Judging Justice from Interests and Freedom Since not all voluntary transactions are fair, what unfair transactions are there in modern society? This will be analyzed, and the judgment of justice will be analyzed from the third angle-morality.
If you encounter some accidents and need a lot of money, then you suddenly find that some medical institutions can buy and sell healthy eggs and sperm (assuming it is legal) to help couples who can't get pregnant. Suppose you are in good health at this time, and donating eggs or sperm has no obvious harm to your body, and you can get 65438+ 10,000 yuan immediately. Will you make this transaction? Why? What if it is 1 ten thousand? 100000?
The concept of market economy has been accepted by most people, and people can make any free choice in the free market. But in a free market, are people really free?
First, let's look at a case of military service. With the development of economy and the arrival of peaceful times, the era of all-people serving as soldiers has passed, and only a few countries (such as South Korea) will force all young people of school age to perform military service.
Therefore, for a big country like the United States, how to recruit soldiers has caused widespread debate. There are only two ways of conscription: one is compulsory conscription, and the other is market conscription.
Utilitarians and liberals support market conscription. Liberals believe that compulsory conscription is a kind of coercion, and the government cannot force people to do things that people don't want to do.
Utilitarians believe that if two people reach a deal voluntarily, both sides will certainly gain something, so applying the market conscription system will definitely bring more happiness and happiness than forcing people to perform military service. These are the two main foundations that support the free market: freedom and welfare.
But market conscription, even mercenaries, is untenable because of the following refutation:
Counterparty 1: If the market conscription system is implemented, those who are unwilling to perform military service will have to pay a certain fee, and those who perform military service will also be paid by the government.
It seems that you love me, but the end result is that most of the rich are far away from the army, but the poor finally enter the military camp. In fact, most people are reluctant to go to the front, and many people who "voluntarily" join the army are forced by poverty.
This is not true freedom, but gives people different choices according to the amount of personal wealth. The poor have no choice.
Counterargument 2: Civic responsibility has nothing to do with the amount of money, and civic responsibility can limit the right to free choice. Freedom without restriction is "pseudo-freedom".
When people enjoy civil liberties, they should always have civic virtues and undertake certain civic responsibilities based on goodwill, such as military service.
Unfriendly restrictions on the free market
If the case of military service is not enough to prove that those poor people are not free in the free market, then let's look at the second case: surrogate mother.
Everyone must have heard of the case of surrogate mothers going back on their word. Many women are willing to have children for him for money, but it is difficult to give up after the child is born. When the defendant in such a case goes to court, both the judge and the jury are confused.
Utilitarians and libertarians certainly think that such a voluntary contract should be supported, or at least an exchange in which both parties agree and benefit from each other. Just as people refute the mercenary system, surrogacy contracts are not widely accepted.
First of all, does the surrogate mother really "voluntarily" conceive for others for ten months and experience painful delivery? The answer is obvious. Most of them have no choice because of poverty.
So is this "profit" voluntary? A woman struggling in an embarrassing life has to be a surrogate mother; After giving birth to the child, she couldn't bear such affection, gave up the reward that could improve her life and chose a harder life to raise the child. I believe most people don't want to force such a poor woman to hand over her hard-working child.
Secondly, most people think that not everything can be bought and sold, such as babies, such as family ties. The object of buying and selling can be anything, but babies, as living people, should be respected. Respecting individuals and using and trading commodities are different models and cannot be compared.
In the case of surrogate mother, US Justice Robert Wilentz denied the surrogacy contract. However, he adopted a more legally effective rebuttal model: first, an effective contract requires the consent of both parties, but the surrogate mother does not know what kind of feelings she will have with her child when signing the contract, and the consent to sign the contract is actually based on incomplete information, so such consent is flawed and will eventually lead to the invalidation of the contract; Second, the purpose of surrogacy contract is to buy and sell babies, which is prohibited by law, so the illegality of the purpose of the contract leads to the invalidity of the contract.
Knowing the above two cases of military service and surrogate mothers, we can probably understand why economists always say that "the market is an invisible hand". How "free" are people's choices in a free market? Or because there is no other choice? Is there something that cannot enter the market? In fact, staying away from the free market is a respect for something, and the free market always has restrictions on freedom.
6. Who should get what? How should resources be allocated?
When it comes to justice, it is inseparable from the distribution of resources.
