公开课justice补充阅读

AboutJustice

JusticeisoneofthemostpopularcoursesinHarvard'shistory.Nearlyonethousandstudentspack

Harvard'shistoricSandersTheatretohearProfessorSandeltalkaboutjustice,equality,democracy,and

citizenship.Nowit'syourturntotakethesamejourneyinmoralreflectionthathascaptivatedmorethan

14,000students,asHarvardopensitsclassroomtotheworld.

Thiscourseaimstohelpviewersbecomemorecriticallymindedthinkersaboutthemoraldecisionsweall

faceinoureverydaylives.

Inthis12-partseries,Sandelchallengesuswithdifficultmoraldilemmasandasksouropinionaboutthe

rightthingtodo.

Hethenasksustoexamineouranswersinthelightofnewscenarios.Theresultisoftensurprising,

revealingthatimportantmoralquestionsareneverblackandwhite.

Sortingoutthesecontradictionssharpensourownmoralconvictionsandgivesusthemoralclaritytobetter

understandtheopposingviewsweconfrontinademocracy.

(Sandel)isabletoconductremarkablyejfectivedialoguesinthoselargeclasses,likeaconductorpicking

outawindhere,abrassthere.Heposesmoraldilemmassoacuteonecouldescapetheagonyonlyby

thinking.”

-KathleenSullivan,formerJUSTICEteachingfellow,nowaprofessoratStanfordLawSchool

Thiscoursealsoaddressesthehottopicsofourday—samesexmarriage,affirmativeaction,patriotismand

rights—andSandelshowsusthatwecanrevisitfamiliarcontroversieswithafreshperspective.

ProfessorSandelbelievestheprocessofthinkingourwaythroughthedifficultmoralquestionsofour

day—figuringoutwhatwethink,andwhy—helpsmakeusbettercitizens.

“HeisthegreatestteacherIhaveeverseen.Heisable,withoutvisibleeffort,tomakealecturetostudents

seemlikeanintimate,Socraticdialogue.

-JedRuhenfeld,formerJUSTICEteachingfellow,nowtheRobertRSlaughterProfessorofLaw,YaleLaw

School

N£irYOKKTIMESBESTSELLER

制即耻口.$酬酰L

"A«pcUi»«miingphikMophrr,..返calling..,!<>rnothingICM

tlun4rrinvi^jrjrtkm<4dtircnUNp."Samuel5kiyn.TheN-

EpisodeGuide

Forthebestlearningexperience,watchthetwelveJusticeepisodesinchronologicalorder.EverySunday,

anadditionalepisodewillbeaddedtothewebsiteandavailableforviewing.Eachonehourepisode

includestwoseparatelectures.Belowisasummaryofalltwelveepisodes.

EpisodeOne

PARTONE:THEMORALSIDEOFMURDER

[fyouhadtochoosebetween(1)killingonepersontosavethelivesoffiveothersand(2)doingnothing

eventhoughyouknewthatfivepeoplewoulddierightbeforeyoureyesifyoudidnothing—whatwould

youdo?Whatwouldbetherightthingtodo?That'sthehypotheticalscenarioProfessorMichael

Sandelusestolaunchhiscourseonmoralreasoning.Afterthemajorityofstudentsvotesforkillingthe

onepersoninordertosavethelivesoffiveothers,Sandelpresentsthreesimilarmoralconundrums-each

oneartfullydesignedtomakethedecisionmoredifficult.Asstudentsstanduptodefendtheir

conflictingchoices,itbecomesclearthattheassumptionsbehindourmoralreasoningareoften

contradictory,andthequestionofwhatisrightandwhatiswrongisnotalwaysblackandwhite.

PARTTWO:THECASEFORCANNIBALISM

Sandelintroducestheprinciplesofutilitarianphilosopher,JeremyBentham,withafamousnineteenth

centurylegalcaseinvolvingashipwreckedcrewoffour.Afternineteendayslostatsea,thecaptain

decidestokilltheweakestamongstthem,theyoungcabinboy,sothattherestcanfeedonhisbloodand

bodytosurvive.Thecasesetsupaclassroomdebateaboutthemoralvalidityofutilitarianism——andits

doctrinethattherightthingtodoiswhateverproduces"thegreatestgoodforthegreatestnumber."

