Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Conclusion Nanoethics Lecture V Roderick T....
-
Upload
mekhi-vega -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
1
Transcript of Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Conclusion Nanoethics Lecture V Roderick T....
Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare:
ConclusionNanoethics Lecture V
Roderick T. Long
Auburn Dept. of Philosophy
John Locke (1632-1704) Natural Law theorist One of the chief inspirations
of the American Revolution
Essays on the Law of Nature (1664)
Essay Concerning Toleration (1667)
Two Treatises of Government (1689)
Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690)
John Locke (1632-1704)God’s will is the
standard of moralityBut we don’t need
divine revelation to discover his will
We can figure it out by reason
John Locke (1632-1704)Specifically, we can infer
God’s purposes for human beings from the way he made us
Since God made us essentially rational and social beings, he must intend us to live lives centered around reason and sociability
John Locke (1632-1704)If God had intended humans to
have dominion over other humans, he wouldn’t have given all humans the ability to think for themselves
So God must intend for us all to have equal rights
“Men are not made for one another’s uses.”
(Ancestor of Kant’s imperative not to treat persons as mere means.)
John Locke (1632-1704)Q: Does this apply to women too, or is
this equality for men only?Locke: On the one hand, the existing
subordination of women to men is the result of sin, not the decree of God
On the other hand, one could plausibly defend such subordination by appeal to biological differences
[In other words, Locke doesn’t give a straight answer – though later Lockeans would say yes, equality applies to both sexes]
John Locke (1632-1704)Locke’s conclusion: no one
can legitimately exercise authority over you without your consent
Further conclusion: governments must rest on consent of the governed, and may legitimately be overthrown if they overstep their authority
Applying Locke’s Philosophy
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness that to secure these rights, governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it
– Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776
What is the Basis of Private Property?
Robert Filmer, Locke’s archenemy, had argued that all property in the realm belonged rightfully to the King
Your farm, your tools, the clothes on your back – it’s all the King’s property, so OBEY!
To combat this, Locke needed to develop a theory of property rights
How do initially unowned things rightfully become owned? Robert Filmer (1588-1653)
Property Rights in GeneralUtilitarian view: the right
system of property rights is whichever one maximizes the general happiness
It’s the job of economics to tell us which one that is
(J. S. Mill, 1806-1873)
Property Rights in GeneralRawlsian view: the right
system of property rights is whichever one most benefits the worst-off
Again, it’s the job of economics to tell us which one that is
Property Rights in GeneralUtilitarians and Rawlsians agree that promotion
of the common good (whether aggregate or mutual) is the proper standard of property rights
But some moral theorists think there are considerations of inherent property rights over and above concern with consequences
Locke on Property RightsGod gave the entire earth to
humankind in common
But if it remained common property, you’d have to get permission from all the other joint-owners (the entire human race) before you could use any object
We’d all starve to death!
Locke on Property RightsGod would not have made us with
bodily needs if he didn’t want us to satisfy them
So it is not God’s will that we starve to death
So God must intend us to appropriate, from the commons, goods for our own private use
God favours private property
Locke on Property RightsBy mixing our labour with
previously unowned objects and so transforming them, we make them our own
This is permissible so long as we don’t make others worse off by doing so
Locke on Property RightsQ: Doesn’t all appropriation
diminish the amount available to others and so make them worse off?
A: Since private land is more productive than common land, appropriation usually makes society as a whole better off
Locke on Property RightsQ: Why is private land more
productive than common land?
A: People are willing to put more effort into something if they know they’ll get to reap the benefits
(Ancestor of Rawls’ Second Principle of Justice?)
Locke on Property RightsAn individual creates value through
homesteading previously unowned resources
The product of is an extension of the producer and so cannot be appropriated without wrongly treating him as an object for others’ uses
Hence private property is sacred
A Different View: Pëtr Kropotkin (1842-1921)
The value of a resource derives from its entire social context, to which everybody contributes
So nobody has any more claim to it than anybody else
Hence all resources should be shared; private property is forbidden
Conquest of Bread (1892)
Mutual Aid (1902)
A Different View: Pëtr Kropotkin (1842-1921)
Q: What of Locke’s worry that each user would have to get permission from the entire human race?
