Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? #3
Before rewatching this justice course to write this blog series, I didn’t remember how many arguments existed in order to challenge the previous theories. Last time we briefly introduced the theory of rule utilitarianism by J.S. Mill, to challenge against act utilitarianism; One key point that factored a major role was the importance of rights. If we act on the basis of always pleasing the majority, we’re ignoring human rights of the minority, hence why I will be looking into one of the theories of rights today, and chipping in my thoughts on this, as well.
Theories of Rights In General
Before deep-diving into a specific theory, I figured we should start with the basis of theories of rights first. As the name suggests, all theories of rights take into account of the rights of everyone before anything else, suggesting that every single person matter and worthy of respect; So much so that they can’t act as a tool (or instrument) for a larger social purpose. To add to this, this maxim reminds me of a key law in Emmanuel Kant’s categorical imperatives, which is treating people as an end in themselves, not the means to an end.
If we apply this to the dilemmas we have seen before, like the Dudley and Stevens case, we know that theorists of rights would not sacrifice the cabin boy for the sake of saving the other 3 sailors onboard. This is, of course, because they view all 4 sailors with the same value, each with individual rights, so why should it be so that the cabin boy, the one without any dependants, dies as a sacrifice? That is treating the cabin boy, a person, as a mean to a happy ending (for the most part). Some may challenge, that if the cabin boy had willingly given his consent to be murdered, is he actively giving up his rights? Is it now permissible to take his life? Considering the whole foundations of the theories of rights, theorists would still say no, as rights are something that cannot be taken away.
Deep Dive
One of the main theories of rights is the argument for libertarianism, supported by the libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick; the basic means of individual rights to liberty. Prof. Sandels explains it as living our lives however we please, provided that we respect other people’s rights to liberty as well, Robert Nozick, however, pushes libertarianism even further by stating the level of importance of human rights, challenging the role of the States or governments, which in my opinion, is completely fair to do. If libertarians agree on the foundation of rights, living our lives however we like, why should there be laws and restrictions as to how we act? Nozick separates the problems with the rulings by the government under 3 sections: paternalist legislation (laws protecting people from themselves), moral legislation (laws giving people expression as to how they should act morally) and the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. To simplify this, I’m going to group the paternalist and moral legislations together and argue separately for the redistribution of wealth.
If I’m fully considering the extent of libertarianism, and how everyone has rights, it’s almost common sense that laws and policies come to mind. They essentially control and limit us as to what we’re able to do, which is against the maxim of libertarianism: For individuals to all live our lives as we please. Of course, they are in place to ensure the safety of individuals, like the laws of wearing a seatbelt (example by Prof. Sandels) and laws that protect us from the abuse of other individuals or organizations, but what libertarians are arguing for is that we have rights to the extent where our safety and choices are determined by no one else, but ourselves. Wearing a seatbelt may be good, but that’s up to us to decide.
In my opinion, it’s a no-brainer when considering the pros and cons of paternalistic laws, because it’s protecting us from abuse, reserving our rights to live as ourselves and preventing chaos. If there were no laws against not wearing seatbelts, the rate of deaths due to car accidents would skyrocket, endangering the lives of many and affecting the healthcare system in the long run as punishments and fines are not in place, it’d only come back and bite later on. As for moral laws, no matter if these are legal legislation or universal moral laws like “treat others how you want to be treated”, they are still necessary. The example Prof. Sandels suggested, which a libertarian may argue for is the fact that since others are not harmed and no other individual’s rights are violated, there shouldn’t be moral limitations to sexual intimacy between gays and lesbians. In this particular example, I agree that under the premise of extra paternalistic laws to prevent people from abuse, it should be that gays and lesbians are allowed to be treated equally to heterosexual individuals; which more and more governments are accepting in 2022. But then again, I’m suggesting the additional paternalistic laws, in case the individuals involved have been violated, in return, I would challenge the libertarian view on paternalistic laws.
Should the Rich Be Taxed to Redistribute Their Wealth to the Rich?
