Rawls

1
Rawls
Radicalization
Rejection
Rawls ideal is undesirable (communitarian)
Rawls theory is infeasible
Why?
2
Because

• The theory has no regard for history.
• Primarily the second principle has no regard for
  how the things that are to be distributed
  originated
• I.e. who made them, who exchanged them, etc.
• Isnt it implausible that how holdings are
  produced and come to exist has no effect at all
  on who should own what?

3
Bob Nozick 1963-2002

• Professor at Harvard from 1969 until his death in
  2002.
• By all accounts, an excellent teacher who engaged
  students in the activity of doing philosophy,
  rather than merely presenting the completed
  ideas.
• Originally a member of the radical left in the
  1960s, converted to libertarian anarchism in
  grad school.

4

• "Presenting a completely polished and worked-out
  view doesn't give students a feel for what it's
  like to do original work in philosophy and to see
  it happen, to catch on to doing it."

5
What Nozick is not

• A right-wing philosopher.
• Anarchy State and Utopia is a critique of the
  Theory of Justice and at its core is a
  rejection of the 2nd principle of justice
  (recall that wealth should be distributed in
  such a way as to advantage the worst off, but
  only if it doesnt violate the first principle).
• That is, Nozick holds that liberty is everything,
  and only a minimal state should exist.

6

• That is to say he is a free-marketer, but HE IS
  NOT SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE!
• Republicans today (or at least, those in power in
  the Republican party today) do not believe in
  social liberties.

7

• right-wing people like the pro-free-market
  argument, but don't like the arguments for
  individual liberty in cases like gay rights -
  although I view them as an interconnecting whole.
  ..." (1979 article in the NY Times)

8
Anarchy, State and Utopia

• Basic thesis That a minimal state is the best
  state, and the only defensible state.
• Part 1 justification of the minimal state
• Part 2 why a minimal state is the only
  justifiable state.

9
Basics

• Justification of the state is a matter of showing
  that the state would be superior to the most
  favored situation of anarchy
• So, what is the role of political philosophy in
  regards the state of nature?
• Political theory as explanation
• 1. Reduce the political to the non-political
• 2. Show how the political emerges out of the
  non-political
• 3. To view the political as an autonomous realm.
• (1) is fundamental, as it is desirable, and
  only abandoned if known to be impossible.

10
Part 1 (cont)

• To explain political fully, one might start
  either with a nonpolitical and show how the
  political rises out of it, or with a political
  situation described nonpolitically and how it
  derives its political features from its
  nonpolitical description.

11
Explanation?

• Were all despicable, greedy creatures who want
  desperately to kill one another so we can steal
  each others stuff

• Absolute Monarchy!

12
Explanation?

• Were free to determine our own actions within
  the boundaries of the natural law which
  includes the duty to punish offenders of that
  natural law.

• Republican democracy with limitations on rights.

13
Explanation?

• Were all wonderful, gentle creatures whose
  violence is the result of greed (a notion foreign
  to us).

• Pure democracy General will

14
Explanation?

• Were rational individuals with no knowledge of
  our social status, history, gender, race, etc.

• Liberal democracy w/ modern safety net.

15
The state of nature

• Men are own judge of extent to which they are
  wronged, leading to excessive punishment.
• Overpunishment will lead to feuds
• Feuds wont be stopped by agreement the
  feelings of resentment will linger
• Person may lack power to enforce rights.

16

• This will lead to mutually protective
  associations.
• But, everyone is bound to respond to a call
• And, everyone is able to call the others

17

• This will lead to everyone being at the beck and
  call of the most paranoid member of society.
• (bad)

18

• What if two members of the same protection
  association are in conflict?
• If they deal w/ it by non-intervention, the
  members will look for other protection schemes
• These inconveniences can be handled by division
  of labor and exchange. Entrepreneurs will offer
  services tailored to individuals

19

• Several companies appear what occurs when there
  is a conflict?
• 1 Battle one wins, the other loses
• 2 Battle, both win, geographically.
• 3. Neither wins, battles continue.
• What about an outlaw agency?

