首页 哈佛大学公开课Justice-What's_the_right_thing_to_do_05

哈佛大学公开课Justice-What's_the_right_thing_to_do_05

举报
开通vip

哈佛大学公开课Justice-What's_the_right_thing_to_do_05 Justice 05 Hired Guns? / For Sale: Motherhood 1 Justice 05 Hired Guns? / For Sale: Motherhood When we ended last time, we were discussing Locke's idea of government by consent and the question arose, "What are th...

哈佛大学公开课Justice-What's_the_right_thing_to_do_05
Justice 05 Hired Guns? / For Sale: Motherhood 1 Justice 05 Hired Guns? / For Sale: Motherhood When we ended last time, we were discussing Locke's idea of government by consent and the question arose, "What are the limits on government that even the agreement of the majority can't override?" That was the question we ended with. We saw in the case of property rights that on Locke's view a democratically elected government has the right to tax people. It has to be taxation with consent because it does involve the taking of people's property for the common good but it doesn't require the consent of each individual at the time the tax is enacted or collected. What it does require is a prior act of consent to join the society, to take on the political obligation but once you take on that obligation, you agree to be bound by the majority. So much for taxation. But what you may ask, about the right to life? Can the government conscript people and send them into battle? And what about the idea that we own ourselves? Isn't the idea of self-possession violated if the government can, through coercive legislation and enforcement powers, say "You must go risk your life to fight in Iraq." What would Locke say? Does the government have the right to do that? Yes. In fact he says in 139, he says, "What matters is that the political authority or the military authority not be arbitrary, that's what matters." And he gives a wonderful example. He says "A sergeant, even a sergeant, let alone a general, a sergeant can command a soldier to go right up to a face of a cannon where he is almost sure to die, that the sergeant can do. The general can condemn the soldier to death for deserting his post or for not obeying even a desperate order. But with all their power over life and death, what these officers can't do is take a penny of that soldier's money because that has nothing to do with the rightful authority, that would be arbitrary and it would be corrupt." So consent winds up being very powerful in Locke, not consent of the individual to the particular tax or military order, but consent to join the government and to be bound by the majority in the first place. That's the consent that matters and it matters so powerfully that even the limited government created by the fact that we have an unalienable right to life, liberty, and property, even that limited government is only limited in the sense that it has to govern by generally applicable laws, the rule of law, it can't be arbitrary. That's Locke. Well this raises a question about consent. Why is consent such a powerful moral instrument in creating political authority and the Justice 05 Hired Guns? / For Sale: Motherhood 2 obligation to obey? Today we begin to investigate the question of consent by looking at a concrete case, the case of military conscription. Now some people say if we have a fundamental right that arises from the idea that we own ourselves, it's a violation of that right for government to conscript citizens to go fight in wars. Others disagree. Others say that's a legitimate power of government, of democratically elected governments, anyhow, and that we have an obligation to obey. Let's take the case of the United States fighting a war in Iraq. News accounts tells us that the military is having great difficulty meeting its recruitment targets. Consider three policies that the U.S. government might undertake to deal with the fact that it's not achieving its recruiting targets. Solution number one: increase the pay and benefits to attract a sufficient number of soldiers. Option number two: shift to a system of military conscription, have a lottery, and whose ever numbers are drawn, go to fight in Iraq. System number three: outsource, hire what traditionally have been called mercenaries, people around the world who are qualified, able to do the work, able to fight well, and who are willing to do it for the existing wage. So let's take a quick poll here. How many favor increasing the pay? A huge majority. How many favor going to conscription? Maybe a dozen people in the room favor conscription. What about the outsourcing solution? Okay, so there may be two, three dozen. During the Civil War, the Union used a combination of conscription and the market system to fill the ranks of the military to fight in the Civil War. It was a system that began with conscription but if you were drafted and didn't want to serve, you could hire a substitute to take your place and many people did. You could pay whatever the market