Aristotle thinks that justice, in short, is to give everyone what they deserve, so he thinks that the principle of justice contains two factors: people waiting for distribution and things waiting for distribution. "Equality of rights" is a very important concept in the philosophy of law, which means that equal people should have equal rights and should be assigned to a considerable number of items.
Speaking of this, Aristotle and we both need to think about the first question: what is the standard of equality? In what way does it mean equality?
No one thinks the answer will be class or wealth, and so does Aristotle. Aristotle said: the evaluation standard lies in the individual's merits. He thinks that the best flute should be assigned to the most skilled piper.
This conclusion seems convincing, but on reflection, I believe that most people will hold different views from Aristotle.
Generally speaking, we think that if the best flute is assigned to the best flute player, the most beautiful flute sound can be played and enjoyed to the greatest extent. Do you feel deja vu? This is a typical utilitarian consideration-most people think that happiness is the most just foundation.
Of course, this question must be raised because Aristotle has a more subtle explanation: the best flute is assigned to the best flute player because the biggest purpose of the flute is to produce beautiful music, and this goal can only be achieved by matching with the best flute player.
In other words, the rational distribution of goods should not only consider people's good quality, but also consider the purpose and intention of distributing goods. This is a kind of mutual force of "taking what you need" and "bringing out the best in each other", and it is a subtle logical chain.
Looking back on the problems we mentioned in the anti-discrimination policy before, what kind of students should be admitted? If you use Aristotle's theory to analyze, you can't help asking yourself: What is the purpose of the existence of universities?
This is a controversial and difficult question to answer: universities can be used to upgrade academics and serve civic education. But there is no doubt that the purpose of the university is not static. Universities established to promote Christianity will eventually accept Jewish students in the new century. Then it is an acceptable result to get what you need from the applicant in the case of different university purposes.
Seven, cultivate civic morality
How does morality affect justice?
In a broad sense, morality is the product of politics, so the question we want to discuss is: what is the purpose of politics?
Aristotle believes that politics is not one of many occupations, but an indispensable practice for a just life. If we think about the purpose of politics, the possible result is to build an orderly society and a framework of rights.
But for Aristotle, these aims are unstable, not ultimate. In the most fundamental sense, politics should be about shaping good citizens and cultivating good quality.
Therefore, people who show the highest virtue should be given the highest status and honor (according to Aristotle's theory, the best thing in social distribution should not be wealth, but status and honor). In the society he advocated, citizens should be pure, enthusiastic and lofty good citizens.
For Aristotle, justice is a mutual "fit", which allows people to get what suits them and can help them realize their nature.
But here, Aristotle put forward an inappropriate theory: he thought slavery was just. Liberals believe that slavery is compulsory, so it is unfair; Teleology holds that slavery is against nature and therefore unfair. Aristotle believes that slaves are necessary, and slaves naturally become slaves from birth, so this can be supported and is conducive to cultivating the virtues and kindness of citizens in the whole society.
This is a failure of his many theories. However, it is undeniable that in the field of philosophy, when it comes to justice, the essence of a good life is unavoidable, which is the most precious thinking left by Aristotle more than 2,000 years ago.
Let's think about Aristotle's question: Do you support the distribution of suitable substances according to individual strengths and abilities? If this distribution is based on your characteristics, what should be allocated to you and what is suitable for you?
Eight, Kant's philosophy: the importance of motivation
Analyze and judge justice from the perspectives of interests, freedom and morality. Which view do you think you prefer so far? Or do you disagree with any of them? Why? Do you have a better idea?
Three ways to pursue justice: interest, freedom and morality. Utilitarians who simply advocate welfare maximization have been refuted; The liberalism of "we own ourselves and can dispose of ourselves at will" has been challenged. However, Kant opposes the two just ways: maximizing welfare and promoting virtue.
In his view, these two practices do not respect human freedom, but make the foundation of rights fragile. Kant put forward a more reasonable moral basis for the rights we have: human beings are rational beings and deserve respect and dignity.
Now I begin to analyze Kant's proposition: linking justice with morality and pursuing true freedom.
First of all, we need to think about this question: we have talked about freedom many times before, so is it freedom to buy anything in the market?
This seems to be a question without suspense, but Kant's answer isno. Kant believes that you can buy something according to your own wishes, just to satisfy your own desires. This choice is not freedom, you are a slave to desire.
