Ethics
Peter Frederick Strawson
Freedom and Resentment and other essays.
A discussion on the matter of whether there is responsibly, and as such whether there is free will. It seems that there is no responsibility if everything is determined. There are however some people that think determination might be the case without claiming that there is no responsibility.
Strawson doesn’t take a position except saying that determination seems to be a bit meaningless.
They are not taking the position of freedom vs. Determination from a relational context. They try to look at it from an objective position. There is a distinction between the immanently and relationally engaged position, and the object position. From the objective position, close to the theoretical approach, there seems to be quite a lot of freedom from which to develop a lot of considerations on how things really are, but not as they appear to us. If all that happens happens because of a causal relationship to the prior, there must be determination. This position seems to be easy to defend from the perspective of the objective viewer. However, in a relational context it makes no sense.
Strawson is interested in how people ordinarily deal with ethics. When someone does something which seems problematic, we have a spontaneous reaction to that, like getting angry. This reactive attitude is tied to what we do in normal life. What is then interesting to see, is that we correct the reactive attitudes from the direct moment at which we see whether someone does something unallowed deliberately or not. If it is not deliberate, there seems to be little problem. It is interesting to realise that since we correct our reactive attitude when we are wrong, we are implicitly invited to correct it (somehow??).
Stupid children, we rarely get angry at when they do something bad, because they lack the capacities to realise what is at stake. We feel each other, and realise what seems to be important or not from the relational engagement in which are present. We are constantly thinking about what is appropriate in the context in which we are. We are trying to put ourselves in the shoes of another constantly.
In a relational context, we start from the awareness of what we are aware of together, and we take what we are aware of together as important in regulating our action. In taking the objective position, you don’t feel responsible to take into account what is known together, or the feelings that exist between multiple people. There is a difference between the descriptional scientist describing what is happening and the participation in what is happening. It fails to start from what is known together.
When you are talking to a child, you realise that you cannot form an equal relationship in which there is a mutual exchange and understanding about what is happening, and you would rather use manipulative tactics to force them to behave in a kind of way which you desire, like helping with cleaning the dishes. If we are discussing things together with people on an equal level as us, we would rarely take such modes of action. There needs to be no seperation of an instance that manipulates and dominates.
For people who are going through dementia, you cannot properly go through any kind of rational argument with them if it has gone long enough. We cannot argue with them. We cannot decide among ourselves. The same remains for animals, we use multiple tactics that require objectification to teach the dog to do a certain task. There seems to be little mutual understanding between the dog and the person which allows for participation of any kind of joint intentionality.
It is very inhumane then to treat adults as crazy, children or from a domineering position. What is most decent is to develop a mutual way of understanding which is transparent for the two. There needs to be space to express why one is wrong about x or y, so that conclusions can be reached together.
In the objective perspective, like if you are a very good marketing worker or a speech-performer, you make use of all kinds of knowledge that should ellicit certain reactions. This leads to a kind of objective positive reaction, but it is not a kind of respect, because the listener is not actually taken seriously, they are manipulated and subjugated to a lower position. The kind of people who do not make themselves mutually accessible, miss the possiblility to have proper friends then… lol
If we imagine that from the objectifying position, we can come to the conclusion that there is no responsibility. Would this be sufficient to allow people to change all that they want despite existing in a relational context. Is it strong enough to force them to give up their current way of being in society? It seems not. It seems rather awkward.
Strawson comes up with a description of the kind of mutual awareness of what we are dealing with, in which we see certain things as awkward, and see certain attitude as appropriate and others not and as such need correction. So instead of having a morality that starts from principles, it is about how we deal with morality as a particular group. The feelings that certain things are good and wrong is immanently true within a given society.
Some people think Strawson and Wittgenstein might be similar, because Wittgenstein argues something similar about the social praxis. Professor believes that the most similar however are actually the neo-hegelians of the UK. Strawson was aware of philosophers like Bradley.
The question about freedom is not just whether there is determination, but if everything is about freedom, that’s also awkward. We cannot imagine society as totally lacking oppression. This would mean that you can make decisions at any moment about anything, no matter what that decision is. It would be weird to say that the world is either entirely free or entirely determined. Usually when talking of a person we will talk about that person’s tendencies and desires to behave in such a such a way. This is not because they will be entirely indetermined, and they happen to make the same decisions over and over, but because there are certain determinations. Rather people are who they are because they identify themselves through a multitude of action with a certain character. For example one can get used to doing things a certain way. The whole ’getting used to’ is not really something that is entirely indetermined. We might feel insulted and manipulated when someone realises a tendency in us and uses it against us.
Jonas Rawls:
The social security act of August 14 1935. When philosophers begin developing social theories, usually what happens is that it gets adopted much later than when it is actually thought about.
