Samenvatting Justice : what's the right thing to do?

ISBN-10 0141041331 ISBN-13 9780141041339
140 Flashcards en notities
25 Studenten
  • Deze samenvatting

  • +380.000 andere samenvattingen

  • Een unieke studietool

  • Een oefentool voor deze samenvatting

  • Studiecoaching met filmpjes

Onthoud sneller, leer beter. Wetenschappelijk bewezen.

Dit is de samenvatting van het boek "Justice : what's the right thing to do?". De auteur(s) van het boek is/zijn Michael J Sandel. Het ISBN van dit boek is 9780141041339 of 0141041331. Deze samenvatting is geschreven door studenten die effectief studeren met de studietool van Study Smart With Chris.

Samenvatting - Justice : what's the right thing to do?

  • 1 Sandel: Justice whats the right thing to do. Ch. 1 Doing the right thing

  • What is the conclusion of Sandel regarding theories of justice?
    That ancient theories of justice start with virtue (deugd), while modern theories start with freedom. Sandel explores the strenghts and weaknesses of each. This contrast can mislead. 
  • Name shortly 4 important philosophers and their stream:
    Aristotle: tilos/categorical reasoning
    Kant: categorical reasoning
    Mill: utilitarian
    Rawls: egalitarian
  • Describe how utilitarianism, libertarians and egalitarians approach to justice regarding what are people due and why?
    -Utilitarianism: most influential account of how and why we should maximize welfare: seek the greatest good for the greatest number
    -Libertarians: The laissez-faire camp: free market libertarians who believe that justice consists in respecting and upholding the voluntary choices made by consenting adults.
    -Egalitarians: The 'fairness camp' argues that unfettered (not restricted/free) markets are neither just nor free. Justice require policies that remedy social and economic disadvantages and give everyone a fair change at success.
  • To ask whether a society is just is to ask how it distributes the things we prize (income, wealth, duties, rights, power, opportunities, offices, honors). A just society distributes these goods in the right way: it gives each person his due. The hard questions begin when we ask what people are due (verschuldigd), and why. How did Sandel wrestle with these questions?
    He pondered the rights and wrongs of price gouging (hurricane), purple heart (military), financial bailouts (financial crisis/bonus). Sandel identified 3 ways of approaching the distribution of goods: welfare, freedom, virtue. Each of these ideals suggests a different way of thinking about justice. Sandels book explorers the strengths and weaknesses of these 3 ways of thinking about justice.
  • Sandel begins with the idea of maximizing welfare. For markets societies it offers a natural starting point. Prosperity matters because it contributes to welfare. How does Sandel explorers this idea?
    To turn to utilitarianism, the most influential account of how and why we should maximize welfare or seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number (het is een richting binnen ethiek die het doel van menselijk handelen in de welvaart of het geluk van de gemeenschap legt).
  • The approach to justice that begins with freedom is a capacious (veelomvattende) school. In fact, their are 2 rival camps. Which 2? Describe them (Sandel)?
    The laissezfaire camp and the fairness camp. Laissez-faire = free-market libertarians who believe that justice consists in respecting and upholding the voluntary choices made by consenting (instemmende) adults. The fairness camp = theorists of more egalitarian (gelijkheid) bent. They ague that unfettered (onbeperkte) market are neither just nor free. In their view, justice requires policies that remedy social and economic disadvantages and give everyone a fair change at success. 

  • Plato's point is that to graps the meaning of justice and the nature of the good life, we must rise above the prejudices and routines of everyday life (vergelijking met gevangen grot en de filosoof). Whats Sandels opinion regarding this?
    He is in part right. The claims of the cave must be given their due (gevolg). If moral reflection is dialectical (if it moves back and forth between the judgments we make in situations and the principles that inform those judgments: dmv tegenstellingen de waarheid zoeken), it needs opinions and convictions, however partial and untutored, as ground and grist. A philosophy untouched by the shadows on the wall (vooroordelen?) can only yield a sterile utopia.