EpisodeTwo

PARTONE:PUTTINGAPRICETAGONLIFE

Today,companiesandgovernmentsoftenuseJeremyBentham'sutilitarianlogicunderthenameof

“cost-benefitanalysis.^^Sandelpresentssomecontemporarycasesinwhichcost-benefitanalysiswasused

toputadollarvalueonhumanlife.Thecasesgiverisetoseveralobjectionstotheutilitarianlogicof

seeking“thegreatestgoodforthegreatestnumber.^^Shouldwealwaysgivemoreweighttothehappiness

ofamajority,evenifthemajorityiscruelorignoble?Isitpossibletosumupandcompareallvaluesusing

acommonmeasurelikemoney?

PARTTWO:HOWTOMEASUREPLEASURE

SandelintroducesJ.S.Mill,autilitarianphilosopherwhoattemptstodefendutilitarianismagainstthe

objectionsraisedbycriticsofthedoctrine.Millarguesthatseeking"thegreatestgoodforthegreatest

number^^iscompatiblewithprotectingindividualrights,andthatutilitarianismcanmakeroomfora

distinctionbetweenhigherandlowerpleasures.Milfsideaisthatthehigherpleasureisalwaysthe

pleasurepreferredbyawell-informedmajority.Sandelteststhistheorybyplayingvideoclipsfromthree

verydifferentformsofentertainment:Shakespeare'sHamlet,therealityshowFearFactor,andThe

Simpsons.Studentsdebatewhichexperienceprovidesthehigherpleasure,andwhetherMill'sdefenseof

utilitarianismissuccessful.

EpisodeThree

PARTONE:FREETOCHOOSE

Sandelintroducesthelibertarianconceptionofindividualrights,accordingtowhichonlyaminimalstate

isjustified.LibertariansarguethatgovernmentshouldnHhavethepowertoenactlawsthat1)protect

peoplefromthemselves,suchasseatbeltlaws,2)imposesomepeople'smoralvaluesonsocietyasa

whole,or3)redistributeincomefromtherichtothepoor.Sandelexplainsthelibertariannotionthat

redistributivetaxationisakintoforcedlaborwithreferencestoBillGatesandMichaelJordan.

PARTTWO:WHOOWNSME?

LibertarianphilosopherRobertNozickmakesthecasethattaxingthewealthy-topayforhousing,health

care,andeducationforthepoor-isaformofcoercion.Studentsfirstdiscusstheargumentsbehind

redistributivetaxation.Don'tmostpoorpeopleneedthesocialservicestheyreceiveinordertosurvive?

Ifyouliveinasocietythathasasystemofprogressivetaxation,aren'tyouobligatedtopayyourtaxes?

Don'tmanyrichpeopleoftenacquiretheirwealththroughsheerluckorfamilyfortune?Agroupof

studentsdubbed“TeamLibertarian”volunteerstodefendthelibertarianphilosophyagainstthese

objections.

EpisodeFour

PARTONE:THISLANDISMYLAND

ThephilosopherJohnLockebelievesthatindividualshavecertainrightssofundamentalthatno

governmentcanevertakethemaway.Theserights—tolife,libertyandproperty-weregiventousas

humanbeingsinthe“thestateofnature,“atimebeforegovernmentandlawswerecreated.Accordingto

Locke,ournaturalrightsaregovernedbythelawofnature,knownbyreason,whichsaysthatwecan

neithergivethemupnortakethemawayfromanyoneelse.Sandelwrapsupthelecturebyraisinga

question:whathappenstoournaturalrightsonceweentersocietyandconsenttoasystemoflaws?

