DOCSLIB.ORG

Utilitarianism, Institutions, and Justice This Page Intentionally Left Blank UTILITARIANISM, INSTITUTIONS, and JUSTICE

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Utilitarianism, Institutions, and Justice This Page Intentionally Left Blank UTILITARIANISM, INSTITUTIONS, and JUSTICE Utilitarianism, Institutions, and Justice This page intentionally left blank UTILITARIANISM, INSTITUTIONS, and JUSTICE James Wood Bailey New York • Oxford Oxford University Press 1997 Oxford University Press Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Bombay Buenos Aires Calcutta Cape Town Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madras Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi Paris Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto Warsaw and associated companies in Berlin Ibadan Copyright © 1997 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bailey, James Wood, 1967- Utilitarianism, institutions, and justice / James Wood Bailey. p. cm Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-19-510510-9 1. Utilitarianism. 2. Institutions (Philosophy) 3. Justice (Philosophy) I. Title. B843.B35 1997 171'5—dc20 96-41290 987654321 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper Dedicated to my mother and father This page intentionally left blank PREFACE I did not know it at the time, but I was well on my way to becoming a utilitarian when, as a wet-behind-the-ears graduate student, I first heard an intemperate debate between a group of free-speech advocates and a group of feminists over the legal regulation of pornography. What was remarkable about this debate was not just the wide gulf be- tween factual premises that separated the two groups but also the relative insensitiv- ity each expressed toward the moral concerns of the other. The free-speech advocates were willing to concede, at least arguendo, that pornography might have negative consequences for the behavior of at least some people but that a supposed right of free expression required us to live with these consequences. The feminists were will- ing to concede, in considering questions of public policy, that any strong program for regulating pornography would be expensive and intrusive, but they were unwill- ing to concede that these costs ought to be a barrier to such a legal regime. Surely, 1 thought, all costs should matter. The end of moral rights should be to secure a decent existence for human beings, not to allow some to run roughshod over others. If I had to summarize the doctrine of utilitarianism in one sentence, it would be as follows: the imposition of a cost can only be justified by the avoidance of a greater cost, and all costs matter equally. It does not matter whether the cost is immediately observable or it exists only in the form of an opportunity foregone. And what is more, it does not matter on whom the cost may fall. Man or woman, rich or poor, fellow countryman or foreigner, quick or yet unborn, the burdens of life on each count the same. Utilitarianism tells us to do the best we can, with utter impartiality. As such, it is a powerful engine both for justifying and for criticizing the way we live. Small won- der that it should hold such an attraction for a young political theorist. But striving for the best leads to both a problem and a paradox. The problem has two branches. A system of ethics that tells us to achieve the best at once permits too much and demands too much. Achieving the best overall outcome can mean impos- ing very large costs on some people, and this is something many of us find intuitively viii Preface to be horrible. We do not want to sacrifice an innocent person to achieve some other end, perhaps any other end. If we are told that we can save the lives of five dying persons by murdering some unsuspecting fellow, we would not do so even if the magnitude of the cost works out in favor of doing it. Most of us accept that there are moral constraints on what use we can make of other people; but utilitarianism, it is alleged, tells us to override this constraint in some instances, and so permits too much. At the same time, it also appears to demand too much because, given the amount of suffering and unhappiness in the world, the amount of time and energy any one agent could devote to bringing about the best outcome overall would be formidable. I do not give away almost all of my income to feed starving children, even though some have argued that a good utilitarian would do just that. The paradox follows quickly on the second branch of the problem. In principle, it would appear that utilitarianism tells us to make each and every choice such that it leads to the best consequences overall. But an insight made clearer by the develop- ment of game theory is that no choice has consequences in isolation, only in con- junction with many other choices of many other agents. So while utilitarianism gives us the duty to make things go as well as possible, it does not give to any individual agent at any particular juncture any definite responsibility because causally the out- come of his or her choice lies in the hands of so many other agents. My individual contribution to the overall good may be consequential if and only if others also con- tribute in the right way. In the absence of some knowledge about how others are likely to act, the principle of utility alone can tell me nothing useful about what I should do. I have written this book to show that both the problem and the paradox can be resolved simultaneously. The resolution of the paradox of individual responsibilities is achieved by elaborating an account of institutions as equilibria in complex games. Within institutions, individuals have specific responsibilities they cannot get from the principle of utility alone. But the principle of utility still has work to do even in an institutional account because it can help us identify some institutions as more mor- ally desirable than others. When we have identified those institutions, we find that utilitarianism is not the doctrine that makes the horrible recommendations it is ac- cused of making. Utilitarianism can thus be the basis for a viable public philosophy, the kind of doctrine capable of resolving precisely those problems of difficult trade- offs that first led me to its study. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people have provided help and encouragementx>yer the years without which this book would not have been possible. I am grateful most of all to Alan Ryan, who supervised this project as a doctoral dissertation at Princeton University, and to Amy Gutmann, Russell Hardin, and Elizabeth Kiss, who served on my dissertation com- mittee and were tireless in providing useful comments, criticism, and support. 1 owe special thanks also to Tim Scanlon, who made me feel welcome during my academic year (1991-92) at Harvard, learning as best I could how to think like a philosopher. 1 was helped in this endeavor by the excellent teaching and occasional encourage- ment of Robert Nozick, Derek Parfit, and Amartya Sen. I received the financial sup- port of the Woodrow Wilson Fellowship Foundation in the form of a dissertation- year award. As I was turning the dissertation into a book, Jon Elster, David Johnston, Andrew Koppelman, Dan Sabia, and two anonymous reviewers for Oxford Univer- sity Press read the manuscript either in whole or in part while it was in preparation and contributed helpful comments. Other helpful comments were made at lectures I gave on my version of utilitarianism by my colleagues David Austen-Smith, Steven Brams, Joshua Cohen, Andrew W. Dick, Jim Johnson, and Ken Oye. Finally, I feel a gratitude hard to express in words to those friends whose conver- sation and companionship were able to sustain me in both heart and mind through the long process of thinking and writing: Jonathan Allen, Astrid Arraras, Tomas Chuaqui, George W. Downs, Roxanne Euben, Kyle Hudson, George Kateb, Cliff Landesman, Chris Marrison, Jamie Mayerfeld, Pratap Mehta, Jason Scorza, Jeannie Sowers, and Stuart White. This page intentionally left blank CONTENTS 1 Introduction to Utilitarianism 3 What Is Utilitarianism? 3 Why Study Utilitarianism? 7 What Is Not Wrong with Utilitarianism 13 What Is Really Wrong with Utilitarianism 20 Living by the Rules 24 What Is to Be Done? 27 2 Reasoning about Right and Wrong 28 The Need for a Metaethics 28 Intuitions 34 Contractualism 37 Form and Substance 46 3 Nonexploitation as a Rule of Thumb 49 Exploitation in a Simple Game 49 Norms: Minimalist and Utilitarian 52 The Natural Selection of Norms 56 The Utilitarian Nonexploitation Rule 60 Moral Mimicry 64 4 A Skeletal Theory of Institutions 68 What Are Institutions? 68 Rules, Equilibria, and Sell-enforcement 70 xii Contents Coordination 73 Cooperation 75 Rules, Equilibria, and v 82 Institutions and Interpersonal Comparisons: K 86 5 Basic Distributive Institutions 90 Introduction 90 Utilitarian Utopias 92 The Imperfect World 94 Utilitarian Dystopias 114 Comparative Dynamics 117 Moral Conclusions from Institutions 118 6 The Problem of Redistribution 120 What the Problem Is 120 The Rule of Political Semirigidity 123 Comprehensive Redistribution 125 Social Minima 131 Boosting Endowments 135 The Private World and Redistribution 140 7 The Acceptability of Utilitarianism 142 Intuitions, Institutions, and Evidence 142 Utilitarianism as a Horrible Doctrine 143 Utilitarianism as an Alienating Doctrine 147 Utilitarianism and the Publicity Objection 152 What Is Left of Utilitarianism? 153 Conclusion 160 Notes 163 Bibliography 189 Index 197 Utilitarianism, Institutions, and Justice This page intentionally left blank ONE Introduction to Utilitarianism What Is Utilitarianism? In this book, I propose to make a contribution to the doctrine of utilitarianism.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Jurisprudence--Philosophy Or Science Henry Rottschaefer
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1927 Jurisprudence--Philosophy or Science Henry Rottschaefer Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Rottschaefer, Henry, "Jurisprudence--Philosophy or Science" (1927). Minnesota Law Review. 1465. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/1465 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW Journal of the State Bar Association VOLUI%1E 11 MARCH, 1927 No. 4 JURISPRUDENCE- PHILOSOPHY OR SCIENCE By HENRY ROTTSCHAEFER* T WOULD perhaps be practically impossible to secure for any definition of the term Jurisprudence any very general accep- tance. It is doubtful whether there exists even any general agree- ment as to what subjects are within its scope. The problem of whether, and in what sense, it is to be considered philosophy or science, cannot, however, be discussed without adopting at least some tentative notion of its meaning that shall serve as the basis for the discussion. This can be more effectively done by a general description of the types of problem usually dealt with in treatises and courses on Jurisprudence than by framing a logically correct definition that secured accuracy and completeness by resort to a convenient vagueness. Investigation discloses its use to denote lines of inquiry having little in common other than a professed interest in general questions and problems concerning law and justice.
