The Moral Side of Murder

Sandel presents two scenarios: first the famous trolley problem and a follow-up surgery scene.

The trolley problem set up an assumption: you are a driver for a brake-defect train. From your sight, you know that there are 5 trail workers on the rail, and you can not stop the train from running into them. But there is another way out: you could turn the wheel and choose to sacrifice the other trail worker who is alone and working on a split rail. You could choose either accepting the faith and run into the five or turning the wheel to kill the one.

In the surgery scene, you are instead a surgery docker that is currently taking care of 5 patients in the ICU who are in critical condition. These patients need an organ transplantation in order to survive, imply that their needs does not overlap. Not long after, there is a new patient sent into the ICU. You could choose either let the five die or sacrifice the new patient to save them.

Most people choose to save the five.

Then, Sandel tweak the scenarios a little: In the trolley problem, you become a pedestrian that is passing by on a bridge which is on the track. You know the train from afar is losing control which will eventually run into the 5 trail workers. However, there is a fat man who is standing on the bridge. If you push him over, you could stop the train and save the five.

And in the surgery scene, instead of a newly arrived patient, it is a healthy person who is going to do a monthly routine check-up. You can retrieve the organs from the person and transplant the healthy organs into the five.

Most people who previously choose the save the five refuse to do it.

These scenarios lure the two most basic moral reasoning: consequentialist and categorical.

Consequentialists argue that an action is just if the consequence it brought is good. Jeremy Bentham, an English philosopher and the father of utilitarianism, is one of them.

Categoricalists argue instead that an action can be wrong by itself regardless of its consequences. The most prestigious defender of it is the German philosopher Emmanuel Kant.

Sandel address the skeptists’ arguments, that these kinds of philosophical debates are meaningless since none of the great philosophers have solved them. He argues that the reason of why these debates are still ongoing is the fact that they are part of our life which is unavoidable.

The Case for Cannibalism

Sandel brought up a case: Regina v. Dudley and Stephens (1884). In this case, there were four man in a yacht, Thomas Dudley, Edwin Stephens, Edmund Brooks and an orphan, Richard Parker. A storm destroyed the vessel, all of them barely escaped by a lifeboat. They brought little foods and fresh water. Later, Parker was dying after he against the advice from the crews to drink the salt water from see.

As there were no sign of rescue, Dudley suggested draw a lottery to decide who to be killed in order for the others to survive. Brooks refused. After several days pass, there were still no sight of vessels. Dudley and Stephens decided to kill Parker. Not long after, they had been rescued.

When they are on the coast, both Dudley and Stephens had been brought up to the court where Brooks as witness.

As the most people do not agree on the act of Dudley and Stephens, Sandel brought up Jeremy Bentham. Bentham said that human favours pressures over pains, thereafter we should always maximising the pressure for the most. In this case, he would argue that since Dudley and Stephens had their family back home whereas Packer do not, sacrificing him to save the crews is desirable.

In the seat, some argue that in order to justify the murder, the crews need to have the consent from Packer. Some people will do that if the lottery proceeded. However, some others completely reject the idea of killing Packer.

Questions

Sandel rose three questions:

• Do we have certain fundamental right?
• Does a fair procedure justify any result?
• What is the moral work of consent?

My answers to those:

• Yes, we do have fundamental rights. Like the right to live, the right to speak, the right to reproduce etc.
• I don’t think that a fair procedure can justify any result. Such procedure is still under the subject of the local cultural bias where they could be wrong. For example, a gay person could be hanged by the local jury because he is gay. The procedure is fair, and they gather enough evidence to prove that he is gay. So is the judgement just? I do not think so.
• Having a consent is like having a permission. If the thing do upon on him is agreed by him, then such act is viewed just by him. However, I do not think consent has any moral groundwork. It is merely a 202202242036.

Putting a Price Tag on Life

Jeremy Bentham said that we should maximise the utilities or happiness for the community since we, human like happiness over suffering.

When Sandel brought up two examples: a Czech cigarette company which argue that smoking is cost-benefit, and Ford which argue that not installing safety measures is cost-benefit, where they both put price tag onto the human lives, some argue that those companies does not include the suffering of the victim’s family, emotion or his or her role in the society.

