Justice for Hedgehogs: Keynote Address - Professor Ronald Dworkin
Summary
TLDRIn this thought-provoking lecture, the speaker explores the intricate relationship between political morality and personal values. They propose two fundamental principles for governance: equal concern for every citizen's well-being and respect for individual autonomy. The talk delves into the complexities of distributive justice, the balance between liberty and equality, and the integration of law within a broader moral framework. The speaker advocates for an interpretive approach to understanding concepts like liberty, equality, and law, emphasizing the importance of responsibility in both personal ethics and political life.
Takeaways
- π The speaker envisions a 'heaven' where distinguished individuals engage in discussions about their work, specifically before it's even completed, allowing for valuable feedback.
- π€ The speaker discusses the structure of their book, starting with meta-ethical questions and ending with political morality, emphasizing the integrity and unity of the argument throughout.
- π The political morality proposed includes two main principles: equal concern for every citizen's fate and respect for each person's responsibility and right to shape their own life.
- π° The speaker addresses the issue of distributive justice, arguing that neither a laissez-faire market economy nor forced wealth equality respects the principles of equal concern and responsibility.
- 𧩠The concept of an 'initial auction' of resources and insurance is introduced as a theoretical model to explore the balance between equality and individual responsibility in resource distribution.
- π The speaker defends progressive income tax and a rational approach to healthcare spending based on the insurance model, as part of a just economic system.
- π£οΈ The importance of distinguishing between freedom (the ability to do as one pleases) and liberty (the right to do as one should) is highlighted, with a focus on the latter in a democratic society.
- π The theory of liberty is described as a 'buck-passing' concept, intertwined with broader political and moral values, rather than an isolated right.
- π₯ The speaker advocates for a 'partnership' conception of democracy, where each citizen has an equal voice and stake in political decisions, aligning with the principles of justice and equality.
- βοΈ The role of law is presented not as separate from morality but as a branch of it, with an emphasis on procedural fairness and justice.
- π The speaker calls for a broader understanding of interpretive concepts in philosophy and other disciplines, suggesting that values and theories are interconnected and should be understood within a larger network of ideas.
Q & A
What is the speaker's vision of heaven?
-The speaker's vision of heaven is a scenario where people, including distinguished philosophers and lawyers, discuss his book before he has finished writing it, allowing him to benefit from their insights.
What are the two reigning principles the speaker suggests government should adopt?
-The speaker suggests that government should show equal concern for the fate of every person and respect the responsibility and right of each person to make something of value out of their life.
How does the speaker view the concept of distributive justice?
-The speaker views distributive justice as a matter of justifying the distribution of a community's resources by showing how it respects the principles of equal concern and respect for responsibility.
Why does the speaker argue against a pure market distribution of resources?
-The speaker argues against a pure market distribution because people are not responsible for many factors that determine their place in such a society, such as genetic endowment and innate talent, which leads to great inequality.
What is the speaker's stance on wealth equality?
-The speaker is against making wealth equal regardless of choices people make, as it would not respect the responsibility of people to make something of their own lives.
How does the speaker propose to address the issue of distributive justice?
-The speaker proposes an approach that involves an initial auction of all resources where no one envies anyone else's bundle, followed by an auction of insurance where people make their own choices over risk.
What is the speaker's view on the relationship between freedom and liberty?
-The speaker distinguishes between freedom, which is the ability to do anything without government constraint, and liberty, which is the part of freedom that government would do wrong to restrain.
How does the speaker approach the theory of democracy?
-The speaker approaches the theory of democracy by distinguishing between a statistical or majoritarian conception and a partnership conception, where each citizen can say that the community has acted through them as an equal.
What is the speaker's perspective on the role of law in society?
-The speaker views law not as something separate from morality but as a branch of morality, emphasizing procedural morality and fairness.
How does the speaker define interpretive concepts?
-The speaker defines interpretive concepts as those that function because of shared practices and experiences, where disagreements are not merely verbal but normative, reflecting different views on what best expresses the value at stake.