During the lecture, a group of students was dubbed Team Libertarian to argue against the majority of students who would agree that there should be a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, the libertarians, however, believe that the wealth of a person is determined by their properties, hence when the rich is taxed, basically forced to redistribute their wealth, it violates the rights of self-possession, though for the greater “good”. Nozick argues if we think back to the past; those without the rights to self-possession, who had to trade in their hard-work for the well-being of others, we think of, as slaves. Libertarians would argue that by giving other people money, only because of one’s wealth, is an act of slavery for them and is unjust.
Of course, libertarianism as a whole is controversial, attempting to suggest alternatives to solve the drawbacks of utilitarianism. However, in this situation, many seem to agree on the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, because they would argue that living in a society calls for some rights to be given up, take the economy, for example, if a society wants to stay stable, the people in it must adhere to a level of guidelines, like sharing wealth. It does seem valid that for those who struggle to put food on the table every day, it seems necessary for those who earns thousands of dollars every time they breathe to share some of that wealth, right? Well, let’s break it down.
Take Elon Musk, the richest man on this planet at the time of writing this, for example; I came across this article upon researching Elon’s net worth, discovering that he earns a whopping 375 US Dollars per second, generating over 22,500 US Dollars PER MINUTE. More than what some people earn in a year! So clearly, he should share some of that seemingly never-ending wealth to the families who starve and struggle, right? Anti-libertarians would agree, but I would not, even if I was against libertarianism. This non-negotiable taxation is separate and different to the binding legislation that Libertarians argue against. The absence of paternalistic and moral laws will indeed grant libertarians the “individual rights” they argued for, but the laws were promulgated in the first place, were to serve the purpose of giving them the rights. There are laws against not wearing seatbelts to protect the safety of a person, that’s what seatbelts are made for! In my opinion, it’s not a case of “If I feel like it, I will.”, it’s a case of you must, to decrease the chances of your life being put to risk. The taxation on the rich, however, I would side with the libertarians, as taxation and redistribution to the poor is a non-negotiable legislation, but only on the rich? There’s a Chinese saying that goes, 一份耕耘 一分收穫 (One reaps no more than what he has sow), Elon Musk must have contributed to the society so greatly, that he’s deserved this wealth, let’s not forget, it’s the citizens around the world, who went: I like your cars and the concept, I’ll buy it. On the top of my head: Tesla and SpaceX, working on environmentally friendly, innovative electric cars and spaceships, exploring the world outside of Earth, doesn’t sound like something everyone has the ambitions or the abilities to pull off (Disclaimer: I’m not sponsored by Elon Musk!!) Arguing for the rich to “give up some of his rights to enjoy the perks of society” seems slightly hypocritical to me, all rights are important, the rights to free speech, the rights of the LGBTQ+ community, and the rights to religious practices should all level up to the same level as property rights. Unsurprisingly, those who earn the most money, are the ones giving back to the society the most, with what they can do, utilizing their wealth. #TEAMTREES, the fundraising movement to plant more trees that generated over 20 million dollars, started by the YouTubers MrBreast and Mark Rober, was a testimony of that. MrBeast had revealed in a podcast that during the period of the fundraising, the fundraiser had lost some of its momentum after a period of time, and out of nowhere, it was Elon Musk who had donated over 1 million dollars, allowing the #TEAMTREES movement to get back on its feet and gaining more traction than ever. It’s Musk’s money, let the man do what he wants with it. With that being said, he along with all the billionaires and millionaires in the world should give back to the society, through their established charities or donations, you gained wealth through the free market of your society, it’s time to give back.
To sign off, I just want to say that by attempting to address the flaws of utilitarianism, the theories of rights themselves also reveal cracks within themselves as well. Society has developed so rapidly and greatly that it’s difficult to put a categorical maxim on it, at least, I’m speaking on the basis of being a consequentialist myself. This episode was definitely the most grilling and mesmerizing 1 of the 3 that we’ve seen so far, so I look forward to analysing and discussing the rest of the episodes with you all!
Thanks for reading, and see you all in a bit.
-Winnie 12/09/2022
