1. Nozick, “Anarchy, State. And Utopía”
1.1. >the term "distributive justice" is not a neutral term. The term "distribution" suggests that some person or group uses some principle to give out a supply of things, leaving open the possibility of a do-over.
1.2. the rectification of injustice in holdings. Principle of rectification: Will make use of its best estimate of subjunctive information about what would have occurred if the injustice had not taken place.
1.3. Historical principles - Consider what actually has happened, rather than what could have happened - Past circumstances or actions of people can create differential entitlement or deserts to things - E.g., Nozick's entitlement theory of justice, distribution according to moral merit, ...
1.3.1. End-result principles - Current time-slice principles • Only considers "who has what" at the current time • Ignores how the current distribution came about • Implies that any two structurally identical distributions are equally just • E.g., Utilitarianism, egalitarianism, welfare economics - Other unhistorical principles • Structural principles operating on a time sequence of time-slices
1.3.2. > Rawls Principles of Justice Belong To The End Result Principles ->Nozick Own Entitlement Theory Belong To The Historical Principles
1.3.3. Property rights in an unowned object originate through someone's mixing his labor with it.One owns one's labor, Laboring on something improves it and makes it
1.3.4. Locke's Proviso: There should be "enough and as good left in common for others"To ensure that the appropriation of a previously unowned object does not worsen the situation of others
1.3.4.1. Specifies that a distribution is to vary along with some natural dimension, weighted sum of natural dimensions, or lexicographic ordering of natural dimensions
1.3.4.2. To each according to his X, e.g., moral merit, I.Q., Marxism ("from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs")
1.3.4.3. • A distribution is just if everyone is entitled to the holdings they possess under the distribution.A distribution is just if it arises from another just distribution by just means
1.4. The holdings of a person are just if he is entitled to them by the principles of justice in acquisition and transfer, or by the principle of rectification of injustice. The total set (distribution) of holdings is just if each person's holdings are just.
1.4.1. Taxation on income as a means of redistribution amounts to forced labor, and hence it is unjust.
1.4.2. Forced labor is clearly unjust.
1.4.3. Taxation on income is taking a portion of labor forcefully away.
1.4.4. Hence, taxation on income amounts to forcing the worker to work extra hours.
1.4.5. Therefore, taxation on income is unjust.
2. Rawls, “A Theory Of Justice”
2.1. The original position of equality:A hypothetical situation where rational persons are to choose principles of justice behind the veil of ignorance.
2.2. The veil of ignorance: No one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, his conception of good or special psychological propensities. Justice As Fairness
2.2.1. Distribution of the sum of satisfactions doesn't matter
2.2.2. The greater gains of some could compensate for the lesser losses of others
2.2.3. The violation of liberty of a few might be made right by the greater good shared by many.
2.2.4. Does not take seriously the distinction between persons: "conflating all persons into one through the imaginative acts of the impartial sympathetic spectator"
2.3. 1-> Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensivebasic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.
2.3.1. Primary Goods: are basic needs of the 'things that every rational man is presumed to want'.
2.3.2. Difference principle: must be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged
2.3.3. Each person is to have an equal right to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties which is compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for all
2.4. 2-> Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both
2.4.1. The first principle (principle of equal liberty) takes priority over the second principle
2.4.2. Basic liberties trump any social and economic advantages that might be gained otherwise
2.4.3. The fair equality of opportunity clause takes priority over the difference principle
2.4.4. The fair equality of opportunity may not be compromised even to advance the social and economic benefits of the least advantaged
3. Singer, “Famine, Affluence, And Morality”
3.1. The Way People In Relatively Affluent Countries React To Such Situations Cannot Be Justified.
3.1.1. We Need To Have A Basic Moral Code Which Is Not Too Far Beyond The Capacities Of The Ordinary Man.
3.2. If It Is In Our Power To Prevent Something Bad From Happening, Without Thereby Sacrificing Anything Of Comparable Moral Importance, We Ought, Morally, To Do It.
3.2.1. The Argument Ignores The Effect That Moral Standards Can Have On The Decisions We Make.
3.3. The Fact That A Person Is Physically Near To Us May Make It More Likely That We Shall Assist Him, But It Does Not Show That We Ought To Help Hi Rather Than Another Who Happens To Be Further Away.
3.3.1. Objection-> Relieving Famine Merely Postpones Starvation. Population Explosion And Relatively Limited Scope For Expanded Production
3.3.2. Singer's Response-> It Does Not Absolve One From Any Obligation To Do Anything To Prevent Famine. Rather, The Best Means Of Preventing Famine, In The Long Run, Is Population Control. Then One Ought To Do All One Can To Promote Population Control.
4. Kant, “Foundations Of Metaphysics Of Morals”
4.1. The Only Thing That Is Good Without Qualification Is Goodwill
4.1.1. Hypothetical imperative: One ought to act in a certain way in order to achieve a particular end or purpose one happens to have.
4.1.2. -> Categorical imperative: One ought to act in a certain way regardless of any particular desires or conditions. Required of all rational beings: morally required.