Kant's philosophy is really not as well understood as the above analysis. He thinks: firstly, moral responsibility comes from free will; Secondly, freedom does not mean that we can choose more favorable options, but the choice itself; Finally, judging whether the behavior is moral depends mainly on the motivation of free choice, not the result.
We can understand Kant's point of view by discriminating the following concepts:
1. Morality: Responsibility and Tendency
The so-called obligation is to do something I think is reasonable. The so-called tendency is that I think something is useful and do it. Once we see the motivation of obligation, we can identify the characteristics of good behaviors, which give these behaviors moral value.
When a child goes shopping, the shopkeeper may sell the child the worst quality product at a higher price. But in the end, he didn't do it. If he thinks he should be innocent, then this is moral behavior; And if he is worried that this matter will affect the reputation and credibility of the store, then his behavior is immoral. Even if the consequences of these two completely different motives are the same, their moral judgments are definitely different.
2. Freedom: self-discipline and heteronomy
The so-called heteronomy: I can only act according to external regulations or laws. Self-discipline: I can act according to my free will. Kant believes that when the will is determined by self-discipline, we are dominated by our own given laws, which is the real freedom. Because moral judgment only pays attention to the motivation and purpose of behavior itself. So, does morality only exist in the case of self-discipline?
3. Rationality: Absolute Command and Hypothetical Command
An absolute order is also called an unconditional order. Suppose an order is also called a conditional order.
In real life, hypothetical commands are more common. A mother tells her children to study hard, which sounds simple and rude, but it is logical that if you want to have a good living environment in the future, you should study hard now. This thinking of "You want A, you want B" is the most typical hypothetical command.
Kant believes that only absolute orders can be called moral orders. This is combined with Kant's logic of "obligation rather than inclination" and becomes a complete theory.
Let's take shopkeepers and children as examples, which means that everyone should be respected (Kant also argued that "people should be regarded as an end", so I won't go into details here. If you are interested, you can choose to read Kant's book Fundamentals of Moral Metaphysics. This is an absolute command and a moral command. Shopkeepers who listened to this moral order thought it was natural and made a choice. So on the whole.
Nine, real fairness
From the perspective of social contract, in fact, most people have not clearly stated that they are bound by some kind of law or some kind of morality. So what gives the right to rule by law and morality?
Kant believes that if a provision is recognized or affirmed by all, then it is just. This is a paradox, because it is difficult for everyone to determine what kind of regulations will be recognized by everyone. This false situation cannot be a constraint in real life.
Rawls (192 1~2002, American political philosopher and ethicist) assumed that there was something called "veil of ignorance". Suppose everyone is behind veil of ignorance, and everyone doesn't know what kind of characteristics, family and personality he has after leaving veil of ignorance. In such a primitive state, no one will have a higher bargaining position, then the universally recognized principle at this time is justice.
This sounds like a hypothesis, but it is one of the most convincing claims. Rawls believes that in such a state, first of all, people will not choose utilitarianism, because no one wants to be the sacrificed part of the utilitarian proposition, but the "veil of ignorance" makes it impossible for everyone to know what kind of person they will become. Secondly, people will not choose liberalism. In a liberal society, it is difficult for the poor to seek relief or help. And the people behind "veil of ignorance" will try their best to avoid this system, with nothing but help.
X. Principles of justice
Rawls believes that behind the veil of ignorance, there are two principles of justice. First, provide all citizens with the most basic and equal freedom; The other is the principle of difference, which is related to social and economic equality.
Social and economic equality is not absolute equality. It's not that everyone gets the same thing, it's called equality. Rawls does not support utopia. The principle of difference is accepted by many people because it recognizes the differences between individuals. For example, some people are gifted and can become scientists; Some people are strong and can become excellent athletes. Apart from all kinds of uncertain factors (such as opportunities), in society, talented people often win more praise and earn more benefits than those with mediocre talents.
Rawls knows that such a gap is inevitable, but Rawls also believes that not all gaps are acceptable, and only when such gaps or inequalities are beneficial to the interests of vulnerable groups are they allowed and accepted.
For example, talented people invented ways to increase grain output and rescued the broad masses of farmers at the bottom. Such people should be rewarded. But if he just invented a way to increase the production of drugs, the benefits he seized would be unfair. By the same token, doctors win people's admiration and high salary with their superb medical skills. If he is not improving the medical level of mountain people, but only providing cosmetic surgery for aristocratic members, Rawls thinks that such a high salary has no moral basis and is difficult to maintain.
