Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'Taking Rights Seriously', 'Infinitism not solution to regress problem' and 'Law,Liberty and Morality'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these texts


15 ideas

13. Knowledge Criteria / A. Justification Problems / 1. Justification / a. Justification issues
Must all justification be inferential? [Ginet]
     Full Idea: The infinitist view of justification holds that every justification must be inferential: no other kind of justification is possible.
     From: Carl Ginet (Infinitism not solution to regress problem [2005], p.141)
     A reaction: This is the key question in discussing whether justification is foundational. I'm not sure whether 'inference' is the best word when something is evidence for something else. I am inclined to think that only propositions can be reasons.
Inference cannot originate justification, it can only transfer it from premises to conclusion [Ginet]
     Full Idea: Inference cannot originate justification, it can only transfer it from premises to conclusion. And so it cannot be that, if there actually occurs justification, it is all inferential.
     From: Carl Ginet (Infinitism not solution to regress problem [2005], p.148)
     A reaction: The idea that justification must have an 'origin' seems to beg the question. I take Klein's inifinitism to be a version of coherence, where the accumulation of good reasons adds up to justification. It is not purely inferential.
22. Metaethics / C. The Good / 1. Goodness / g. Consequentialism
Conduct is not isolated from its effect on the moral code [Hart,HLA]
     Full Idea: We must not view conduct in isolation from its effect on the moral code.
     From: H.L.A. Hart (Law,Liberty and Morality [1963], II 'Moderate')
     A reaction: The moral code may be excessively conservative, but there is no denying this point. Extreme individualistic libertarians must recognise that 'no man is an island'.
24. Political Theory / D. Ideologies / 5. Democracy / e. Democratic minorities
The great danger of democracy is that the oppression of the minority becomes unobjectionable [Hart,HLA]
     Full Idea: For Mill and De Tocqueville the greatest of the dangers was not that in fact the majority might use their power to oppress a minority, but that, with the spread of democratic ideas, it might come to be thought unobjectionable that they should do so.
     From: H.L.A. Hart (Law,Liberty and Morality [1963], III 'Populism')
     A reaction: This was vivid in the 2016 Brexit referendum, which was 52-48 in favour of leaving. There were lots voices saying 'you lost, get over it'. It should be a basic (if neglected) principle that the winners of elections now represent the whole population.
24. Political Theory / D. Ideologies / 6. Liberalism / a. Liberalism basics
In an organised society all actions have some effect on other people [Hart,HLA]
     Full Idea: In an organised society it is impossible to identify classes of actions which harm no one, or no one but the individual who does them.
     From: H.L.A. Hart (Law,Liberty and Morality [1963], I 'Enforcement')
     A reaction: This is attributed to 'some critics' of Mill. I agree with this. The idea that actions performed behind close doors never come to influence social life is an illusion, held by people whose quest for freedom is selfish.
24. Political Theory / D. Ideologies / 6. Liberalism / b. Liberal individualism
Dworkin believed we should promote equality, to increase autonomy [Dworkin, by Kekes]
     Full Idea: Egalitarians believe that most often it is by promoting equality that autonomy is increased; this is the egalitarianism of such liberals as Ronald Dworkin.
     From: report of Ronald Dworkin (Taking Rights Seriously [1977]) by John Kekes - Against Liberalism 05.1
     A reaction: Not my idea of equality. The whole point is to ascribe reasonable equality to everyone, including those with a limited capacity for autonomy. Equality is a consequence of universal respect.
25. Social Practice / A. Freedoms / 5. Freedom of lifestyle
The value of liberty allows freedom of action, even if that distresses other people [Hart,HLA]
     Full Idea: Recognition of individual liberty as a value involves, as a minimum, acceptance of the principle that the individual may do what he wants, even if others are distressed when the learn what it is that he does.
     From: H.L.A. Hart (Law,Liberty and Morality [1963], II 'Private')
     A reaction: He notes that there could be other reasons to block the freedom, such as harm done. This idea seems to identify a key component of liberalism - that we must all tolerate actions which we dislike.
25. Social Practice / B. Equalities / 1. Grounds of equality
We can treat people as equals, or actually treat them equally [Dworkin, by Grayling]
     Full Idea: Dworkin distinguishes between treating people as equals, that is, 'with equal concern and respect', and treating them equally. This latter can be unjust.
