Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Conclusion Nanoethics Lecture V

1
Application to Questions of Justice and Social
Welfare ConclusionNanoethics Lecture V

• Roderick T. Long
• Auburn Dept. of Philosophy

2
John Locke (1632-1704)

• Natural Law theorist
• One of the chief inspirations of the American
  Revolution
• Essays on the Law of Nature (1664)
• Essay Concerning Toleration (1667)
• Two Treatises of Government (1689)
• Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690)

3
John Locke (1632-1704)

• Gods will is the standard of morality
• But we dont need divine revelation to discover
  his will
• We can figure it out by reason

4
John Locke (1632-1704)

• Specifically, we can infer Gods purposes for
  human beings from the way he made us
• Since God made us essentially rational and social
  beings, he must intend us to live lives centered
  around reason and sociability

5
John Locke (1632-1704)

• If God had intended humans to have dominion over
  other humans, he wouldnt have given all humans
  the ability to think for themselves
• So God must intend for us all to have equal
  rights
• Men are not made for one anothers uses.
• (Ancestor of Kants imperative not to treat
  persons as mere means.)

6
John Locke (1632-1704)

• Q Does this apply to women too, or is this
  equality for men only?
• Locke On the one hand, the existing
  subordination of women to men is the result of
  sin, not the decree of God
• On the other hand, one could plausibly defend
  such subordination by appeal to biological
  differences
• In other words, Locke doesnt give a straight
  answer though later Lockeans would say yes,
  equality applies to both sexes

7
John Locke (1632-1704)

• Lockes conclusion no one can legitimately
  exercise authority over you without your consent
• Further conclusion governments must rest on
  consent of the governed, and may legitimately be
  overthrown if they overstep their authority

8
Applying Lockes Philosophy

• We hold these truths to be self-evident
• that all men are created equal
• that they are endowed by their Creator with
  certain unalienable rights
• that among these are life, liberty and the
  pursuit of happiness
• that to secure these rights, governments are
  instituted among men, deriving their just powers
  from the consent of the governed
• that whenever any form of government becomes
  destructive of these ends, it is the right of the
  people to alter or to abolish it
• Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of
• Independence, 1776

9
What is the Basis of Private Property?

• Robert Filmer, Lockes archenemy, had argued that
  all property in the realm belonged rightfully to
  the King
• Your farm, your tools, the clothes on your back
  its all the Kings property, so OBEY!
• To combat this, Locke needed to develop a theory
  of property rights
• How do initially unowned things rightfully become
  owned?

Robert Filmer (1588-1653)
10
Property Rights in General

• Utilitarian view the right system of property
  rights is whichever one maximizes the general
  happiness
• Its the job of economics to tell us which one
  that is
• (J. S. Mill, 1806-1873)

11
Property Rights in General

• Rawlsian view the right system of property
  rights is whichever one most benefits the
  worst-off
• Again, its the job of economics to tell us which
  one that is

12
Property Rights in General

• Utilitarians and Rawlsians agree that promotion
  of the common good (whether aggregate or mutual)
  is the proper standard of property rights
• But some moral theorists think there are
  considerations of inherent property rights over
  and above concern with consequences

13
Locke on Property Rights

• God gave the entire earth to humankind in common
• But if it remained common property, youd have to
  get permission from all the other joint-owners
  (the entire human race) before you could use any
  object
• Wed all starve to death!

14
Locke on Property Rights

• God would not have made us with bodily needs if
  he didnt want us to satisfy them
• So it is not Gods will that we starve to death
• So God must intend us to appropriate, from the
  commons, goods for our own private use
• God favours private property

15
Locke on Property Rights

• By mixing our labour with previously unowned
  objects and so transforming them, we make them
  our own
• This is permissible so long as we dont make
  others worse off by doing so

16
Locke on Property Rights

• Q Doesnt all appropriation diminish the amount
  available to others and so make them worse off?
• A Since private land is more productive than
  common land, appropriation usually makes society
  as a whole better off

17
Locke on Property Rights

• Q Why is private land more productive than
  common land?
• A People are willing to put more effort into
  something if they know theyll get to reap the
  benefits
• (Ancestor of Rawls Second Principle of Justice?)

18
Locke on Property Rights

• An individual creates value through homesteading
  previously unowned resources
• The product of is an extension of the producer
  and so cannot be appropriated without wrongly
  treating him as an object for others uses
• Hence private property is sacred

19
A Different View Pëtr Kropotkin (1842-1921)

• The value of a resource derives from its entire
  social context, to which everybody contributes
• So nobody has any more claim to it than anybody
  else
• Hence all resources should be shared private
  property is forbidden
• Conquest of Bread (1892)
• Mutual Aid (1902)

20
A Different View Pëtr Kropotkin (1842-1921)

• Q What of Lockes worry that each user would
  have to get permission from the entire human
  race?
• A Distinguish collective from communal ownership
• Collective a group right to use
• Communal an individual right (of each member) to
  use

21
Another ViewKarl Marx (1818-1883)

• All goods are produced by the workers
• But the workers dont get to keep or sell the
  goods they produce
• The employer gives his employees only a part of
  the proceeds and keeps the rest for himself

22
Another ViewKarl Marx (1818-1883)

• What makes this possible?
• If the employees do all the work, why does the
  employer get a cut?
• Why cant the workers ditch their boss and go off
  to produce goods on their own, for their own
  benefit?