Rawls writes about justice and how we can share things financially. Most of the initiatives that shaped social security systems were developed before Rawls, like in the US. Human rights declaration in 1948 too. By the time Rawls was developing his theory, there had been the increase in social rights, but also the rise of neoliberalism with Thatcher which worked against this kind of social liberalism. When Rawls developed his theory of justice, it seems to have already been in decay. It was not guiding society then it seems, but seemed to have been more of an afterthought.
As long as people don’t know what position they will have in a society, they may be able to make objectively correct decisions. There needs to be a veil of ignorance over what society is really like, so that they can argue about what society really should have.
They will reach two conclusions according to Rawls:
-
Each person is to have an equal-right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible…
-
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so tha they are both a. To the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and b. Attached to offices and positions open to all under condition of fair equality of opportunity.
If you want to have this kind of welfare, you need sufficient finance, which must come from a flourishing economical system. So the question must be: where do we get the money necessary for this?
If people are motivated to make the economy flourish, then there must be something that motivates them like a certain benefit in society. They must gain something more from being motivated. If we have the distinction between the superrich and poor atm then this kind of idea seems to fail.
There is an acceptance of inequality of income in Rawls, so long as there is the possibility for those at the bottom to be better of because of it. This requires an inequality of opportunity.
This is a very liberal position.
And at the same time, Rawls belives in the importance of a flourishing economy in order to have a function social-welfare system. He relies on Kant and Rousseau. What is important is what is in the common interest. Thinking as individuals to create a common society that takes the position of the general will to realise acceptability from its opposite, by making it possible to govern people through the veil of ignorance. There needs to be proper access to the general will. Rousseau is very anxious about financial inequality, because he believes that inequality in income and capital will lead to a necessarily unequal society. What is striking about Rawls is that starts from a negative idea of equality. It is not asking society to engage in projects that in and of themselves will lead to development. This is similar to Berlin’s critique of the hegelian approach which follows the realisation of positive projects. In Rawls’ approach there must be no constraints about how to develop oneself, but how it happens is entirely up to them. The individuals will know by themselves what is best for them. If we develop a positive project it might go in a direction which is so paternalistic and elitist that it might shape society in a totallitarian way.
It is also very individualistic. The idea that society is more than a collection of individuals is not mentioned. There is no idea of a ’we’ that in and of itself can develop. It is only the development of individuals.
Even here at KU Leuven Rawls had a lot of influence on economicians, same goes for politicians in Belgium. If you know Rawls you could reason within his terms, which materialised for them as real ethical thinking.
The veil of ignorance becomes a kind of consequentialist utilitarian method of thinking, giving that we have to prepare society in the veil of ignorance so as to become something in which society becomes beneficial for us when are put out into society. The point being that we always want to maximise our own benefits. In Rosseau’s approach, we are not going to think about ourselves at atll.
Robert Nozick:
For Nozick, the state nees to be minimal. It needs to be limited to the narrow function of protecting people from theft, protection against force, fraud, enforcement of contracts. Redistribution of good only on condition of consent. If people want goods to be redistributed, we will do it, but never otherwise.
Nozick was a libertarian. Not more said about this guy lol.
Amartya Sen: didn’t say anything about him.
Martha Nussbaum:
Defends the capability theory. It is not just enough to have an equality on the level of capital, but also on the level of equality of opportunity. You must be equally able to do something with your freedom. If you are in a free situation, you must have access to making a decent decision. Freedom to achieve well-being is of primary moral importance. There needs to be access to people’s opportunities to do and be what they have reason to value.
Professors problem of liberal positions: there is no reflection on positive projects. If there are capabilities and sufficient freedom without social control by the state that’s well and good. But you need to have a society which is enthusiastic about projects and feels that certain things are worthwhile. Otherwise it is a bit paternalistic like: ’look children, there are a million possibilities with which to amuse ourselves: do it!’. But the children won’t, they won’t be able to decide on doing anything if there is no reason apart from ’amusing’ ourselves with life (we might otherwise just amuse ourselves to death…) We need to be able to engage with life together in a way which feels fulfilling!
Michael Walzer:
Spheres of Justice: reaction to Rawls. Walzer suggests that the idea of good in Rawls is too narrow. It is only about money and financial means. Financial means is not the only good that needs to be justly divided. What good is, has something to do with a particular context or sphere. Each sphere of justice has its own good. In the economical sphere, money is important. But if it is about juridical issues, money seems to not be the thing that makes the justice world go around. If money was important in the sphere of love, it is kind of awkward. Ideally love shouldn’t be related to money at least…
Different spheres need to have a kind of specific character, which cannot have certain invasions of other spheres. If the financial sphere invades the sphere of art, then we have a problem. This would then corrupt the quality of that particular sphere. Rather, we need to respect the boundaries of each kind of sphere and cultivate them based on their own kind of method, and there needs to be checks and balances between different spheres. Right now in politics, having capital is a good instrument with which to have power. This is because the economic and political sphere is blurred. Therefore we need to have clear and delineated boundaries. And as such, we need proper attention to each sphere.
