[Music] har Justice from Michael sandle we turn to Aristotle after examining theories modern theories of justice that tried to detach considerations of justice and rights from questions of moral desert and virtue Aristotle disagrees with Kant and rs Aristotle argues that Justice is a matter of giving people what they deserve and the central idea of Aristotle's theory of justice is that in reasoning about Justice and rights we have unavoidably to reason about the purpose or the end or the kilos of social practices and institutions yes Justice requires giving equal things to equal persons but the question
immediately arises in any debate about Justice equal in what respect and Aristotle says we need to fill in the answer to that question by looking to the characteristic end or the essential nature or the purpose of the thing we're Distributing and so we discussed Aristotle's example of flutes who should get the best flutes and Aristotle's answer was the best flute players the best flute player should get the best flute because that's a way of honoring the Excellence of flute playing it's a way of rewarding the virtue of the great flute player what's interesting though and
this is what we're going to explore today is that it's not not quite so easy to dispense with teleological reasoning when we're thinking about social institutions and political practices in general it's hard to do without Tey when we're thinking about ethics Justice and moral argument at least that's Aristotle's claim and I would like to bring out the force in Aristotle's Claim by considering two examples one is an example that Aristotle spends quite a bit of time discussing the case of politics how should political offices and honors how should political rule be distributed the second example
is a contemporary debate about Golf and whether the professional golfers association should be required to allow Casey Martin a golfer with a disability to ride in a golf cart both cases bring out a further feature of Aristotle's chological way of thinking about Justice and that is that when we attend to the tilos or the purpose sometimes we disagree and argue about what the purpose of a social practice really consists in and when we have those disagreements part of what's at stake in those disagreements is not just who will get what not just a Distributive question
but also an honorific question what qualities what excellences of persons will be honored debates about purpose and tilos are often simultaneously debates about honor now let's see how that works in the case of Aristotle's account of politics when we discuss distributive justice these days we're mainly concerned with the distribution of income and wealth and opportunity Aristotle took distributive justice to be mainly not about income and wealth but about offices and honors who should have the right to rule who should be a citizen how should political Authority be distributed those were his questions how did he
go about answering those questions well in line with his theological account of Justice Aristotle argues that to know how itical Authority should be distributed we have first to inquire into the purpose the point the TS of politics so what is politics about and how does this help us decide who should rule well for Aristotle the answer to that question is politics is about forming character forming good character it's about cultivating ating the virtue of citizens it's about the good life the end of the state the end of the political Community he tells us in book
three of the politics is Not Mere life it's not economic exchange only it's not security only it's realizing the good life that's what politics is for according to Aristotle now you might worry about this you might say well maybe this shows us why those modern theorists of justice and of politics are right because remember for Kant and for RS the point of politics is not to shape the moral character of citizens it's not to make us good it's to respect our freedom to choose our Goods our values our ends consistent with a similar Liberty for
others Aristotle disagrees any polus which is truly so called and is not merely one in name must devote itself to the end of encouraging goodness otherwise political Association sinks into a mere Alliance law becomes a mere Covenant a guarantor of men's rights against one another instead of being as it should be a way of life such as will make the members of apus good and just that's Aristotle's view apus is not an association for residents on a common site or for the sake of preventing Mutual Injustice and easing exchange Aristotle writes the end and purpose
of a polus is the good life and the institutions of social life are means to that end now if that's the purpose of politics of the polus then says we can derive from that the principles of distributive justice the principles that tell us who should have the greatest say who should have the greatest measure of political Authority and what's his answer to that question well those who contribute the most to an association of this character namely an association that aims at the good should have a greater share in political Rule and in the honors of
the polus and the reason is they are in a position to contribute most to what political Community is essentially about well so you can see the link that he draws between the principle of distribution for citizenship and political Authority and the purpose of politics but why you'll quickly ask why does he claim that political life participation in politics is somehow essential to living a good life why isn't it possible for people to live perfectly good lives decent lives moral lives without participating in politics well he gives two answers to that question he gives a partial