20

• SO, we have a dominant protective agency. Is it
  a state?
• It fails to satisfies the minimal conception
  (legitimate monopoly on coercian)
• (1) it allows some people to enforce their
  rights, and
• (2) it appears not to protect all individuals
  within its domain.

21

• To be a state, it must be a monopoly. A monopoly
  can be violated in 2 ways
• (1) a person may use force though unauthorized by
  the state
• (2) A person may claim authority over and against
  the state.
• The state must claim that it will punish everyone
  whom it discovers to have used force without its
  express permission.
• The dominant protective agency fails on (2)
• Also on (1), since only those paying for
  protection get protected.

22
Minimal and Ultra-minimal

• Minimal state is the night-watchman state
  limited to the functions of protecting all its
  citizens against violence, theft and fraud, and
  to the enforcement of contracts, and so on
• The ultraminimal state exists between the scheme
  of private protective associations (which fails
  to pass the test for minimal statehood) and the
  night watchman this is the ultraminimal state,
  and it is the nightwatchman (with monopoly), but
  it provides protection only to those who pay for
  it.
• Minimal is ultramninimal voucher / tax plan for
  financing.

23

• Nozick claims that this critique is based on
  taking the goal of moral theory as good, not as
  right itself.
• Ie utilitarianism seeks to maximize good (i.e
  pleasure). The proponent of the ultraminimal
  state seeks to maximize rights.
• We would then violate rights only when doing so
  minimizes the total (weighted) amount of
  violation of rights in society
• Alternately, one might place rights as side
  constraints on the actions to be done Dont
  violate constraints C. the rights of others
  determine C.
• The objection noted above assumed that the
  proponent of the ultraminimal state assumed the
  ultitarianism of rights. If we hold the side
  constraint view that non-violation of rights is
  a constraint on actions, the ultraminimal state
  is not self-contradictory being forced to
  contribute to anothers welfare violates your
  rights, where as not providing you with something
  does not itself violate your rights.

24

• Thus we have an argument
• The best moral form is constraints on actions
• The best moral constraining is the distinctness
  of individuals, each with his or her own life to
  lead
• And it follows that the libertarian constraint.
• The prohibition on utilitarian usury is entailed
  by the fact that each of us has his or her own
  life to lead
• The prohibition on paternalistic aggression is
  entailed by the fact that each of us has his or
  her own life to lead.

25

• Animals
• 1. Arguments from moral spillover dont count.
• 2. Arguments from nutritional need dont apply.
• Suppose an act of bat-swinging would kill a cow.
  Should I swing the bat? Pleasure is one thing
  does it give enough pleasure to justify the pain
  the cow receives? What kind of pleasure would be
  necessary to outweigh the pain of the cow?
• 3. Arguments from there are more cows because we
  eat them dont apply.
• Utilitarianism for animals, Kantianism for
  people. Maximize happiness for all living
  creatures place stringent side constraints on
  what we can do to people.

26
Back to the state

• Why the dominant protective agency falls short of
  a state
• But this is exactly the anarchists point by
  monopolizing, the state becomes intrinsically
  immoral.
• To show how the dominant protective associations
  become a state, and a moral state at that right,
  we need to show
• 1) how an ultraminimal state arises
• 2) How the ultraminimal state becomes the minimal
  state
• And how the transitions from 0-1-2 are each
  morally legitimate.- well see that when we deal
  with resisters to the agreements.

27
What if I dont agree?

• Are others forbidden to perform actions that
  transgress the boundary or encroach upon the
  circumscribed area, or are they permitted to
  perform such actions provided that they
  compensate the person whose boundary has been
  crossed?
• A system forbids an action to a person if it
  imposes some penalty upon him for doing the act,
  in addition of exacting compensation from him for
  the acts victims.
• Compensation iff it makes him no worse off than
  he otherwise would have been

28

• A person may do anything to himself. And may
  voluntarily allow others to do those things to
  himself/herself for compensation
• Deterrence make the cost higher than the
  expected gain.
• What of compensation for future attack at
  unspecified time?