required in order to find a substitute, people ran ads in newspapers, in the classified ads offering 93 for a substitute who would go fight the Civil War in their place. In fact, it's reported that Andrew Carnegie was drafted and hired a substitute to take his place for an amount that was a little less than the amount he spent in the year on fancy cigars. Justice 05 Hired Guns? / For Sale: Motherhood 3 Now I want to get your views about this Civil War system, call it the hybrid system, conscription but with a buyout provision. How many think it was a just system? How many would defend the Civil War system? Anybody? Anybody else? How many think it was unjust? Most of you don't like the Civil War system, you think it's unjust. Let's hear an objection. Why don't you like it? What's wrong with it? Yes. Well by paying $300 to be exempt one time around, you're really putting a price on valuing human life and we established earlier, that's really hard to do so they're trying to accomplish something that really isn't feasible. Good. So paying someone $300 or $500 or $1,000 - You're basically saying that's what their life is worth to you. That's what their life is worth, it's putting a dollar value on life. That's good. What's your name?-Liz. Liz. Well, who has an answer for Liz. You defended the Civil War system, what do you say? If you don't like the price then you have the freedom to not be sold or hired so it's completely up to you. I don't think it's necessarily putting a specific price on you and if it's done by himself, I don't think there's anything that's really morally wrong with that. So the person who takes the $500, let's say, he's putting his own price on his life or on the risk of his life and he should have the freedom to choose to do that. Exactly. What's your name?- Jason. Jason. Thank you. Now we need to hear from another critic of the civil war system. Yes. It's a kind or coercion almost, people who have lower incomes, for Carnegie he can totally ignore the draft, $300 is an irrelevant in terms of his income but someone of a lower income, they're essentially being coerced to draft, to be drafted, it's probably they're not able to find a Justice 05 Hired Guns? / For Sale: Motherhood 4 replacement. Tell me your name. Sam. Sam. All right so you say, Sam, that when a poor laborer accepts $300 to fight in the Civil War, he is in effect being coerced by that money given his economic circumstances whereas Carnegie can go off, pay the money, and not serve. Alright. I want to hear someone who has a reply to Sam's argument, that what looks like a free exchange is actually coercive. Who has an answer to Sam? Go ahead. I'd actually agree with him in saying that - You agree with Sam. I agree with him in saying that it is coercion in the sense that it robs individual of his ability to reason. Okay, and what's your name? Raul. All right. So Raul and Sam agree that what looks like a free exchange, free choice, voluntary act actually involves coercion. It's profound coercion of the worst kind because it falls so disproportionately upon one segment of the society. Good. Alright. So Raul and Sam have made a powerful point. Who would like to reply? Who has an answer for Sam and Raul? Go ahead. I don't think that these drafting systems are really terribly different from all volunteer army sort of recruiting strategies. The whole idea of having benefits and pay for joining the army is sort of a coercive strategy to get people to join. It is true that military volunteers come from disproportionately lower economic status and also from certain regions of the country where you can use like patriotism to try and coerce people to feel like it's the right thing to do to volunteer and go over to Iraq. And tell me your name. Emily. Alright, Emily says, and Raul you're going to have to reply to this so get ready. Emily says fair enough, there is a coercive element to the Civil War system when a laborer takes the place of Andrew Carnegie for $500. Justice 05 Hired Guns? / For Sale: Motherhood 5 Emily concedes that but she says if that troubles you about the Civil War system shouldn't that also trouble you about the volunteer army today? Before you answer, how did you vote in the first poll? Did you defend the volunteer army? I didn't vote. You didn't vote. By the way, you didn't vote but did you sell your vote to the person sitting next to you? No. Alright. So what would you say to that argument. I think that the circumstances are different in that there was conscription in the Civil War. There is no draft today and I think that volunteers for the army today have a more profound sense of patriotism that is of an individual choice than those who were forced into the military in the Civil War. Somehow less coerced? Less coerced. Even though there is still inequality in American Society? Even though, as Emily points out, the makeup of the American military is not reflective of the