Can responsibility exist in a deterministic life?
Strawson claims that the position where you believe it can’t is defensible when you place yourself outside of society, in an “objective” position.
The “reactive attitude” to others’ actions (anger, disgust, and so on) is corrected when we clarify their motives. If someone did something with no ill will we are less averse to their actions (even if we find them offensive).
There is an unequal power between a child and an adult - the latter manipulating the former into acting in a more “decent” manner is unbeknownst to the child.
This is similar to training dogs.
The position held by the one with power is objectifying to whoever they are acting down on.
Strawson suggests that, should we imagine that from an objectifying position, when we have enough knowledge, we reach the conclusion that there is no such thing as responsibility. Would this be sufficient to allow people to change how they act in relational contexts? To give up the possibility that some people act not as children or as animals, but are conscious enough to act on their own?
- Does this not run into the is-ought problem? That we do or don’t have free will shouldn’t necessarily influence our actions; sociology can accurately describe the actions of a group of individuals based on some factors, we can deterministically predict elections (seemingly free-choice events) based on a comparatively small sample of individuals; this doesn’t mean, however, that we are unable to choose another candidate, or be an outlier to the sociological group we belong to. That we do act in some way (or are able to act in some way) is in no way saying whether we should or must be acting in some way.
We are seemingly not averse to being classified as a certain kind of person that will act in some way. Yet, at the same time, we believe that we all have free will. This seems contradictory.
- Does Rawls’ theory of justice assume a deterministic outcome when people are placed behind the veil of ignorance?
If we place a group of people behind the VOI, after some discussion they will reach a perfect society.
here is the position he believes they will reach
each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with liberty.
social and economic inequalities are to be arranged such that those least advantaged are most privileged, and so all offices and positions are open to all under the conditions of fair equality and opportunity.
Inequality is accepted under the condition that it is not self-perpetuating (ig?)
Hegelian approach was that within society you need positive projects so people felt a call to realize themselves, ~~Berlin critiqued it by claiming that ~~
Rawls thought, instead, that you simply must avoid things negative to freedom. You need people not to be bound by capital or governmental intervention.
Robert Nozick:
There cannot be a state strong enough to come up with these institutional things. The state should be minimal: limited to the narrow functions of protection against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts, etc.
Humans are ends in themselves, redistribution of good only on condition of consent.
Amartya Sen / Martha Nussbaum:
It is not enough to make capital and opportunity equal; we must have an equality of capabilities, to do something with your freedom.
“Amuse yourselves”
Freedom of capabilities is not the ability to pursue any goal, but becoming a well-rounded person that is able to pursue what they wish in a conscious manner.
Michael Walzer:
“Spheres of Justice” (1983)
“good” depends on the sphere. “Money” in juridical issues is irrelevant, when it is obviously of great importance in economy.
Erasing the boundaries between capital and justice, love, and so on is problematic. We should have clear boundaries.
Alisdair Macintyre:
Was a Marxist at first, then changed his mind (goat). Found issue with the fact that Ethics is a mess, and needs to be consolidated. This is why he liked Nietzsche. The presupposition that we have a nature is a presupposition of some supreme entity that made us in a specific way and that we have a responsibility to follow that design. And these ideas, of course, are rather theological and are a rather cosmic approach and that is “a bit too much.”
Ethics is an evolutionary process that starts when humans begin to collaborate.
Charles Taylor:
A lot of philosophers who were critiquing Rawls were inspired by Hegel.
With Protestantism individualism became a lot more prevalent, because everyone had an individual responsibility towards God.
Michael Sandel:
In social units people get appreciation for what they do and that’s important. He would like to see people take more republic affinities, for them to realize that when they do things for the res publica, they would get more affinities with what politics is about.
They lack reasonable knowledge of politics because they’re detached from it.
By being integrated they would feel a larger sense of identity as parts of a larger whole. This would make decent citizens. He calls the current state a discontentment with democracy, led to by an atomization of social relations.
People think they are participating in the glory of the rich people by despising the egalitarians.
People who are not successful in education elevate themselves by putting themselves as against people who are smarter than them and putting themselves in a position of relative power.
People create identity by pitting themselves against others.
The solution is not to convince them that they’re wrong, but to long-term better their lives.
Applied ethics: