QUIZZES – (1) 80% (5% of grade), (2) 60% (5% of grade), (3) 100% (5% of grade), (4) 80%
(5% of grade), (5) 100% (5% of grade), Quiz Average: 84% = 21% of possible 25%, (Final
Exam) 76% (75% of grade)
How to Navigate the Course
Overview
No problem scores in this section
Using the video player
No problem scores in this section
Responding to the poll
No problem scores in this section
Testing yourself
No problem scores in this section
Responding to the discussion prompt and participating in the discussion forum
No problem scores in this section
Accessing the readings No problem scores in this section
Lecture 1 - Doing the Right Thing
Video and Poll
No problem scores in this section
Self-Test 3 of 3 possible points(3/3) 100%
Practice Scores: 1/1
1/1
1/1
Discussion Prompt: Ethics of Torture
No problem scores in this section
Reading: Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?
No problem scores in this sectio
n
Lecture 2 - The Lifeboat Case
Video and Poll
No problem scores in this section
Self-Test 3 of 3 possible points(3/3) 100%
Practice Scores:1/1
1/1
1/1
Discussion Prompt: Do Numbers Matter?
No problem scores in this section
Reading 1: The Queen vs. Dudley and Stephens (1884) (The Lifeboat Case)
No problem scores in this section
Reading 2: Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?
No problem scores in this section
Lecture 3 - Utilitarianism: Jeremy Bentham
Video and Poll
No problem scores in this section
Self-Test 3 of 3 possible points(3/3) 100%
Practice Scores:
1/1
1/1
1/1
Discussion Prompt: Ethics of Putting a Price Tag on Life
No problem scores in this section
Reading 1: Jeremy Bentham, Principles of Morals and Legislation (1780)
No problem scores in this section
Reading 2: Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?
No problem scores in this section
Lecture 4 - Utilitarianism: J.S. Mill
Video and Poll
No problem scores in this section
Self-Test 2 of 3 possible points(2/3) 67%
Practice Scores:
0/1
1/1
1/1
Discussion Prompt: Throwing Christians to Lions?
No problem scores in this section
Reading: J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism (1863)
No problem scores in this section
Reading 2: Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?
No problem scores in this section
Quiz 1
Questions 4 of 5 possible points(4/5) 80%
Quiz due Jul 31, 2013 at 23:00 UTC
Problem Scores:
1/1
1/1
0/1
1/1
1/1
Lecture 5 - Libertarianism: Free-market philosophy
Video and Poll
No problem scores in this section
Self-Test 3 of 3 possible points(3/3) 100%
Practice Scores:
1/1
1/1
1/1
Discussion Prompt: Are Taxes a Form of Forced Labor?
No problem scores in this section
Reading: Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?
No problem scores in this section
Lecture 6 - Libertarianism: Do we own ourselves?
Video and Poll
No problem scores in this section
Self-Test 3 of 3 possible points(3/3) 100%
Practice Scores:
1/1
1/1
1/1
Discussion Prompt: Legislating Morality?
No problem scores in this section
Reading: Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?
No problem scores in this section
Live Question and Answer Session with Professor Sandel
Questions
No problem scores in this section
Video
No problem scores in this section
Lecture 7 - John Locke: Property Rights
Video and Poll
No problem scores in this section
Self-Test 3 of 3 possible points(3/3) 100%
Practice Scores:
1/1
1/1
1/1
Discussion Prompt: A Right to Kill Yourself?
No problem scores in this section
Reading: John Locke, Second Treatise of Government (1690)
No problem scores in this section
Lecture 8 - John Locke: Individual rights and majority rule
Video and Poll
No problem scores in this section
Self-Test 3 of 3 possible points(3/3) 100%
Practice Scores:
1/1
1/1
1/1
Discussion Prompt: Majority Rule vs. Property Rights
No problem scores in this section
Lecture 9 - Markets and Morals: Military service
Video and Poll
No problem scores in this section
Self-Test 3 of 3 possible points(3/3) 100%
Practice Scores:
1/1
1/1
1/1
Discussion Prompt: Army of Mercenaries or Conscription?
No problem scores in this section
Lecture 10 - Markets and Morals: Surrogate motherhood
Video and Poll
No problem scores in this section
Self-Test 3 of 3 possible points(3/3) 100%
Practice Scores:
1/1
1/1
1/1
Discussion Prompt: Markets and Their Limits
No problem scores in this section
Reading: In the Matter of Baby "M" (1988)
No problem scores in this section
Global Perspectives: Global Classroom Trailer
No problem scores in this section
Global Perspectives: Global Classroom - Surrogate Motherhood
No problem scores in this section
Quiz 2
Questions 3 of 5 possible points(3/5) 60%
Quiz due Jul 31, 2013 at 23:00 UTC
Problem Scores:
0/1
0/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
Lecture 11 - Immanuel Kant: What is freedom?
Video and Poll
No problem scores in this section
Self-Test 2 of 3 possible points(2/3) 67%
Practice Scores:
1/1
1/1
0/1
Discussion Prompt: Moral Character
No problem scores in this section
Reading 1: Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785)
No problem scores in this section
Reading 2: Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?
No problem scores in this section
Lecture 12 - Immanuel Kant: The supreme principle of morality
Video and Poll
No problem scores in this section
Self-Test 3 of 3 possible points(3/3) 100%
Practice Scores:
1/1
1/1
1/1
Discussion Prompt: Morality's Foundation
No problem scores in this section
Reading: Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?
No problem scores in this section
Lecture 13 - Immanuel Kant: A lesson in lying
Video and Poll
No problem scores in this section
Self-Test 3 of 3 possible points(3/3) 100%
Practice Scores:
1/1
1/1
1/1
Discussion Prompt: Moral Status of Misleading Truths
No problem scores in this section
Reading: Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?
No problem scores in this section
Quiz 3
Questions 5 of 5 possible points(5/5) 100%
Quiz due Jul 31, 2013 at 23:00 UTC
Problem Scores:
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
Lecture 14 - The Morality of Consent
Video and Poll
No problem scores in this section
Self-Test 3 of 3 possible points(3/3) 100%
Practice Scores:
1/1
1/1
1/1
Discussion Prompt: Voluntary Consent
No problem scores in this section
Recommended Reading: John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1971)
No problem scores in this section
Lecture 15 - John Rawls: The case for equality
Video and Poll
No problem scores in this section
Self-Test 3 of 3 possible points(3/3) 100%
Practice Scores:
1/1
1/1
1/1
Discussion Prompt: Justice as Fairness
No problem scores in this section
Reading: Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?
No problem scores in this section
Lecture 16 - Distributive Justice: Who deserves what?
Video and Poll
No problem scores in this section
Self-Test 2 of 3 possible points(2/3) 67%
Practice Scores:
1/1
0/1
1/1
Discussion Prompt: Fairness of Inheritance Tax
No problem scores in this section
Reading: Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?
No problem scores in this section
Global Perspectives: Global Classroom - Distributive Justice
No problem scores in this section
Quiz 4
Questions 4 of 5 possible points(4/5) 80%
Quiz due Jul 31, 2013 at 23:00 UTC
Problem Scores:
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
0/1
Lecture 17 - Arguing Affirmative Action
Video and Poll
No problem scores in this section
Self-Test 2 of 3 possible points(2/3) 67%
Practice Scores:
1/1
0/1
1/1
Discussion Prompt: A Matter of Moral Desert?
No problem scores in this section
Reading 1: Hopwood v. State (1996)
No problem scores in this section
Reading 2: Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
No problem scores in this section
Lecture 18 - Aristotle: Justice and virtue
Video and Poll
No problem scores in this section
Self-Test 2 of 3 possible points(2/3) 67%
Practice Scores:
0/1
1/1
1/1
Discussion Prompt: Moral Significance of Merit
No problem scores in this section
Reading: Aristotle, The Politics
No problem scores in this section
Lecture 19 - Aristotle: The good citizen
Video and Poll
No problem scores in this section
Self-Test 3 of 3 possible points(3/3) 100%
Practice Scores:
1/1
1/1
1/1
Discussion Prompt: Politics and Telos
No problem scores in this section
Reading 1: Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics
No problem scores in this section
Reading 2: PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin (2000)
No problem scores in this section
Lecture 20 - Aristotle: Freedom vs. fit
Video and Poll
No problem scores in this section
Self-Test 3 of 3 possible points(3/3) 100%
Practice Scores:
1/1
1/1
1/1
Discussion Prompt: Ability, Disability, and Access
No problem scores in this section
Quiz 5
Questions 5 of 5 possible points(5/5) 100%
Quiz due Jul 31, 2013 at 23:00 UTC
Problem Scores:
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
Lecture 21 - Justice, Community, and Membership
Video and Poll
No problem scores in this section
Self-Test 3 of 3 possible points(3/3) 100%
Practice Scores:
1/1
1/1
1/1
Discussion Prompt: Enslaved by Our Circumstances?
No problem scores in this section
Recommended Reading: Alasdair MacIntyre, "The Virtues, the Unity of a Human Life and the
Concept of a Tradition"
No problem scores in this section
Lecture 22 - Dilemmas of Loyalty
Video and Poll
No problem scores in this section
Self-Test 3 of 3 possible points(3/3) 100%
Practice Scores:
1/1
1/1
1/1
Discussion Prompt: Obligations of Solidarity and Membership
No problem scores in this section
Reading: No New Reading for this Lecture
No problem scores in this section
Global Perspectives: Global Classroom - Dilemmas of Loyalty
No problem scores in this section
Lecture 23 - Debating Same-Sex Marriage
Video and Poll
No problem scores in this section
Self-Test 2 of 3 possible points(2/3) 67%
Practice Scores:
0/1
1/1
1/1
Discussion Prompt: Marriage Law Without Moral Controversy?
No problem scores in this section
Reading: Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health (2003)
No problem scores in this section
Lecture 24 - Conclusion: Justice and the good Life
Video and Poll
No problem scores in this section
Self-Test 0 of 3 possible points(0/3)
Practice Scores:
0/1
0/1
0/1
Discussion Prompt: Moral Argument and Public Sphere
No problem scores in this section
Reading: No New Reading
No problem scores in this section
Final Exam
Questions 19 of 25 possible points(19/25) 76%
Final Exam due Jul 31, 2013 at 23:00 UTC
Problem Scores:
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
0/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
0/1
1/1
1/1
0/1
1/1
0/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
0/1
1/1
0/1
Global Perspectives: The Global Classroom Experiment
Global Classroom Trailer
No problem scores in this section
Global Classroom - Surrogate Motherhood
No problem scores in this section
Global Classroom - Distributive Justice
No problem scores in this section
Global Classroom - Dilemmas of Loyalty
No problem scores in
this section
Justice - ER22x
March 12, 2013 – June 4, 2013
LECTURE 1 - Doing the Right Thing
Moral Principles
1. Depends on the consequences that will result from your action – [Run-Away trolley
car steered to kill 1 rather than 5]
a. Consequentialist Moral Reasoning – locates morality in the consequences of
an act
b. Jeremy Bentham – “Utilitarianism” Philosopher 18th C. British
2. Intrinsic quality of the act itself [Pushing fat man onto trolley tracks from crossover killing
1 rather than 5]
a. Categorical Moral Reasoning – locates morality in certain categories of moral
duties and rights
b. Emmanuel Kant – 18th C. German Philosopher
Why does the principle that seems right in the first question –
sacrifice one life to save five – seem wrong in the second?
● Which principle has greater weight, or
● Which principle is more appropriate?
The Evasion of Skepticism
● Why reflect on Moral Principles when many of them have been unresolved for millennia?
● Who are we to think we can solve them here and now?
Response: These questions persisted for a very long time, but the very fact that they have
recurred and persisted may suggest that though they’re impossible in one sense they’re
unavoidable in another. The reason they’re unavoidable – they’re inescapable, is that we live
some answer to these questions everyday.
Emmanuel Kant on skeptism
“Skepticism is a resting place for human reason, where it can reflect on its dogmatic wanderings,
but it is no dwelling place for permanent settlement. Simply to acquiesce in skepticism can never
suffice to overcome the restlessness of reason.”
SELF-TEST – Lecture 1
QUESTION 1 A consequentialist is likely to approach the trolley car case by focusing on:
a) The number of lives that would be saved by diverting the trolley car.
b) The rights of the people who would be killed if the trolley car is diverted. c) A moral rule, telling us not to kill under any circumstances.
d) Whether the people on the tracks consented to be there, and consented to being put at risk.
e) The inherent evil in killing one person in order to save a greater number of people.
