Name: Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?
Uploaded: 2013-05-23T16:12:59.000Z
Duration: 55 min 8 s
Description: VoiceTubeの動画で発音を聞きながら英語表現を覚えよう！学べる英語：

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 the utilitarian framework

to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures.

It is possible to make qualitative distinctions of worth and we tested

that idea with the Simpsons and the Shakespeare excerpts.

And the results of our experiment seem to call into question

Mill's distinction because a great many of you reported that you prefer

the Simpsons but that you still consider Shakespeare to be

That's the dilemma with which our experiment confronts Mill.

What about Mill's attempt to account for the 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

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?

if we do justice and if we respect rights,

society as a whole will be better off in the long run.

What if we have a case where making an exception and

violating individual rights actually will make people better off

And there is 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 only reason to respect people?

If the doctor goes in and yanks the organs from

the healthy patient who came in for a checkup

there would be adverse effects in the long run.

Eventually, people would learn about this and

Is the only reason that you as a doctor won't yank the organs

out of the healthy patient that you think, well,

if I use him in this way, in the long run more lives would be lost?

Or is there another reason having to do with intrinsic respect

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 push further.

And 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 pleasure?

If so, what do they look like? That's one question.

In the case of justice and rights, if we suspect that Mill

is implicitly leaning on notions of human dignity

or respect for person 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 right say individuals matter not just as

instruments to be used for a larger social purpose

individuals are separate beings with separate lives worthy of respect.

And so it's a mistake, according to strong theories

of rights, it's a mistake to think about justice

or law by just adding up preferences and values.

The strong rights theory we turn to today is

Libertarianism takes 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 are

provided we respect other people's rights to do the same.

Robert Nozick, one of the libertarian philosophers

we read for this course, puts it this way:

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

Well, there are three things that most modern states do

that on the libertarian theory of rights are

That's passing laws that protect people from themselves,

seatbelt laws, for example, or motorcycle helmet laws.

The libertarian says it may be a good thing

字幕リスト動画再生

Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?

people

poor

money

wrong