What is the speaker's approach to integrating values in political morality?
-The speaker's approach involves developing conceptions that are integrated and match conviction, showing how values like equality, liberty, and law fit into a larger network of values in a political context.
Outlines
π Introduction to the Vision of Political Morality
The speaker begins by expressing gratitude for the introduction and humorously mentions their vision of heaven, which involves engaging discussions on their work. They then clarify the structure of their book, starting with meta-ethical questions and concluding with political morality. The speaker decides to discuss the political morality first, emphasizing two key principles: equal concern for every citizen's fate and respect for individual responsibility. They argue that a distribution of resources solely based on market outcomes does not align with these principles due to the inherent inequality and lack of consideration for those less fortunate.
πΌ Critique of Pure Market Distribution and Alternative Economic Models
The speaker critiques the idea that a market economy alone can ensure fair distribution, pointing out that it does not show equal concern for everyone since people are not responsible for their innate talents or life circumstances. They propose an alternative economic model involving an initial auction of resources and insurance to manage risk, suggesting this model could justify progressive taxation and a healthcare system that balances individual choice with collective funding.
π The Theory of Liberty and its Integration with Political Morality
The speaker discusses the concept of liberty, distinguishing it from freedom and arguing for a 'buck-passing' theory where the understanding of liberty is intertwined with broader political and moral values. They emphasize three branches of liberty: freedom of speech for democratic processes, ethical independence for individual life choices, and the right to use one's resources without harming others. The speaker argues that tax is not an invasion of liberty if it can be morally justified, thus integrating the theory of liberty within a comprehensive political morality framework.
ποΈ The Role of Law and Democracy in Political Morality
The speaker explores the relationship between law and justice, proposing that law should be seen as a branch of morality rather than a separate entity. They discuss the potential conflict between democracy and justice, offering a 'partnership' conception of democracy where each citizen has an equal voice and stake in political decisions. This conception aims to protect individual rights, which democracy might otherwise threaten, thus resolving the apparent conflict.
π The Broader Implications of Political Morality on Philosophy and Interpretation
The speaker extends the discussion to the broader implications of political morality on philosophy, arguing that interpretive concepts like justice, equality, and law require a contextual understanding within a network of values. They propose a general theory of interpretation that seeks truth and applies this to various disciplines, including constitutional law and literary criticism, emphasizing the importance of interpretive reasoning in understanding and applying values.
π€ The Nature of Value Claims and the Challenge of Error Theories
The speaker delves into the nature of value claims, addressing the question of whether such claims can be right or wrong or if they are merely expressions of emotion or personality. They emphasize the importance of these questions in politics, where claims about value must be more than personal preferences, especially given the coercive and life-impacting nature of political decisions. The speaker suggests that error theories and semantic alternatives may not suffice in political contexts, where truth and falsity of value claims are crucial.
π The Development of a Comprehensive Moral and Political Philosophy
The speaker outlines their approach to developing a comprehensive moral and political philosophy, starting with interpretive reasoning and moving towards a theory of responsibility. They argue for the importance of responsibility in moral discourse, especially in politics, where accuracy may not always be achievable but responsibility can be demanded. The speaker also touches on the need for a moral epistemology that connects with interpretive methods in ethics and personal morality, leading to a coherent political morality.
π§ββοΈ Ethical Principles and Personal Morality in Political Context
The speaker discusses the connection between personal and political morality, emphasizing the importance of ethical principles such as self-respect and the responsibility to identify one's own conception of living well. They argue that while personal morality may not require treating others with equal concern, political morality does due to the coercive nature of politics and the potential for harm and subordination. The speaker suggests that a legitimate political situation can only exist if all participants are treated as equals.
ποΈ Conclusion and Openness to Dialogue
In the concluding paragraph, the speaker expresses their readiness to engage in dialogue, having outlined their vision of political morality and its foundations in personal ethics. They acknowledge the difference between personal and political realms and the unique responsibilities and principles that govern each. The speaker looks forward to the discussion that will follow, indicating their openness to feedback and further exploration of the ideas presented.
