字幕表 動画を再生する 英語字幕をプリント Funding for this program provided by Additional funding provided by When we finished last time, we were looking at John Stuart Mill's and his attempt to reply to the critics of Bentham's utilitarianism in his book Utilitarianism, Mill tries to show that critics to the contrary, it is possible within utilitarian framework to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures, it is possible to make qualitative distinctions of worth, and we tested of that idea with the Simpsons in the Shakespeare excerpts and the results of our experiment seemed to call into question Mill's distinctions because a great many of you reported that you prefer the Simpsons but that you still consider Shakespeare to be the higher for the worthier pleasure that's the dilemma with which our experiment confronts Mill. what about Mill's attempt to account for especially weighty character of individual rights and justice in chapter five of utilitarianism? he wants to say that individual rights are worthy of special respect in fact he goes so far as to say that justice is the most sacred part and the most incomparably binding part of morality but the same challenge could be put to this part of Mill's defense why is justice the chief part and the most binding part of our morality? well he says because in the long run if we do justice and if we respect rights, society as a whole will be better off in the long run. well what about that? what if we have a case where making an exception and violating individual rights actually will make people better off in the long run is it all right then? to use people? and there's a further objection that could be raised against Mill's case for justice and rights suppose the utilitarian calculus in the long run works out as he says it will such that respecting people's rights is a way of making everybody better off in the long run is that the right reason is that the only reason to respect people? if the doctor goes in and yanks the organs from the healthy patient who came in for a checkup to save five lives there would be adverse effects in the long run eventually people would learn about this and would stop going in for checkups is it the right reason is the only reason that you as a doctor won't yanked the organs out of a healthy patient that you think well if I use him in this way in the long run more lives will be lost? or is there another reason having to do with intrinsic respect for the person as an individual and if that reason matters and it's not so clear that even Mill's utilitarianism can take account of it fully to examine these two worries or objections to Mill's defense we need to we need to push further we need to ask in the case of higher or worthier pleasures are there theories of the good life that can provide independent moral standards for the worth of pleasures? if so what do they look like? that's one question in the case of justice and rights if we suspected that Mill is implicitly leaning on notions of human dignity or respect for persons that are not, strictly speaking, utilitarian we need to look to see whether there are some stronger theories of rights that can explain the intuition which even Mill shares the intuition that the reason for respecting individuals and not using them goes beyond even utility in the long run. today we turn to one of those strong theories of rights strong theories of rights say individuals matter not just as instruments to be used for a larger social purpose or for the sake of maximizing utility individuals are separate beings with separate lives worthy of respect and so it's a mistake according to strong theories rights, it's a mistake to think about justice or law by just getting up preferences and values the strong rights theory we turn to today is libertarianism libertarianism take individual rights seriously it's called libertarianism because it says the fundamental individual right is the right to liberty precisely because we are separate individual beings we're not available to any use that the society might desire or devise. precisely because we're individual separate human beings we have a fundamental right to liberty and that means a right to choose freely to live our lives as we please provided we respect other people's rights to do the same that's the fundamental idea Robert Nozick one of the libertarian philosophers we read for this course puts it this way individuals have rights so strong and far-reaching are these rights that they raise the question of what, if anything the state may do. so what does libertarianism say about the role of government or of the state well there are three things that most modern states do that on the libertarian theory of rights are illegitimate are unjust one of them is paternalist legislation that's passing laws that protect people from themselves seat belt laws for example or motorcycle helmet laws the libertarian says it may be a good thing if people wear seat belts, but that should be up to them and the state the government has no business coercing them, us to wear seat belts by law its coercion so no paternalist legislation number one. number two no morals legislation many laws try to promote the virtue of citizens or try to give expression to the moral values of the society as a whole.