    > To grasp the meaning of justice and the nature of the good life, we must rise above the prejudices and routines of everyday life.
  • What does the book of Sandel provide?
    The book is not a history of ideas, but a journey in moral and political reflection. Its goal is not to show who influenced whom in the history of political thought, but to invite readers to subject their own views about
    justice to critical examination—to figure out what they think, and why.
  • Define justice (Sandel).
    How individuals should treat one another, what the law should be and how society should be organized. 
  • Explain the 3 ways of thinking about justice (Sandel).
    1. Maximizing welfare: to maximize the prosperity, improve our standard of living and spur economic growth >> utilitarianism.
    2. Respecting freedom: Markets let people choose for themselves what value to place on the things they exchange:
    > Laissez-faire: free-market (libertarians)
    > Fariness camp: egalitarians (gelijkheid nastrevend) everyone needs a fair chance.
    3. Promoting virtue: in times of trouble, a good society pulls together and people look out for each other. Greed is therefore a vice (ondeugd) that should be discouraged. But who decides what's a virtua and a vice? Often based on moral/religious ideals. 
  • The 3 ways of thinking about justice results in the great question of political philosophy. What does Sandel mean?
    Does a just society seek to promote the virtue of its citizens? Or should law be neutral toward competing conceptions of virtue, so that citizens can be free to choose the best way to live?
  • What is the opinion of ancient theories of justice? (Sandel)
    Justice start with virtue: Aristotle said that justice means giving people what they deserve thus you have to determine what is the most desirable way of life (to determine what people deserve, we have to determine what virtues are worthy of honor and reward. The most desirable way of life has to be determined. The law can't be neutral on questions of the good life/values)
  • What is the opinion of modern theories of justice? (Sandel)
    Justice start with freedom: Kant and Rawls say that a just society should not rest on any particular conception of virtue because a just society should respect each person's freedom to choose his own conception of 'the good life'.
  • Moral reflection is not a solitary pursuit (eenzaam gebeuren) but a public endeavor (publieke onderneming). Hoe does a moral reflection emerge?
    1. Opinion or conviction about the right thing to do
    2. Reflect on the reason for our conviction and seek out the principle on which it is based
    3. Confusion when we are confronted with a situation that confounds the principle
    4 Feel the force of the confusion and the pressure to sort it out > impulse to philosophy > may lead to a change of minds/revision of our judgment of the right thing to do.
  • Normative judgment: for ex. you don't like someone's tie. You have to base your judgment on a full (neutral) description of the situation. You have to set moral standards (what's good behavior/good result etc.). Does the described behavior fit in your moral standard/normative judgment. This is ethical reasoning.
  • What is the difference between ethics and law?
    A law isn't always ethical (for ex. WWII: jews could be killed according to the law, not ethical). Ethics goes beyond laws. F.e.: you don't insult people (no law, but ethical). (Business) ethics has increased, because business have grown/more power and more transparency and globalization.
  • Name the 4 reasons for business ethics:
    1 Not every company is in 1 country
    2 Technological development make people ethic aware (what's accepted?)
    3 Society is asking more from companies
    4 Because of internet there is more investigation/sharing/transparency possible
  • Describe the 3 main streams in ethics (explain with ex. of driving too hard):
    1 Consequentialism: what will be the consequences of my behavior? When the consequence is a acceptable, the behavior is acceptable
    2 Deontology (f.e. Kant): WHY is someone showing this behavior? Reasons of behavior
    3 Virtue ethics: does the behavior suit the generally accepted virtues of society

    Ex. driving too hard to save your wife:
    1 Wife is saved so it is acceptable
    2 Why you want to save her? Cheap householder or you love her? The reason determines if it is acceptable
    3 Society doesn't accept driving to hard? Then it is wrong.
  • What are normative judgments and moral standards?
    - Normative judgments: when you are asked what you think of someone’s tie, so for example that you don’t like the tie of the lecturer.
    - Moral standards: the standards on which you base your normative judgments. It is a factual description of what you are se
    eing at that moment, so for example that you like the color red and therefore like the tie. WHY do you like something?
  • Describe the 3 steps of ethical reasoning:
    1. Define what your moral standard is: what is from your point of view good behavior/results/things to follow (described in a strong and proper way).
    2. Describe as factual as possible, with all kind of relevant information, the situation you would like to change. Describe in a natural and factual way what behavior you are going to follow.
    3. Compare the description with your moral standards and then you can think of your moral judgment. This is ethical reasoning: clarify every time you give a moral judgment what kind of moral standards you would like to see.
  • What is virtue?
    Some kind of behaviour which is coming from consistent aspects of your character.
  • What are values? (also explain norms and being virtuous)
    Abstract goals you would like to realize. F.e. a tolerant society. This needs laws and legislation (norms), like no racist activities. Norms are exact formulated: what is (not) permitted/accepted/forbidden. A society is probably not tolerant when everyone obeys the rules, we need more. Aristotle started with virtue ethics, like the example with the flute.
    > You aren't born to be virtuous, you have to become one and practice. Not all the virtues are the right one. F.e. bullfighters in Spain are virtuous, in NL not: other way around with Zwarte Piet. Aristotle: social context/community decides what's accepted.

    You have to practice/get education, your circumstances are important for becoming virtuous. Your surrounding determine if your behavior is justified or moral good.
Lees volledige samenvatting
Deze samenvatting. +380.000 andere samenvattingen. Een unieke studietool. Een oefentool voor deze samenvatting. Studiecoaching met filmpjes.

