Justifying the State

Justifying the State - Thursday, September 25, 2008...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Thursday, September 25, 2008 Justifying the State Anarchism Revisited -I didn’t (and wouldn’t) consent, so the state is illegitimate -correct to reject blind obedience (Wolf says), just because the state says it doesn’t mean that its right and that you have to obey it -but people disagree about the justice of law Locke’s Point -two options available: 1) A publicly agreed, shared set of laws 2) Defer to private judgments about the content of laws Locke’s Conclusion -it is better to have shared laws than continued disagreement -the “inconveniences” of the state of nature defeat anarchism Utilitarianism *** Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility, that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all persons. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome—the ends justify the means. Utility – the good to be maximized – has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure (versus sadness or pain), though preference utilitarians like Peter Singer define it as the satisfaction of
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 3

Justifying the State - Thursday, September 25, 2008...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online