Notes Lectures – Politics, Ethics & Practise
Lecture 1: Introduction & Ethics
What works?
Wolff: Top-down advice does not work
- Popper: Utopian engineering Utopian idea and you poor it up, but you need to change step by
step
- Wolff: Philosophy is extremism
Why ideal theory does not work
Non-ideal constraints the world in which we live is not ideal
It should work as a lab experiment under ideal conditions, not as a roadmap
- Inspiration that give us a direction
- Mirror of both motives and behaviour
- Discover unwanted implication
Wolff: does not work in the real world
- No time or room to agree to disagree compromise needed
- Bias for status quo
- Support trumps morality legitimation trumps legitimacy
Solutions
Traditional simple solutions (compromises) does not work
- Find the lowest common denominator agree to disagree
- Split the difference
- Make trade-offs
Problem: you end up with compromises that are superficial
- They are there because of ‘accidents’
- They only work for the morally and emotionally dead
o They ignore ideals, dreams, values etc
- Will only work as long as you tolerate them (not long)
Mix compromise with substance does work
- Take the others’ ideals and values seriously
o They do not respect them
o Accept that they are believed, but not taken too seriously
o Do the same with your own ideals and values
- Then only substantive common ground can be found being reasonable
- Example: Abortion at 3 months, the child has a chance to survive, so then it is not allowed
anymore
o Not stable, because it is not substantive
Burdens of judgement – The idea of the reasonable (Rawls)
Burdens of judgement= the many hazards involved in the correct (and conscientious) exercise of our
powers of reasons and judgement in the ordinary course of political life
- In the real world when we disagree/agree it is a burden, because our arguments are weak
- Examples: In which arguments are a burden why disagreement cannot be solved with one
solution that is 100% correct and on which everyone agrees
, o Empirical and scientific evidence is often conflicting, contradictory and complex
uncertainty
o We may reasonably disagree about the relative weight of different considerations
o Concepts are vague and subject to hard cases ‘decided’ definitions, hard to
measure
o The way we assess evidence and weigh values can be shaped by our total life
experience
o Different normative considerations on different sides can make overall assessment
difficult
o The number of values any social institution can incorporate is limited
Reasonable
Be reasonable= accept the limits to what can be proven and to what you may legitimately believe
- You are able to find substantive solutions
- Unrejectable for the time being accept them as being
- Do not expect others to make room for your ideas, but make room for their ideas yourself
- Let other people test your ideas & accept the results nothing under the sun is certain
Wolff: Three steps
1. Enter the room with the idea that so far something has worked/people agreed. First find out why it
did work and then there is room for critique wisdom of the ancestors
2. Then find out what the moral problems/difficulties are of a practise
o Practical and empirical problems are uninteresting because the can be solved
o Interesting is what the solution you choose not empirical questions but moral
questions
3. Then test all parties’ positions on possible flexibility
o Then you can build on a compromise and a solution
Rawls: Overlapping consensus in practises agreeing to combine different positions
Lecture 2: Drugs
History
Drug= any substance that ahs an effect on the functioning of the body, other than ‘just’ food
- Any substance that affects one psychologically
- Lines are unclear (food, alcohol, medicines etc)
- Drugs are (to a degree) social constructions
o As psychological affecting substance
o Why do we separate it from other things?
o Social construction= We give meaning to particular groups in society and that is
where drugs are created ð created in the mind
Hallucinogenic drug use proof dates back only 3.000 years
- Drugs are seen as mind expanding ð broader understanding of our reality
o Means as communicating with a larger reality (outside of out)
o Way of contacting other reality ð heavily criticized by philosophy and science
- Drugs are seen as religious/spiritual ð contract with other reality
o Criticized by organized religion
,- Drugs are seen as just plain fun or freedom
o Criticized by philosophy and science
It became a political tool in the 19th century ð Opium wares
- England smuggled it into China, making the Chinese citizens addicted to Opium
o Boxer Uprising= resistance to drug use and imperialism
o English made drugs popular due to international trade everywhere
Drugs were unregulated
Regulation in the West in early 20th century ð health imperative or biopolitics
- Opium problem moved from China to Europe (especially upper class)
- Social construction places a role here as well
o Defined by their perspective on the drugs
o There are scientific facts but different countries do not have the same definition of
drugs
Wolff & Drugs
He conceptualises drugs as recreational ð and thus as problematic
1. Wisselburg problem: There is more to it than ‘just plain fun’
2. Wisselburg problem: Biopolitics taken as a given ð bias
1. Wolff problem: Harm principle vs Nanny state ð We like that people should do with their lives as
they want; but looking at the harm done the state should be involved because the harm is too
much
o Hard to determine what the limit is
o Nanny state= state should leave you free to decide (treat you as a adult, not as a
child)
o Harm principle= you can do whatever you want as long as you do not harm others
Drugs can actually be harmful to others (not just the user) ð Thus there has to
be state involvement
2. Wolff problem: Unjustifiably unbalanced policies on various drugs
o Inconsistent regulations of various drugs
o Social construction
Status quo
Status quo: Ban the ‘dangerous’ drugs
- Status quo is the starting point for changes & is seen as better than the alternatives that have been
presented
o Find out why the status quo is so attractive
How to define ‘dangerous’? ð classes of drugs (soft and hard etc)
- Fluid definition/open definition
- Social constructions
Regulation via legislation & penalization
- Cost-effective? Does it have benefits?
