har [Music] University Justice from Michael sandle when we finished last [Music] time we were looking at John Stewart Mills attempt to reply to the critics of bentham's utilitarianism in his book utilitarianism mil tries to show that critics to the contrary it is possible within the utilitarian framework to distinguish between higher and lower Pleasures it is possible to make qualitative distinctions of worth and we tested that idea with The Simpsons and the Shakespeare excerpts and the results of our experiment seem to call into question Mills distinction because a great many of you reported that you prefer
The Simpsons but that you still consider Shakespeare to be the higher or the the worthier pleasure that's the dilemma with which our experiment confronts Mill what about Mill's attempt to account for the specially weighty character of individual rights and Justice in chapter five of utilitarianism he wants to say that individual rights are worthy of special respect in fact he goes so far as to say that Justice is the most sacred part and the most incomparably binding part of morality but the same challenge could be put to this part of Mills defense why is Justice the
chief part and the most binding part of all morality well he says because in the long run if we do justice and if we respect rights society as a whole will be better off in the long run well what about that what if we have a case where making an exception and violating individual rights actually will make people better off in the long run is it all right then to use people and there's a further objection that could be raised against Mill's case for justice and rights suppose the utilitarian calculus in the long run works
out as he says it will such that respecting people's rights is a way of making everybody better off in the long run is that the right reason is that the only reason to respect people if the doctor goes in and Yanks the organs from the healthy patient who came in for a checkup to save five lives there would be adverse effects in the long run eventually people would learn about this and would stop going in for checkups is it the right reason is the only reason that you as the doctor won't yank the organs out
of the healthy patient that you think well if I use him in this way in the long run more lives will be lost or is there another reason having to do with intrinsic respect for the person as an individual and if that reason matters then it's not so clear that even Mills utilitarianism can take account of it fully to examine these two worries or objections to Mill's defense we need to we need to push further and we we need to ask in the case of higher or worthier Pleasures are there theories of the good life
that can provide independent moral standards for the worth of Pleasures if so what do they look like that's one question in the case of justice and rights if we suspect that Mill is implicitly leaning on Notions of human dignity or respect for a person that are not strictly speaking utilitarian we need to look to see whether there are some stronger theories of rights that can explain the intuition which even Mill shares the intuition that the reason for respecting individuals and not using them goes beyond even utility in the long run today we turn to one
of those strong theories of Rights strong theories of Rights say individuals matter not just as instruments to be used for a larger social purpose or for the sake of maximizing utility individuals are separate beings with Separate Lives worthy of respect and so it's a mistake mistake according to strong theories of Rights it's a mistake to think about Justice or law by just adding up preferences and values the strong rights Theory we turn to today is libertarianism libertarianism takes individual rights seriously it's called libertarianism because it says the fundamental individual rights right is the right to
Liberty precisely because we are separate individual beings who are not available to any use that the society might desire or devise precisely because we are individual separate human beings we have a fundamental right to Liberty and that means a right to choose freely to live our lives as we please provided we respect other people's rights to do the same that's the fundamental idea Robert noik one of the libertarian philosophers we read for this course puts it this way individuals have rights so strong and far-reaching are these rights that they raise the question of what if
anything the state may do so what does libertarianism say about the role of government or of the state well there are three things that most modern states do that on the libertarian theory of rights are illegitimate are unjust one of them is paternalist legislation that's passing laws that protect people from themselves seat Bel laws for example or motorcycle helmet laws the libertarian says it may be a good thing if people wear seat belts but that should be up to them and the state the government has no business coercing them us to wear seat belts by
law it's coercion so no paternalist legislation number one number two no morals legislation many laws try to promote the virtue of citizens or try to give expression to the moral values of the society as a whole Libertarians say that's also a violation of the right to Liberty take the example of well a classic example of legislation offered in the name of promoting morality traditionally have been laws that prevent sexual intimacy between gays and lesbians the libertarian says nobody else is harmed nobody else's rights are violated so the state should get out of the business entir