Therefore, the principle of difference is not to pursue the average distribution of wealth, but to pursue all accidental factors (such as talent and intelligence) to benefit mankind as much as possible, and to redistribute the functions of these accidental factors.
Rawls compared several different distribution methods:
Feudal system/caste system: a fixed hierarchy based on birth;
Liberalism: a free market with equal opportunities in form;
Elite rule system: a free market with equal opportunities;
Equality: Rawls' principle of difference.
The first three systems are based on a certain contingency, whether it is the contingency of family situation or the contingency of personal intelligence. Only the principle of difference avoids the influence of these accidental factors.
The ultimate meaning of Rawls is what he himself calls "sharing the fate with others". Whether you accept it or not, it is undeniable that Rawls is committed to building a fairer, more lasting and more stable society.
Xi。 Who does the anti-discrimination policy discriminate against?
As a melting pot of different nationalities and races, the United States has experienced long-term racial discrimination, and then spared no effort to implement the "anti-discrimination policy" for a long time.
In China, children in remote areas often have more favorable conditions when they enter universities. The same is true in America. In the United States, a white girl once took her college application to court, because all black students with worse test scores and poor comprehensive evaluation were admitted to the university, but she was rejected.
There are not a few such students, but few people support them. That's because these students often think that the purpose of the school is to find everyone who is excellent, talented and diligent and cultivate them into pillars. But in fact, schools often admit people who have contributed to the social purpose of the school. Although this evaluation of admission qualification is far from the concept of school in everyone's mind, it is indisputable. For example, a public university needs to rely on federal funds to operate, which stipulates that the proportion of non-white races should not be less than 40%. Under such rules, excellent white students will be abandoned by the school because of insufficient places. For the school, it is understandable that giving up a few such excellent people can achieve the school's social goals.
But when I think about it, the most important issue here is not the enrollment standard of the school, but the social basis of the anti-discrimination policy. Why is there an anti-discrimination policy? Knowing that the anti-discrimination policy may lead to injustice to a few people, the authorities still insist on the anti-discrimination policy?
There are two recognized reasons for adhering to the anti-discrimination policy:
1. Compensation for past mistakes
In view of the practice of slavery many years ago, racial discrimination has existed in the United States for a long time. These discriminations (explicit policy or private discrimination) have brought indelible pain to non-white races in the United States. Therefore, the anti-discrimination policy of the United States is to compensate those who have been hurt.
But the compensation theory has been severely criticized. Critics believe that the anti-discrimination policy does not compensate those who have been hurt. On the contrary, people who are adversely affected by anti-discrimination policies are mostly people now, and have nothing to do with previous discrimination. For example, blacks who could not go to college because of discrimination can now get married and have children, and the policy that race and skin color cannot be used as the entrance threshold is of little significance to them. Therefore, critics believe that if the policy is really formulated according to the compensation theory, it is more reasonable to formulate anti-discrimination policies according to class rather than race.
2. Promote diversity
Supporters believe that anti-discrimination policy can promote diversity well, and they think that a university social group that integrates many ethnic groups has social value and is worth pursuing. But the retort thinks:
1) the anti-discrimination policy is actually based on the existence of discrimination, so this policy can't actually reduce discrimination or promote social diversity, but it will give black people a blow to their self-esteem.
2) The anti-discrimination policy is unfair in principle. Whether it is to compensate or promote diversity, such a policy harms the interests of some innocent people and is unfair in nature.
Of course, the reason why the anti-discrimination policy is controversial but still being implemented today lies in its essential difference from racial discrimination: racial discrimination is based on a very despicable view-people are born with classes, and some races are more advanced and worthy of respect than others; The anti-discrimination policy is just an idea, and it doesn't involve prejudice.
The anti-discrimination policy is based on racial differences and has no solid foundation. At this time, let us recall the philosophy of Kant and Rawls, and we will find that although they have different views, they are both making bold attempts to solve the unfair situation in society and trying to find a solid foundation for morality and justice. If their theory can be successfully implemented, then society will no longer need compensation from anti-discrimination policies.
Like the United States, China also gives preferential treatment to ethnic minorities in university admission. Do you think this is fair? Why? Try to change your identity, for example, from Han nationality to minority nationality, or from minority nationality to Han nationality. Will your mind change?
Excerpt from: Joe Yimei, author of Michael Thornton's Fair Card.