Regulation via health policy (minimize the harm)
Deregulation ð Counterforce from regulation
- Regulation is not cost-effective
- Drug use is not the business of the government
Incompatible & inconsistent approaches
, Facts do not really matter
- Inconclusive, Social constructions & Do not tell us what to do
Policies tend to think in effective & efficient solutions
- Only possible when the goals are clear
o But the goals are not clear because they are not facts
Imposing values also not a solution
- Because we do not agree on several values
- Harm principle vs Nanny state
Inconsistency ð facts and values are unclear and values are inconclusive
- Reasonably compromise needs to be found
- Wolff believes that the compromise/solution will evolve over time, it depends on the mood of the
country
How to deal with it?
1. Recognize the underlying ontological and ethical differences
2. Find policies in complete different areas and compare them
o Find differences ð Find reasons why you should not see drugs the same as something
else
The status quo may be inconsistent, but it works. If we want to change it then we have to start from
the status quo and ask why the status quo is there. Then you find the underlying values & facts, and
why do we see those as (not) problematic and why value them. Then we can find a compromise by
finding comparisons and differences with other policies.
Theories of the good life
Good life= rights and duties ð How you choose to look at drugs depends on your beliefs of the good
life
- Deontological libertarianism= if you do not respect people’s rights, then all rights are uncertain
o Self-ownership ð your body is yours and no one can interfere with it
- Consequentialist libertarianism= free-market as regulator; government interference regardless
of the morally justification is inefficient, it does not work
o Cost-inefficient
o But not alle consequentialist libertarians are for a free-market and v.v.
- Millian arguments= Harm principle might inspire restrictions
o Drugs can harm people around you
o Side-effect that do justify regulations
- Authenticity=
- Bio-authenticity= Is what you are doing healthy?
o Against or against nature’s health
o Nature has not intended for you
o But how does this say that this is wrong
- Wolff misses a lot because he is talking about drugs as ‘fun’
o Nussbaum: capacities that we need have in our lives and we need to give room to by
society so we can flourish
o Religious aspect
o Hyper nationalism/racism
Government interference
Lecture 1: Introduction & Ethics
What works?
Wolff: Top-down advice does not work
- Popper: Utopian engineering Utopian idea and you poor it up, but you need to change step by
step
- Wolff: Philosophy is extremism
Why ideal theory does not work
Non-ideal constraints the world in which we live is not ideal
It should work as a lab experiment under ideal conditions, not as a roadmap
- Inspiration that give us a direction
- Mirror of both motives and behaviour
- Discover unwanted implication
Wolff: does not work in the real world
- No time or room to agree to disagree compromise needed
- Bias for status quo
- Support trumps morality legitimation trumps legitimacy
Solutions
Traditional simple solutions (compromises) does not work
- Find the lowest common denominator agree to disagree
- Split the difference
- Make trade-offs
Problem: you end up with compromises that are superficial
- They are there because of ‘accidents’
- They only work for the morally and emotionally dead
o They ignore ideals, dreams, values etc
- Will only work as long as you tolerate them (not long)
Mix compromise with substance does work
- Take the others’ ideals and values seriously
o They do not respect them
o Accept that they are believed, but not taken too seriously
o Do the same with your own ideals and values
- Then only substantive common ground can be found being reasonable
- Example: Abortion at 3 months, the child has a chance to survive, so then it is not allowed
anymore
o Not stable, because it is not substantive
Burdens of judgement – The idea of the reasonable (Rawls)
Burdens of judgement= the many hazards involved in the correct (and conscientious) exercise of our
powers of reasons and judgement in the ordinary course of political life
- In the real world when we disagree/agree it is a burden, because our arguments are weak
- Examples: In which arguments are a burden why disagreement cannot be solved with one
solution that is 100% correct and on which everyone agrees
, o Empirical and scientific evidence is often conflicting, contradictory and complex
uncertainty
o We may reasonably disagree about the relative weight of different considerations
o Concepts are vague and subject to hard cases ‘decided’ definitions, hard to
measure
o The way we assess evidence and weigh values can be shaped by our total life
experience
o Different normative considerations on different sides can make overall assessment
difficult
o The number of values any social institution can incorporate is limited
Reasonable
Be reasonable= accept the limits to what can be proven and to what you may legitimately believe
- You are able to find substantive solutions
- Unrejectable for the time being accept them as being
- Do not expect others to make room for your ideas, but make room for their ideas yourself
- Let other people test your ideas & accept the results nothing under the sun is certain
Wolff: Three steps
1. Enter the room with the idea that so far something has worked/people agreed. First find out why it
did work and then there is room for critique wisdom of the ancestors
2. Then find out what the moral problems/difficulties are of a practise
o Practical and empirical problems are uninteresting because the can be solved
o Interesting is what the solution you choose not empirical questions but moral
questions
3. Then test all parties’ positions on possible flexibility
o Then you can build on a compromise and a solution
Rawls: Overlapping consensus in practises agreeing to combine different positions
Lecture 2: Drugs
History
Drug= any substance that ahs an effect on the functioning of the body, other than ‘just’ food
- Any substance that affects one psychologically
- Lines are unclear (food, alcohol, medicines etc)
- Drugs are (to a degree) social constructions
o As psychological affecting substance
o Why do we separate it from other things?