Sandel brought up another example: a psychologist in the 1930s during the Great Depression conducted an experiment. He wants to prove that it is possible to evaluate everything into a value. The first most expensive item is to migrate to Kansas, the second is to eat worm.

How to Measure Pleasure

Sandel said that Bentham’s utilitarianism fails to do three things: respect individual rights, aggregate all values with a single measurement like dollars and recognise higher-order pleasure.

We could see its limitation by simply using a Colosseum example. In the Roman era, it is a common practice to throw people into the Colosseum, naked and unarmed, to fight with wild animals. This clearly does not respect the individual right of the person to die humanely. Or from other perspective, we could say that it overvalues the pleasure of the audience to the life of the victim.

To improve Benthamite version of utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher, argue that it is possible to derive higher-order pleasure from lower-order pleasure without violate the core principle of utilitarianism. To differentiate them, one could offer two choices that could produce pleasure to an educated man. The one he prefers is the higher-order pleasure.

However, Benthamite argues that there is no pleasure that is more valuable or important to the other. All pleasures are equals. Benthamite says that utilitarianism should be egalitarian where utilities must be measure in quantity rather than in quality.

Free to Choose

Mill argues that individual rights can be protected under utilitarianism. He said by respecting individual rights, the society will benefit from it in the long run. However, such explanation has several shortcomings. What if the violation of individual rights could benefit the society in the long run? Or it is really because of utilities that such violation is unjust?

Libertarians instead emphasise self-possession or simply the pursuit or preservation of individual liberties. Everyone has the freedom to choose whatever they want where no one should ever force them even with reasons.

Libertarians reject some legislations in the government such as paternalist legislation, moral legislation and redistribution of income from rich to poor. Paternalist legislation such as requiring motorcycle riders to wear a helmet or people to wear a mask is not just at all. Legislation that promote certain morals should not be made too.

Libertarians are staunch defenders of private property. They said that the possession of wealth is just if two justices met: justice in acquisition and justice in transfer. Justice in acquisition concerns about how the wealth is created or got whereas justice in transfer usually refer to free market where everyone could make their choices without coercion.

Robert Nozick, an American philosopher, went so far that argues taxation is a form of appropriation of the fruit of labour, which implies that it is a forced labour which further implies that it is a form of slavery.

Who Owns Me

Other libertarians could go so far that stealing in order to feed the family in itself is justifiable since it is a choice being made consciously by oneself.

There are several objections to the libertarian moral principles.

Some argues that the poor need the money more compare to the rich. It will create more utilities to the society as a whole especially if there is a wide wealth gap. Libertarians reject the idea that needs could be used to justify the violation of individual rights such as taxation.

Others, try to break the logic of Nozick state, that taxation by consent of the governed is not forced. Libertarians response that no procedure should be appropriated to justify the violation of individual rights even if it is done democratically.

There are people who think that the successful owed a debt to the society. They used the resources and utilities provided by the society, and they should redeem themselves by paying more taxes in order to redistribute the wealth to the poor. Libertarians argue that the successful has already pay their debt by providing services to the society.

Some reasons that the creation of wealth depends partly on luck. In such, redistribute a portion of it to the poor is justified. Libertarians protest by saying that the possession of the wealth itself is just in regards that it is earned legally via free market where everyone could choose freely. Plus, they have already redeemed by provides services to the society.

Other people point out that not all individual rights are the same. For example, the right to possess private property is not the same with the right of free speech or the right of practice their own religion. Therefore, there are variety of degree on what could be call as a violation.

Some went even further that completely rejects the premise made by the libertarians that one could truly own themselves. They advocate that since people are live in a society, they have given up some rights in order to join into the said society.

This Land is My Land

John Locke believed that some fundamental human rights such as property right, life and liberty cannot be violated by any organisation including the government. Those rights are granted in the law of nature way before there is any government exists. They are called natural rights.

Natural rights are unalienable which means that nobody including oneself could not deny or appropriate other’s or oneself enjoyment of the rights under the law of nature. Because of this characteristic, Locke argue that those rights are truly own by the individual.

