Rights as Side Constraints

Question 1

For a libertarian what should the government provide?

Answer 1

very small government: Police, army, courts - everything else through private enterprise

Question 2

What do the libertarian rights against force include? Where do these rights come from?

Answer 2

1) right against aggression (eg injurious attack)
2) a right not to be forced to make sacrifices for the benefit of others
3) a right not to be forced to do things for the benefits of oneself (anti-paternalism) - eg you can sell yourself into slavery

They come from absolute self-ownership

Question 3

Does compassion have a place in Nozick’s libertarian state?

Answer 3

Yes just not by the guns of the state eg charity to help those in poverty

Question 4

What is a consequentialist justification for libertarianism

Answer 4

Society as a whole will be better off if personal and economic freedoms are guaranteed

Question 5

What justification does Nozick offer for libertarianism

Answer 5

Rights based justification: the inalienable rights one has over themselves should never be violated (draws on Locke’s natural rights theory).

Question 6

What is the difference between rights as side constraints and utilitarianism of rights

Answer 6

RSC: ‘thou shalt not murder’

UofR: ‘thou shalt minimise the number of murders’

Question 7

Irrationality argument against RSC (for UofR)

Answer 7

• only UofR reflects a concern for victims because trying to minimise violations.
• it is irrational to place the nonviolation of rights as a constraint upon actions instead of including it solely as a goal of ones actions.

Question 8

What is the argument against the irrationality objection for RSC?

Answer 8

1: agency rational RSC
One is specially responsible for what one does (as opposed to what one allows others to do) - WILLIAMS.
In the terrorist case failing to kill terrorist daughter (which would prevent terrorist from terrorising) doesn’t make you responsible for his actions in the future
Note: you might also have a duty to stop others from murder but this is weaker than your duty to not murder.

2. Nozick’s moral status rationale for RSC: RSC reflects the underlying Kantian principle that individuals are ends in themselves and should not be treated as means to ends. - individuals are inviolable and have an elevated moral status - they can’t be sacrificed for others.
   Kamm: if you accept that under some circumstances it is okay for one to die in order for a greater number to live you are accepting that one can be legitimately murderable given the right circumstances - this lowers their moral status.

Question 9

Why should we be considered inviolable beings?

Answer 9

The fact of separateness of persons (no collective entities). People can choose to sacrifice something of themselves (e.g time, money etc) for their own good (e.g dentist, dieting etc.)
PLUS
ones capacity to shape ones life in accordance with an overall plan that one chooses to accept - this requires (I) rationality
(ii) free will
(iii) moral agency

Question 10

Problems with Nozck’s justification of RSC

Answer 10

1. Excludes infants and small children (who aren’t fully rational) who cants shape their own life’s - does this mean they aren’t inviolable
   RESPONSE: they have the capacity to develop the relevant capacities
   COUNTER: what about the disabled and does it overly include fetid’ and zygotes
2. Nietzschean challenge: if viability is grounded in rationality - shouldn’t we make gradations in violability that map differences in rationality (e.g. mill the highly educated should be given more votes).
3. As Inviolability increases save ability goes down (KAGAN) this doesn’t seem to reflect a high moral status - it seems as though if you have a high moral status you should be saved.

4.