PARTTWO:CONSENTINGADULTS

Ifweallhaveunalienablerightstolife,liberty,andproperty,howcanagovernmentenforcetaxlaws

passedbytherepresentativesofameremajority?Doesn'tthatamounttotakingsomepeople'sproperty

withouttheirconsent?Locke'sresponseisthatwegiveour44tacitconsent“toobeythetaxlawspassedby

amajoritywhenwechoosetoliveinasociety.Therefore,taxationislegitimateandcompatiblewith

individualrights,aslongasitappliestoeveryoneanddoesnotarbitrarilysingleanyoneout.

EpisodeFive

PARTONE:HIREDGUNS

DuringtheCivilWar,mendraftedintowarhadtheoptionofhiringsubstitutestofightintheirplace.

ProfessorSandelasksstudentswhethertheyconsiderthispolicyjust.Manydonot,arguingthatitis

unfairtoallowtheaffluenttoavoidservingandriskingtheirlivesbypayinglessprivilegedcitizensto

fightintheirplace.Thisleadstoaclassroomdebateaboutwarandconscription.Istoday'svoluntary

armyopentothesameobjection?Shouldmilitaryservicebeallocatedbythelabormarketorby

conscription?Whatroleshouldpatriotismplay,andwhataretheobligationsofcitizenship?Istherea

civicdutytoserveone'scountry?Andareutilitariansandlibertariansabletoaccountforthisduty?

PARTTWO:MOTHERHOOD:FORSALE

Inthislecture,ProfessorSandelexaminestheprincipleoffree-marketexchangeinlightofthe

contemporarycontroversyoverreproductiverights.Sandelbeginswithahumorousdiscussionofthe

businessofeggandspermdonation.Hethendescribesthecaseof“BabyM"—afamouslegalbattlein

themid-eightiesthatraisedtheunsettlingquestion,<4Whoownsababy?*'In1985,awomannamedMary

BethWhiteheadsignedacontractwithaNewJerseycouple,agreeingtobeasurrogatemotherin

exchangeforafeeof$10,000.However,aftergivingbirth,Ms.Whiteheaddecidedshewantedtokeep

thechild,andthecasewenttocourt.Sandelandstudentsdebatethenatureofinformedconsent,the

moralityofsellingahumanlife,andthemeaningofmaternalrights.

EpisodeSix

PARTONE:MINDYOURMOTIVE

ProfessorSandelintroducesImmanuelKant,achallengingbutinfluentialphilosopher.Kantrejects

utilitarianism.Hearguesthateachofushascertainfundamentaldutiesandrightsthattakeprecedence

overmaximizingutility.Kantrejectsthenotionthatmoralityisaboutcalculatingconsequences.When

weactoutofduty—doingsomethingsimplybecauseitisright-onlythendoouractionshavemoral

worth.Kantgivestheexampleofashopkeeperwhopassesupthechancetoshortchangeacustomer

onlybecausehisbusinessmightsufferifothercustomersfoundout.AccordingtoKant,the

shopkeeper'sactionhasnomoralworth,becausehedidtherightthingforthewrongreason.

PARTTWO:THESUPREMEPRINCIPLEOFMORALITY

ImmanuelKantsaysthatinsofarasouractionshavemoralworth,whatconfersmoralworthisour

capacitytoriseaboveself-interestandinclinationandtoactoutofduty.Sandeltellsthetruestoryofa

thirteen-yearoldboywhowonaspellingbeecontest,butthenadmittedtothejudgesthathehad,infact,

misspelledthefinalword.Usingthisstoryandothers,SandelexplainsKant'stestfordetermining

whetheranactionismorallyright:toidentifytheprincipleexpressedinouractionandthenaskwhether

thatprinciplecouldeverbecomeauniversallawthateveryotherhumanbeingcouldacton.