EXPLANATION
a) Correct.b) Incorrect. A consequentialist is concerned with numbers and consequences, not individual rights.c) Incorrect. A
consequentialist is concerned with numbers and consequences, and permits killing if killing brings about the best consequences.
d) Incorrect. A consequentialist is concerned with numbers and consequences, regardless of who consented to being put at risk.
e) Incorrect. A consequentialist is concerned with numbers and consequences, and would accept that it is permissible to kill one
person in order to save several people.
QUESTION 2 One who engages in categorical moral thinking is likely to approach the trolley car case by focusing on:
a) Whether the trolley car driver can maximize the number of lives saved by diverting the trolley.
b) Whether the trolley car driver can minimize the amount of suffering by diverting the trolley.
c) Whether diverting the trolley car leads to the best consequences. d) Whether more people are made happy if the trolley car is diverted. e) Whether diverting the trolley car would violate people’s rights.
EXPLANATION
a) Incorrect. Those who engage in categorical moral thinking believe that we ought to follow certain principles or respect certain
rights regardless of the number of people that would be saved.b) Incorrect. Those who engage in categorical moral thinking
believe that we ought to follow certain principles or respect certain rights regardless of the number of people that would be saved.
c) Incorrect. Those who engage in categorical moral thinking believe that we ought to follow certain principles or respect certain
rights regardless of the number of people that would be saved.d) Incorrect. Those who engage in categorical moral thinking
believe that we ought to follow certain principles or respect certain rights regardless of the number of people that would be saved.
e) Correct.
QUESTION 3 Someone who argues that the trolley car driver should divert the trolley because more lives would be saved by
doing so would be engaging in:
a) Categorical moral reasoning. b) Consequentialist moral reasoning. c) Both categorical moral reasoning and consequentialist moral reasoning. d) Neither categorical moral reasoning nor consequentialist moral reasoning. e) Immoral reasoning.
EXPLANATION
a) Incorrect. Those who engage in categorical moral reasoning locate morality in duties and rights, not in the consequences of an
action.
b) Correct.
c) Incorrect. Those who engage in categorical moral reasoning locate morality in duties and rights, not in the consequences of an
action, and so the person would be engaged in consequentialist moral reasoning but not categorical moral reasoning.
d) Incorrect. Those who engage in consequentialist moral reasoning locate morality in the consequences of an action, and so
a person concerned with the number of people killed would be engaged in consequentialist reasoning.e) Incorrect. Those who
engage in consequentialist moral reasoning locate morality in the consequences of an action, and so a person concerned with the
number of people killed would be engaged in consequentialist reasoning.
LECTURE 2 – The Life Boat Case
Review Lecture 1
● The way we argued
○ CASE 1 (Trolley) - Our judgments in particular cases
■ The reasons or principles behind those judgments
○ CASE 2 (Organ stealing) - Re-examined those principles
■ Revising each in the light of the other
● We noticed the built-in pressure to bring into alignment our judgments on particular cases, and
the principles we would endorse upon reflection
● We noticed something about the substance of the argument that emerged.
○ Consequential Moral Reasoning - We noticed that sometimes we were tempted to locate the
morality of an act in the consequences, the results or the state of the world it brought about.
○ Categorical Moral Reasoning In some cases, not just consequences, but the intrinsic quality of
the act mattered. An act can be immoral even if it brings about a good consequence.
READING
This way of conceiving moral argument, as a dialectic between our judgments about particular situations and
the principles we affirm on reflection, has a long tradition. It goes back to the dialogues of Socrates and the
moral philosophy of Aristotle. But notwithstanding its ancient lineage, it is open to the following challenge:
If moral reflection consists in seeking a fit between the judgments we make and the principles we affirm, how
can such reflection lead us to justice, or moral truth? Even if we succeed, over a lifetime, in bringing our moral
intuitions and principled commitments into alignment, what confidence can we have that the result is anything
more than a self-consistent skein of prejudice?
The answer is that moral reflection is not a solitary pursuit but a public endeavor. It requires an interlocutor—
a friend, a neighbor, a comrade, a fellow citizen. Sometimes the interlocutor can be imagined rather than real,
as when we argue with ourselves. But we cannot discover the meaning of justice or the best way to live through
introspection alone.
In Plato’s Republic, Socrates compares ordinary citizens to a group of prisoners confined in a cave. All
they ever see is the play of shadows on the wall, a reflection of objects they can never apprehend. Only the
philosopher, in this account, is able to ascend from the cave to the bright light of day, where he sees things
as they really are. Socrates suggests that, having glimpsed the sun, only the philosopher is fit to rule the cave
dwellers, if he can somehow be coaxed back into the darkness where they live.
Plato’s point is that to grasp the meaning of justice and the nature of the good life, we must rise above the
prejudices and routines of everyday life. He is right, I think, but only in part. The claims of the cave must be
given their due. If moral reflection is dialectical—if it moves back and forth between the judgments we make in
concrete situations and the principles that inform those judgments—it needs opinions and convictions, however
partial and untutored, as ground and grist. A philosophy untouched by the shadows on the wall can only yield a
sterile utopia.
●
Utilitarianism – 18th C. British Political Philosophy
○ Jeremy Bentham – first to give clear theoretical expression to this philosophy
■ Essential idea – The right thing to do, the just thing to do is to maximize utility
● What is Utility? = The balance of pleasure over pain, joy over sadness.
● Bentham observed – We all like pleasure over pain, joy over sadness.
○ So we should act in a way, either individually or collective, as to
maximize the overall pleasure.
○ Utilitarianism Summed up = “The greatest good for the greatest number.”
○ Tests for Utilitarianism
■ CASE 1 (Queen vs. Dudley and Stevens) 19th C. Law case
● Summary – “Minuet” floundered 1300 miles off the coast of Cape
○ Captain was Dudley, 1st mate was Stevens, sailor was Brooks, Richard
Parker was the cabin boy - orphan on1st voyage
○ Minuet went down and 4 crew members escaped to lifeboat with only 2
cans of preserved turnips, and no water
○ 1st 3 days they ate nothing,
○ 4th day they ate 1 can of turnips,
○ 5th day they caught a turtle and with the can of turnips they subsisted,
○ Then for 8 days, no food and no water
○ Parker appears to be dying
○ On the 19th day Captain suggests a lottery to see who should die to save
the rest
■ Brooks said NO to lottery, and no lottery
○ Dudley stabs Parker with pen knife in jugular
○ Brooks shares in body and blood of cabin boy for 4 days
○ Then they were rescued on 24th day
○ Arrested and tried in Falmouth, England
■ Brooks turned state’s witness
■ Dudley and Stevens stood trial acting out of necessity 1 for 3 lives
○ Morally justified:
■ Morally and legally are different
■ Utility matters – balance of happiness and suffering
■ Numbers matter
○ Morally unjustified
■ We don’t have power to take lives for any purpose
■ Cannibalism is wrong morally
■ Lack of consent (i.e., all didn’t decide)
● Does a fair procedure justify any result?