Laatst toegevoegde flashcards

What did Marx meant with the immiseration (verpaupering/verarming)? (4)
-The rich people get richer, poor people get poorer. The owner are greedy and want more money, the workers have to pay:
-> Owners want more profit > more profit means you have to produce more  > price has to decrease (too may products in the market) > so wages decrease > people will be paid less (so more people in families have to work) and owners earn more.
-During this immiseration not every company will survive because of greed: overflow of products > price decrease > wage decrease etc. These economic cycles are shaped every time. Which keep the workers poor.
-Marx: machines have to be transferred to the whole population, so no private ownership (= heilstaat).
Explain the 3 approaches to justice? (vwf) Belangrijk!
1 Maximizing utility/welfare: the greatest happiness for the greatest group
2 Freedom of choice: either the actual choices people make in a free market (libertarian view) or the hypothetical choices people would make in an original position of equality (liberal egalitarian view)
3 Cultivating virtue: reasoning about the common good (Sandel).
Name the 3 categories of moral responsibility (nvs):
1 Natural duties: we owe to human beings, universal (don't require consent). F.e. The duty to treat persons with respect, to do justice, avoid cruelty.
2 Voluntary obligations: duties we incur by consent, particular (require consent). F.e. I paint your house in exchange for money.
3 Obligations of solidarity/membership: particular (don't require consent). It are moral responsibilities we owe to those with whom we share certain history, f.e. family obligations.
What does 'moral desert' means?
Desert in philosophy is the condition of being deserving of something, whether good or bad. To deserve is to earn or merit a reward; in philosophy, the distinction is drawn in the term desert to include the case that that which one receives as one's just deserts may well be unwelcome, or a reward. For example, if one scratches off a winning lottery ticket, one may be entitled to the money, but one does not necessarily deserve it in the same way one would deserve $5 for mowing a lawn. Rawls was careful to explain that, even though he dismissed the concept of moral Desert, people can still legitimately expect to receive the benefits of their efforts and/or talents.
Actual contracts are not self-sufficient moral instruments. The mere fact that you and I make a deal is not enough to make it fair. We need an independent standard of fairness. The morality of actual contract carry moral weight when they realize two deals. Which 2?
1 Autonomy (making the decisions freely)
2 Reciprocity (a win-win/mutual benefit situation)
> Those 2 ideas are imperfectly realized. 

A hypothetical agreement behind a veil of ignorance is not a pale form of an actual contract and so a morally weaker thing: it's a pure form of an actual contract, and so a morally more powerful thing. 
Some people think that inequality (between rich and poor) is unjust and they favor taxing, Other disagree. They say its not unfair (when there's no fraud/force), it depends on the choices people make in a market economy. F.e. take 1 million from Gates (75 billion), give it to 100 needy families. Collective utility would go up more than Gates utility goes down. What are the 2 main objections?
1 Within utilitarian-thinking: high tax rates (on income) reduce the incentive to work and invest, leading to a decline in productivity. That also declines the amount that can be redistributed and therefore the overall utility might go down.
2 Taxing the rich to help the poor is unjust (libertarianism). It violates a fundamental right. Taking money is coercive. It violates the liberty to do with their money whatever they please.
Name the 5 objections to libertarian logic and the libertarian reply? (pladt)
1 Taxation is not as bad as forced labor: you can work less to pay less taxes. Forced labor = no choice. Reply: Yes, but why should the state force you to make a choice?
2 The poor need the money more. Reply: Maybe, but this is a reason to persuade the affluent to support the needy trough their own free choice. It doesn't justify forcing the rich to give to charity. Stealing for the poor is still stealing.
3 Basketball player/Jordan doesn't play alone: he owes a debt to those who contribute to his success. Reply: although f.e. team players make less money, they accepted compensation for the jobs they perform. Even if Jordan owes them, this debt doesn't justify taxing his earning. 
4 Jordan/player isn't really being taxed without he consent: as a citizen of a democracy, he has a voice in making the tax laws to which he is subject. Reply: Democratic consent isn't enough. He can vote against a law, but is still can pass. Does democratic consent justify the taking of liberty?
5 Jordan is lucky. He trained but also has natural gifts. The community does him no injustice by taxing. Reply: Jordan owes himself and thereby his talents. When he doesn't own that, who does?
Scenario: People pay basketball players to play. In the end Michael Jordan gets more salary than anyone else, as a result the initial distribution (the one considered just) no longer obtains. The new distribution arose wholly voluntary. What does this scenario illustrate according to Nozick? (2)
It illustrates two problems with patterned theories of distributive justice:
1 Liberty upsets patterns. Anyone else who believes that economic inequality is unjust, will have to intervene in the free market, repeatedly and continuously, to undo the effect of the choices people make.
2 Intervening in this way (taxing Jordan to support the disadvantaged) not only overturns the results of voluntary transactions; it also violated Jordan's rights by taking his earnings. It forces him to make a charitable contribution against his will.
Describe the three libertarian policy rejections: (no... p, m, r)
1 No paternalism (libertarians oppose laws to protect people from harming themselves (f.e. seat belt laws). They violate the rights of the individual to decide what risks to assume as long as no third parties are harmed)
2 No moral legislation (libertarians oppose using the coercive force of law to promote notions of virtue or to express the moral convictions of the majority, f.e. laws against gay partners).
3 No redistribution of income or wealth (libertarian theory of rights rules out any law that requires some people to help others, incl. taxes. Help should be up to the individual to undertake, not mandated by the government. Redistributive taxes are a form of coercion/theft.

Mill thinks he can make this distinction between higher and lower pleasure, without relying on any moral ideas other than utility itself. What is meant with higher and lower pleasure? 
Higher: those pleasures of virtues that produce stronger/longer pleasure (simple as that)
Lower: the opposite. Maybe perverse pleasures, like bloody spectacles (f.e. arena's), that violate the rights of the victims.
> The higher pleasures are not higher because we prefer them we prefer them because we recognize them as higher