answer a preliminary answer in book one of the politics where he tells us that only by living in a polus and participating in politics do we fully realize our nature as human beings human beings are by Nature meant to live in aplus why it's only in political life that we can actually exercise our distinctly human capacity for language which Aristotle understands has this capacity to deliberate about right and wrong the just and the unjust and so Aristotle writes in book one of the politics that the polus the political Community exists by nature and is prior
to the individual not prior in time but prior in its purpose human beings are not self-sufficient living by themselves outside of political Community a man who is isolated who's unable to share in the benefits of political Association or who has no need to share because he's already self-sufficient such a person must be either a beast or a god so we only fully realize our nature we only fully unfold our human capacities when we exercise our faculty of language which means when we deliberate with our fellow citizens about Good and Evil right and wrong just and
the unjust but why can we only exercise our capacity for language in political Community you might ask Aristotle gives a second part A Fuller part of his answer in the nicomaki ethics an excerpt of which we have among the readings and there he explains that political deliberation living the life of a citizen ruling and being ruled R in turn sharing in rule all of this is necessary to Virtue Aristotle defines happiness not as maximizing the balance of pleasure over pain but as an activity an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue and he says
that every student of politics must study the soul because shaping the soul is one of the objects of legislation in a good city but why is it necessary to live in a good city in order to live a virtuous life why can't we just learn good moral principles at home or in a philosophy class or from a book live according to those principles those rules those precepts and leave it at that Aristotle says virtue isn't acquired that way virtue is only something we can acquire by practicing by exercising the virtues it's the kind of thing
we can only learn by doing it doesn't come from book learning in this respect it's like flute playing you couldn't learn how to play a musical instrument well just by reading a book about it you have to practice and you have to listen to other accomplished flute players there are other practices and skills of this type cooking there are cookbooks but no great chef ever learns how to cook by reading a cookbook only it's the kind of thing you only learn by doing joke telling is probably another example of this kind no great comedian learns
to be a comedian just by reading a book on the principles of Comedy it wouldn't work now why not what do joke Kelling and cooking and playing a musical instrument have in common such that we can't learn them just by grasping a precept or a rule that we might learn from a book or a lecture but they have in common is that they are all concerned with getting the hang of it but also what is it we get the hang of when we learn how to cook or play a musical instrument or tell jokes well
Discerning particulars particular features of a situation and no rule no precept could tell the comedian or the Cook or the great musician how to get in the habit of the practice of Discerning the particular features of a situation Aristotle says virtue is that way too now how does this connect to politics the only way we can acquire the virtues that constitute the good life is to exercise the virtues to have certain habits inculcated in us and then to engage in the practice of deliberating with citizens about the nature of the good that's what politics is
ultimately about the acquisition of civic virtue of this capacity to deliberate among equals that's something we couldn't get living a life alone outside of politics and so that's why in order to realize our nature we have to engage in politics and that's why those who are greatest in civic virtue like Pericles are the ones who properly have the greatest measure of offices and honors so the argument about the distribution of offices and honors has this teleological character but also an honorific dimension because part of the point of politics is to honor people like Pericles it
isn't just that Pericles should have the dominant say because he has the best judgment and that will lead to the best outcomes to the best consequences for the citizens that's true and that's important but a further reason people like Pericles should have the greatest measure of offices and honors and political Authority and sway in the polus is that part of the point of politics is to single out and honor those who possess the relevant virtue in this case civic virtue Civic Excellence practical wisdom to the fullest extent that's the honorific dimension bound up with Aristotle's
account of politics here's an example that shows the link in a contemporary controversy the link to which Aristotle draws our attention between arguments about Justice and rights on the one hand and figuring out the TS or the purpose of a social practice on the other not only that the case of Casey Martin and his golf cart also brings out the link between debates about what the purpose of a social practice or a game is on the one hand and the question of what qualities should be honored on the other the link between thology and honor
based principles of distributive justice who was Casey Martin well Casey Martin is a very good golfer able to compete at the highest levels of golf but for one thing he has a rare circulatory problem in his leg that makes it very difficult for him to walk not only difficult but dangerous and so he asked the PGA which governs the pro tour in golf to be able to use a golf cart when he competed in professional tournaments PGA said no and he sued under the American for Disabilities Act he sued in a case that went all