    [Show full text]
  • The World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law Index® 2020 Board of Directors: Sheikha Abdulla Al-Misnad, Report Was Prepared by the World Justice Project
    World Justice .:�=; Project World Justice Project ® Rule of Law Index 2020 The World Justice Project Rule The World Justice Project of Law Index® 2020 The World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law Index® 2020 Board of Directors: Sheikha Abdulla Al-Misnad, report was prepared by the World Justice Project. Kamel Ayadi, William C. Hubbard, Hassan Bubacar The Index’s conceptual framework and methodology Jallow, Suet-Fern Lee, Mondli Makhanya, Margaret were developed by Juan Carlos Botero, Mark David McKeown, William H. Neukom, John Nery, Ellen Agrast, and Alejandro Ponce. Data collection and Gracie Northfleet, James R. Silkenat and Petar Stoyanov. analysis for the 2020 report was performed by Lindsey Bock, Erin Campbell, Alicia Evangelides, Emma Frerichs, Directors Emeritus: President Dr. Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai Joshua Fuller, Amy Gryskiewicz, Camilo Gutiérrez Patiño, Matthew Harman, Alexa Hopkins, Ayyub Officers: Mark D. Agrast, Vice President; Deborah Ibrahim, Sarah Chamness Long, Rachel L. Martin, Jorge Enix-Ross, Vice President; Nancy Ward, Vice A. Morales, Alejandro Ponce, Natalia Rodríguez President; William C. Hubbard, Chairman of the Cajamarca, Leslie Solís Saravia, Rebecca Silvas, and Board; Gerold W. Libby, General Counsel and Adriana Stephan, with the assistance of Claudia Secretary; William H. Neukom, Founder and CEO; Bobadilla, Gabriel Hearn-Desautels, Maura McCrary, James R. Silkenat, Director and Treasurer. Emma Poplack, and Francesca Tinucci. The report was produced under the executive direction of Elizabeth Executive Director: Elizabeth Andersen Andersen. Chief Research Officer: Alejandro Ponce Lead graphic designer for this report was Priyanka Khosla, with assistance from Courtney Babcock. The WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 report was made possible by the generous supporters of the work of the Lead website designer was Pitch Interactive, with World Justice Project listed in this report on page 203.