Mindmap
Keywords
π‘Meta-ethics
π‘Political Morality
π‘Equal Concern
π‘Distributive Justice
π‘Progressive Income Tax
π‘Liberty
π‘Democracy
π‘Law
π‘Interpretive Concepts
π‘Responsibility
π‘Self-Respect
Highlights
Introduction of the speaker's vision of heaven, which is a gathering of distinguished individuals to discuss his book before it's finished.
The book's structure begins with meta-ethical questions and ends with political morality.
Two reigning principles of government: equal concern for every person's fate and respect for each person's responsibility.
Distributive justice must respect both equal concern and respect for responsibility.
Critique of a pure market distribution, arguing it does not show equal concern for everyone.
Proposal of an initial auction of resources and insurance to address distributive justice.
Defense of a progressive income tax and a health care system based on the auction model.
The theory of Liberty is complex and includes freedom of speech, ethical independence, and the right to use resources without harming others.
Liberty is not an absolute right but a right to those freedoms that government should not restrain.
The theory of democracy must protect individual rights, integrating them with the values of equality and justice.
Law is not separate from morality but a branch of it, emphasizing procedural fairness.
Interpretive concepts like justice are understood through shared practices and experiences, not just criteria.
A theory of equality, liberty, or law is an attempt to place these concepts in a context that exhibits their value.
The need for a general theory of interpretation that values truth in interpretation across various disciplines.
Claims about value can be right or wrong, emphasizing the importance of truth in political morality.
The necessity of a moral epistemology that connects responsibility with interpretive reasoning.
The distinction between personal and political morality, with a focus on equal concern in political roles.
The importance of self-respect and responsibility in personal and political life, leading to a sound morality.
Transcripts
thank you for that lovely
I fear undeserved but lovely
nevertheless introduction some of you
probably too many of you have heard me
in the past particularly introducing a
lecture talk about learning hands vision
of heaven you will be relieved to know
that I now have my own vision of heaven
and my vision of heaven is that lots of
people including among them among the
most distinguished philosophers and
lawyers in the world come to discuss a
book of mine
and what as if that weren't good enough
they discuss it before I've actually
finished writing the book so I can
benefit from what they say that isn't
the best part the best part is I don't
he I don't even have to die to get this
now I was unclear what I should do in
this opening session it we've already
had a bit of the debate it's a lot more
to come I thought that not everyone is
familiar with the structure of the book
not everyone by longshot will have read
this book so I thought that I might
offer a summary of it but with the
difference the book proceeds from the
questions of meta ethics among the most
philosophical parts of the book right at
the start and ends in the last section
with the discussion of political
morality and the argument claims that
there's an integrity in the argument
considered in that direction in these
remarks I thought I might go in the
opposite direction that is start by
describing where I end up start by
describing the political morality and
then with no attempt to recapitulate
everything that's going before
nevertheless try and illustrate the
unity of the argument by showing how
each part of the political settlement
that I'm going to begin by describing
fans out into a large variety of
questions questions that meet one
another various points and so accounts
for the structure and complexity and
range of the book itself that's at least
what I I hope will become clear
so I start by describing this is the old
wine in new bottles start by describing
how at the end of the book I come to see
political morality how we together
formed in the institutions of government
and as voters should treat ourselves as
individuals and I suggest that there are
two reigning principles that government
should adopt first that government must
show equal concern for the fate of every
person every citizen over whom it claims
Dominion equal concern for their fate
secondly that government must respect
the responsibility and right of each
person to make something of value out of
his or her life equal concern and
respect for responsibilities now take up
the question about which many political
philosophies are written a question of
distributive justice every distribution
of the resources of a community responds
to the laws of the nation there is no
politically neutral distribution so
every distribution has to be justified
by showing how it respects these two
fundamental principles equal concern and
respect for responsibility the less a
fair idea that the economy should be
dominated by a market in which
people are free to buy and sell and
invest and sell their labor as they wish
and whatever results will be just and
fair does not show equal concern for
everyone it is not if anyone who loses