population as a whole? Let's just do an experiment here. How many here have either served in the military or have a family member who has served in the military in this generation, not parents? Family members. In this generation. And how many have neither served nor have any brothers or sisters who have served? Does that bear out your point Emily? Yes. Alright. Now we need to hear from - most of you defended the idea of the all volunteer military overwhelmingly and yet overwhelmingly, people considered the Civil War system unjust. Sam and Raul articulated reasons for objecting to the Civil War system, it took place against a background of inequality and therefore the choices people made to buy their way in to military service were not truly free but at least partly coerced. Then Emily extends that argument in the form of a challenge. Alright, everyone here who voted in favor of the all volunteer army should be able - should have to explain what's the difference in principle. Justice 05 Hired Guns? / For Sale: Motherhood 6 Doesn't the all volunteer army simply universalize the feature that almost everyone found objectionable in the Civil War buyout provision? Did I state the challenge fairly Emily? Yes. Okay. So we need to hear from a defender of the all volunteer military who can address Emily's challenge. Who can do that? Go ahead. The difference between the Civil War system and the all volunteer army system is that in the Civil War, you're being hired not by the government, but by an individual and as a result, different people who get hired by different individuals get paid different amounts. In the case of the all volunteer army, everyone who gets hired is hired by the government and gets paid the same amount. It's precisely the universalization of essentially paying your way to the army that makes the all volunteer army just. Emily? I guess I'd frame the principle slightly differently. On the all volunteer army, it's possible for somebody to just step aside and not really think about the war at all. It's possible to say, "I don't need the money, I don't need to have an opinion about this, I don't need to feel obligated to take my part and defend my country. With the coercive system, or sorry, with an explicit draft then there's the threat at least that every individual will have to make some sort of decision regarding military conscription and perhaps in that way, it's more equitable. It's true that Andrew Carnegie might not serve in any case but in one, he can completely step aside from it, and the other there's some level of responsibility. While you're there, Emily, so what system do you favor, conscription? I would be hard pressed to say but I think so because it makes the whole country feel a sense of responsibility for the conflict instead of having a war that's maybe ideologically supported by a few but only if there's no real responsibility. Good. Who wants to reply? Go ahead. So I was going to say that the fundamental difference between the all volunteer army and then the army in the Civil War is that in the all volunteer army, if you want to volunteer that comes first and then the pay comes after whereas in the Civil War system, the people who are accepting the pay aren't necessarily doing it because they want to, they're just doing it for the money first. Justice 05 Hired Guns? / For Sale: Motherhood 7 What motivation beyond the pay do you think is operating in the case of the all volunteer army? Like patriotism for the country. Patriotism. Well what about - And a desire to defend the country. There is some motivation in pay but the fact that it's first and foremost an all volunteer army will motivate first I think, personally. Do you think it's better? And tell me your name. Jackie. Jackie do you think it's better if people serve in the military out of a sense of patriotism than just for the money? Yes, definitely because the people who - that was one of the main problems in the Civil War is that the people that you're getting to go in it to go to war aren't necessarily people who want to fight and so they won't be as good soldiers as they will be had they been there because they wanted to be. Alright, what about Jackie's having raised the question of patriotism, that patriotism is a better or a higher motivation than money for military service. Who would like to address that question? Go ahead. Patriotism absolutely is not necessary in order to be a good soldier because mercenaries can do just as good of a job as anyone who waves the American flag around and wants to defend what the government believes that we should do. Did you favor the outsourcing solution? Yes sir. Alright, so let Jackie respond. What's your name? Philip. What about that Jackie? So much for patriotism. If you've got someone whose heart is in it more than another person, they're going to do a better job. When it comes down to the wire and there's like a situation in which someone