March 16th Discussion Question 3

Nozick’s argues that if something was originally acquired justly, and later transferred justly, then it is now owned justly—and neither the government nor anyone else should be allowed to take it away.
The problem here is that many things that are owned today—money, land, natural resources—were originally acquired by force and violence, through war and colonization. Also, what do we do about "transfers" where the "buyer" wasn't properly "informed", or was coericed by desperation. What about paying wages below what the work is worth because of an overabundence of laborers? What if anything should be done about that?
How is it that people can initially come to acquire something justly and what is required for transfers of justly owned things to be just? Be sure to give your reasoning!

March 16th Discussion Question 2

Libertarian philosopher R. Nozick argues taxation for any reason other than national defensive and public safety requires taking a richer person’s earnings and giving them to a poorer person. But this is like forcing the rich person to work for the benefit of the poor person. Therefore, says Nozick, redistributive taxation (Nozick's term for such taxes) is like forced labor. Is Nozick right?
Is redistributive taxation really like forced labor? Forced labor is a kind of slavery. Are rich people who have to pay taxes like slaves? In what sense?

March 16th Discussion

According to libertarians, the greatest threat to individual rights comes from the government. Libertarians think that many kinds of laws violate people’s rights. Whenever the government prohibits a self-endangering activity—like driving without a seat belt—it is being unacceptably paternalist. Whenever the government prohibits deviant but harmless behavior—like nonstandard sexual practices—it is being oppressive. Whenever the government taxes people for redistributive purposes, it is stealing from them and forcing them to work for the benefit of other people.

Must the government stop trying to make poor people less poor, and sick people less sick, and so on, or is it possible to maintain a desirable pattern without restricting people’s liberty to do what they want with what they own?
Even if it’s not possible to maintain a desirable pattern without restricting liberty somewhat, are Libertarians right to think that people should have the liberty to do whatever they want with the things they own?

Pick one of the following (ok you can do more if you like :>) and argue pro or con. Remember to let us see you reasoning please.
Is it permissible for the government to regulate market transactions with an eye on the effects they have on the participants and other people?
Is it permissible for the government to pass laws against price gouging in the wake of a natural disaster?
Is it permissible for the government to regulate employment contracts? Are minimum wage laws really unjust?
Is it permissible for the government to insist on health and safety standards in workplaces?
Is it permissible for the government to block companies from forming a monopoly?

Feb. 16th Discussion Question 3

Does utilitarianism threaten individual rights? What if the sum total of the pain caused by sacrificing the civil rights of a minority is less than the sum total of the pleasure derived as a result by the majority?
John Stuart Mill tried to rebut the objection that utilitarianism cannot account for individual rights. He argued that, far from being in tension with individual rights, the principle of utility was actually the justification for protecting rights. In other words, Mill believed that protecting individual rights is the best way to increase the sum of happiness in the long run. Was Mill right? Is this the best reason for not violating people’s basic rights? Give your rationale.

Feb. 16th Discussion Question 2

For utilitarians like Bentham, happiness is simply the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain. People are happy insofar as they feel pleasure, unhappy insofar they feel pain; there is nothing else that goes into happiness. Abilities, achievements, friendship, love—all these are, at best, only means to being happy, and only insofar as they give rise to pleasure. How do you feel about this idea? Be sure to give your rationale.

Feb 16th Discussion Question 1

Suppose that we have to choose between building a new sports stadium and building a new hospital. How would you make this decision? Give your rationale in as much detail as you feel comfortable

Jan 26th ethical dilemma question #3

3. There are many needy people in the world who could benefit from your help. If you were to volunteer one evening per week, you could reduce need and thereby increase the sum of happiness. But if you were to volunteer all of your evenings, then you could produce even more happiness. Should you volunteer all of your spare time to helping the needy? Would it be wrong not to do so?