out in this race is entitled to ask
there is another set of laws which would
put me in a much better position how can
you defend claiming equal concern this
distribution and no defense can be made
of a pure market distribution because
people are not responsible for much of
what determines their place in such a
society they are not responsible for
their genetic endowment they're not
responsible therefore for the innate
talent they're not responsible for the
good and bad luck that people have
throughout their lives therefore - there
is nothing in the second principle
respecting responsibility that would
entitle government to adopt a position
which leads to such great inequality but
now suppose government went to the other
extreme and said we will make wealth
equal no matter what choices people make
so every few years as in a Monopoly game
we might call in all the wealth and
redistribute it again that would not
respect the responsibility of people to
make something of their own lives
because what people chose to do their
choices about work or recreation their
choices about saving or investment none
of the choices would have any
consequences
and it belongs I believe and argue to
the proper conception of personal
responsibility that people make choices
with the sense of consequences in
particular in a society of equal concern
they ought to make their choices over
labor and rest investment and
consumption they ought to make their
choices with an eye to the opportunity
costs to others of the choices that they
make so if I spend my life at leisure I
should realize that that is expensive to
other people because I might have been
producing what they would like to have
the question of distributive justice I
therefore think can be posed as a
question of the solution to simultaneous
equations each of the principles sets
that I named at the beginning sets
desiderata and we must come to
attractive conceptions of what each
requires that will allow us to set the
basic structure of a nation's economy
and I have attempted to do that of this
briefly summarize an ideal state of
affairs in the usual way of lhasa firs
by describing something that of course
not not at all possible but i have
imagined a initial auction of all
resources in which nobody envies anybody
else's bundle of resources the auction
may take a long time but that's the
result and then a further auction of
insurance in which people make their own
choices over risk or other
uses for their funds and decide what
insurance to buy now that's an imaginary
and extremely artificial construction
but I spend a good deal of time not just
in this book but in other books in
showing how we can use that kind of a
model and with emphasis on the insurance
as converting group bad luck into a kind
of choice look I'll give you two quick
illustrations I think we can use that
structure to defend a progressive income
tax indeed an income tax more steeply
progressive than ours at present I also
think that this device and have argued
this at great length provides the model
for a health care system in which for
example on a certain hypothesis we would
spend collectively less money keeping
people alive in the last four months of
their lives because it would make no
sense for people to give up funds useful
for the rest of their lives to pay the
very high premiums that would be
necessary to provide what Medicare now
gives people in the last months of their
lives but of course since since people
would insure to a reasonable degree
universal health care becomes a as most
of us I think probably already
recognized that it is mandatory but
that's only the beginning of a political
settlement we need a theory also of
Liberty and in constructing a theory of
Liberty we must be aware of the danger
that a theory of Liberty will conflict
with the theory of equality it was
Isaiah Berlin's clay
that this is necessarily the case I have
developed I tried to argue for a theory
of the quality of Liberty in this book
along the following lines I distinguish
freedom which is simply your ability to
do anything you might want to do without
government constraint from Liberty which
is that part of freedom which government
would do wrong to restrain so I do not
accept any general right to freedom
I accept instead a right to liberty and
the right that I urge is rather complex
I stress in the book three branches
first those liberties particularly of
speech which we have in virtue of the
necessity of such rights to fair and
properly efficient democratic system of
government secondly I argue on different
grounds that we have a right to what I
call ethical independence that flows
from the responsibility government must
recognize the responsibility and
therefore the right that we have to make
our own choices about what kinds of
lives our good lives for each of us to
lead and the third a branch of Liberty
that I stress in the book is a to some
degree residual right to use resources
that are rightfully yours as you wish
provided that you don't use them to harm
others each of these of course very
complex and I spend many pages trying to
develop what they need
but you will have gathered by now that
this theory of Liberty has a character
that I described borrowing the phrase
from Tim Scanlon as a buck passing