of trying to promote virtue or to enact morals legislation and the Third Kind of law or policy that is ruled out on the libertarian philosophy is any taxation or other policy that serves the purpose of redistributing income or wealth from the rich to the poor redistribution is a kind if you think about it says the libertarian is a kind of coercion what it amounts to is theft by the state or by the majority if we're talking about a democracy from people who happen to do very well and earn a lot of money now nosik and
other Libertarians allow that there can be a min minimal state that taxes people for the sake of what everybody needs the National Defense police force judicial system to enforce contracts and property rights but that's it now I want to get your reactions to this third feature of the libertarian view I want to see who among you agree with that idea and who disagree and why but just to make it concrete and to see what's at stake consider the distribution of wealth in the United States United States is among the most inegalitarian societies as far as
the distribution of wealth of all the advanced democracies now is this just or unjust well what does the libertarian say libertar Maran says you can't know just from the facts I've just given you you can't know whether that distribution is just or unjust you can't know just by looking at a pattern or a distribution or a result whether it's just or unjust you have to know how it came to be you can't just look at the end State or the result you have to look at two principles the first he calls Justice in acquisition or
in initial Holdings and what that means simply is did people get the things they use to make their money fairly so we need to know was there Justice in the initial Holdings did they steal the land or the factory or the goods that Ena them to make all that money if not if they were entitled to whatever it was that enabled them to gather the wealth the first principle is met the second principle is did the distribution arise from the operation of free consent people buying and trading on the market as you can see the
libertarian idea of Justice corresponds to a free market conception of Justice provided people got what they used fairly didn't steal it and provided the distribution results from the free choice of individuals buying and selling things the distribution is just and if not it's unjust so let's in order to fix ideas for this discussion take an actual example who's the wealthiest person in the United States wealthiest person in the world Bill Gates it is that's right here he is you'd be happy too now what's his net worth anybody have any idea that's a big number during
the Clinton years remember there was a controversy donors big campaign contributors were invited to stay overnight in the Lincoln bedroom at the White House I think if you contributed $25,000 or above someone figured out at the median contribution that got you invited to stay a night in the Lincoln bedroom Bill Gates could afford to stay in the Lincoln bedroom every night for the next 66,000 years somebody else figured out how much does he get paid on an hourly basis and so they figured out since he began Microsoft uh suppose he worked what 14 hours per
day reasonable guess and you calculate this net wealth it turns out that his rate of pay is over $150 not per hour not per minute $150 more than $150 per second which means which means that if on his way to the office Gates noticed a $100 bill on the street it wouldn't be worth his time to stop and pick and pick it up now most of you will say someone that wealthy surely we can tax them to meet the pressing needs of people who lack an education or lack enough to eat or lack decent housing
they need it more than he does and if you were a utilitarian what would you do what tax policy would you have you'd redistribute in a Flash wouldn't you because you would know being a good utilitarian that taking some a small amount he's scarcely going to notice it but it will make a huge Improvement in the lives and in the welfare of those at the bottom but remember the libertarian Theory says we can't just add up and aggregate preferences and satisfactions that way we have to respect persons and if he earned that money fairly without
violating anybody else's rights in accordance with the two principles of Justice in acquisition and Justice in transfer then it would be wrong it would be a form of coercion to take it away Michael Jordan is not as wealthy as Bill Gates but he did pretty well for himself you want to see Michael Jordan there he is his income alone in one year was $31 million and then he made another $47 million in endorsements for Nike and other companies so his income was in one year 78 million to require him to pay let's say a third
of his earnings to the government to support good causes like Food and Health Care and housing and education for the poor that's coercion that's unjust that violates his rights and that's why redistribution is wrong now how many agree with that argument agree with the libertarian argument that redistribution for the sake of trying to help the poor is wrong and how many disagree with that argument all right let's begin with those who disagree what's wrong with the libertarian case against redistribution yes I think these people like Michael Jordan have received um we're talking about with working
within a society and they received a larger um gift from the society and they have a larger obligation in return uh to give that through redistribution you know you can say that Michael Jordan may work just as hard as someone who works um you know doing laundry 12 hours 14 hours a day but he's receiving more um I don't think it's fair to say that you know it's all on him on his you know inherent you know hard work all right let's hear from Defenders of libertarianism why would it be wrong in principle to tax