    [Show full text]
  • Treatise of Human Nature Book III: Morals
    Treatise of Human Nature Book III: Morals David Hume 1740 Copyright © Jonathan Bennett 2017. All rights reserved [Brackets] enclose editorial explanations. Small ·dots· enclose material that has been added, but can be read as though it were part of the original text. Occasional •bullets, and also indenting of passages that are not quotations, are meant as aids to grasping the structure of a sentence or a thought. Every four-point ellipsis . indicates the omission of a brief passage that seems to present more difficulty than it is worth. Longer omissions are described, between brackets, in normal-sized type. First launched: October 2008 Contents Part i: Virtue and vice in general 234 1: Moral distinctions aren’t derived from reason.......................................... 234 2: Moral distinctions are derived from a moral sense...................................... 242 Part ii: Justice and injustice 246 1: Justice natural or artificial?................................................... 246 2: The origin of justice and property................................................ 250 3: The rules that settle who owns what.............................................. 260 4: The transference of property by consent............................................ 266 5: The obligation of promises..................................................... 267 6: Further thoughts about justice and injustice......................................... 272 Treatise III David Hume 7: The origin of government..................................................... 275
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Unit 4 Ethics in the History of Western Philosophy
    1 UNIT 4 ETHICS IN THE HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY Contents 4.0 Objectives 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Epicurus 4.3 Aristotle 4.4 Thomas Aquinas 4.5 William of Ockham 4.6 Thomas Hobbes 4.7 Jeremy Bentham 4.8 Immanuel Kant 4.9 John Stuart Mill 4.10 Emile Durkheim 4.11 Let Us Sum Up 4.12 Key Words 4.13 Further Readings and References 4.0 OBJECTIVES As Sir David Ross points out, in a classical work Foundations of Ethics, written over sixty years ago, there are, broadly speaking, two approaches to ethics. This is better known as the distinction between deontological and teleological ethics. The Greek word for an ‘end’, in the sense of a goal to be achieved, is telos. Hence, ‘teleological’ ethics comprises all those kinds of ethics which see the criterion of morality in terms of whether an action fulfills the overall total end of human life in general and of moral activity in particular. The word ‘deontological’ was coined by the British moralist, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), from the Greek word, deon, literally, that which is binding. Deontological ethics views the morally good in terms of doing ones duty. Deontology would be the science of moral duties. We shall see that these two approaches differ more in emphasis than anything else; they are not mutually exclusive water- tight compartments. 4.1 INTRODUCTION Let us start with teleological approach. Ever since Aristotle, practically the entire Western tradition of philosophizing has accepted his contention that the ultimate human end is “happiness.” Now this could be understood as either exclusively, or with a strong stress on, individual or private happiness.
    [Show full text]
  • The End of Economics, Or, Is
    THE END OF ECONOMICS, OR, IS UTILITARIANISM FINISHED? By John D. Mueller James Madison Program Fellow Fellow of The Lehrman Institute President, LBMC LLC Princeton University, 127 Corwin Hall, 15 April 2002 Summary. According to Lionel Robbins’ classic definition, “Economics is the science which studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means that have alternate uses.” Yet most modern economists assume that economic choice involves only the means and not to the ends of human action. The reason seems to be that most modern economists are ignorant of the history of their own discipline before Adam Smith or Jeremy Bentham. Leading economists like Gary Becker attempt to explain all human behavior, including love and hate, as a maximization of “utility.” But historically and logically, an adequate description of economic choice has always required both a ranking of persons as ends and a ranking of scarce goods as means. What is missing from modern economics is an adequate description of the ranking of persons as ends. This is reflected in the absence of a satisfactory microeconomic explanation (for example, within the household) as to how goods are distributed to their final users, and in an overemphasis at the political level on an “individualistic social welfare function,” by which policymakers are purported to add up the preferences of a society of selfish individuals and determine all distribution from the government downwards, as if the nation or the world were one large household. As this “hole” in economic theory is recognized, an army of “neo-scholastic” economists will find full employment for the first few decades of the 21st Century, busily rewriting the Utilitarian “economic approach to human behavior” that dominated the last three decades of the 20th Century.
    [Show full text]
  • The Utilitarian Influence on American Legal Science in the Early Republic