theory of Liberty because at each step
you cannot isolate what Liberty requires
from your conception of what for example
a democracy is and what property or
resources are rightfully yours the
common view that tax is at least perhaps
justified invasion of your Liberty turns
out to be false on this account provided
that what government takes from you can
be justified on moral grounds so that it
takes does not take from you what is
rightfully yours a theory of Liberty is
therefore embedded in a much more
general political morality and draws
from other parts
the result is that the alleged conflict
more or less disappears the alleged
conflict between Liberty and democracy
liberty and equality another ancient the
supposed conflict sometimes put us the
conflict between positive and negative
Liberty calls for a theory not just of
what rights we have against government
but what rights we have in government
for us for us moderns it requires a
theory of democracy and it therefore
requires us to confront the old
suggestion that a theory of democracy
might be at odds with a theory of
justice and a theory of equality because
people might not vote to respect the
rights of individuals in which case
democracy is pitted against these other
values I respond to that
there is a good Hedgehog hood bye-bye
distinguishing various conceptions of
democracy I distinguish statistical or
majoritarian conception from what I call
the partnership conception and as you
will see if you dip into that section of
the book it belongs to a partnership
conception that government is so
arranged that each citizen can rightly
say that the community has acted but he
has acted through the community that he
has participated in the political
decision and participated as an equal in
that decision and this means more than
that he has an equal vote it means that
he has an equal voice and most important
of all equals stake in the results so
that what I regard is a proper
conception of democracy requires the
protection of just those individual
rights that democracy is sometimes said
to threaten there's yet a further part
of the political settlement and that is
the institution of law once again we are
taught from the early days of law school
about a potential conflict between law
and justice I try to describe law to
develop a conception of law not as
something to be set beside morality and
studied in conjunction with it but as a
branch of morality this requires me to
stress what might be called procedural
morality the morality of fairness as
well as justice but in the end I argue
that the conflict disappears once we
understand the place of law
as a branch of political morality which
is itself a branch of general morality
that also has personal morality which is
itself a branch of more compendious set
of values which include ethics you will
have by now formed a suspicion Poseidon
had a son called Pro Krusty's who had a
bed and he suited his his guests to the
bed by stretching them or locking them
until they fit and and and you would not
be ungenerous at this point in thinking
that I'm acting like Procrustes
developing conceptions of these great
virtues so that they fit first defense I
have is that of course I want to submit
each of these conceptions of these
virtues to conviction our job and in
particular my job in this book is to
develop conceptions that not only are
integrated but that match conviction at
least after reflection I think I've done
that but there's a larger reason here
here I want to begin to show how the
argument from this point fans out into
other areas of philosophy indeed other
disciplines until it the it radiates
into the book as a whole now one
question that arises from my discussion
so far is the question what kind of a
claim do I make when I say Liberty
properly understood is a buck-passing
idea equality properly understood
the features of describe law properly
understood as a branch of morality not
something distinct from it what kind of
a claim am i making and how can I
possibly support that claim in
explaining in answering that challenge I
find it necessary to think about
concepts I find it necessary to
distinguish among the kinds of concepts
that we use some concepts I believe we
share because we share criteria for
applying them and when we don't share
the criteria in borderline cases our
disagreement for example about how many
books there are on a table might turn
out to be merely verbal because you take
a different view of whether a pamphlet
is a book than I do we share the concept
to the extent to which we share criteria
for its application there are however
other concepts among the most important
that we have which we can't understand
in that way you and I Rush Limbaugh and
you can disagree about justice genuinely
disagree though you don't share much by
way of criteria for applying the concept
of justice or injustice I believe that
we should recognize that some of our
concepts function for us as interpretive
concepts I mean by that that we fear
them because we share together practices
experiences in which these concepts
figure we take the concepts to describe
values but we disagreed some too
and in some cases to a mark degree over
how that value should be expressed over
what that value is and that explains for
example why rather strikingly different