○
What is the moral work of consent?
● What would be allowing the most benefit to the most people (utility)
○ Raises questions:
1. Do we have certain fundamental rights?
● Pleasure
● Happiness
2. Does a fair procedure justify any result? (i.e., lottery)
3. What is the moral work of consent? (i.e., martyr gives consent
SELF-TEST – Lecture 2
QUESTION 1 Someone who objected to killing the cabin boy by saying, “It is always wrong to take an innocent life in order to save
a greater number of lives” seems to be objecting on the basis of:
a) The fact that the cabin boy has rights. b) The fact that proper procedure was not followed.
c) The fact that the cabin boy did not consent.
d) a and b. e) b and c.
EXPLANATION
a) Correct. b) Incorrect. The objection says that it is always wrong to take the life of an innocent, not that it is wrong only when
proper procedure isn’t followed. c) Incorrect. The objection says that it is always wrong to take the life of an innocent, not that it
is wrong only when there is no consent. d) Incorrect. The objection is concerned with the wrongness of killing the cabin boy under
any circumstances, and is not concerned with the fact that proper procedure was not followed. e) Incorrect. The objection says
that it is always wrong to take the life of an innocent, not that it is wrong only when proper procedure is not followed, or that it is
wrong only when the person does not consent.
●
●
QUESTION 2 Someone who objected to killing the cabin boy by saying, “It is morally wrong to kill an innocent person unless he
agrees to be killed ” seems to be objecting on the basis of:
a) The fact that the cabin boy has rights.
b) The fact that proper procedure was not followed.
c) The fact that the cabin boy did not consent.
d) a and c.
e) b and c.
EXPLANATION
● a) Incorrect. While the objection implies that the cabin boy has a right not to be killed, it also implies that he can relinquish the right
by consenting to be killed. b) Incorrect. The objection implies that the cabin boy has a right not to be killed, and that he can only
relinquish this right through consent. It says nothing about proper procedure. c) Incorrect. While the objection implies that it would
be morally permissible to kill the cabin boy if he consented, it also implies that he has a right not to be killed unless he consents. d)
Correct. e) Incorrect. The objection implies that the cabin boy has a right not to be killed, and that he can only relinquish this right
through consent. It says nothing about proper procedure.
QUESTION 3 Someone who objected to killing the cabin boy by saying, “A lottery should have been held to determine who would
be eaten” seems to be objecting on the basis of:
a)The fact that the cabin boy has an inviolable right not to be killed.
b) The fact that proper procedure was not followed.
c) The fact that the cabin boy did not consent.
d) a and b.
e) b and c.
● EXPLANATION
a) Incorrect. The objection implies that it would be permissible to kill the cabin boy so long as a lottery is held, and says nothing
about a right not to be killed. b) Correct. c) Incorrect. The objection says nothing about consent. The objection is that a lottery
should have been held—which is a concern about fair procedure. d) Incorrect. The objection implies that it would be permissible
to kill the cabin boy so long as a lottery is held. So the objection does not appeal to a right against being killed. e) Incorrect.
The objection says nothing about consent. The objection is that a lottery should have been held—which is a concern about fair
procedure.
LECTURE 3 – Utilitarianism: Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832)
Jeremy Bentham – Child prodigy of intelligence, admitted to the bar at 19 years of age, but
became a philosopher of JURISPRUDENCE (the science or philosophy of law)
‘The Principles of Morals and Legislation’ 1780
Utilitarianism – The highest principle of morality, whether personal or political
morality, is to maximize the general welfare or the collective happiness for the overall
balance of pleasure over pain.
In a phrase – maximize utility
READINGS on Utilitarianism in “JEREMY BENTHAM, PRINCIPLES OF MORALS
AND LEGISLATION (1780)”
. . . the value of pleasure or pain will be greater or less, according to seven
circumstances; viz.,
1. Its intensity.
2. Its duration.
3. Its certainty or uncertainty.
4. Its propinquity or remoteness.
5. Its fecundity. The chance it has of being followed by sensations of the opposite
kind: that is, pains, if it be pleasure: pleasures, if it be pain.
6. Its purity, or the chance it has of not being followed by sensations of the opposite
kind: that is, pains, if it be pleasure: pleasures, if it be a pain.
7. It extent; that is, the number of persons to whom it extends; or (in other words)
who are affected by it.
V. To take an exact account then of the general tendency of any act, by which the
interests of a community are affected, proceed as follows. Begin with any one person
of those whose interests seem most immediately to be affected by it: and take an
account,
1. Of the value of each distinguishable pleasure which appears to be produced by it in
the first instance.
2. Of the value of each pain which appears to be produced by it in the first instance.
3. Of the value of each pleasure, which appears to be produced by it after the first. This
constitutes the fecundity of the first pleasure and the impurity of the first pain.
4. Of the value of each pain, which appears to be produced by it after the first. This
constitutes the fecundity of the first pain, and the impurity of the first pleasure.
5. Sum up all the values of all the pleasures on the one side, and those of all the pains
on the other. The balance, if it be on the side of pleasure, will give the good tendency of
the act upon the whole, with respect to the interests of that individual person; if on the
side of pain, the bad tendency of it upon the whole.
6. Take an account of the number of persons whose interests appear to be concerned;
and repeat the above process with respect to each. Sum up the numbers expressive
of the degrees of good tendency, which the act has, with respect to each individual, in
regard to whom the tendency of it is good upon the whole: do this again with respect
to each individual, in regard to whom the tendency of it is good upon the whole: do
this again with respect to each individual, in regard to whom the tendency of it is bad
upon the whole. Take the balance which if on the side of pleasure, will give the general
good tendency of the act, with respect to the total number or community of individuals
concerned; if on the side of pain, the general evil tendency, with respect to the same
community.