29
Nope

• Because fear and anxiety are often underestimated
  by those in the moment.
• Note public wrongs are those that cause fear
  generally (sexual offenses, violence against
  women, races, e.g.)
• Must be disallowed, because compensation is far,
  far too much.

30
And

• An independent can be prohibited from exacting
  private justice from another because his
  procedure for determining wrongs is known to be
  risky or dangerous or because his procedure isnt
  known not to be risky.
• Thus, if someone consistently judged others as
  violators, his procedure would induce fear. If
  this continued, wed have a dangerous situation
  for all.

31
Therefore,

• The dominant protective association, then, has
  the right to announce that it will punish anyone
  who uses a procedure on one of its clients that
  is unfair

32

• The independent needs to be protected from
  enforcement from the members of the dominant
  protective association because of the risk of
  unjust, unreliable procedures coming back on the
  state thus, it is to the advantage of the
  dominant protective association to cover all.
  Even if they dont want it.

33

• Thus, in the case of protecting the independents,
  we only need compensate them for disadvantage
  suffered from being protected. Which is, more or
  less, very little. But lets say that the fee
  imposed is slighter. Isnt it probably that many
  will leave the dominant protection agency to get
  its services at lower cost?
• No

34

• a dominant protective agency satisfies the two
  necessary conditions for a state universal
  coverage and a monopoly over enforcement. And
  without violating the moral status of the
  individuals that make it up.
• And, mind you, its by the invisible-hand
  explanation.

35
The argument illustrated practically

• On what grounds can we say that the actions of
  the majority are immoral?

36
Two variations

• In what way is the power of the majority limited
  by morality?
• Or
• What actions of the state are impermissible?

• In what ways are we, as individuals obligated to
  resist the immorality of the majority?
• Or
• What actions of the individual are obligatory,
  even if they are illegal?

37
The question, then is this

• Where does politics stop and ethics begin?

38
Personhood

• In reality (I.e. historically) defined by the
  dominant religion / ideology of the time
• Slaves as 3/5
• Women as property
• Women as childish
• Atheists (heathens) as infidels
• The colonized as children

39
What is a person?

• If a bird craps on your head, do we hold it
  morally responsible?

40
Personhood as moral agent

• We hold people morally responsible for their
  actions that is what separates people from
  birds, tools, etc..
• If you want praise, you must take blame.
• Taking responsibility for the outcomes of your
  actions is the fundamental defining fact of the
  status of full personhood
• Child -gt adult
• Adult -gt Senility
• Imaginary cases of brainwashing or homunculus
  control.

41

• If the state is limited w.r.t. my personhood,
  then the state is immoral if it
• Makes moral decisions for me.
• Blocks my actions from the responsibility they
  entail.
• Convinces me that I am not a fully moral agent,
  capable of making my own decisions.
• And, when it (or someone else) does (1) (2) or
  (3), they dehumanize me they make me
  something less than a moral agent, and therefore
  less than a full, autonomous person.

42
Comparison

• Rawls the first principle of liberty is based
  on the one freedom that cannot be denied freedom
  of conscience.
• Nozick personhood as limiting factor of state
  BUT, personhood defined in terms of intention,
  not responsibility.

43
The differences play out

• Any institution that blocks my responsibility for
  my actions while a part of that institution
  dehumanizes me
• The DMV
• Tech Support
• Caps on lawsuits
• Blockage of lawsuits against HMOs
• Corporate fraud loopholes.

44
Second

• Responsibility extends beyond my intentions to
  the results of my actions
• Union Carbides Bopal disaster.
• Exxon Valdez
• Double parking

45
Reflections

• The perpetual adolescence in American culture
  is one aspect of absolving individuals of their
  responsibility of dehumanizing them to
  something less than a fully moral agent.

46
Trickery afoot!

• Recall where we were w/ Nozick
• The question was how to we move from a dominant
  protective association to a legitimate monopoly
  without violating the individuals status as a
  person (who can plan)?

