
  pre-political, but it is not pre-moral. Persons
  are assumed to be equal to one another in such a
  state, and therefore equally capable of
  discovering and being bound by the Law of Nature.
  The Law of Nature, which is on Lockes view the
  basis of all morality, and given to us by God,
  commands that we not harm others with regards to
  their "life, health, liberty, or possessions.
  Because we all belong equally to God, and because
  we cannot take away that which is rightfully His,
  we are prohibited from harming one another.

15
Lockes Property Rights

• Property plays an essential role in Locke's
  argument for civil government and the contract
  that establishes it. According to Locke, private
  property is created when a person mixes his labor
  with the raw materials of nature. So, for
  example, when one tills a piece of land in
  nature, and makes it into a piece of farmland,
  which produces food, then one has a claim to own
  that piece of land and the food produced upon it.
  (This led Locke to conclude that America didnt
  really belong to the natives who lived there,
  because they were, on his view, failing to
  utilize the basic material of nature. In other
  words, they didnt farm it, so they had no
  legitimate claim to it, and others could
  therefore justifiably appropriate it.)

16
Hobbes Social Contract

• Hobbes occupies the ground of one is who both
  radical and conservative. He argues, radically
  for his times, that political authority and
  obligation are based on the individual
  self-interests of members of society who are
  understood to be equal to one another, with no
  single individual invested with any essential
  authority to rule over the rest, while at the
  same time maintaining the conservative position
  that the monarch, which he called the Sovereign,
  must be ceded absolute authority if society is to
  survive.

17
Thomas Hobbes Self Preservation

• Hobbes basic assumption about human nature is
  that people desire power and are willing to do
  whatever is necessary (in the absence of
  government) to get it. People are greedy and can
  act in destructive ways toward each other when
  there is no common power to keep them in line.
• Hobbes argues that every person possesses the
  natural right (liberty) to act in whatever
  manner he believes is appropriate in order to
  preserve his life and the objects which improve
  his life. Additionally, Hobbes considers all
  people to be essentially equal.
• Hobbes realizes that the state of equality and
  the freedom to act according to ones own desires
  will cause a natural condition of living in
  constant fear. To gain a sense of security,
  people therefore naturally agree to develop a
  sovereign or government which Hobbes refers to as
  the Leviathan. Hobbes argues that a rational
  sovereign would only propose laws to regulated
  people when it was necessary for the common good.
  This concept becomes Hobbes theory of
  self-preservation.

18
Hobbes View of Man

• Hobbes also infers from his mechanistic theory of
  human nature that humans are necessarily and
  exclusively self-interested. All men pursue only
  what they perceive to be in their own
  individually considered best interests - they
  respond mechanistically by being drawn to that
  which they desire and repelled by that to which
  they are averse. This is a universal claim it is
  meant to cover all human actions under all
  circumstances in society or out of it, with
  regard to strangers and friends alike, with
  regard to small ends and the most generalized of
  human desires, such as the desire for power and
  status. Everything we do is motivated solely by
  the desire to better our own situations, and
  satisfy as many of our own, individually
  considered desires as possible. The justification
  for political obligation is this given that men
  are naturally self-interested, yet they are
  rational, they will choose to submit to the
  authority of a Sovereign in order to be able to
  live in a civil society, which is conducive to
  their own interests.

19
Rousseaus Social Contract

• The Social Contract begins with the most
  oft-quoted line from Rousseau "Man was born
  free, and he is everywhere in chains. Humans are
  essentially free, and were free in the State of
  Nature, but the progress' of civilization has
  substituted subservience to others for that
  freedom, through dependence, economic and social
  inequalities, and the extent to which we judge
  ourselves through comparisons with others. Since
  a return to the State of Nature is neither
  feasible nor desirable, the purpose of politics
  is to restore freedom to us, thereby reconciling
  who we truly and essentially are with how we live
  together. We can regain freedom by submitting our
  individual, particular wills to the collective or
  general will, created through agreement with
  other free and equal persons. Like Hobbes and
  Locke before him, and in contrast to the ancient
  philosophers, all men are made by nature to be
  equals, therefore no one has a natural right to
  govern others, and therefore the only justified
  authority is the authority that is generated out
  of agreements or covenants i.e. social
  contract.

20
Rousseaus Social Contract

• Included in this version of the social contract
  is the idea of reciprocated duties the sovereign
  is committed to the good of the individuals who
  constitute it, and each individual is likewise
  committed to the good of the whole. Given this,
  individuals cannot be given liberty to decide
  whether it is in their own interests to fulfill
  their duties to the Sovereign, while at the same
  time being allowed to reap the benefits of
  citizenship. They must be made to conform
  themselves to the general will, they must be
  forced to be free. This implies an extremely
  strong and direct form of democracy.

21
Rousseaus State of Nature

• The State of Nature was a peaceful and quixotic
  time. People lived solitary, uncomplicated lives.
  Their few needs were easily satisfied by nature.
  As time passed, however, humanity faced certain
  changes. As the overall population increased, the
  means by which people could satisfy their needs
  had to change. People slowly began to live
  together in small families, and then in small
  communities. Divisions of labor were introduced,
  and discoveries and inventions made life easier,
  giving rise to leisure time. Such leisure time
  inevitably led people to make comparisons between
  themselves and others, resulting in public
  values, leading to shame and envy, pride and
  contempt. Most importantly however, was the
  invention of private property, which constituted
  the pivotal moment in humanity's evolution out of
  a simple, pure state into one characterized by
  greed, competition, vanity, inequality, and vice.
  For Rousseau the invention of property
  constitutes humanitys fall from grace out of
  the State of Nature.