o Social construction= We give meaning to particular groups in society and that is
where drugs are created ð created in the mind
Hallucinogenic drug use proof dates back only 3.000 years
- Drugs are seen as mind expanding ð broader understanding of our reality
o Means as communicating with a larger reality (outside of out)
o Way of contacting other reality ð heavily criticized by philosophy and science
- Drugs are seen as religious/spiritual ð contract with other reality
o Criticized by organized religion
,- Drugs are seen as just plain fun or freedom
o Criticized by philosophy and science
It became a political tool in the 19th century ð Opium wares
- England smuggled it into China, making the Chinese citizens addicted to Opium
o Boxer Uprising= resistance to drug use and imperialism
o English made drugs popular due to international trade everywhere
Drugs were unregulated
Regulation in the West in early 20th century ð health imperative or biopolitics
- Opium problem moved from China to Europe (especially upper class)
- Social construction places a role here as well
o Defined by their perspective on the drugs
o There are scientific facts but different countries do not have the same definition of
drugs
Wolff & Drugs
He conceptualises drugs as recreational ð and thus as problematic
1. Wisselburg problem: There is more to it than ‘just plain fun’
2. Wisselburg problem: Biopolitics taken as a given ð bias
1. Wolff problem: Harm principle vs Nanny state ð We like that people should do with their lives as
they want; but looking at the harm done the state should be involved because the harm is too
much
o Hard to determine what the limit is
o Nanny state= state should leave you free to decide (treat you as a adult, not as a
child)
o Harm principle= you can do whatever you want as long as you do not harm others
Drugs can actually be harmful to others (not just the user) ð Thus there has to
be state involvement
2. Wolff problem: Unjustifiably unbalanced policies on various drugs
o Inconsistent regulations of various drugs
o Social construction
Status quo
Status quo: Ban the ‘dangerous’ drugs
- Status quo is the starting point for changes & is seen as better than the alternatives that have been
presented
o Find out why the status quo is so attractive
How to define ‘dangerous’? ð classes of drugs (soft and hard etc)
- Fluid definition/open definition
- Social constructions
Regulation via legislation & penalization
- Cost-effective? Does it have benefits?
Regulation via health policy (minimize the harm)
Deregulation ð Counterforce from regulation
- Regulation is not cost-effective
- Drug use is not the business of the government
Incompatible & inconsistent approaches
, Facts do not really matter
- Inconclusive, Social constructions & Do not tell us what to do
Policies tend to think in effective & efficient solutions
- Only possible when the goals are clear
o But the goals are not clear because they are not facts
Imposing values also not a solution
- Because we do not agree on several values
- Harm principle vs Nanny state
Inconsistency ð facts and values are unclear and values are inconclusive
- Reasonably compromise needs to be found
- Wolff believes that the compromise/solution will evolve over time, it depends on the mood of the
country
How to deal with it?
1. Recognize the underlying ontological and ethical differences
2. Find policies in complete different areas and compare them
o Find differences ð Find reasons why you should not see drugs the same as something
else
The status quo may be inconsistent, but it works. If we want to change it then we have to start from
the status quo and ask why the status quo is there. Then you find the underlying values & facts, and
why do we see those as (not) problematic and why value them. Then we can find a compromise by
finding comparisons and differences with other policies.
Theories of the good life
Good life= rights and duties ð How you choose to look at drugs depends on your beliefs of the good
life
- Deontological libertarianism= if you do not respect people’s rights, then all rights are uncertain
o Self-ownership ð your body is yours and no one can interfere with it
- Consequentialist libertarianism= free-market as regulator; government interference regardless
of the morally justification is inefficient, it does not work
o Cost-inefficient
o But not alle consequentialist libertarians are for a free-market and v.v.
- Millian arguments= Harm principle might inspire restrictions
o Drugs can harm people around you
o Side-effect that do justify regulations
- Authenticity=
- Bio-authenticity= Is what you are doing healthy?
o Against or against nature’s health
o Nature has not intended for you
o But how does this say that this is wrong
- Wolff misses a lot because he is talking about drugs as ‘fun’
o Nussbaum: capacities that we need have in our lives and we need to give room to by
society so we can flourish
o Religious aspect
o Hyper nationalism/racism
Government interference