VI. It is not to be expected that this process should be strictly pursued previously to
every moral judgment, or to every legislative or judicial operation. It may, however, be
always kept in view: and as near as the process actually pursued on these occasions
approaches to it, so near will such process approach to the character of an exact one.
Path Bentham takes to this line of reasoning:
● We are all governed by pain and pleasure. They are our sovereign masters.
● Any moral system has to take account of pain and pleasure.
○ How to take account of Maximizing happiness (utility)
■ In deciding what’s just, what the law should be, what’s best:
■ If we add up the benefits, and subtract the costs, the right thing to do
is the one that maximizes the balance of happiness over suffering.
In a phrase – cost-benefit analysis
Placing a dollar value on the cost-benefits of various proposals.
Phillip Morris Study in Czech Republic
The Utilitarian would add to this analysis a measure for the cost of the value of a
life.
The Ford-Pinto Case (1970s)
Background:
● Pinto’s fuel tank was at the back of the car and in rear-end collisions it
exploded.
● Ford had done a cost-benefit analysis about whether to put in a protective
wall:
○ The cost per part would have been $11.00 per part.
○ Assigning costs for deaths and injuries.
They decided not to make the adjustment
Objections to Utilitarianism:
READINGS on Utilitarianism in “Justice”
Objection 1
The most glaring weakness of utilitarianism, many argue, is that it fails to respect
individual rights. By caring only about the sum of satisfactions, it can run roughshod
over individual people. For the Utilitarian, individuals matter, but only in the sense
that each person’s preferences should be counted along with everyone else’s. But this
means that the Utilitarian logic, if consistently applied, could sanction ways of treating
persons that violate what we think of as fundamental norms of decency and respect.
(e.g., Throwing Christians to the Lions, Is torture Ever Justified?, The City of Happiness)
Objection 2
Utilitarianism claims to offer a science of morality, based on measuring, aggregating,
and calculating happiness. It weighs preferences without judging them. Everyone’s
preferences count equally. But in order to aggregate preferences, it is necessary to
measure them on a single scale. Bentham’s idea of utility offers one such common
currency. According to this objection, all values can’t be captured by a common currency
of value. (e.g., Cost-Benefit Analysis tries to bring rationality and rigor to complex
social choices by translating all costs and benefits into monetary terms – and then
comparing them.)
Thorndike runs a survey asking what price each person would ask to:
2nd - Eat a 6 inch worm $100,00
Cut off a small toe
3rd - Have a front tooth pulled $4500
Choke a stray cat to death
1st - Live the rest of your life on a farm in Kansas - $300,000
Conclusion: Any want or satisfaction that exists, exists in some amount and is
therefore measurable.
SELF-TEST – Lecture 3
● QUESTION 1 Bentham’s utilitarianism says that in any situation, the right act for me to perform is:
● a) The one that maximizes my own happiness. ● b) The one that satisfies my own preferences.
● c) The one that saves the most money.
● d) The one that maximizes the total amount of happiness across all people. e) a and b.
● EXPLANATION
● a) Incorrect. Bentham says that the right act is the one that maximizes the total amount of happiness across all people, not the one
that maximizes one’s own happiness.
● b) Incorrect. Bentham says that the right act is the one that maximizes the total amount of happiness across all people, not the one
that satisfies one’s own preferences.
● c) Incorrect. Bentham says that the right act is the one that maximizes the total amount of happiness across all people. Saving money
is only relevant insofar as it affects the total amount of happiness.
● d) Correct.
● e) Incorrect. Bentham says that the right act is the one that maximizes the total amount of happiness across all people, not the one
that maximizes one’s own happiness or satisfies one’s own preferences.
●
● QUESTION 2 In lecture, the example of the Ford Pinto was meant to raise questions about:
● a) whether there is such a thing as happiness that can actually be measured. ● b) whether utilitarians fail to respect minority rights.
● c) whether it is possible to assign a dollar value to human life. ● d) whether all persons should be equal in the eyes of the law. ● e) whether it makes sense to say that death contributes to unhappiness.
● EXPLANATION
● a) Incorrect. In the Pinto example, the point was not that happiness cannot be measured, but that it might be impossible to assign a
dollar value to a human life.
● b) Incorrect. In the Pinto example, the point was not that anyone’s rights were violated, but that it might be impossible to assign a
dollar value to a human life.
● c) Correct.
● d) Incorrect. In the Pinto example, the point was not that people need to be equal in the eyes of the law, but that it might be
impossible to assign a dollar value to a human life.
● e) Incorrect. In the Pinto example, the point was not to question whether it makes sense to say that death can contribute to
unhappiness, but to suggest that it might be impossible to assign a dollar value to a human life.
QUESTION 3 In the lecture, the discussion about how much people would have to be paid in order to eat an earth worm, to live in
Kansas, to have a tooth pulled, and so on, was meant to raise questions about:
a) whether all goods can be accounted for using a single uniform measure of value, as the utilitarian suggests.
b) whether maximizing the total amount of happiness is just. c) whether it makes sense to say that some things make us happier than others.
d) whether most things that we think will make us unhappy really will. e) whether we are good at predicting what will really make us happy.
EXPLANATION
a) Correct.
b) Incorrect. The concern is about whether all goods can be accounted for using a single uniform measure of value, not about the
justice of maximizing happiness.
c) Incorrect. The concern is about whether all goods can be accounted for using a single uniform measure of value, not about whether
it is possible to say that some things make us happier than others.
d) Incorrect. The concern is about whether all goods can be accounted for using a single uniform measure of value, not about how
much we know about what makes us happy.
e) Incorrect. The concern is about whether all goods can be accounted for using a single uniform measure of value, not about how
good we are at predicting what will really make us happy.
LECTURE 4 – Utilitarianism: John Stuart Mill (1863) Child Prodigy
Two Books: “Liberty” (1859) and “Utilitarianism” in 1861
The two objections to Bentham’s Utilitarianism:
1. Fails to respect individual rights
a. J. S. Mill’s response, concerned with humanitarian concerns of Utilitarianism, still finds
that i. Utility is the only standard of morality in long term social utility
ii. Justice is higher, and Individual rights are privileged, but not for reasons that
depart from Utilitarianism for the long-term interests of humankind (sacred or
specially important rights 26:32)
2. Not possible to aggregate all values and preferences
a. Using a single measure like $$
b. Isn’t there a distinction between higher and lower pleasures?
i. For Bentham,
1. Places no judgments on peoples’ values; therefore, non-judgmental and
egalitarian
2. All that matters are the intensity and the duration of the pleasure or the
pain (e.g., the more the intensity or duration the higher or nobler the
pleasure or the pain). “The quantity of pleasure being equal,
Pushpin (a child’s game) is as good as poetry.”
c. J. S. Mill’s response concerned with humanitarian concerns of Utilitarianism
i. It is possible to distinguish higher from lower values
ii. TEST = If you try both values, irrespective of moral obligations, you will always
prefer the higher one
a. 3 experiences
i. Hamlet soliloquy – highest pleasure
ii. Fear factor
iii.
The Simpsons – enjoyed the most
b. Yes, certain values are higher or lower. You need
cultivation and education to enjoy (to engage higher human
faculties) a higher value.
Self-Test Lecture 4
QUESTION 1
Which of the following best characterizes the difference between Bentham and Mill with respect to their views on individual natural
rights?
a) Bentham thinks that natural rights must be respected, whereas Mill does not.
b) Bentham thinks that natural rights are supported by his utilitarian theory, whereas Mill does not.
c) Bentham thinks that there are no natural rights, whereas Mill thinks there are natural rights and that utilitarian moral theory cannot
accommodate this. d) Bentham thinks that there are no natural rights, whereas Mill thinks that utilitarian moral theory supports the idea that we should
recognize individual rights.
e) Bentham and Mill agree that that utilitarian moral theory supports the claim that we should recognize individual rights, but disagree
about which rights individuals have.
EXPLANATION
a) Incorrect. Bentham rejects the notion of individual natural rights, whereas Mill thinks that utilitarian moral theory supports the idea
that we should recognize individual rights.
b) Incorrect. Bentham rejects the notion of individual natural rights, whereas Mill thinks that utilitarian moral theory supports the idea
that we should recognize individual rights.
c) Incorrect. Bentham rejects the notion of individual natural rights, whereas Mill thinks that utilitarian moral theory supports the idea
that we should recognize individual rights.
d) Correct.
e) Incorrect. Bentham rejects the notion of individual natural rights, whereas Mill thinks that utilitarian moral theory supports the idea
that we should recognize individual rights.
QUESTION 2 Which of the following best characterizes the difference between Bentham and Mill with respect to the issue of the
“quality” of certain pleasures?
a) Bentham thinks we should only concern ourselves with the quantity of pleasure, and remain nonjudgmental about the quality. Mill
believes that some pleasures are of a higher quality than others. b) Bentham believes in higher and lower pleasures, whereas Mill thinks we should be nonjudgmental. c) Bentham believes that we should only maximize the highest quality pleasures, whereas Mill thinks we should maximize all
pleasures.
d) Both agree that some pleasures are higher than others, but they disagree about which pleasures are the higher ones. e) Both agree that some pleasures are higher than others, but they disagree about how to determine which pleasures are the higher
ones.
EXPLANATION
a) Correct.
b) Incorrect. Bentham thinks we should only concern ourselves with the quantity of pleasure, and remain nonjudgmental about the
quality. Mill believes that some pleasures are of a higher quality than others.
c) Incorrect. Bentham thinks we should only concern ourselves with the quantity of pleasure, and remain nonjudgmental about the
quality. Mill believes that some pleasures are of a higher quality than others.
d) Incorrect. Bentham thinks we should only concern ourselves with the quantity of pleasure, and remain nonjudgmental about the
quality. Mill believes that some pleasures are of a higher quality than others
e) Incorrect. Bentham thinks we should only concern ourselves with the quantity of pleasure, and remain nonjudgmental about the
quality. Mill believes that some pleasures are of a higher quality than others.
QUESTION 3
Given two pleasurable experiences, how does Mill believe that we determine which is the higher pleasure?
a) By asking people which pleasure they think is the higher pleasure. b) By taking a poll of the general public.
c) By asking people which experience produces the highest quantity of pleasure.
d) By doing cost-benefit analysis. e) By asking those who have experienced both pleasures which they prefer.
EXPLANATION
a) Incorrect. Mill says that to determine which pleasure is the higher pleasure, we ask those who have experienced both pleasures
which they prefer, not that we ask people to judge which pleasure is the highest.
b) Incorrect. Mill says that to determine which pleasure is the higher pleasure, we ask those who have experienced both pleasures
which they prefer, not that we take a poll.
c) Incorrect. Mill says that to determine which pleasure is the higher pleasure, we ask those who have experienced both pleasures
which they prefer, not that we ask people which experience produces the highest quantity of pleasure.
d) Incorrect. Mill says that to determine which pleasure is the higher pleasure, we ask those who have experienced both pleasures
which they prefer, not that we should do cost-benefit analysis.
e) Correct.
QUIZ 1 - Quiz 1 counts for 5% of the overall grade for the course.
Instructions
Quiz 1 consists of 5 multiple choice questions. Be sure to read each question carefully before you select your response.
You have one and only one attempt to answer each of the five questions. Once you click "Final Check" your response
will be submitted for grading. If you are unsure, you can save your answer to a question and come back to it later to
submit it for grading; you can change an answer that you have saved simply by clicking a different response. Always
make sure that the response that you want to submit for grading is checked before you click "Final Check."
Quiz 1 counts for 5% of the overall grade for the course.
As stated on the syllabus, while you are encouraged, throughout the semester, to discuss the topics of the course with
your friends and fellow students, you must do Quiz 1 (as well as quizzes 2-5 and the final exam) on your own, without
consulting others; you are also not permitted to share responses to the quiz questions with others or post them in the
course discussions.
We strongly recommend that students take Quiz 1 after completing the material of lectures 1, 2, 3, and 4, to assess their
progress. For those who want to earn a certificate of mastery, all graded work, including Quiz 1, must be completed by
June 4th at 7 pm EDT (Eastern Daylight Time).
Good Luck!
QUESTION 1 According to utilitarianism, the morally right act is the one that … a) … contributes to my own happiness. b) … maximizes my own happiness.
c) … contributes to the total amount of happiness across all those affected by the act. d) … maximizes the total amount of happiness across all those affected by the act.
e) … minimizes the total amount of happiness across all those affected by the act.
EXPLANATION
a) Incorrect. According to utilitarianism, what matters, morally speaking, is the maximized total amount of happiness across all those
affected by the act and not only my own happiness.
b) Incorrect. According to utilitarianism, what matters is the maximized total amount of happiness across all those affected by the act
and not only my own happiness.
c) Incorrect. According to utilitarianism, what matters, morally speaking, is that the act under evaluation not only contributes to the
total amount of happiness across all those affected by the act but that it be the one that maximizes aggregate happiness.
d) Correct.
e) Incorrect. According to utilitarianism, what matters, morally speaking, is not the minimization of aggregate happiness, but rather
the maximization of aggregate happiness.You have used 1 of 1 submissions
QUESTION 2 One key difference between Bentham’s and Mill’s respective versions of utilitarianism is that …
a. … Bentham draws a distinction between higher and lower pleasures while Mill does not.
b) … Mill believes that the principle of utility applies both to the actions of individuals and government policies while Bentham
believes that it applies only to the actions of individuals.
c) … Bentham believes that the principle of utility applies both to the actions of individuals and government policies while Mill
believes that it applies only to the actions of individuals.
d) … Mill draws a distinction between higher and lower pleasures while Bentham does not.
e) … Bentham but not Mill believes that morality requires the maximization of aggregate happiness. EXPLANATION
a) Incorrect. Mill draws a distinction between higher and lower pleasures. Bentham believes that there are no qualitative differences
between pleasures (e.g. the quality of the pleasure derived from playing push pin is the same as the quality derived from reading
Shakespeare).
b) Incorrect. Both Bentham and Mill believe that the principle of utility applies to the acts of individuals and government policies.
c) Incorrect. Both Bentham and Mill believe that the principle of utility applies to the acts of individuals and government policies.
d) Correct.
e) Incorrect. Both Bentham and Mill believe that the right act is the one that, among those acts available, maximizes aggregate
happiness. You have used 1 of 1 submissions
QUESTION 3 According to Bentham, …
a) … every person has a natural right to life, liberty, and property. b) … every person has an unalienable natural right to life, liberty, and property. c) … the idea of natural rights is essential to understanding the idea of social justice and moral rightness.
d) … the idea of natural rights does not make sense.
e) … the idea of natural rights is central to utilitarianism.
EXPLANATION
a) Incorrect. Bentham believes that the idea of natural rights is "nonsense on stilts."
b) Incorrect. Bentham believes that the idea of natural rights (alienable or unalienable) is "nonsense on stilts."
c) Incorrect. Bentham believes that the idea of natural rights is "nonsense on stilts," and, as such, it cannot be essential to
understanding the idea of social justice and moral rightness.
d) Correct.
e) Incorrect. Bentham believes that the idea of natural rights is "nonsense on stilts," and, as such, cannot be central to utilitarianism.
You have used 1 of 1 submissions
QUESTION 4 According to Mill, …
a) … individuals have natural rights. b) … the ideas of justice and individual rights are central to common sense morality and utilitarianism can account for that
status.
c) … utilitarianism is a doctrine for swine. d) … the idea of maximized aggregate happiness is incoherent.
e) … all pleasures are qualitatively equal.
EXPLANATION
a) Incorrect. Mill does not believe that there is such a thing as natural rights (rights people have by nature). He does, however, believe
that the idea of individual rights as a protection from the government and other people is central to common sense morality. And
he also believes that utilitarianism can account for individual rights in the sense that granting people certain protections is what
maximizes happiness overall. In other words, according to Mill, individual rights are grounded in maximized aggregate happiness
rather than in nature.
b) Correct.
c) Incorrect. Mill introduces the distinction between higher and lower pleasures precisely to show that utilitarianism is a doctrine
worthy of human beings.
d) Incorrect. Mill believes that the idea of maximized aggregate happiness is central to understanding morality.
e) Inccorrect. Mill believes that there are higher and lower pleasures.You have used 1 of 1 submissions
QUESTION 5 In ancient Rome, Christians were fed to the lions in a public spectacle intended to entertain the masses. Which of the
following sounds most like something that Mill might say about this situation?:
a) Since all pleasures are of the same quality, all that matters, morally speaking, is the quantity of pleasure that the crowd derives
from the spectacle minus the quantity of pain experienced by the Christians who are being fed to the lions.
b) The principle of utility is a good theory in most situations. But in extreme situations like this, we need to do what is moral rather
than what the principle of utility tells us to do. For this reason, it is wrong to feed the Christians to the lions. c) Some pleasures, because they are of a low quality, do not deserve to be given equal weight or priority when deciding what
to do. The pleasure obtained from watching someone being fed to a lion is likely to be one such pleasure. So the pain suffered
by the Christians should factor into my deliberations more heavily than the pleasure enjoyed by the spectators.
d) b and c. e) a and c.
EXPLANATION
a) Incorrect. Mill believes that some pleasures, because they are of a low quality, do not deserve to be given equal weight or priority
when deciding what to do. The pleasure obtained from watching someone being fed to a lion is likely to be one such pleasure. So the
pain suffered by the Christians should factor into my deliberations more heavily than the pleasure enjoyed by the spectators.
b) Incorrect. According to utilitarians, including Mill, there is no standard of morality that is independent of the principle of utility.
In other words, to do what is moral is to do what the principle of utility prescribes, namely to maximize aggregate happiness. To
say that "one needs to do what is moral rather than what the principle of utility tells you to do" is nonsensical, as far as utilitarians,
including Mill, are concerned.
c) Correct.
d) Incorrect. Mill believes c) but not b).
e) Incorrect. Mill believes c) but not a).You have used 1 of 1 submissions
LECTURE 5 – Libertarianism: Free-Market Philosophy
Two Objections to Mill’s defense of Utilitarianism
1. Higher or worthier pleasures
a. “Are there theories of the ‘good life’ that can provide independent moral standards for the
worth of pleasures.
b. If so, what do they look like?
2. Justice and individual rights
a. If we suspect Mill is leaning implicitly on notions of human dignity or respect for a person
that are not strictly speaking utilitarian, then are there stronger theories of rights
that explain the intuition, which even Mill shares, that the reason for respecting individual
and not using them goes beyond utility, in the long run.
Strong Theory of Rights
1. Individuals matter, not just for a larger social purpose, or for the sake of maximizing utility.
2. Individuals are separate beings living separate lives worthy of respect; therefore it’s mistake to
think about justice or law by adding up preferences and values.