22
Jean-Jacques Rousseaus General Will

• Rousseaus basic belief is that humans are good
  by nature but they become corrupt through social
  interaction. Specifically, Rousseau contends
  that man is originally without sin, that he
  comes into the world a free being, and that he is
  equipped with the capacity for decency, public
  spiritedness, candor, and authentic rationality.
• This natural innocence, however, is corrupted as
  people interact with one another. Their natural
  differences in skill and ability give rise to
  artificial differences, particularly those of
  wealth and poverty. The artificial differences
  result in envy and contempt which lead to a
  breakdown of the community. Therefore,
  individuals can never return to the original
  state of goodness.
• The answer to this problem, according to
  Rousseau, is not to remain in a savage state, but
  to construct a higher civilization. The social
  contract in Rousseaus world is meant to be a
  blueprint for this higher civilization. In order
  to achieve a higher state of civilization, all
  individuals must dedicate themselves solely to
  seeking the common good for all. This dedication
  is known as the general will. Because the
  general will is grounded in a concern for the
  common good, it can never seek particular objects
  or interests. Likewise, benefits and burdens
  must be distributed equally to all citizens.

23
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

• The belief that the means (the actions a person
  takes) justify the end (the result or outcome of
  the action). It is important to note, however,
  that the end is only justified if and when the
  means is moral.

24
Immanuel Kant

• Kant believes that good will is the most
  important criterion to use when determining the
  morality of an act. An act cannot be considered
  moral if the original intention was not of a good
  will. According to Kant, there are two main
  ingredients that make up good will reason and
  duty.
• Acting from a sense of duty means that an
  individual acts the way he thinks he should,
  regardless of whether or not it makes him happy
  or produces any benefits. Furthermore, Kant
  argues that it is not enough to just do the right
  thing, an individual must also do it for the
  right reasons. For example, being kind to others
  just because it makes you feel good is not enough
  to make the kindness a moral act. You must be
  kind because it is your duty.
• There are three basic elements to Kants
  Categorical Imperative which are listed below
• Make sure the principle you act from could be
  applied to anyone, anytime, in any situation.
  This belief is knows as Kants universal law.
• Dont use other people (or yourself) as simply a
  means to an end. Treat every person as ends in
  and of themselves. In other words, Kant
  considers man to be an end in and of himself.
• Always act as if you are a member of the realm
  of ends.
• NOTE Kants philosophy is somewhat confusing and
  often misused. If you are gong to use him, you
  must study his philosophy thoroughly. If someone
  is using him against you, test their knowledge
  for misuse.

25
OBJECTIVISM

• The basic assumption that, to live a moral life,
  one should be concerned with his own interests.
  A person should take actions that will benefit
  himself first and foremost. As Rand would say,
  the individual must maintain a sense of rational
  selfishness.

26
Ayn Rand

• Rand would argue that the ultimate value or
  concern is survival. Mans basic means for
  survival is reason, the process of thinking for
  ones self, making ones own decisions. Thus,
  that which is good furthers life and reason that
  which destroys life and reason is evil.
• Rand would argue that there are three basic
  values that one must live by in order to attain
  survival reason (rationality), purpose
  (productiveness), and self-esteem (pride).
  Independence, honesty, integrity, and justice are
  all essential elements of reason. Using these
  qualities of reason, man becomes productive and
  accomplishes his goals. The outcome, then, is
  that man attains a sense of pride and esteem from
  his accomplishments. At this point, then, the
  individuals life is worth sustaining.
  Throughout this process, man must live for
  himself, neither sacrificing himself to others or
  others to himself.
• Ultimately, Rand would contend that the
  achievement of happiness is mans highest moral
  purpose. However, a man should not choose his
  actions according to that emotion. The road to
  happiness may be filled with bitterness and
  sorrow.

27
Maslow's Hierarchy

• Debaters and sociologists use Maslow's Hierarchy
  as a system of ranking values, to prove one value
  higher than another. Maslow's Hierarchy is a
  pyramid of psychological needs, not necessarily
  of values. It can be used to prove one value
  higher because it supports a psychological need,
  but just because a value is higher on Maslow's
  pyramid does not mean it is a higher value. The
  basic concept is that the higher needs in this
  hierarchy only come into focus once all the needs
  that are lower down in the pyramid are mainly or
  entirely satisfied.

28
Defining Needs

• Maslow argues that all individuals, regardless
  or their culture or background, require the same
  basic needs and strive for the same ultimate
  goal self-actualization. In order to reach a
  state of self-actualization, one must first
  attain the needs listed below. The needs must be
  obtained in order starting at the bottom of the
  pyramid.
• Self-Actualization the condition of true
  happiness, know that one has accomplished goals
  and attained fulfillment
• Self-Esteemfeeling pride and confidence in ones
  self and accomplishments.
• Lovefeeling accepted and liked by others.
• Safetyfeeling secure in ones environment
  knowing that one is protected from potential
  dangers.
• Survivalpossessing or having access to the vital
  necessities (food, water, and shelter)

29