has to put their life on the line, someone who's doing it because they love this country will be more willing to go into danger than someone who's just getting paid, they don't care, they've got the technical skills but they don't care what happens because they really have - they have nothing like nothing invested in this country. Justice 05 Hired Guns? / For Sale: Motherhood 8 There's another aspect though once we get on to the issue of patriotism. If you believe patriotism, as Jackie does, should be the foremost consideration and not money, does that argue for or against the paid army we have now? We call it the volunteer army though if you think about it, that's a kind of misnomer. A volunteer army as we use the term, is a paid army. So what about the suggestion that patriotism should be the primary motivation for military service not money? Does that argue in favor of the paid military that we have or does it argue for conscription? And just to sharpen that point building on Phil's case for outsourcing, if you think that the all volunteer army, the paid army, is best because it lets the market allocate positions according to people's preferences and willingness to serve for a certain wage, doesn't the logic that takes you from a system of conscription to the hybrid Civil War system to the all volunteer army, doesn't the idea of expanding freedom of choice in the market, doesn't that lead you all the way if you followed that principle consistently to a mercenary army? And then if you say no, Jackie says no, patriotism should count for something, doesn't that argue for going back to conscription if by patriotism, you mean a sense of civic obligation? Let's see if we can step back from the discussion that we've had and see what we've learned about consent as it applies to market exchange. We've really heard two arguments, two arguments against the use of markets and exchange in the allocation of military service. One was the argument raised by Sam and Raul, the argument about coercion, the objection that letting the market allocate military service may be unfair and may not even be free if there's severe inequality in the society so that people who buy their way into military service are doing so not because they really want to but because they have so few economic opportunities that that's their best choice and Sam and Raul say there's an element of coercion in that, that's one argument. Then there is a second objection to using the market to allocate military service, that's the idea that military service shouldn't be treated as just another job for pay because it's bound up with patriotism and civic obligation. This is a different argument from the argument about unfairness and inequality and coercion, it's an argument that suggests that maybe where civic obligations are concerned, we shouldn't allocate duties and rights by the market. Now we've identified two broad objections. What do we need to know to assess those objections? To assess the first, the argument from coercion, inequality, and unfairness, Sam, we need to ask what inequalities in the background conditions of society undermine the freedom of choices people make to buy and sell their labor, question number one. Question number two: to assess the civic obligation patriotism. Argument: we have to ask what are the obligations of citizenship? Is military service one of them or not? Justice 05 Hired Guns? / For Sale: Motherhood 9 What obligates us as citizens? What is the source of political obligation? Is it consent or are there some civic obligations we have, even without consent, for living and sharing in a certain kind of society? We haven't answered either of those questions but our debate today about the Civil War system and the all volunteer army has at least raised them and those are questions we're going to return to in the coming weeks. Today I'd like to turn our attention and get your views about an argument over the role of markets in the realm of human reproduction and procreation. Now with infertility clinics, people advertise for egg donors and from time to time, in the Harvard Crimson ads appear for egg donors. Have you seen them? There was one that ran a few years ago that wasn't looking for just any egg donor, it was an ad that offered a large financial incentive for an egg donor from a woman who was intelligent, athletic, at least 5'10", and with at least 1400 or above on her SATs. How much do you think the person look
本文档为【哈佛大学公开课Justice-What's_the_right_thing_to_do_05】,请使用软件OFFICE或WPS软件打开。作品中的文字与图均可以修改和编辑, 图片更改请在作品中右键图片并更换,文字修改请直接点击文字进行修改,也可以新增和删除文档中的内容。
该文档来自用户分享,如有侵权行为请发邮件ishare@vip.sina.com联系网站客服,我们会及时删除。
[版权声明] 本站所有资料为用户分享产生,若发现您的权利被侵害,请联系客服邮件isharekefu@iask.cn,我们尽快处理。
本作品所展示的图片、画像、字体、音乐的版权可能需版权方额外授权,请谨慎使用。
网站提供的党政主题相关内容(国旗、国徽、党徽..)目的在于配合国家政策宣传,仅限个人学习分享使用,禁止用于任何广告和商用目的。
下载需要: 免费 已有0 人下载
最新资料
资料动态
专题动态
is_576280
暂无简介~
格式:pdf
大小:266KB
软件:PDF阅读器
页数:16
分类:
上传时间:2012-01-08
浏览量:39