47

• Now, we have a better sense of the problem
• How do we force others to participate in our
  system of government without blocking their right
  to plan for their future
• Or
• How do we force others not to block my
  responsibility / right to make moral decision
  without, thereby, blocking their right to make
  moral decisions?

48
For Nozick

• The paranoid accuses me of causing him pain, and
  seeks compensation.
• I ask for evidence of that pain, and proof that I
  will be judged fairly.
• If the paranoid cannot produce satisfactory
  evidence, or cannot demonstrate that his system
  of adjudication is reliable, I am under no
  obligation to compensate him.

49

• So what will happen if there is an independent
  paranoid in our midst?
• Fear.

50

• But the state is obligated to prevent fear
  because no compensation can be fair.
• Therefore, the state is obligated to announce
  that anyone using an unreliable method of justice
  against anyone of its clients will be punished
  (proportionately to the fear induced).

51

• What about an independent who never uses his/her
  unreliable procedure?
• Still not allowed, because of an epistemic
  constraint we cannot know that that independent
  will not use it in the future (without some sort
  of prohibition on such use), and the fear of the
  unknown is still fear.

52
So

• We, as members of the association, can seek huge
  compensation awards from the radical independent
  just because they might use an unreliable
  procedure against us.
• Thats not a good thing.

53
Monopoly?

• Almost the dominant protective association does
  have a unique status,
• it alone enforces the prohibition on unreliable
  procedures.
• It alone determines the procedures that are
  reliable.

54
To get to monopoly

• Consider a driving epileptic.
• The prohibition on his/her driving does violate
  his/her plan in life, BUT the risk (fear) caused
  by not prohibiting is too great.
• How much would it cost to compensate all those
  who fear the epileptic v. the amount we have to
  pay the epileptic?

55
The radical is like the epileptic

• The independent radical causes far more fear
  (which would have to be compensated at a very
  high rate) than the compensation entailed by
  their being forced to join the dominant
  protective association.

56
How much compensation?

• The epileptic gets enough compensation to remove
  the damage caused by his/her not driving.
• The radical independent is compensated for the
  disadvantages of joining the dominant protective
  association (which are? - judged by the
  procedure endorsed by the dominant protective
  association, after all).

57
Lets suppose its fair

• Then while you and I pay for protection, the
  radical independent gets paid for the same
  protection!
• Why not quit the state and start receiving a
  check?

58
Minimal conditions for a state?

1. Universal coverage within a geographic region
2. Monopoly over enforcement.

59

• and all of this without violating the
  individuals right to plan without compensating
  them for the inconvenience!

60
The General Problem

• Why use a state of nature argument?

61

• Were all despicable, greedy creatures who want
  desperately to kill one another so we can steal
  each others stuff

• Absolute Monarchy!

62

• Were free to determine our own actions within
  the boundaries of the natural law which
  includes the duty to punish offenders of that
  natural law.

• Republican democracy with limitations on rights.

63

• Were all wonderful, gentle creatures whose
  violence is the result of greed (a notion foreign
  to us).

• Pure democracy General will

64

• Were rational individuals with no knowledge of
  our social status, history, gender, race, etc.

• Liberal democracy w/ modern safety net.

65

• Were free to determine our own actions within
  the boundaries of natural law, but we also bind
  together into groups for protection.

• Libertarian minimal state.

66
The question is

• Given that we have 6 different conclusions from
  the same methodology why should we buy that
  methodology?
• That is, replication is a key to knowledge.
• Even if all 6 philosophers work is free from
  logical error, shouldnt we distrust this method?

67
What is the minimal state?

• Its a night-watchman state limited to
  protecting its citizens from violence, theft and
  fraud and the enforcement of contacts.

68
The Ultra-minimal state?

• And ultraminimal state maintains a monopoly over
  all use of force expect that necessary in
  immediate self-defense, and so excludes private
  (or agency) retaliation for wrong and exaction of
  compensation but it provides protection and
  enforcement services only to those who purchase
  its protection and enforcement principles.