哈佛大学公开课-公正justice-03-Free-to-Choose--Who-Owns-Me-自

1Justice03FreetoChoose/WhoOwnsMe?自由选择/我属于谁？Whenwefinishedlasttime,wewerelookingatJohnStuartMill'sattempttoreplytothecriticsofBentham'sUtilitarianism.InhisbookUtilitarianismMilltriestoshowthatcriticstothecontraryitispossiblewithintheutilitarianframeworktodistinguishbetweenhigherandlowerpleasures.ItispossibletomakequalitativedistinctionsofworthandwetestedthatideawiththeSimpsonsandtheShakespeareexcerpts.AndtheresultsofourexperimentseemtocallintoquestionMill'sdistinctionbecauseagreatmanyofyoureportedthatyouprefertheSimpsonsbutthatyoustillconsiderShakespearetobethehigherortheworthierpleasure.That'sthedilemmawithwhichourexperimentconfrontsMill.WhataboutMill'sattempttoaccountfortheespeciallyweightycharacterofindividualrightsandjusticeinchapterfiveofUtilitarianism.Hewantstosaythatindividualrightsareworthyofspecialrespect.Infact,hegoessofarastosaythatjusticeisthemostsacredpartandthemostincomparablybindingpartofmorality.ButthesamechallengecouldbeputtothispartofMill'sdefense.Whyisjusticethechiefpartandthemostbindingpartofourmorality?2Well,hesaysbecauseinthelongrun,ifwedojusticeandifwerespectrights,societyasawholewillbebetteroffinthelongrun.Well,whataboutthat?Whatifwehaveacasewheremakinganexceptionandviolatingindividualrightsactuallywillmakepeoplebetteroffinthelongrun?Isitallrightthentousepeople?AndthereisafurtherobjectionthatcouldberaisedagainstMill'scaseforjusticeandrights.Supposetheutilitariancalculusinthelongrunworksoutashesaysitwillsuchthatrespectingpeople'srightsisawayofmakingeverybodybetteroffinthelongrun.Isthattherightreason?Isthattheonlyreasontorespectpeople?Ifthedoctorgoesinandyankstheorgansfromthehealthypatientwhocameinforacheckuptosavefivelives,therewouldbeadverseeffectsinthelongrun.Eventually,peoplewouldlearnaboutthisandwouldstopgoinginforcheckups.Isittherightreason?Istheonlyreasonthatyouasadoctorwon'tyanktheorgansoutofthehealthypatientthatyouthink,well,ifIusehiminthisway,inthelongrunmoreliveswouldbelost?Oristhereanotherreasonhavingtodowithintrinsicrespectforthepersonasanindividual?3Andifthatreasonmattersandit'snotsoclearthatevenMill'sutilitarianismcantakeaccountofit,fullytoexaminethesetwoworriesorobjections,toMill'sdefenseweneedtopushfurther.Andweneedtoaskinthecaseofhigherorworthierpleasuresaretheretheoriesofthegoodlifethatcanprovideindependentmoralstandardsfortheworthofpleasure?Ifso,whatdotheylooklike?That'sonequestion.Inthecaseofjusticeandrights,ifwesuspectthatMillisimplicitlyleaningonnotionsofhumandignityorrespectforpersonthatarenotstrictlyspeakingutilitarian,weneedtolooktoseewhethertherearesomestrongertheoriesofrightsthatcanexplaintheintuitionwhichevenMillshares,theintuitionthatthereasonforrespectingindividualsandnotusingthemgoesbeyondevenutilityinthelongrun.Today,weturntooneofthosestrongtheoriesofrights.Strongtheoriesofrightsayindividualsmatternotjustasinstrumentstobeusedforalargersocialpurposeorforthesakeofmaximizingutility,individualsareseparatebeingswithseparatelivesworthyofrespect.Andsoit'samistake,accordingtostrongtheoriesorrights,it'samistaketothinkaboutjusticeorlawbyjustaddinguppreferencesandvalues.Thestrongrightstheoryweturntotodayislibertarianism.Libertarianismtakesindividualrightsseriously.It'scalledlibertarianismbecauseitsaysthefundamentalindividualrightistherighttolibertypreciselybecauseweareseparateindividualbeings.We'renotavailabletoanyusethatthesocietymightdesireordevisepreciselybecauseweareindividualseparatehumanbeings.4Wehaveafundamentalrighttoliberty,andthatmeansarighttochoosefreely,toliveourlivesaswepleaseprovidedwerespectotherpeople'srightstodothesame.That'sthefundamentalidea.RobertNozick,oneofthelibertarianphilosopherswereadforthiscourse,putsitthisway:Individualshaverights.Sostrongandfarreachingaretheserightsthattheyraisethequestionofwhat,ifanything,thestatemaydo.Sowhatdoeslibertarianismsayabouttheroleofgovernmentorofthestate?Well,therearethreethingsthatmostmodernstatesdothatonthelibertariantheoryofrightsareillegitimateorunjust.Oneofthemispaternalistlegislation.That'spassinglawsthatprotectpeoplefromthemselves,seatbeltlaws,forexample,ormotorcyclehelmetlaws.Thelibertariansaysitmaybeagoodthingifpeoplewearseatbeltsbutthatshouldbeuptothemandthestate,thegovernment,hasnobusinesscoercingthem,us,towearseatbeltsbylaw.It'scoercion,sonopaternalistlegislation,numberone.Numbertwo,nomoralslegislation.Manylawstrytopromotethevirtueofcitizensortrytogiveexpressiontothemoralvaluesofthesocietyasawhole.Libertariansaythat'salsoaviolationoftherighttoliberty.Taketheexampleof,well,aclassicexampleoflegislationauthoredinthenameofpromotingmoralitytraditionallyhavebeenlawsthatpreventsexualintimacybetweengaysandlesbians.5Thelibertariansaysnobodyelseisharmed,nobodyelse'srightsareviolated,sothestateshouldgetoutofthebusinessentirelyoftryingtopromotevirtueortoenactmoralslegislation.Andthethirdkindoflaworpolicythatisruledoutonthelibertarianphilosophyisanytaxationorotherpolicythatservesthepurposeofredistributingincomeorwealthfromtherichtothepoor.Redistributionisa®Cifyouthinkaboutit,saysthelibertarianisakindofcoercio