4.1.3. 1st Formulation->"universal law" formula: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law
4.1.3.1. 2nd Formulation-> "ends-in-themselves" formula: Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.
4.1.3.1.1. Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
4.1.3.1.2. Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.
4.1.3.2. Because moral rules / duties are categorical and hence are absolute, - Ignores consequences
4.1.3.3. Even when the consequences of acting in accordance with duty are catastrophic, one is required to perform the duty.
4.1.3.4. Since all rules are absolute, even in cases where it is impossible to abide by all the rules, Kantian ethics keeps silent as to which rule to break.
4.2. Acting from self-interest ("selfish purpose") Shopkeeper's policy of charging the same price for everyone so as not to lose customers
4.3. Acting from direct inclination ("direct want") - E.g., Preserving one's life because s/he directly wants to do so
4.4. Acting from duty - E.g., Preserving one's life despite his/her wish for death because it's his/her duty
5. Mill, “Utilitarianism”
5.1. Qualitative Hedonism->Superior Mental Pleasures
5.1.1. Asking Those Who Have Experience The Pleasures But Don’t Change Their Choice
5.1.1.1. The Right Action Is The Action That Maximizes Net Total Happiness Of Everyone Affected By It.(Principle of Utility Or The Greatest Happiness Principle
5.1.1.2. Consequentialism-Every Action Is To Be Evaluated In Terms Of It’s Consequences
5.1.1.3. Hedonism-Pleasure/Absence Of Pain Is The Only Intrinsic Value In Life
5.1.1.4. Impartiality-As Between His Happiness And That Of Others, Utilitarianism Requires Him To Be Strictly Impartial As A Disinterested & Benevolent Spectator
5.2. Calling It Not Really Hedonism
5.2.1. We Value Our Intrinsic Humanness(Mental)
5.2.2. There Is No Time To Calculate
5.2.3. That Is Not True, We Have Time Because Of Our Past Experiences, We Are Prepare
5.2.4. Objections-Utilitarian Prescription Sometimes Conflicts With Our Commonsense View Of The Right Action. ( Justice & Rights )
5.2.4.1. There Is A Responsibility For Preventing Things Or Failing To Prevent Them
5.2.4.1.1. Indirect Or Remote Consequences As Well As Direct And Immediate Consequences Need To Be Taken Into Account
5.2.4.1.2. Rule Utilitarian-General Practice Set Of Rules, Is Conducive To The Most General Happiness, The Right Action Is One That Is Consistent With That Set Of Rules
5.2.4.1.3. Bite The Bullet Response-Our “Commonsense” View Of Morality Is Sometimes Incorrect And Needs To Be Revised
6. Rachel’s, “Psychological Egoism”
6.1. Charity->By Helping We Feel Superior To Others
6.1.1. Argument From Self-Satisfaction->People Do Altruistic Actions Because They Feel Good About Themselves
6.1.1.1. Whatever Altruistic Action Can Always Be Interpreted To Benefit Yourself, It Can’t Be Falsified, For It To Be A Scientific Theory It Has To Have Contradictions & Be Falsifiable
6.1.2. Every Human Voluntary Action Is Motivated By Self Interest
6.1.2.1. Argument From Strongest Desire->Every Action Is Done By Your Strongest Desire; No Real Altruism
6.2. Pity->We Feel Bad Because We Are Pitying Our Imagined Selfs
6.2.1. Criticisms->Sometimes We Do Things We Don’t Want To Do, Or We Are Oblige To Do It, Sometimes We Promise To Do It
7. Dickie, “What Is Art?”
7.1. Art Cannot Be Define
7.1.1. Appreciation By People From The Art World
7.1.1.1. Intention & Action Is All That Matters
7.2. Generalization Argument->Define Novel Is Open
7.2.1. Classification Argument->Some Non-Artifacts Are Works Of Art
8. Tolstoy, “What Is Art?”
8.1. Makes Beauty Manifest
8.1.1. Transmit Feelings
8.1.1.1. Consciously Make Art
8.1.1.1.1. If It Doesn’t Infect People It’s Fake Art
8.1.1.2. The Stronger The Infection The Better
8.1.1.2.1. Beauty Is That Which Pleases
9. Rachel’s, “The Challenge Of Cultural Relativism”
9.1. Morality Is Dependent On The Customs & Traditions Of Each Culture(Society)
9.1.1. Different Cultures Have Different Moral Codes, There’s No Objective Truth In Morality
9.1.1.1. 1.If Morality Is Cultural Bound We Can’t Criticize It
9.1.1.2. 2.We Create Our Own Customs, We Can’t Criticize Our Own Society
9.1.1.3. 3.No Moral Progress Can Be Made
9.1.2. It Is Subjective From Culture To Culture
9.1.2.1. Differences In Moral Codes Doesn’t Necessarily Indicate Differences In Moral Values
9.1.2.1.1. 1. Taking Care of The Young
9.1.2.1.2. 2.Prohibition On Lying
9.1.2.1.3. 3.No Random Killing