EpisodeSeven

PARTONE:ALESSONINLYING

ImmanuelKant'sstringenttheoryofmoralityallowsfornoexceptions.Kantbelievedthattellingalie,

evenawhitelie,isaviolationofone'sowndignity.ProfessorSandelasksstudentstotestKant'stheory

withthishypotheticalcase:ifyourfriendwerehidinginsideyourhome,andapersonintentonkilling

yourfriendcametoyourdoorandaskedyouwherehewas,woulditbewrongtotellalie?Ifso,would

itbemoraltotrytomisleadthemurdererwithoutactuallylying?Thisleadstoadiscussionofthemorality

of“misleadingtruths.^^Sandelwrapsupthelecturewithavideoclipofoneofthemostfamous,recent

examplesofdodgingthetruth:PresidentClintontalkingabouthisrelationshipwithMonicaLewinsky.

PARTTWO:ADEALISADEAL

SandelintroducesthemodernphilosopherJohnRawlsandhistheoryofa''hypotheticalsocialcontract.^^

Rawlsarguesthatprinciplesofjusticearetheoutcomeofaspecialkindofagreement.Theyarethe

principleswewouldallagreetoifwehadtochooserulesforoursocietyandnoonehadanyunfair

bargainingpower.AccordingtoRawls,theonlywaytoensurethatnoonehasmorepowerthananyone

elseistoimagineascenariowherenooneknowshisorherage,sex,race,intelligence,strength,social

position,familywealth,religion,orevenhisorhergoalsinlife.Rawlscallsthishypotheticalsituationa

“veilofignorance.^^Whatprincipleswouldweagreetobehindthis"veilofignorance"？Andwould

theseprinciplesbefair?ProfessorSandelexplainstheideaofafairagreementwithsomehumorous

examplesofactualcontractsthatproduceunfairresults.

EpisodeEight

PARTONE:WHAT3AFAIRSTART?

Isitjusttotaxtherichtohelpthepoor?JohnRawlssaysweshouldanswerthisquestionbyaskingwhat

principlesyouwouldchoosetogovernthedistributionofincomeandwealthifyoudidnotknowwhoyou

were,whetheryougrewupinprivilegeorinpoverty.Wouldn'tyouwantanequaldistributionofwealth,

oronethatmaximallybenefitswhomeverhappenstobetheleastadvantaged?Afterall,thatmightbeyou.

Rawlsarguesthatevenmeritocracy—adistributivesystemthatrewardseffort-doesn'tgofarenoughin

levelingtheplayingfieldbecausethosewhoarenaturallygiftedwillalwaysgetahead.Furthermore,says

Rawls,thenaturallygiftedcan'tclaimmuchcreditbecausetheirsuccessoftendependsonfactorsas

arbitraryasbirthorder.SandelmakesRawls'spointwhenheasksthestudentswhowerefirstbornintheir

familytoraisetheirhands.

PARTTWO:WHATDOWEDESERVE?

ProfessorSandelrecapshowincome,wealth,andopportunitiesinlifeshouldbedistributed,accordingto

thethreedifferenttheoriesraisedsofarinclass.Hesummarizeslibertarianism,themeritocraticsystem,

andJohnRawls'segalitariantheory.Sandelthenlaunchesadiscussionofthefairnessofpaydifferentials

inmodernsociety.HecomparesthesalaryofformerSupremeCourtJusticeSandraDayO'Connor

($200,000)withthesalaryoftelevision'sJudgeJudy($25million).Sandelasks,isthisfair?Accordingto

JohnRawls,itisnot.Rawlsarguesthatanindividuafspersonalsuccessisoftenafunctionofmorally

arbitraryfacts—luck,genes,andfamilycircumstances—forwhichheorshecanclaimnocredit.Thoseat

thebottomarenolessworthysimplybecausetheyweren'tbornwiththetalentsaparticularsociety

rewards,Rawlsargues,andtheonlyjustwaytodealwithsociety'sinequalitiesisforthenaturally

advantagedtosharetheirwealthwiththoselessfortunate.