the rich to help the poor go ahead my name's Joe and I collect skateboards I've s bought 100 skateboards I live in a society of 100 people I'm the only one with skateboards suddenly everyone decides they want a skateboard they come into my house they take my they take 99 of my skateboards I think that is unjust now I think in certain circumstances it becomes necessary to overlook that unjustice perhaps condone that unjustice as in the case of the cabin boy being killed for food if people on the verge of dying Perhaps it is necessary
to overlook that Injustice but I think it's important to keep in mind that we're still committing unjustice by taking people's belongings or assets are you saying that taxing Michael Jordan say at 33% tax rate for good causes to feed the hungry is theft I think it's unjust yes I do believe it's theft but perhaps it is necessary to condone that theft but it's theft yes why is it theft Joe because why is it like your collection of skateboards it's theft because at least in my opinion and by the libertarian opinion he earned that money fairly
um and it belongs to him so to take it from him is by definition theft all right let's hear if there's uh who wants to reply to Joe yes go ahead I don't think this is necessarily a case in which you have 99 skateboards and the government or you have 100 skateboards and the government is taking 99 of them it's like you have more skateboards than there are days in a year you have more skateboards than you're going to be able to use in your entire lifetime and the government is taking taking part of those
and I think that if you're operating in a society in which the government's not in which the government doesn't redistribute wealth that that allows for people to amass so much wealth that people who haven't started from this very the equal footing in our hypothetical situation that doesn't exist in our real Society get undercut for the rest of their lives so you're worried that if there isn't some degree of redistribution if some are left at the bottom there will be no genuine equality of opportunity all right the idea that taxation is theft nosac takes that point
one step further he agrees that it's theft he's more demanding than Joe Joe says it is theft maybe in an extreme case it's Justified maybe a parent is Justified in stealing a loaf of bread to feed his or her hungry family so Joe is a what would you call yourself a compassionate quasi libertarian noic says if you think about it taxation amounts to The Taking of earnings in other words it means taking the fruits of my labor but if the state has the right to take my earnings or the fruits of my labor isn't that
morally the same as according to the state the right to claim a portion of my labor so taxation actually is morally equivalent to forced labor because forced labor involves the taking of my my leisure my time my efforts just as taxation takes the earnings that I make with my labor and so for nosik and for the Libertarians taxation for redistribution is theft as Joe says but not only theft it's morally equivalent to laying claim to certain hours of a person's life and labor so it's morally equivalent to forced labor if the state has a right
to claim the fruits of my labor that implies that it really has an an entitlement to my labor itself and what is forced labor forced labor nosic points out is what is slavery because if I don't have the right the sole right to my own labor then that's really to say that the government or the political Community is a part owner in me and what does it mean for the state to be a part owner in me if you think about it it means that I'm a slave that I don't own myself so what this
line of reasoning brings us to is the fundamental principle that underlies the libertarian case for rights what is that principle it's the idea that I own myself it's the idea of self-possession if you want to take right seriously if you don't want to just regard people as collections of preferences the fundamental moral idea to which you will be led is the idea that we are the owners or the Proprietors of our own person and that's why utilitarianism goes wrong wrong and that's why it's wrong to yank the organs from that healthy patient you're acting as
if that patient belongs to you or to the community but we belong to ourselves and that's the same reason that it's wrong to make laws to protect us from ourselves or to tell us how to live to tell us what virtues we should be governed by and that's also why it's wrong to tax the rich to help the poor even for good causes even to help those who are displaced by the hurricane Katrina ask them to give charity but if you tax them it's like forcing them to labor could you tell Michael Jordan he has
to skip the next week's games and go down to help the people displaced by Hurricane Katrina morally it's the same so so the stakes are very high so far we've heard some objections to the libertarian argument but if you want to reject it you have to break into this chain of reasoning which goes taking my earnings is like taking my labor but taking my labor is making me a slave and if you disagree with that you must believe in the principle of self-possession those who disagree gather your objections and we'll begin with them next [Applause]
[Music] time anyone like to take up that point yes um I feel like when you live in a society you give up that right I mean technically if I want to personally go out and kill someone because they offend me that is self-possession because I live in a society I cannot do that Victoria are you questioning the fundamental premise of self-possession yes I think that you don't really have self-possession if you choose to live in a society because you cannot just discount the people around you [Music] [Music] [Music]