     From: report of Ronald Dworkin (Taking Rights Seriously [1977]) by A.C. Grayling - The Good State 2
     A reaction: The big difference I see between them is that the first is mere words, and the second is actions. Cf. 'thoughts and prayers' after US school shootings. How about equal entitlements, all things being equal?
Treating people as equals is the one basic value of all plausible political theories [Dworkin, by Kymlicka]
     Full Idea: Dworkin suggests that every plausible political theory has the same ultimate value, which is equality - in the more abstract and fundamental sense of treating people 'as equals'.
     From: report of Ronald Dworkin (Taking Rights Seriously [1977], 179-83) by Will Kymlicka - Contemporary Political Philosophy (1st edn)
     A reaction: I associate this idea with Kant (who says they are equal by virtue of their rationality), so that's a pretty influential idea. I would associate the main challenge to this with Nietzsche.
25. Social Practice / D. Justice / 2. The Law / a. Legal system
The principle of legality requires crimes to be precisely defined in advance of any action [Hart,HLA]
     Full Idea: The principle of legality requires criminal offences to be as precisely defined as possible, so that it can be known with reasonable certainty beforehand what acts are criminal and what are not.
     From: H.L.A. Hart (Law,Liberty and Morality [1963], I 'Conspiracy')
     A reaction: Hart is discussing a breach of this, where moral judgements are used to condemn something which was not obviously illegal. Families and schools don't have such precise rules, but it seems needed in a vast and pluralistic society.
Some private moral issues are no concern of the law [Hart,HLA]
     Full Idea: An official report [of 1957] on homosexuality declared that 'there must remain a realm of private morality and immorality which is, in brief and crude terms, not the law's business'.
     From: H.L.A. Hart (Law,Liberty and Morality [1963], I 'Conspiracy')
     A reaction: We might wonder whether these issues are actually moral, if the law is not interested in them. Are they just a matter of taste? The law doesn't enforce a preference for Mozart over Salieri.
Do morals influence law? Is morality an aspect of law? Can law be morally criticised? [Hart,HLA]
     Full Idea: Four questions: 1) Has the development of law been influenced by morals? 2) Must reference to morality enter into an adequate definition of law or legal system? 3) Is law open to moral criticism? 4) Does immorality justify legal punishment?
     From: H.L.A. Hart (Law,Liberty and Morality [1963], I 'Enforcement')
     A reaction: [compressed] Three nice questions, which are his agenda for the book. It is obvious that immoral laws can be created, and that laws can be criticised for being too concerned with morality, so there is no clear general answer to these dilemmas.
Is the enforcement of morality morally justifiable? [Hart,HLA]
     Full Idea: The question about morality and the law is also a question of morality - of whether the enforcement of morality is morally justified.
     From: H.L.A. Hart (Law,Liberty and Morality [1963], I 'Positive')
     A reaction: This is a very nice meta-moral question. What moral standards are used to justify the enforcement of moral standards? Presumably there should be no contradiction between the levels, to brutally enforce softness, or softly recommend brutality?
Modern law still suppresses practices seen as immoral, and yet harmless [Hart,HLA]
     Full Idea: English and American law still [in1963] contain rules which suppress practices condemned as immoral by positive morality though they involve nothing that would be ordinarily thought of as harm to other persons.
     From: H.L.A. Hart (Law,Liberty and Morality [1963], II 'Use')
     A reaction: He says most of the examples of this concern sexual practices. In the UK we have moved away from such laws, but many states of the USA still maintain them (or are reintroducing them, in 2023).
25. Social Practice / D. Justice / 3. Punishment / b. Retribution for crime
Moral wickedness of an offence is always relevant to the degree of punishment [Hart,HLA]
     Full Idea: Leslie Stephen argued that when the question is how severely an offender should be punished, an estimate of the degree of moral wickedness involved in the crime is always relevant.
     From: H.L.A. Hart (Law,Liberty and Morality [1963], II 'Moral')
     A reaction: [Stephen 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity' 1873] The degree of responsibility (after excuses etc.) is obviously also highly relevant. If vicious murder is punished more harshly, that seems to be an assessment of the character of the murderer.