EpisodeNine

PARTONE:ARGUINGAFFIRMATIVEACTION

Sandeldescribesthe1996courtcaseofawhitewomannamedCherylHopwoodwhowasdenied

admissiontoaTexaslawschool,eventhoughshehadhighergradesandtestscoresthansomeofthe

minorityapplicantswhowereadmitted.Hopwoodtookhercasetocourt,arguingtheschoofsaffirmative

actionprogramviolatedherrights.Studentsdiscusstheprosandconsofaffirmativeaction.Shouldwetry

tocorrectforinequalityineducationalbackgroundsbytakingraceintoconsideration?Shouldwe

compensateforhistoricalinjusticessuchasslaveryandsegregation?Istheargumentinfavorof

promotingdiversityavalidone?Howdoesitsizeupagainsttheargumentthatastudent'seffortsand

achievementsshouldcarrymoreweightthanfactorsthatareoutofhisorhercontrolandtherefore

arbitrary?Whenauniversity'sstatedmissionistoincreasediversity,isitaviolationofrightstodenya

whitepersonadmission?

PARTTWO:WHAT9STHEPURPOSE?

SandelintroducesAristotleandhistheoryofjustice.AristotledisagreeswithRawlsandKant.Hebelieves

thatjusticeisaboutgivingpeopletheirdue,whattheydeserve.Whenconsideringmattersofdistribution,

Aristotlearguesonemustconsiderthegoal,theend,thepurposeofwhatisbeingdistributed.Thebest

flutes,forexample,shouldgotothebestfluteplayers.Andthehighestpoliticalofficesshouldgotothose

withthebestjudgmentandthegreatestcivicvirtue.ForAristotle,justiceisamatteroffittingaperson's

virtueswithanappropriaterole.

EpisodeTen

PARTONE:THEGOODCITIZEN

Aristotlebelievesthepurposeofpoliticsistopromoteandcultivatethevirtueofitscitizens.Thetelosor

goalofthestateandpoliticalcommunityisthe“goodlife”.Andthosecitizenswhocontributemosttothe

purposeofthecommunityaretheoneswhoshouldbemostrewarded.Buthowdoweknowthepurpose

ofacommunityorapractice?Aristotle^theoryofjusticeleadstoacontemporarydebateaboutgolf.

SandeldescribesthecaseofCaseyMartin,adisabledgolfer,whosuedthePGAafteritdeclinedhis

requesttouseagolfcartonthePGATour.Thecaseleadstoadebateaboutthepurposeofgolfand

whetheraplayer'sabilityto“walkthecourse^^isessentialtothegame.

PARTTWO:FREEDOMVS.FIT

HowdoesAristotleaddresstheissueofindividualrightsandthefreedomtochoose?Ifourplacein

societyisdeterminedbywherewebestfit,doesn'tthateliminatepersonalchoice?WhatifIambestsuited

todoonekindofwork,butIwanttodoanother?Inthislecture,Sandeladdressesoneofthemostglaring

objectionstoAristotle'sviewsonfreedom—hisdefenseofslaveryasafittingsocialroleforcertain

humanbeings.StudentsdiscussotherobjectionstoAristotle'stheoriesanddebatewhetherhisphilosophy

overlyrestrictsthefreedomofindividuals.

EpisodeEleven

PARTONE:THECLAIMSOFCOMMUNITY

ProfessorSandelpresentsKant'sobjectionstoAristotle'stheory.Kantbelievespoliticsmustrespect

individualfreedom.Peoplemustalwaysrespectotherpeople'sfreedomtomaketheirownchoices—a

universaldutytohumanity-butforKant,thereisnoothersourceofmoralobligation.Thediscussionof

Kant'sviewleadstoanintroductiontothecommunitarianphilosophy.Communitariansarguethat,in

additiontovoluntaryanduniversalduties,wealsohaveobligationsofmembership,solidarity,andloyalty.

Theseobligationsarenotnecessarilybasedonconsent.Weinheritourpast,andouridentities,fromour

family,city,orcountry.Butwhathappensifourobligationstoourfamilyorcommunitycomeinto

conflictwithouruniversalobligationstohumanity?

PARTTWO:WHEREOURLOYALTYLIES

ProfessorSandelleadsadiscussionabouttheargumentsforandagainstobligationsofsolidarityand

membership.Doweowemoretoourfellowcitizensthattocitizensofothercountries?Ispatriotisma

virtue,oraprejudiceforone'sownkind?Ifouridentitiesaredefinedbytheparticularcommunitieswe

inhabit,whatbecomesofuniversalhumanrights?Usingvariousscenarios,studentsdebatewhetherornot

obligationsofloyaltycaneveroutweighuniversaldutiesofjustice.