theories of constitutional law answers
to the question what makes an
interpretation of the American
Constitution true rather strikingly disc
discrete are still genuine disagreements
unlike the disagreement about books
their disagreements because they
disagree normative their disagreements
about what description of the value at
stake best explains what we agree as
sort of paradigms are the correct
instances of application we each form
theories which allow us to take views
about those instances and applications
about which we disagree so my answer to
the question I first posed what is it to
have a theory of equality or
Libertyville law my answer is it is to
place our experience our debates our
uses of that concept in a context so
that that context exhibits what we take
the value at stake to be we might have a
theory of justice which supposes that
the value at stake is some kind of
consequential utilitarianism all we
might have a very diverse
it's opposed is that the value at stake
is the somewhat independent value of
fairness
each of these suppositions raises
essentially the same question what is
fairness how do we have a theory of
Penance and that in turn raises the
question of how we would our
you for that conception and we would
argue for that conception only by
deploying further values in the vast
toolbox of these values and so on and so
on until as I say in the book the
argument meets itself if it ever does
and I can see no other way in which we
can respond to the function of
interpretive concepts the dramatic
function of interpretive context except
by accepting the idea that we understand
each of them in a buck passing way we
understand each of them by seeing its
place in a larger network that raises a
question that I extend to trap to
discussing which is what other standards
for interpretation in other domains we
interpret not only in philosophy when we
have equality in our sites poet critics
interpret poems sociologists interpret
cultures you I hope are trying to
interpret me as you listen biblical
scholars interpret sacred texts
historians interpret ybox in one chapter
I try and offer again as a good hedge
how should I try and offer a general
theory of interpretation what counts is
truth in interpretation I recognize the
psychological state answer and argue
that it's apt in some circumstances in
some genres in apt in others and that we
need to explain why it's apt in some and
in apt to notice so we need a more
general theory and I try to develop a
theory of the same kind as
described for interpretive concepts that
is a theory in which an interpretation
is an attempt to recapitulate the value
of a practice of interpreting what is
the point of going on the way critics do
about a poem and then applying that
theory to try to make given that
description of the point sailing to
Byzantium the best it can be
now that crude summary will by now have
awakened you
I hope awakened your attention to the
great question we began to discuss this
morning
I've talked now for several minutes
about value but can claims about value
be right or wrong or should we rather
understand claims of value as
expressions of emotion or constructions
of our personality or should we suppose
that their commitments proposals for how
we intend to live and invite others to
live these are questions which I must
take up and beginning or ending in
politics emphasizes the importance of
these questions two reasons first the
various error theories that we talked
about today and the various semantic
alternatives to skirt around
declarations of truth and falsity may
their proponents think they do
I don't may serve well enough in
domestic occasions occasions of personal
life they're no good in politics
politics is coercive politics is life
and death and we it seems
me cannot stand up to our
responsibilities as governors or as
citizens as slaves or masters unless we
can say not simply this view about what
equality is pleases me or expresses my
convictions or is how I plan to live I
think we have to say fudge the word
though we might we have in essence to
say this is true others will disagree of
course but those in power must at a
minimum believe that what they say is so
and that means that the old question can
morality be true is a central question
in political morality an area where it
achieves in my view its greatest
importance but if we take the view that
I began to try to defend this morning -
nobody's satisfaction if we take the
view that yes moral judgments are claims
about how things are they are mind
independent if we take that view then we
soon have to recognize as I suggested in
the case of liberty equality and law
that we will disagree that our argument
will continue only by turning to greater
and more distant areas of moral and
ethical perhaps aesthetics vary and we
will continue to disagree there is not
in the premises a lever to press of
persuasion that means that we must
consider and pay considerable attention
to another important moral virtue not
accuracy but responsibility because
though we cannot claim a green
from our fellow citizens we can claim
responsibility from them and we must
therefore develop a theory of
responsibility which has some force so
that we can say to people I disagree
with you but I recognize the integrity
of your argument