A: Distinguish collective from communal ownership
Collective: a group right to use Communal: an individual right
(of each member) to use
Another View:Karl Marx (1818-1883)
All goods are produced by the workers
But the workers don’t get to keep or sell the goods they produce
The employer gives his employees only a part of the proceeds and keeps the rest for himself
Another View:Karl Marx (1818-1883)
What makes this possible?
If the employees do all the work, why does the employer get a cut?
Why can’t the workers ditch their boss and go off to produce goods on their own, for their own benefit?
Another View:Karl Marx (1818-1883)
Answer: the capitalist class has monopolised the means of production (land, factories, etc.)
Even though it’s generally been the workers, not the bosses, who cleared the land and built the factories, they’re not allowed to use these means of production without the bosses’ permission
Another View:Karl Marx (1818-1883)
Solution: workers’ revolution
Workers should seize the means of production and use them to produce for their own benefit
Former bosses should become workers if they want a share of the product
Kropotkin vs. MarxKropotkin: Hey, sounds great! Let the
workers run their own factories autonomously! Radical, dude!
Marx: Well, um … not completely autonomously, you know. Councils of workers will be coordinated under one big super-council that will determine work priorities and set wage rates for everybody.
Kropotkin vs. MarxKropotkin: Oh. I get it. So it’s the same
old oppression of the workers, just like nowadays, only with your gang running it. That totally sucks.
Marx: Chill out, man. The workers get to vote on who runs the big super-council, so what’s the prob? Don’t be hatin’. It’s gonna be excellent.
[Quotations not exact]
Yet Another View: Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)
Human happiness consists in the exercise of our faculties
Morality accepts human happiness as the ultimate value
Hence morality requires maximum scope for such exercise
Social Statics (1851)
Man vs. the State (1884)
Principles of Ethics (1897)
Spencer on FreedomLaw of Equal Freedom: each shall
have freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of others
[and for Spencer this does apply to women – as well as to children!]
So no one can exercise legitimate authority over anyone else
Law of Equal Freedom sounds like Locke and Rawls – but is much more radical
Spencer on FreedomLocke: no one can have
authority over you unless you ACTUALLY consented
Rawls: no one can have authority over you unless you WOULD consent behind the Veil of Ignorance
Spencer on FreedomSpencer: no one can have
authority over you, PERIOD
Coercive governments must be replaced by voluntary associations
Any individual has the right to secede
Implications for PropertyIf everybody has equal freedom to
exercise their faculties, then everyone has an equal right to acquire and use external objects
My keeping an item for myself is no violation of your freedom so long as you’re allowed to keep items for yourself too
Thus the Law of Equal Freedom supports private property
But Land is an Exception If private ownership of land is
permissible, then it would be permissible for the entire surface of the earth to become the private property of a few
But when you’re on someone else’s property, you have to do whatever they say or else leave
Spencer on Land If the entire surface of the
earth were private property, leaving wouldn’t be an option
The non-owners would have to become slaves of the owners
But slavery violates the Law of Equal Freedom
Spencer on Land1. If private property in land were
permissible, then in some circumstances slavery would be permissible
2. But there can be no circumstances in which slavery is permissible
3. Therefore: private property in land is not permissible
Spencer on LandBut Spencer agrees with Locke,
against Kropotkin and Marx, that private administration of land is more efficient
Solution: society owns all land, but individuals rent land from society and administer it as their own, subject to society’s regulations
All other property is private
Criticism of SpencerBenjamin Tucker:
Spencer is right about the Law of Equal Freedom
BUT if, as that Law requires, no group has any more authority than any other group, and any individual is free to secede from any group, what group collects “society’s” rent and determines “society’s” regulations?
Tucker (1854-1939)
Tucker’s SolutionLand should be private property
But one has a just claim over land only so long as one is occupying and using it
Thus charging rent is illegitimate: if you move off the land and allow someone else to move on, you’ve given up your property Tucker (1854-1939)
Tucker’s SolutionSo no one can own more land
than he can personally occupy and use
Thus no one could ever legitimately own land on which other people live
Conclusion: Spencer’s nightmare scenario is impossible
Tucker (1854-1939)
A Different SolutionVoltairine de Cleyre (1866-1912)(originally a follower of Tucker; later influenced
by Kropotkin)
Law of Equal Freedom tells against imposing a single uniform one-size-fits-all property system on the entire society
Why not allow each local community to have its own property arrangements – private, communal, or whatever?
And the Debate Continues …