EpisodeTwelve

PARTONE:DEBATINGSAME-SEXMARRIAGE

Ifprinciplesofjusticedependonthemoralorintrinsicworthoftheendsthatrightsserve,howshouldwe

dealwiththefactthatpeopleholddifferentideasandconceptionsofwhatisgood?Studentsaddressthis

questioninaheateddebateaboutsame-sexmarriage.Shouldsame-sexmarriagebelegal?Canwesettle

thematterwithoutdiscussingthemoralpermissibilityofhomosexualityorthepurposeofmarriage?

PARTTWO:THEGOODLIFE

ProfessorSandelraisestwoquestions.Isitnecessarytoreasonaboutthegoodlifeinordertodecidewhat

rightspeoplehaveandwhatisjust?Ifso,howisitpossibletoargueaboutthenatureofthegoodlife?

Studentsexplorethesequestionswithadiscussionabouttherelationoflawandmorality,asplayedoutin

publiccontroversiesoversame-sexmarriageandabortion.MichaelSandelconcludeshislectureseriesby

makingthepointthat,inmanycases,thelawcan'lbeneutralonhardmoralquestions.Engagingrather

thanavoidingthemoralconvictionsofourfellowcitizensmaybethebestwayofseekingajustsociety.

Readings

Interestedinlearningmoreaboutjustice?Thelinksonthispagewillhelpyoudigdeeper.Belowyou'llfind

manyofthetextsandlegalcasesthatMichaelSandeldiscussesinhislectures.

*pleasenotethatnotallepisodeshaverelatedreadings

EpisodeOne

TheQueenv.DudleyandStephens(1884)(Thelifeboatcase)

Supposeyoufindyourselfinasituationinwhichkillinganinnocentpersonistheonlywayto

preventmanyinnocentpeoplefromdying.What'stherightthingtodo?Thisquestionarosein

TheQueenwDudleyandStephens(1884),afamousEnglishlawcaseinvolvingfourmen

strandedinalifeboatwithoutfoodorwater.HowshouldwejudgetheactionofDudleyand

Stephens?Wasitmorallyjustifiedormorallywrong?

readmore...

JeremyBentham,PrinciplesofMoralsandLegislation(1780)

Onefamiliarwaytothinkabouttherightthingtodoistoaskwhatwillproducethegreatest

amountofhappinessforthegreatestnumberofpeople.Thiswayofthinkingaboutmorality

findsitsclearestexpressioninthephilosophyofJeremyBentham(1748-1832).Inhis

IntroductiontothePrinciplesofMoralsandLegislation(1780),Benthamarguesthatthe

principleofutilityshouldbethebasisofmoralityandlaw,andbyutilityheunderstands

whateverpromotespleasureandpreventspain.Istheprincipleofutilitytherightguidetoall

questionsofrightandwrong?

readmore...

EpisodeTwo

J.S.Mill,Utilitarianism(1863)

JeremyBentham's(1748-1832)principleofutilityisopentotheobjectionthatit

maywellsacrificetherightsoftheminorityforthesakeofthehappinessofthe

majority.JohnStuartMill(1806-1873),himselfautilitarian,soughttorescue

utilitarianismfromthisandotherobjections.InhisessayUtilitarianism,Mill

arguesthatrespectforindividualsrightsas"themostsacredandbindingpartof

morality11iscompatiblewiththeideathatjusticerestsultimatelyonutilitarian

considerations.ButisMillrighttobeconfident?Cantheprincipleofutility

supportthenotionthatsomerightsshouldbeupheldevenifdoingsomakesthe

majorityveryunhappy?

readmore...

EpisodeFour

JohnLocke,SecondTreatiseofGovernment(1690)

InhisSecondTreatiseofGovernment,JohnLocke(1632-1704)arguesthatlegitimategovernmentisalimitedgovernment

basedonconsent,inwhichtheniiyorityrulesbutmaynotviolatepeople'sfundamentalrights.Atfirstglance,Locke's

theoiymayseemfamiliar,butitalsoconcealssomepuzzlingquestions.OnLocke'sview,alegitimategovernmentmaynot

violateournaturalrighttolife,liberty,andproperty.ButLockeallowsthatgovernmentmaylegitimatelytakeourproperty

throughtaxationandrequirecitizenstosacrificetheirlivesinwar.Ifgovernmentmaydothesethings,thenwhatcountsasa

lawthatviolatesourrights?

readmore...

EpisodeFive

IntheMatterofBaby“M”(1988)

Mrs.Whiteheadsignedasurrogacycontractinwhichshewaspaid$10,000tobeimpregnatedwithMr.Stem'sspermand

torenounceparentalrightsafterthebirthofthebaby.However,Mrs.Whiteheadrefusedtogiveupthebabyonceitwas

born.ThetrialcourtupheldthesurrogacycontractandterminatedMrs.Whitehead'sparentalrights.Mrs.Whiteheadthen

appealedtotheSupremeCourtofNewJersey.Inthejudgmentbelow,thecourtinvalidatedthecontractandrestoredMrs.

Whitehead'sparentalrights,arguingthat"thereare,inacivilizedsociety,somethingsthatmoneycannotbuy."Doyou

agreewiththecourt'sreasoning?Arecontractsforthesaleofparentalrightsandwomen'slabormorallypermissible?Do

theyamounttobaby-selling?Doyourviewsaboutamarketfbrbabieschallengeorsupportutilitarianismand

libertarianism?

readmore...

EpisodeSix

ImmanuelKant,GroundworkfortheMetaphysicsofMorals(1785)

TheGroundworkfortheMetaphysicsofMorals^1785)byImmanuelKant(1724-1804)isoneof

themostimportantworksofmoralphilosophyeverwritten.IntheGroundwork,Kantargues

thatmoralityisbasedneitherontheprincipleofutility,noronalawofnature,butonhuman

reason.AccordingtoKant,reasontellsuswhatweoughttodo,andwhenweobeyourown

reason,onlythenarewetrulyfree.

readmore...

EpisodeSeven

JohnaRawls,ATheoryofJustice(1971)

InATheoryofJustice(1971),theAmericanpoliticalphilosopherJohnRawls(1921-2002)offersanovelversionofthe

socialcontract.Hearguesthatthewaytothinkaboutjusticeistoaskwhatprincipleswewouldagreetoifwedidnot

knowourplaceinsociety,ourclass,race,gender,orreligion.Ifwethoughtaboutjusticewithoutknowingwhetherwe

wouldberichorpoor,healthyorfrail,abankerorabusdriver,wewouldadoptasystemofequalbasiclibertiesfbrall

citizens,andacceptonlythoseinequalitiesinincomeandwealththatworktotheadvantageoftheleastwell-offmembers

ofsociety.

readmore...

EpisodeNine

Aristotle,ThePolitics

Manyrights-orientedphilosophersbelievethatdistributivejusticeisnotamatterofrewardingvirtueormoraldesert,and

thatthemeasureofajustsocietyisnotwhetheritproducesvirtuouscitizens,butwhetheritprovidesafairframeworkof

rightswithinwhichindividualscanpursuetheirownvalues.Aristotle(384-322BC)rejectsbothofthesebeliefs.He

believesthatjusticeconsistsingivingpeoplewhattheydeserve,andthatajustsocietyisonethatenableshumanbeingsto

realizetheirhighestnatureandtolivethegoodlife.ForAristotle,politicalactivityisnotmerelyawaytopursueour

interests,butanessentialpartofthegoodlife.

readmore...

Hopwoodv.State(1996)

Isitunjusttoconsiderraceasafactorincollegeanduniversityadmissions?ThaliswhatCherylHopwoodarguedwhenshe

wasdeniedadmissio