Alisdair MacIntyre:
First of all a marxist oriented. Then suddenly changed his mind. Felt a great uneasiness with morality and how it was taught. If you look at what ethics is now a days it is a mess. There are all these kinds of approaches, there is no one thinking about how to unite them, and as such is not a sound discipline. Macintyre thought that everything after the enlightenment is bad. He was against the idea that individuals need to figure out what is good and wrong. He was uncomfortable with modernity. For him, the solution was to go back to aristotle, in which we have a kind of conception about how human beings are, with the idea that every being has a certain telos. To think about how one lives a human life, is entirely related to the goals of humans as beings. Was especially interested in virtue ethics from Aristotle. Was accepted by universities that were interested in religion. The Neo-thomistic approach were pleased with Macintyre. Everyone has a nature that needs to be developed.
He also had sympathy with Nietzsche, which is a contradiction, because for Nietzsche there is no telos. But he was sympathetic to the part of Nietzsche that claimed we need to rebuild a structure of ethics. So instead of developing a new way of ethical evaluation, finding new valid moral principles, he believed that we need to take the historical element seriously. What we are is not independent of what came before, there needs to be a part of human evolution and societal development. So he is getting to a kind of communitaristic critique. Coming up with the idea that we need to go back to history to understand how ethics develop in a certain way, trying to understand how we come to understand certain things during history.
He starts with the idea that there is a human nature that needs to be developed in a certain way. Professor does not agree with this. This means that there would be a principle, a god or a supreme entity that made us in a certain confers upon us a responsibility to our creator. It fundamentally connects ethics to a cosmic calling. Perhaps we just became human beings in the evolutionary process the moment we began collaborating and as such became interested in how to engage together, which requires the virtues in order to function successfully. Ie. you can have virtues without nature.
Charles Taylor:
Trying to oppose individualism and the making of identity.
Source of the self: the making of modern identity.
Quite inspired by Hegel.
Comes up with an explanation of the historical creation of individualism. In protestantism individualism became more important because it is about the indiviudal’s personal relationship to God that matters: we will all invidiually encounter God at the end of days.
Instead of relying on Charles Taylor, it is interesting enough to understand that we rely on history. There needs to be an awareness of all the prior philosophers if we want to enter the discussion on ethical issues.
Michael Sandel:
A republican philosopher.
He was very critical towards Rawls. The stress on the individual and the individual instrumental reasons to act is not what is of importance in ethical life. People are engaged with each other in social units, and in these social units, they get appreciation and recognition for what they do. He would like to see that people have more res public affinities. When people do things, they do them for the common good. If people take up these kind of responsibilities they would have an inherent affinity about what politics is about. Now a days they are not sufficiently engaged so they have no access to politics as such. If they would have been more engaged about the arrangement of their neighbourhood, they would feel as if they belong, they would feel recognised, and they would also grasp the difficulties that there are on a higher level. And as such the becoming of a decent citizen. As such he is disconent with democracy, because people are too isolated and too atomised. If we are aware that what we are gets meaning from working together, it is more clear what needs to do.
Talks about the aristocrats and the meritocrats. Aristocrats are just appreciated for wealth. Meritocrats are people who at least put some work into their career. The result is that they think that they earned their position, but they were already above common people. The lower class people cant just complain that it is unfair, but rather they are confronted with people who say they had the same opportunities and made better use of it. Everyone is self-made. So we don’t feel recognised because we apparently are accused of not doing the best we could. You need to have a discourse over the defense of yourself as a looser, otherwise you will become depressive. You need to disagree with the group in power, and as such you form groups that are ”rabble” in a sense, that exists to have group thinking in participation in the counter-culture. For Sandel this is what leads to the idea of america first and support for Trump and so on. So the fact is that we need to have a long-term strategy in which people can have positive projects to which their life may become worthwhile. Even though there is no cosmic mission.
From the 80s onward: tendency to develop applied ethics.
Began with biomedical issues. Everywhere there were new centers of ethics. It is quite interesting to think about what applied ethics is. It suggests that there is a possibility of having a sound understanding of ethics, which allows for the conferring of a kind of advice, which makes you able to figure out what is right and wrong. Therefore you need ethical committies that follow guidelines and so on. Imagine a person coming with a book on ethics to answer any problem by saying:’ I will look it up.’ What would be valuable for such an approach??
Applied ethics seems to be its very own ’field of engagement’, quite different from ethics as such. There needs to be some basic guidelines apparently, but if ethics is about critical self-reflection, then we need to understand what is at stake, not just read in a book whether x thing is good or bad.
Once people have an awareness of what is at stake in a given question, you can answer it principally. But then you know why you need to be truthful and so on.