To justify private property, Locke said that everyone has a property right on themselves. Therefore, the fruit of labour they produce or an unowned object mixed with their labour could be rightfully claimed by them as long as they left enough to the others that have not do so.

However, such logic could be used to justify the aggression of Europeans towards the aboriginal Americans during the American colonisation. Furthermore, how could this apply to today’s capitalist system? Can the labourer hired by a capitalist owned the fruit of labour that they produce? A capitalist does not necessary laid claim on a machinery by working on it rather they buy it with cash. Is such claim valid?

On government, Locke said that it is limited in a way that it only defines what counts as property, what counts as respecting of life and liberty.

Consenting Adults

Locke argues that the consent is used to eliminate inconveniences from law of nature. In the state of nature, everyone could be their own judge to define what counts as a violation of natural rights. They can rightfully kill anyone that does not respect their right in the state of nature. However, this burden is certainly too much to carry. Therefore, individuals agree to construct a government where it executes its legislation to protect those natural rights.

With consent, i.e. majority consent, a government could rightfully tax or pass a conscription law in order to maintain a functional government. However, such laws can not target on a certain individual or a group of people. It cannot be arbitrary, it must be a general one.

If one used a service that is provided by the government, we imply that we give our consent to the government legitimacy. Such consent is call implied consent.

Hired Guns

Locke said that the consent of individual to a specific military order or taxation does not matter in a society. The consent that should be considered is the consent to be governed and bound by the majority. The legislation passed by the government is just as long as the law does not aim at certain individual or a group of people according to the moral principle held by Lockist. This means that the government is only bound by the rule of law.

There are essentially three types of drafting: all-volunteer, conscription and mercenaries. Most people favour all-volunteer, then conscription. Least people favour mercenaries.

Sandel mentioned that there was a war substitute system during Civil War. The system works like this: there will be a lottery on who will be going to serve in the army. If the man refused to serve, he can pass such chance to others if he could find his replacement and pay to him.

There are some objection to it. First, some argues that it is the same as valuing life with dollars. However, according to the supporters of this system, as the man agree to be pay to such value, it implies that his life is valued that much.

Some objectors notice the disproportionate representation in the army. They argue that in a society where income inequality is significant, whether it is a war substitute system or the so called all-volunteer system, such draft is targeting a specific group of people. The rich could exempt themselves from being recruited whereas from the poor’s perspective, it is a kind of coercion. Therefore, such drafting system is unjust.

Some tries to defend all-volunteer system that it is different from war substitute system. Patriotism, they said, is the core of all-volunteer system. The soldier is better not because they are paid, in contrary it is the love to the country that makes them better. However, such argument, if we think thoroughly, does not legitimise all-volunteer system. In fact, it argues against it and favours a conscription system. Further, it is not necessary that a good soldier is the one that loves their country, the supporters of mercenaries army argue that mercenaries are, too, good soldier that fight well.

Motherhood: For Sale

Sandel brought up a famous case in New Jersey, Baby M.

In this case, Mary Beth Whiteheads entered a surrogacy contract with William Stern in order to give birth to Stern family which his wife could not due to medical reasons. Whiteheads artificially inseminated Stern’s sperm which she agreed to give up her parental rights on the child with a compensation of $10,000 follows by up-keep expenses. After gave birth to a daughter from Stern, Whiteheads refused the child to be taken away from her.

When Sandel asked his students which side do they stand with, most people chose Stern’s. Their reason is that a contract is a form of consent. Once you have entered such consent, the terms of the contract will be effective to both parties, and it should be enforced.

That being said, having a consent does not mean it is justifiable. A consent could be tainted or flawed if it is a coercion or lacks information. In Baby M, the objectors to Stern’s is that Whiteheads, the mother for the baby, did not have the full information about the terms that she was going to enter. She did not and impossible to know how deep the bond will be with her future daughter.

Some even argues that surrogacy in itself is dehumanising, it is comparable to baby selling. Elizabeth Anderson, an American philosopher, explained that it is dehumanising since such activities alienate the woman’s labour by repressing her love to the child that she gave born to which is promoted by social norms. Essentially, this means that certain goods should not open to use even with compensation.

Additional Thoughts

• Why adoption should be legal?

Adoption is a different situation compare to surrogacy. The mother decided to abandoned her child after realising that she does not want to raise her child. Whether it is moral or not, the mother has given up her right to her child after the birth. She, by now, fully aware of her decision and has clear information in addition. Adopting such child is to protect the child’s basic human rights for they to strive in a healthy environment. Therefore, adoption should be legal.

With surrogacy, the mother does not have the whole image of how she will feel about the child. Therefore, even though the contract stated that she needs to give up her child in order to honour it, she still has every right to regret it since such contract is flaw in its core.

• Why surrogacy is dehumanising whereas adoption is not?

Surrogacy involves the systemic process of taking away the child from women’s womb and actively suppresses the feeling of the mother to her child. Therefore, it is comparable to baby selling. Adoption is different from surrogacy in a sense that it does not involve in taking the child away from the women’s womb.

Questions

• How free does the voluntary exchange have to be with respect to bargaining power and equal information?
• Is utilities the only way of treating goods? If not, then what modes of valuation are fitting to such goods?

My answers:

• The voluntary exchange can be as free as possible as far as it does not violate the basic human rights.
• Utilities are not the only way of treating goods. There are some value that even ourselves cannot give up and should not force others to give up.

Mind Your Motive

Immanuel Kant said that human as a rational and autonomous being should not be used merely as a mean but also at the same time as an end in themselves.

There are two premises that we need to explain here: What is a rational being? What is an autonomous being?

A rational being is a being that is able to reason. An autonomous being is a being that is able to free to decide what to choose.

What could count as free to decide what to choose by Kantian? Is avoiding pain in order to pursue pleasure an act that depict the freedom to choose? Is the ability to choose an apple today and an orange tomorrow the freedom to choose? Kant said such pursue of pleasure and appetite is obeying to our inclination, which is not free. This is heteronomy, where we act according to our desires which is not chosen by ourselves. Kantian thinks that freedom is the opposite of necessity. To be free, we need to act according to the law that I have given to myself.

A good act is good by itself. How? We could measure its motive, the quality of will and intentions. If the act is carried out in the sake of carrying it out, that is out of the sense of duty, a reverence of the moral law where we see the importance of the moral law, then such act is moral. Otherwise, it is not moral even if it brings good consequences. An act is wrong when the actor does it for their self-interests. This is why, Kant argues, utilitarianism is wrong. Utilitarianism uses human as an instrument in order to bring out a good end. It is using human as merely as a mean. It does not respect human dignity.

Then how could we isolate operative motive behind a moral act? We could study it in the worst case. For example, in the case of suicide, we could imagine a miserable man and think why he does not take his own life. It is because there is a duty of preserving one self.

There is another doubt on Kantian moral principle. How then could we tell that such moral law, coming out from individuals will be objective? How does it not fell under 202202242036? This is because humans share the universal capacity of reason among themselves undifferentiated regardless of contingent and empirical ends. This means that there is no difference in exercising that capability of reason among humans. All reasonable humans will come out with the one and same moral law.

The Supreme Principle of Morality

Having a feeling or sentiments on an act is fine as long as the intentions of an act is aligned to the moral law that you imposed on yourself. It is not wrong to have feelings to support your action.

There are three contrast in presented in the shaping of Kantian moral principle: duty vs. inclination, autonomous vs. heteronomous and categorical vs. hypothetical. Each of them represent the motives, determination of will and imperative respectively. These elements shape the three pillars of the Kantian moral principle: the morality, freedom and reason.

A hypothetical imperative is a mean-end reasoning. It justifies the use of a mean by the end. Utilitarianism is one of those such reasoning. From Kant perspective, such imperative is not moral.

Kant argued for a categorical imperative for moral principle. Sandel gave two of three formulation of such imperative: The formula of universal law and the formula of humanity as an end.

In the formula of universal law, think about this: If a maxim (a principle) is active in a society, will it in the end undermine itself? If no, then such maxim is aligned with the categorical imperative. If yes, then such maxim is certainly immoral. Some, like John Stuart Mill, might argues that such testing is contractionary since it use consequentialist reasoning. In fact, this test is just used to figure out whether you act according to your own needs which implies that you are more important than the others. It is not exactly the reason behind on why you should act like such.

From the formula of humanity as an end, Kant stated that humans are end in themselves, they have dignity since they are rational and autonomous beings. Therefore, human is not open for use merely as a mean. If an act must use human as a mean, it must first respect humanity, where it also uses human as an end.

What is being left out

The third formula for categorical imperative is the formula of autonomy. The subject must carry out the execution of the moral law by their own wills. They must be self-legislated. If a man cannot act according to oneself law, then his act cannot be considered as moral. He needs to do the right thing, which such act is universally justifiable and does not use humanity as an end, for the sake of carrying out in order to respect the moral law that he set for himself.

A Lesson in Lying

Duty is compatible to autonomous, Kant argued, in the sense that pure reason guided our will to make our own choice to adhere and honour to the moral law which we come out with.

As the object of the experience, we are subjected to the law of nature and inclination. As the subject of the experience, however, we have the autonomy to make our own choice. Such gap or contrast, is what make morality impossible to be delivered by science itself.

There was a French philosopher named Benjamin Constant bring up a lying case in order to ridicule Kant’s philosophy: There is a murderer that seek to kill your friend where he is now hided in your home. Should you sell out your friend in order to honour the moral laws that you have chosen? Kant’s answer is to say no. No matter what kind of situation you are in, it is categorical wrong to lie even wishing for a good consequence (see the three formula of categorical imperative).

That being said, Kant did not oppose telling a misleading truth. There is a difference between a misleading truth and a blatant lie. Sandel then brought up the Watergate scandal, where USA president Bill Clinton was telling to the media that he “does not have any sexual relationship with the woman”. Some in the seat argues that misleading is still not moral because the motives behind such act is to hope that nobody could catch on it. Kant would believe, Sandel suggested, that Bill Clinton is moral, in the sense that he does not tell a lie, instead evades the question but at the same time honours the moral law that he imposed on himself.

A Deal is a Deal

Kant stated that justice comes from a hypothetical social contract, which is an idea of reason. John Rawls, an American philosopher, further supported this in his book Theory of Justice said that first, justice is not a subject to political bargaining or social interests and second, the contract itself is hypothetical where he introduces the concept of veil of ignorance, which eliminates the inequality of bargaining power, knowledge and situational difficulties.

This means that actual contract itself does not necessarily morally self-sufficient, meaning it cannot justify itself. For example, a nation’s constitution or its legal laws does not represent the justice. Rather, it merely reflects the differences of bargaining power between different individuals in the parliament or community.

Let us say that you have signed up a contract with a worker to give you 100 apples for $100. After receiving the apples, you refuse to pay the worker. Such act is immoral in the sense that you already received the benefits from the worker but you decided not to pay his fruit of labour. This violates the reciprocity nature of the contract, that is it should mutually benefit both parties!

Now look at another case. The same contract that you signed up with the worker but in this case you regret it after one minute. The worker has yet give you any apples. There is no violation on the reciprocity nature of the contract. However, this still considered as immoral because as an autonomous being, we are able to come up with a contract to bind not only other people but also our own self. Violating the contract that we have come up using our reason is the same as violating the moral law that we imposed to own self.

The above cases illustrate two kinds of contract: consent-based contract and benefit-based contract. The underlying moral principle of consent-based contract is that we are autonomous being that could impose the moral law, which we have came up using our reason, to ourselves. We could see that this moral principle is a Kantian idea. In benefit-based contract, the moral principle works around the reciprocity, that is the mutual benefit, of signed parties. If one already provides a benefit to the other, there is an obligation to the received to pay back the favour or benefit.

David Hume, a Scottish philosopher, totally rejected the second kind of contract, which implies that contract could work totally alone with reciprocity. There is a case where a painter painted his house without asking Hume to do it. The painter argues that he already painted Hume’s house so it is sensible to ask for a pay after that, even though he admitted that he did not ask the consent from Hume himself first. Hume then ridiculed this logic by stating the painter could just paint all the houses in Edinburg without asking the consent from the owner and later ask for a payment. He thought active consent is necessary in making a contract.

Some in the seats even argues that benefit itself is subjected to interpretation. One considers as benefit does not necessary mean the same to the other.

What’s a Fair Start & What Do We Deserve

To enter the veil of ignorance is to enter the origin of equality where nobody has any assigned identity to oneself. Rawls argued, from here, people will decide two universal principles for a just society. These principles are the respect of the fundamental human rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of movement, and difference principle.

What is difference principle? It is a principle proposed by Rawls, which stated that social and economic inequalities is permitted or tolerated as long as it works to the benefit of the least well off. This means that there is no wrong in differences of income and wealth (or any differences) if these differences will bring utilities to the least fortune. Based on this, Rawls supported the idea to tax the rich and distribute them to the poor in order to cover the cost of training and empowerment of them.

The reason people choose over to reverence the fundamental rights for human is that they don’t fathom the idea that the majority could oppress them once they have entered such society. Rawls stated that this is why utilitarianism is unfavourable.

As to difference principle, Rawls justified it by saying the distribution of resources should not be influenced by the factor that is arbitrary from the moral point of view. If one couldn’t claim credit from that circumstances, then the benefit that they get from that circumstances can’t be justified, and it is fine to take that benefit from that person and give it to the others that are less fortune than them. We could see that family background, education, talents, and even birth order could shape one’s ethics, world view and working culture. Therefore, Rawls claimed, the efforts that produced from a person doesn’t necessarily come from themselves. They are baked from arbitrary factors. For example, a strong person could perform better than a weak person in construction work. This doesn’t mean that the strong person is work harder than their weak counterpart.

Rawls strongly objected meritocracy. He stated that while meritocracy is an improvement to aristocracy and libertarian free market, it ignores that everyone in the society has different starting point. Even if meritocracy could eliminate all the social and economic differences, there is still the natural distribution of abilities and talents. By such, he said that the difference principle is a good replacement to the meritocracy, where the inequalities are allowed as long as it benefits the least fit or well off.

Milton Friedman, an American libertarian economist, opposed Rawls idea, by saying it would be a disaster to trying to control the outcome of a system. He said that inequalities are inevitable, and there is no point on limiting them. Rawls repelled such argument, stated that born unequal is neither just nor unjust since it is naturally decided which is not voluntarily chosen by individual themselves. It’s the way on how to deal with it the discussion of justice.

Libertarians whose hold the value that everyone has self-possession challenged Rawls that using methods like taxing for any purpose without the will or consent from the individual violate the self-possession. In addition, without recognising talents and endowment as owned by ourselves, we will regress to use other people as a mean since it is the only way where a functional society could be established. Rawls responded by saying that we don’t actually own ourselves. He elaborated further that by following this two principle came out from the veil of ignorance, we don’t need self-possession to uphold moral principles.

Some said that reluctant of accepting efforts could be awarded will destroy the incentives for the individual to strive. Based on this argument, Rawls said that meritocracy is the same. It doesn’t reward the efforts, it rewards the contribution to the society. Go back to the example of construction workers. Weak construction worker has the same or even more efforts compare to their strong counterpart. But meritocracy does not reward the weak one, it rewards the strong construction worker because they have better labour performance. Isn’t this killing the incentives of the weak worker? Furthermore, society doesn’t recognise all talents. One talent may weight more than the others. This emanates a different outcome from the same efforts which is unequal. Reward someone based on this inequality is unjust.

Rawls argued distributive justice is not a matter of moral desert but rather a matter of entitlement. Human’s legitimate expectations found upon social institutions must be satisfied in a justice scheme. However, such expectations or entitlements does not necessarily reflect their intrinsic value. The distinction between moral desert and entitlement could be seen in the difference of a pure luck game and a pure skill game. In a pure luck game, if one win the lottery, they are entitled to be awarded. In contrast, if one win in a pure skill game, there is always the question on whether they morally deserve that prize.

Arguing Affirmative Action In the case of Hopwood vs. Texas, Cheryl Hopwood

sued Texas Law School for rejecting her application due to affirmative action policy (to include minority groups) despite having a better grade.

There are three main arguments to support Texas position: corrective, compensatory, and diversity. Corrective argument points out that current education system for white and minority is not equal. They receive uneven funding which resulted in a quality discrepancy of the education system. Compensatory argument turns to the history side. It reasons that there is a need for compensating the wrong doing of the past, in this case the mistreatment of the black such as slavery and racial segregation. And then, there is an avocation for diversity, argues the social mission of the university is to bring different education experience into the seats and utilise them for the good of the society.

However, there are some objections to these arguments. Argue against the compensatory argument, some said that it is not fair for Cheryl to sacrifice her academic career for something that she doesn’t implicated or participated in. Second, others also concerns about that such policy is based on arbitrary factors such as racial identity.

Here’s my counter arguments to those objections. Firstly, even if she doesn’t involved in the tragic of the historical event, such event has a drastic effect on the minority which there’s no way to redeem them other than retract the benefits that Cheryl enjoyed. Furthermore, she does benefitted from the suffering of the minority albeit that was long time ago as today’s white enjoy a greater prosperity compare to the minority. Now, coming to the other objection. If arbitrary factors shouldn’t be considered, then one should object the Harvard legacy admission where if the parents is an alumni of the school, then their children can have a greater chance on getting into the university. Additionally, talents are by no mean just a result of striving. The saying that arbitrary factors should not be valued doesn’t understand the nature of talents, skills, family backgrounds and other environmental factors.

What’s the Purpose?

The advantage of having diversity within the social institution especially in university is to let different group people contribute their variety of educational experience to the society. Different backgrounds such as being a farmer’s son, black or bisexual can enhance or fill in the education experience where other backgrounds like a billionaire’s beneficiary, white or heterosexual could not bring.

As mentioned, Rawls doesn’t agree that moral desert should be satisfied within the distributive justice framework. Just because you have a better metrics, doesn’t necessary mean that you deserve something compare to the others. Therefore, Rawls will argue that Hopwood doesn’t have the right to be admitted. There is no violation of individual right, as this is not the survival necessity for a human.

Moreover, the affirmative action policy doesn’t contain any malice or implying that one race is inferior to the others unlike other exclusion policy based on racial or religion identity. It is based on the demographics instead of malicious beliefs.

That being said, Sandel raised the question: Should private institutions define their own mission whatever they want? I argue that this shall not be the case. Even they are privately owned by some individuals, they are still bind to the norm of the society as they have a significant effect and responsibility on shaping the society. What if the private institutions intended to spread a malicious ideas? They will convert some members of the society to their banner and advocate them in public political theatre. As such, it is not wise to just let private institutions minding their own business and pretend that they don’t have an effect on public affairs.

Up until now, we are only talking about modern philosophers. You will notice there is a theme on them: Almost all of them think that justice should not be a award to a certain kind of virtue or moral desert. Sandel argued that this is what differ modern philosophy and ancient philosophy, as the latter focuses more on justice based on virtue.

The most famous ancient moral reasoning is teleological reasoning which evolves around the point, the end or the goal of a thing (Telos). Its prominent advocator, Aristotle, stated that the persons who are equal should have equal things assigned to them. It goes like this: Who should the best flute to be belong to? Aristotle would reason the best flute player shall have the best flute. Sure, from utilitarianism point of view, this means that it can be used to produce music of great quality which in turn benefits the society as a whole. He would agree on this point, however, only treat them as as side effect. The main reason why should the best flute player to own the best flute, is because that’s what the flute is for. Flute is designed to produce a good music, therefore if someone can utilise this purpose to the maximum, then they are deserved to have the flute assigned to them.

Some will said that such discrimination is unjust. As a response, Aristotle argued that maybe discrimination is inevitable. Therefore, we should focus on which kind of discrimination should be considered as just. He claimed that the discrimination be according to the relevant excellence, according to the virtue, is just.

The Good Citizen

Aristotle argued that the reason about justice is the reason about the telos of social justice institutions. To know the telos of social justice institutions, we need to know the telos of politics. The purpose or telos of politics, is to form a good character, to cultivate virtue. The law implemented should not be merely an enforcement, but a way of life for the polis (city state). Without politics, one could not simply acquire virtue by just reading theory.

Why politics has such importance in virtue acquisition? Aristotle answered that human being can only fully realise the nature as human being through political participation. The reason? Because only through political participation or deliberation, one can exercise their human capacity, that is to decide which is right or wrong, which is just or unjust. Human are not by nature self-sufficient, Aristotle argued, as the polis or political community exists prior individual in terms of purpose. And only by living together with other human and participate in politics, the acquisition of the virtue can become possible.

Only through practices, we then can acquire the virtue. Like any other activities such as drawing, wood crafting, badminton etc., virtue can’t simply be learnt just by reading someone’s works and/or minding their own business. It is essential to know how others play or work, and practise for it to become good at it in music. Similarly, virtue can only be obtained by exercising it in a public institution.

In Aristotle opinion, the thing that is at stake in the justice or morality discussion is the excellence that should be honoured. What kind of excellence should we reward? This can be answered by inspecting the telos of the activity or thing. If one has such excellency, they should have greater right or say in that field. For instance, if a representative in an assembly has the best civil excellence compare to others, they should have the greatest civil authority over the discussed matters.

Freedom Vs. Fit

From Aristotle’s point of view, justice is about fitting a virtue or excellency into a desired role. Justice is to fulfil the telos of the activity in the discussion. And debating the telos of the activity, Aristotle argued, ultimately lead to which honour is at stake.

Rawls rejected the teleological moral reasoning all together, insisted that such reasoning threatens the very existing modern political framework avocates for equal rights. Additionally, modern philosophers tend to avoid such way of reasoning, as it is impratical to reach to a consensus on what’s the purpose of an activity in a plural society. Instead, they pushes for a framework for which people could choose their way of life without violating other’s fundamental rights, and free from any role, tradition or convention that being expected or forced by parents or society.

It could be seen in the case PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin. Casey Martin is a professional golf player who unfortunately has an undermined ability to walk due to his circulatory condition. In order to play without hurting or risking his health, he requested to PGA Tour, the organiser of the main professional golf tours played by men in US and North America, allowing him to use a golf cart. However, his demand was rejected by PGA Tour.

In the court, PGA Tour attorney argued that walking the course is an essential part of the golf, for that it makes golf playing as a sport, not merely as a skill game. Giving a golf cart to a player is like giving a flipper to a swimmer who is compete in a swimming competition. Even if the swimmer has disability, it violates the purpose, or telos, of the game, and diminished the athletic aspect of it.

The points have some oppositions. One could raise the question about how athletic the golf could be. In the end, the goal of the game, is to push the ball, which is static, into the goal hole. Compare to other ball sports such as football, basketball and badminton, it doesn’t burn that much calories or require athletic strength and/or stamina. After all, the player can be out of shape while still being able to store high in the competition. (This does fit the narrative of Aristotle, as the distribution of a thing ultimately resulted in questioning the telos of an activity. However, this is the exact reason of why modern philosophers say that teleological moral reasoning is ineffective in a plural society.)

Aristotle’s justification on Greek #slavery is rather dubious and ill-logical, which might discredit him and his moral reasoning for modern thinkers. He stated that for slavery to be justified, one must prove it to be necessary and there is one to fit the system. He argued that for citizenship to be effective, that is for people to participate in the politics of their polis and join the discussion in the assembly, they need to be free from daily chores. Slavery comes into the place. The slaves will support the citizens, and help them by doing all the miniature labour for them. Therefore, slavery is necessary for the citizenship system. Second, Aristotle claimed that there are people that fit the role of slave. It is natural to have people that is meant to be ruled over.

Although Aristotle, as one of the prominent figure in teleological reasoning, were trying to justified such brutal system, it doesn’t mean that teleological reasoning can’t work against his reasoning. One would argue, that not every enslaved people are naturally fit to the system. Most of them were obtained via wars at the time. If coersion exists, it means that they were unfit the role as slaves. Some go even further by attesting the fact that fitting a particular role doesn’t mean a person is willing to be in such a role.