Justice for Hedgehogs: Keynote Address - Professor Ronald Dworkin

Summary

In 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

• 📚 The speaker envisions a 'heaven' where distinguished individuals engage in discussions about their work, specifically before it's even completed, allowing for valuable feedback.
• 🤔 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.
• 🏛 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.
• 💰 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.
• 🧩 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.
• 📈 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.
• 🗣️ 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.
• 🌐 The theory of liberty is described as a 'buck-passing' concept, intertwined with broader political and moral values, rather than an isolated right.
• 👥 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.
• ⚖️ 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.
• 🔍 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

00:00

📚 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.

05:00

💼 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.

10:01

🌐 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.

15:03

🏛️ 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.

20:03

🔍 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.

25:05

🤔 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.

30:06

📘 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.

35:07

🧘‍♂️ 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.

40:10

🕊️ 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.

Keywords

💡Meta-ethics

Meta-ethics refers to the branch of philosophy that explores the nature of ethical properties, statements, attitudes, and principles. In the video, the speaker begins with meta-ethics as a foundational philosophical inquiry, setting the stage for a deeper dive into the book's themes. It is used to frame the discussion on the nature of moral language and the principles that underpin ethical theories.

💡Political Morality

Political Morality is the ethical dimension of political life, encompassing the principles and values that should guide the actions of governments and individuals within a political system. The speaker discusses political morality in the context of the book's final section, emphasizing the importance of equal concern for every citizen's fate and respect for individual responsibilities as central to a just political order.

💡Equal Concern

Equal Concern is a principle that mandates governments to treat all citizens with the same level of consideration for their well-being. The speaker argues that this principle is essential for political morality, suggesting that any distribution of resources must be justified by showing how it respects this principle, thereby ensuring that no one is disadvantaged by factors beyond their control.

💡Distributive Justice

Distributive Justice is a concept in political philosophy that deals with the fair and just distribution of resources within a society. The speaker addresses distributive justice by questioning the morality of market distributions that lead to great inequality, and proposes that any distribution must be justified by the principles of equal concern and respect for responsibility.

💡Progressive Income Tax

A Progressive Income Tax is a tax system where the tax rate increases as the taxable income increases. The speaker uses the concept to illustrate how an ideal political settlement could defend a more progressive tax system than currently exists, as a means to convert group bad luck into individual choice and to ensure fairness in resource distribution.

💡Liberty

Liberty, in the context of the video, refers to the subset of freedom that should not be restrained by the government. The speaker distinguishes between freedom and liberty, arguing for a theory of liberty that includes rights to free speech, ethical independence, and the use of one's resources without harming others, all of which are integral to a democratic society.

💡Democracy

Democracy is a system of government where power is vested in the people, who exercise it directly or through elected representatives. The speaker discusses democracy in relation to political morality, emphasizing the need 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.

💡Law

In the video, Law is presented as a branch of morality, emphasizing the procedural aspects of fairness and justice. The speaker argues against the traditional dichotomy between law and justice, proposing instead that law should be understood as an integral part of political morality, guiding the fair application of moral principles within a society.

💡Interpretive Concepts

Interpretive Concepts are those that we understand through shared practices and experiences rather than through shared criteria for their application. The speaker introduces this concept to explain how we can have genuine disagreements about values like justice, even when we lack a common set of criteria, by placing our understanding of these concepts within a broader interpretive framework.

💡Responsibility

Responsibility, in the context of the video, is a moral virtue that demands individuals to take their own lives and actions seriously. The speaker emphasizes the importance of responsibility in political morality, suggesting that while we may not always agree on moral truths, we can hold each other accountable for the integrity and responsibility of our arguments and actions.

💡Self-Respect

Self-Respect is a principle that encourages individuals to value their own lives and to live in a way that is meaningful and significant. The speaker connects self-respect to the broader ethical framework, suggesting that it is a foundational principle that should guide personal morality and, by extension, political morality, as it reflects the inherent dignity of each individual.

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]