I recognize your responsibility or I
agree with you guide patru you've thrown
a coin or you've listened to Fox News
and therefore you've acted irresponsibly
informing informing your opinion we need
here's another grand name we need a
moral epistemology and I find that you
won't be surprised I find a theory of
responsibility to connect with the
theory of interpretation that I
described and therefore to connect with
this ever broadening attempt to
integrate first local values with others
and then to continue that process moral
reasoning I argue is interpretive
reasoning at the end of one chapter I
offer with my fingers crossed behind my
back hoping rather than believing I
offer an account of the overall moral
political and ethical philosophy of
Plato and of Aristotle as an example I
believe a paradigm example of the kind
of interpretive reasoning that I'm
talking about now there are there's more
to the book responsibility my emphasis
on the importance of the distinct virtue
of responsibility requires me I believe
to try and face up to the so-called
question of free will and responsibility
and in one chapter of the
I and this will be discussed starting
later today one chapter of the book I
try and approach that issue by
separating the two ideas free will and
responsibility and defending through it
through ethics and a compatibilist
position I won't say any more about that
because we will talk about that soon
enough and then the circle has to be
completed I need then an argument that
deploys this interpretative method to
ethics to personal morality and finally
to political morality in the way I along
the way I lean very heavily on two
principles I began these brief remarks
by talking about two cardinal principles
of government and they match to deep
ethical principles principles about how
we ought to lead our live as individuals
first a principle of self-respect your
responsibility in my view to take your
own life seriously to think it matters
and it matters really not just because
you might want it to matter it matters
really how you live you must try to give
value to your life the kind of value I
believe you can give to your life I call
adverbial value value in how you need it
not in what you leave behind some people
of course leave behind treasure beyond
treasure most of us aim to live well in
the way we might aim to play a piece of
music well or to dive well and that's
enough indeed it's more than enough it's
wonderful
the second principle is a principle that
matches the other sovereign principle of
political morality we must accept a
responsibility to identify for ourselves
what counts is living well what
performance would give us adverbial
value in living we must do that for
ourselves we must not subordinate
ourselves to others these are
substantive principles I do not claim to
you that there definitionally true or
everyone follow from human nature they
seem to me I'd I have kind of
transcendental argument which I hope
will show many of you that you accept
these principles but if you do I then
appealed to Kant to say that you have no
reason not to believe that what makes
these principles hold for you is your
humanity is the fact that you have a
life to lead and death to face and that
is something you share with all other
human beings and that I'm going very
fast now I fear that is the basis of a
morality a sound morality and finally
out of that morality Hedgehog like I
come back to the beginning
out of that morality comes the political
morality
I began by describing there's a striking
difference between personal and
political morality and I said that we as
governors we in our political role must
treat each other with equal concern I
don't believe we have that
responsibility as individuals to one
another
something must account for the
difference and what accounts for the
difference
leave is something I've already
mentioned politics is coercive we are
all in a position to be harmed by others
in a way which would not be licensed by
personal morality we in that position
because we're part of a political union
we are also in a democracy in a position
to harm others we are on we are always
in danger of subordination of our
dignity we are always in danger of
tyranny in the face of the dignity of
others we need a way of reconciling that
inescapable fact of politics with our
morality we can't do it in my view
through a social contract we can't do it
by unanimous consent but we can and must
do it by accepting that this situation
can be legitimate only if everyone
participates as an equal in the three
dimensions that I described earlier
equality of both the quality of voice
and equality of stake and the quality of
state means that we must treat each of
us we collectively and must treat each
of us in the political dimension with
equal concern and now now I come to back
to hands vision of heaven I'm going to
shut up
and listen to you
[Applause]
Browse More Related Video
Ψ§ΩΩΨ±Ψ’Ω Ψ―Ψ³ΨͺΩΨ±ΩΨ§: ΩΩ ΩΨ΅ΩΨ Ψ§ΩΨ₯Ψ³ΩΨ§Ω Ψ§ΩΨ³ΩΨ§Ψ³Ω ΩΩΨΈΨ§Ω Ψ―ΩΩΨ©Ψ
Understand the difference between Freedom & Liberty | UPSC | StudyIQ IAS
What Is Morality?
Good Citizenship Values
Public Health Ethics. Thinking about bioethics, human rights, justice and moral responsibility
Good Citizenship Values
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)