Libertarianism Believes:
1. The fundamental individual right is the right to liberty.
2. On Government - We have the right to choose freely to live our lives as we wish provided we
respect the rights of others to do the same.
a. Robert Nozick writes – “Individuals have rights. So strong and far reaching are these
rights, that they raise the question that ‘What if anything the state may do?’”
b. Three things that modern states do that are (according to
Libertarianism) are illegitimate or unjust:
i. Paternalist legislation – i.e., laws that protect people from themselves (e.g., seatbelt laws, motorcycle helmet laws)
ii. Morals Legislation – i.e., laws that give moral values to the society as a whole
(e.g., laws that prevent sexual intimacy between gays and lesbians)
iii.
No Redistribution of Income from the Rich to the Poor – It is coercion (use
of force or intimidation to obtain compliance) - it amounts to theft from people
who happen to do well and earn a lot of money
1. Liberalism does allow for a minimal state that taxes people for the sake of
what everybody needs (e.g., military, police, judicial system)
Is it just that, in America, 10% of the [population has 70% of the nation’s
wealth?
Nozick: What are the libertarian principles of just income distribution?
1. Justice in Acquisition (initial holdings) – Did people get the things they used to make their
money fairly?
2. Justice in Transfer (free market) – Did the acquisition arise from free consent?
Example 1: Bill Gates $40 Billion wealthiest man
● A good utilitarian would redistribute some of his wealth for the benefit of the many needy.
● A good libertarian would say we can’t just add up and aggregate preferences that way. We have to
respect individuals fairly, and if he earned that fairly, without disrespecting any others’ rights, according
to the two principles of Justice in Acquisition and Justice in Transfer, it would be wrong – a form of
coercion to take it away.
Example 2: Michael Jordan $31,000,000 + $47,000,000 Nike ads in 1 year
Nozick arguments against taxation:
Taxation = taking of earnings, but isn’t that the same, according to the state, to take a
portion of my labor?
● Taking of earnings = forced labor
● Forced labor = slavery (I don’t own myself)
● The fundamental moral principle that underlies Libertarian case for rights:
Violates Principle of self-possession
SELF-TEST Lecture 5
●
QUESTION 1 A libertarian like Nozick believes that:
a) The government should adopt policies that promote the greatest good for the greatest number.
b) Public policy should aim to make people happier.
c) Society’s laws should leave people free to choose how to live their lives, so long as they do not violate anyone else’s rights. d) We ought to recognize rights in order to make people happy. e) Each person has a right to have her interests advanced by the laws.
QUESTION 2 Nozick thinks which of the following types of laws are unjust:
a) Laws that restrict people’s liberty for the sake of their own good.
b) Laws that restrict people’s freedom in the name of a particular moral code.
c) Laws that redistribute wealth. d) Neither a, b, nor c.
e) a, b, and c.
QUESTION 3 For Nozick, the distribution of wealth in a particular society is just if:
a) It is roughly equal. b) The hardest workers are the wealthiest. c) The most morally deserving people are the wealthiest. d) All property was initially acquired justly, and then was transferred to others through free exchange. e) All of the above.
LECTURE 6 – Libertarianism: Do We Own Ourselves?
Minimal State – arguing for by Milton Freidman
● Many of the functions, that we take for granted as properly belonging to government, don’t. They are
paternalist.
○ Social Security – it is wrong for the gov’t. to force people to save for their retirement – whether
they want to or not.
○ Public Goods Can be made Exclusive to Those Who Pay- Subscription- Fee fire services, etc. to
avoid free-riders in society
Is Coercion Wrong?
● Libertarian says: To use some person for the sake of the general welfare, is wrong because it calls into
question the fundamental question, “Do we own ourselves?” (Self-Possession).
● Nozick says: If society taxes Gates or Jordan, they are asserting a collective property right in Bill Gates
or Michael Jordan. That violates the fundamental principle that we belong to ourselves.
Main Objections to Libertarianism:
1. The poor need the money more therefore coercion via taxation is just
■ Libertarian Answers:
● Does not justify the initial violation of the property right
● People have property rights extrapolated from agreed upon principles that
people own themselves
● Why is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread for your starving family?
○ Libertarian1 says: The benefits of an act do not make it just.
○ Libertarian2 says: It’s OK because the starving person also has selfownership and must take care of herself.
2. Taxation by consent of the government is not coerced – You are choosing to live in a
democratic society where majority rules.
■ Libertarian Answers:
● Democracy is fine except where fundamental rights are involved.
● Personal rights trump what the majority wants.
○ Personal Property Rights
○ Religious Liberty
○ Freedom of Speech
■ Objection to Libertarians’ Answers
● The successful owe a debt to society for their success
The reason Gates and Jordan were able to accumulate property is because we
live in an economically and socially stable environment
● Not caring for the poor 10% might cost society taxes for crime prevention
3. The successful owe a debt to society for their success
■ Libertarian Answers:
● The successful have by definition provided something to society that it already
has valued. So, the obligation is cancelled out.
■ Answer to Libertarian: Self-possession exists only to a certain extent when you live in
a society.
● Nozick borrows self-possession from John Locke, who accounted the rise of
private property from the state of nature
○ Locke ”Private property arises because when we mix our labor with
unknown things, when come to acquire a property right in those things.”
The reason is we own our own labor. And the reason for that is we are the
proprietors of our own person.
4. Wealth depends partly on luck so it isn’t deserved.
■ Libertarian Answers:
● They have received what they have through the free exchange from people who
have given them their holdings for a service or product.
SELF-TEST – Lecture 6
QUESTION 1 A libertarian like Nozick objects to most types of coercion because:
a) being coerced makes people unhappy. b)
coercion is economically inefficient. c) coercing people makes it less likely that people’s preferences will be satisfied. d) To coerce
people calls into question the fundamental notion that people own themselves. e) All of the above.
QUESTION 2 Nozick objects to taxation for the purpose of redistributing wealth. How might he respond to the objection that
redistribution is permissible because the poor need the money more than the wealthy?
a) Despite needing the money more, the poor are
not entitled to it. b) The wealthy have a right to spend their money as they choose. If some people are poor, it is because they did not
work as hard. d) a and b. e) a, b, and c.
QUESTION 3 Nozick objects to taxation for the purpose of redistributing wealth. How would he respond to the objection that
democratically implemented taxes are not really coercive?
a) He would say that they are coercive because democracy is unjust. b) He
would say that they are coercive because such taxes still make people unhappy. c) He would say that they are coercive, because those
who did not vote for the taxes are still forced to pay them against their will. d) None of these. e) a, b, and c.