Download chapter 12 modern political philosophy

Chapter 12
Modern Political Philosophy
Chapter 12
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
G.E. Moore
W.D. Ross
John Rawls
Robert Nozick
Alasdair MacIntyre
Herbert Marcuse
Ayn Rand
G.E. Moore
• The “Naturalistic Fallacy”.
• Moore claims that the majority of moral
philosophers have assumed that
goodness is a natural property of objects.
He claims that it is not.
• He claims that the concept of good is noncomplex and non-natural.
• The Good is indefinable.
Normative Ethics vs. Meta-ethics
• Normative Ethics deals with what is right
or wrong.
• Meta-Ethics deals with value concepts
such as good, right, duty, obligation and
value.
• Many of these concepts are discussed by
various moral philosophers.
Intuitionist
• W.D. Ross
Prima Facie Duty
• Prima Facie duty vs. absolute duty
• A prima facie duty is a conditional duty. It
may be overridden by a duty of greater
importance. Prima Facie duties are not
static. This means that one may out weight
another in one situation and the same two
duties might switch positions given other
circumstances. We know which one takes
precedent by intuition- we just know.
Not Quite Utilitarianism
• Example:
• Keeping a promise
– Utilitarian, act utilitarian, keep the promise if it
produces beneficial consequences
– Keep the promise, because you have a moral
duty to keep them promise, unless a greater
duty comes into conflict with keeping your
promise.
Emotivism
• Emotivism claim that there are no ethical
facts. There is no right or wrong.
• When I say, Abortion is wrong, I am stating
my preference, my opinion, how it makes
me feel. But there is no right answer to
this, or any other moral issue.
• C.L. Stevenson was an emotivist.
John Rawls
• Defined
Justice as
fairness.
• Discussed the
Original
Position.
2 basic principals of Equality
•
•
Each person has an equal right to the most
extensive scheme of equal basic liberties
compatible with a similar scheme of liberties
for all
Social and economic inequalities are to meet
two conditions: they must be a) to the greatest
expected benefit to the least advantaged b)
attached to offices and positions open to all
under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
Egalitarianism
• What Rawls wants is everyone to have the
same basic liberties, and social and
economic inequality to benefit the poor
instead of the rich. Inequality, say in taxes,
ought to be at the expense of the rich in
order to benefit the poor.
Original Position
• Rawls argues that we would arrive at
these principles if we in the Original
Position.
• A hypothetical situation where there is no
government.
Veil of Ignorance
• The veil of ignorance is a hypothetical
thought experiment where one is to
imagine oneself as a representative of the
populous as a whole. Under the veil you
will be looking for guiding principles of
justice and begin to stipulate laws and
regulations for your government. The point
is that you are ignorant of your social
status and position. You don’t know your
race or your economic class.
Maximin
• Rawls thinks that a reasonable person in
such a situation would adapt his strategy
of maximin.
Princess or Pauper
• Make life the best you can for the people
at the bottom. He thinks that rationality
entails that you will do this.
Robert Nozick
Alasdair MacIntyre
Herbert Marcuse
Ayn Rand
Crime and Punishment
• Theories of Punishment
– Retributive Theories
– Deterrence Theories
– Forfeiture Theory
– Reform/ Rehabilitation Theory
Theories of Punishment
• Punishment is the
deliberate limitation or
revocation of rights and
liberties by the
government, as such, it
must be justified.
• There are 4 contemporary
theories for the justification
of punishment by the state.
RETRIBUTIVE THEORYLex Talionis (an eye for an eye)
• Direct Retributivism- says that a person
committing a crime ought to be punished
for the crime by having the same crime
inflicted upon them; literally, an eye for an
eye.
State sanctioned what?
• Yet this is not practical. If
a murder kills your father,
are we to kill his father.
• It simply is not practical to
employ this type of
Retributivism.
Proportional Retributivism
• Claims that a person should be punished
in a way proportional to the crime they
committed. We are going to inflict pain
and suffering to an equal degree upon
them. The rapist is not going to be raped,
but he is going to suffer in a equal degree.
FORFEITURE THEORY
•
This theory states that although we
have certain positive rights within society,
when we violate laws and violate the rights
of others, then we forfeit our own rights.
• As such we must be punished for these
violations, and the state has the right,
obligation and duty to see that we are
punished.
DETERRENCE THEORY
• This theory claims that punishing criminals
deters others from committing the same
crimes.
• Punishment is justified only if it has a
deterrent effect. If punishment did not
deter future crimes then there would be no
reason to punish people.
REFORM THEORY
• This theory claims that
the goal of punishment
is to reform criminals.
• If the punishment does
not have such an effect
then it is not justified.
MIXED THEORIES
• It is possible to mix elements of the
different theories and claim that together
they justify punishment.