    1 The Utilitarian Influence on American Legal Science in the Early Republic Steven J. Macias California Western School of Law [email protected] (rev. 9/8) In Utilitarian Jurisprudence in America, Peter King held up Thomas Cooper, David Hoffman, and Richard Hildreth, as those early American legal thinkers most notably influenced by Bentham.1 For King, Hildreth represented “the first real fruition of Benthamism in America,” whereas Cooper’s use of Bentham was subservient to his Southern ideology, and Hoffman’s use was mainly to “reinforce” a utilitarianism otherwise “derived from Paley.”2 Although Hildreth’s work falls outside the timeframe of early-American legal science, Cooper’s and Hoffman’s work falls squarely within it. What follows is, in part, a reevaluation of Cooper and Hoffman within the broader context of early republican jurisprudence. Because Cooper became an advocate of southern secession late in life, too many historians have dismissed his life’s work, which consisted of serious intellectual undertakings in law and philosophy, as well as medicine and chemistry. Hoffman, on the other hand, has become a man for all seasons among legal historians. His seven-year course of legal study contained such a vast and eclectic array of titles, that one can superficially paint Hoffman as advocating just about anything. As of late, Hoffman has been discussed as a leading exponent of Scottish Common Sense philosophy, second only to James Wilson a generation earlier. This tension between Hoffman-the-utilitarian and Hoffman-the-Scot requires a new examination. A fresh look at the utilitarian influence on American jurisprudence also requires that we acknowledge 1 PETER J.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of Jurisprudence: Liberty and Equality in Rawls and Dworkin
    The Catholic Lawyer Volume 25 Number 2 Volume 25, Spring 1980, Number 2 Article 4 The Politics of Jurisprudence: Liberty and Equality in Rawls and Dworkin Stephen C. Hicks Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/tcl Part of the Jurisprudence Commons This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Catholic Lawyer by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE POLITICS OF JURISPRUDENCE: LIBERTY AND EQUALITY IN RAWLS AND DWORKIN STEPHEN C. HICKS* Law as a general system of rules impartially applied acts as the me- dium of sovereign governmental order harmonizing the interests of indi- viduals and groups in society as equally and fairly as possible. The indi- vidual is free within the rules establishing security and order and is free from law which is not conducive to the general good. Similarly, an indi- vidual is free to pursue his own ends if they are compatible with the greatest happiness of the greatest number and also is free not to act on behalf of the common good. While these boundaries are defined by law, the actual social relations within them are the concern of ethics or psy- chology, not legislation.' Thus, political theory as utilitarianism sees the law according to its own representation of the good and its own descrip- tion of human nature. This is the original coordination of individual soci- ety and the body politic in our tradition.
    [Show full text]
  • Martin Loughlin Political Jurisprudence
    Martin Loughlin Political jurisprudence Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: Loughlin, Martin (2016) Political jurisprudence. Jus Politicum: Revue de Droit Politique, 16 . ISSN 2101-8790 © 2016 Revue internationale de droit politique This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67311/ Available in LSE Research Online: August 2016 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. POLITICAL JURISPRUDENCE MARTIN LOUGHLIN I: INTRODUCTION Political jurisprudence is a discipline that explains the way in which governmental authority is constituted. It flourished within European thought in the period between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries and since the twentieth century has been in decline. That decline, attributable mainly to an extending rationalization of life and thought, has led to governmental authority increasingly being expressed in technical terms. And because many of the implications of this development have been masked by the growth of an academic disciplinary specialization that sacrifices breadth of understanding for depth of knowledge, sustaining the discipline has proved difficult.
    [Show full text]
  • Mind and Social Reality
    Masaryk University Faculty of Economics and Administration Study program: Economics METHODOLOGICAL INDIVIDUALISM: MIND AND SOCIAL REALITY Metodologický Individualizmus: Myseľ a Spoločenská Realita Bachelor´s Thesis Advisor: Author: Mgr. Josef Menšík Ph.D. Ján KRCHŇAVÝ Brno 2020 Name and last name of the author: Ján Krchňavý Title of master thesis: Methodological Individualism: Mind and Social Reality Department: Department of Economics Supervisor of bachelor thesis: Mgr. Josef Menšík, Ph.D. Year of defence: 2020 Abstract The submitted bachelor thesis is concerned with the relation between mind and social reality and the role of the mind in the creation of social reality. This relation is examined from the perspective of the social ontology of John Searle, an American philosopher who is considered to be the proponent of methodological individualism. This thesis aims to reconsider the standard, mentalistic interpretation of Searle’s social ontology, one that is centred around the primary role of the mind in the construction of social reality, to examine criticisms of such approach which highlight the professed neglect of the role that social practices have for social reality, and to provide an alternative, practice-based reading of Searle’s social ontology. The thesis thus proceeds first by outlining the standard interpretation of Searle’s theory as put forward mainly in his two monographs on social reality. Subsequently, the objections against such an approach from an alternative, practice-based approach, which highlights the role of social practices for the constitution of society, are raised. Following these objections, the Searle’s social ontology is looked at again in an effort to find an alternative interpretation that would bring it closer to the ideas and principles of the practice-based approach, and thereby provide a response to some objections against the missing role of the social practices in his theory as well as open the way for the novel interpretation of his social ontology.
