justice note

what is moral deserve

objection

Milton Friedman(弥尔顿·佛里德曼) argued for font color=\"#3333ff\

font color=\"#ff3333\

about obligation

there a distinction between higher and lower pleasures?font color=\"#ff3333\

John Locke(约翰·洛克) argues that the right to property is not the creation of government or of law. it is a natural right that it is pre-political. we are free and equal in the state of nature. 

supplementation

refutation

believe

Alasdair MacIntyre(阿拉斯代尔·麦金泰尔) mentions font color=\"#3333ff\

span style=\"font-size: inherit;\

The motive confers the moral worth on an action. The only kind of motive is font color=\"#3333ff\

extend point 2

How to link justice with the conception of good?1.on the value happened to prevail at a given moment in a certain place. (But it leaves justice the creature of conventions)2.depend on the moral worth or intrinsic good. (But people disagree about the good.)

solution

1.What about incentives?to adjust the tax rate to improve incentives and to reach a balance. natural differences are simply natural facts. justice depends on how institutions deal with these facts.2.What about effort?people who invoke effort don't really believe that moral desert(道德应得) attaches to effort. Defender of meritocracy(精英制度) will not look at the effort. They care about contribution. But it takes back to natural talents and abilities which don't relevant with effort.3.What about self-ownership?We may not own ourselves in that thoroughgoing sense. The only respect in which the idea of self-ownership must give way comes when we're thinking about whether I own myself in the sense that I have a privileged claim on the benefits that come from the exercise of talents in a market economy. We don't. (唯一能够让自我所有权让步的，是在于我们开始思考，在市场经济条件下，是否真的能拥有它。这取决于自己是否对天赋所带来的成功有优先权。事实上，没有，所以我们没有完整的自我所有权。) 

difference

The fundamental principle for the libertarian case of rights is the idea that I own myself. We are the owners/proprietors of our own person.

maximum utility= pleasure over pain or happiness over sufferingto maximize the overall level of happiness→the greatest good for the greatest number

how to distribute?

for point 3

focus on objection 2

query of Difference Principle

expansion

How do contracts bind obligation?a. consent-based --- autonomy (Kant's moral philosophy）b. benefit-based --- reciprocity (utilitarianism)\"Veil of Ignorance\" by John Rawls(约翰·罗尔斯) impartially considers such two parts.

expansion for point 3

about value

Michael Walzer(迈克尔·沃尔泽:多元正义理论) says: \"Jfont color=\"#3333ff\

objection for detaching

morality

it is a mistake to consider justice or law by adding up preferences and values.Robert Nozick(罗伯特·诺齐克): What the state may do. 1.No paternalist legislation (the government has no business coercing us to wear seatbelts by law)2.No morals legislation (laws try to promote the virtue of citizens)3.No redistribution of income from rich to poor (theft by the state)

utilitarianism(功利主义)→consequentialist(后果主义)Jeremy Bentham (杰里米·边沁)vs.categorical(绝对主义) Immanuel Kant (康德)

Moral and political obligations arise in three ways:1.natural duties of respect for persons qua persons.(base on John Locke)2.voluntary obligations that we owe to particular others(underprivileged) through a promise or a deal or a contract.(base on Difference Principle)3.boligtions of solidarity or loyalty or membership. (like patriotism)

support

example

what becomes of our natural rights once we enter into society?

freedom

two different objections:1.Fails to respect individual/minority rights.2.Not possible to aggregate all values into money and preference.

Rowls advances the notion of reflective equilibrium(反思均衡) --- moving back and forth between our considered judgments about particular cases to revise the principles or judgments.font color=\"#3333ff\

reason determines my will(意志) by two imperatives.*imperatives(律令): hypothetical(假言命令) vs. categorical(绝对命令)span style=\

object to Mill

why not under natural law?