23
Another ViewKarl Marx (1818-1883)

• Answer the capitalist class has monopolised the
  means of production (land, factories, etc.)
• Even though its generally been the workers, not
  the bosses, who cleared the land and built the
  factories, theyre not allowed to use these means
  of production without the bosses permission

24
Another ViewKarl Marx (1818-1883)

• Solution workers revolution
• Workers should seize the means of production and
  use them to produce for their own benefit
• Former bosses should become workers if they want
  a share of the product

25
Kropotkin vs. Marx

• Kropotkin Hey, sounds great! Let the workers
  run their own factories autonomously! Radical,
  dude!
• Marx Well, um not completely autonomously,
  you know. Councils of workers will be
  coordinated under one big super-council that will
  determine work priorities and set wage rates for
  everybody.

26
Kropotkin vs. Marx

• Kropotkin Oh. I get it. So its the same old
  oppression of the workers, just like nowadays,
  only with your gang running it. That totally
  sucks.
• Marx Chill out, man. The workers get to vote on
  who runs the big super-council, so whats the
  prob? Dont be hatin. Its gonna be excellent.

Quotations not exact
27
Yet Another View Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)

• Human happiness consists in the exercise of our
  faculties
• Morality accepts human happiness as the ultimate
  value
• Hence morality requires maximum scope for such
  exercise
• Social Statics (1851)
• Man vs. the State (1884)
• Principles of Ethics (1897)

28
Spencer on Freedom

• Law of Equal Freedom each shall have freedom to
  do all that he wills, provided he infringes not
  the equal freedom of others
• and for Spencer this does apply to women as
  well as to children!
• So no one can exercise legitimate authority over
  anyone else
• Law of Equal Freedom sounds like Locke and Rawls
  but is much more radical

29
Spencer on Freedom

• Locke no one can have authority over you unless
  you ACTUALLY consented
• Rawls no one can have authority over you unless
  you WOULD consent behind the Veil of Ignorance

30
Spencer on Freedom

• Spencer no one can have authority over you,
  PERIOD
• Coercive governments must be replaced by
  voluntary associations
• Any individual has the right to secede

31
Implications for Property

• If everybody has equal freedom to exercise their
  faculties, then everyone has an equal right to
  acquire and use external objects
• My keeping an item for myself is no violation of
  your freedom so long as youre allowed to keep
  items for yourself too
• Thus the Law of Equal Freedom supports private
  property

32
But Land is an Exception

• If private ownership of land is permissible, then
  it would be permissible for the entire surface of
  the earth to become the private property of a few
• But when youre on someone elses property, you
  have to do whatever they say or else leave

33
Spencer on Land

• If the entire surface of the earth were private
  property, leaving wouldnt be an option
• The non-owners would have to become slaves of the
  owners
• But slavery violates the Law of Equal Freedom

34
Spencer on Land

• 1. If private property in land were permissible,
  then in some circumstances slavery would be
  permissible
• 2. But there can be no circumstances in which
  slavery is permissible
• 3. Therefore private property in land is not
  permissible

35
Spencer on Land

• But Spencer agrees with Locke, against Kropotkin
  and Marx, that private administration of land is
  more efficient
• Solution society owns all land, but individuals
  rent land from society and administer it as their
  own, subject to societys regulations
• All other property is private

36
Criticism of Spencer

• Benjamin Tucker
• Spencer is right about the Law of Equal Freedom
• BUT if, as that Law requires, no group has any
  more authority than any other group, and any
  individual is free to secede from any group, what
  group collects societys rent and determines
  societys regulations?

Tucker (1854-1939)
37
Tuckers Solution

• Land should be private property
• But one has a just claim over land only so long
  as one is occupying and using it
• Thus charging rent is illegitimate if you move
  off the land and allow someone else to move on,
  youve given up your property

Tucker (1854-1939)
38
Tuckers Solution

• So no one can own more land than he can
  personally occupy and use
• Thus no one could ever legitimately own land on
  which other people live
• Conclusion Spencers nightmare scenario is
  impossible

Tucker (1854-1939)
39
A Different Solution

• Voltairine de Cleyre (1866-1912)
• (originally a follower of Tucker later
  influenced by Kropotkin)
• Law of Equal Freedom tells against imposing a
  single uniform one-size-fits-all property system
  on the entire society
• Why not allow each local community to have its
  own property arrangements private, communal, or
  whatever?

40
And the Debate Continues