    [Show full text]
  • Mechanism Design: Lecture 4 Fair Division
    Mechanism Design: lecture 4 Fair Division Fedor Sandomirskiy March 27, 2021 Higher School of Economics, St.Petersburg e-mail: [email protected] 1 Motivation Auctions = simple and efficient way to distribute resources. Why do we need something else? Monetary transactions may be ruled out by • ethical reasons. Bias towards richest ) repugnant Examples: government programs (education, social housing), charity, organ transplants • institutional reasons. Who is auctioneer? Examples: division of a common property (partners dissolving their partnership, inheritance), allocation of tasks or resources within the firm (office space, IT facilities, bonuses), division of a common surplus among business-partners How to distribute resources if we can't auction them? What is fairness and how to take it into account? 2 Motivation Auctions = simple and efficient way to distribute resources. Why do we need something else? Monetary transactions may be ruled out by • ethical reasons. Bias towards richest ) repugnant Examples: government programs (education, social housing), charity, organ transplants • institutional reasons. Who is auctioneer? Examples: division of a common property (partners dissolving their partnership, inheritance), allocation of tasks or resources within the firm (office space, IT facilities, bonuses), division of a common surplus among business-partners How to distribute resources if we can't auction them? What is fairness and how to take it into account? 2 Motivation Auctions = simple and efficient way to distribute resources. Why do we need
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Ethics Anthropocentrism
    Environmental Ethics Anthropocentrism Introduction Anthropcentrism is the world view that places human beings as the center of the cosmos Five Interconnected Themes: 1) natural order has a grand hierarchy (a “Great Chain of Being) 2) the ontological divide between human and nonhuman nature 3) nature as a machine 4) only humans beings have intrinsic value/nature has only instrumental value 5) the moral community is limited to human beings Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) The Summa Contra Gentiles develops the ethical implications of the Great Chain of Being humans are closest to the likeness of God rational creatures exercise free will God bestows intrinsic value on rational creatures “Accordingly intellectual creatures are ruled by God, as though He cared for them for their own sake, while other creatures are ruled as being directed to rational creatures” (63) other creatures are slaves to their environment their actions casually determined by the environment thus human beings alone are morally considerable only human beings have freedom “he is free who is cause of himself . intellectual nature alone is free” human beings have the right to subjugate other beings below on the hierarchy “Hereby is refuted the error of those who said it is sinful for man to kill dumb animals: for by divine providence they are intended for man’s use in the natural order” (64) anticipating Kant, the only danger in killing dumb animals is that such behavior might lead to cruelty to human beings Francis Bacon (1561-1626) The Great Instauration focus of knowledge should be practical the improvement of the human condition knowledge is power over nature “the roads to human power and to human knowledge lie close together, and are nearly the same” this view of knowledge as power is stated more clearly in New Organon (1620) Title refers to Aristotle’s logical and methodological works known collectively as the Organon this will be a new organon, thus a new scientific method “Human knowledge and human power meet in one; for where the cause is not known the effect cannot be produced.
    [Show full text]
  • Mohist Theoretic System: the Rivalry Theory of Confucianism and Interconnections with the Universal Values and Global Sustainability
    Cultural and Religious Studies, March 2020, Vol. 8, No. 3, 178-186 doi: 10.17265/2328-2177/2020.03.006 D DAVID PUBLISHING Mohist Theoretic System: The Rivalry Theory of Confucianism and Interconnections With the Universal Values and Global Sustainability SONG Jinzhou East China Normal University, Shanghai, China Mohism was established in the Warring State period for two centuries and half. It is the third biggest schools following Confucianism and Daoism. Mozi (468 B.C.-376 B.C.) was the first major intellectual rivalry to Confucianism and he was taken as the second biggest philosophy in his times. However, Mohism is seldom studied during more than 2,000 years from Han dynasty to the middle Qing dynasty due to his opposition claims to the dominant Confucian ideology. In this article, the author tries to illustrate the three potential functions of Mohism: First, the critical/revision function of dominant Confucianism ethics which has DNA functions of Chinese culture even in current China; second, the interconnections with the universal values of the world; third, the biological constructive function for global sustainability. Mohist had the fame of one of two well-known philosophers of his times, Confucian and Mohist. His ideas had a decisive influence upon the early Chinese thinkers while his visions of meritocracy and the public good helps shape the political philosophies and policy decisions till Qin and Han (202 B.C.-220 C.E.) dynasties. Sun Yet-sen (1902) adopted Mohist concepts “to take the world as one community” (tian xia wei gong) as the rationale of his democratic theory and he highly appraised Mohist concepts of equity and “impartial love” (jian ai).
    [Show full text]