the way to the United States Supreme Court the question the Supreme Court had to answer was does Casey Martin have a right that the PGA provide him allow him to use the golf cart on the tour or not how many here think that from a moral point of view Casey Martin should have a right to use a golf cart and how many think that he should not have a right to a golf cart in the tournaments so the majority are sympathetic to Casey Martin's right though a substantial minority disagree let's first hear from those of
you who would rule against Casey Martin why would you not say that the PGA must give him a golf cart yes since the Inception of golf because it's been part of the sport it's now intrinsically part of golf walking the course and thus because it's intrinsic to golf I'd argue that not being able to walk the course it's just not being able to perform an aspect of the sport which is necessary to performing at a professional level good stay there for a minute what's your name Tommy are you a golfer by the way Tom uh
not so much but yeah a little bit are there any are there any golfers here I mean real golfers thank you Professor that was no no I'm just taking your word for it who are there is there someone here on the golf team yes tell us your name and tell us what you think uh my name is Michael and I usually take a cart so probably the probably the wrong person to ask is that why your hand went up slowly when I yes all right um but Tom is saying let's uh Tom said a minute
ago that at least at the professional level walking the course is essential to the game do you agree I would yes you do then why do you take a card and you call yourself a golfer no no no no no I'm kidding I'm kidding what what do you say what do you say to that I I when I have walked a course it it does add tremendously to the to the game makes it a lot harder it really does yeah all right let's let's hear Michael and Tom stay there let's hear from people who uh
say that he should have a right to a golf cart why who's prepared to defend that position yes well I think the PGA should definitely be required um to give him a golf cart because they argue in the decision that it's not just a matter of he's not not experiencing fatigue for him he's still walking about a mile the cart can't go everywhere with him um and in that mile he's still experiencing more fatigue and pain than a healthy player would so it's not as if you're removing the disadvantage what's your name Reva Reva what
do you say to Tom's point that walking the course is essential to the game it would be as if um a disabled player could play in the NBA uh but not have to run up and down the court well I think there are two um two responses to that first I don't think it's it's essential to the game um because most golfers who play particularly recreationally don't play with a cart several like Michael and uh and on several of the tours um you can play with a cart on the Senior PGA Tour on the Nike
tour um in a lot of the college events and those events are just as competitive and just as high level as the PGA Tour so really it's just a matter of selective reasoning if you argue that it's um an important part of the sport but even if it is he still does have to walk he still plays golf standing up it's not as if he's playing golf from a wheelchair all right uh who who else go ahead I think the whole point of a competition is that it calls out the best you know from the
second best or from the third best and when we're talking about the national level we're talking about you know the highest of the highest and I think the what they're um arguing about here is the purpose of competition and I I think in the sake of competition you can't change the rules so the purpose of the competition includes walking that's an essential you agree with Tom and what's your name David the Supreme Court ruled that the PGA did have to accommodate Casey Martin and they did it on grounds that Reva mentioned that walking isn't really
part of an essential part of the game they cited testimony saying that walking the court consumes no more calories than you get eating a big Mac that's what walking is in Gulf according to the majority skia was in descent just as Galia agreed with David he said there is no purpose it's not and it's certainly not for courts to try to figure out the essential purpose of golf golf like any game is strictly for amusement and if there's a group that wants to have one version of the game they can have that version of the
game and the market can decide whether people are amused and like and show up for that and watch the television broadcasts scalia's descent was an anti-aristotelian descent because notice two things about the argument first we're thrust into a discussion about what the essential nature or purpose or tilos of of golf really is Does it include walking and here's something I think is rumbling beneath the surface of this debate whether walking partly determines whether golf is really an athletic competition after all the ball sits still you have to put it in a hole it's is it
more like basketball baseball and football Golf and athletic competition or is it more like Billiards the ball sits still there too you can be out of shape and succeed it involves skill but not athletic skill could it be that those professional golfers who excel at golf have a stake in golf being honored and recognized as an athletic event not just a game of skill like Billiards and if that's what's at stake then we have a debate about the purpose the theological Dimension and also a debate about honor what virtues really does the game of golf
honor and recognize two questions to which Aristotle directs our attention we'll continue on this case next [Music] time what what's strange and seem paradoxical to me about Aristotle's Viewpoint is that if you walk like a pirate and you talk like a pirate you shouldn't be an investment banker because that's that's not what you inherently supposed to do if you have a peg leg and an eye patch and a disgruntled disposition you know uh you should be on a pirate ship on the high seas um so he doesn't his uh some would say some would say
that the distinction between the two vocations is not as clear as you suggest a [Music] [Music] [Music]
