Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 10: "THE GOOD CITIZEN"

we flip to Aristotle after inspecting theories cutting-edge theories of Justice that attempted to detach considerations of justice and rights from questions of moral barren region and virtue Aristotle disagrees with Kant and Rawls Aristotle argues that justice is a matter of giving humans what they deserve and the vital concept of Aristotle's concept of justice is that during reasoning approximately justice and rights we have unavoidably to reason about the motive or the give up or the Tilos of social practices and institutions yes justice requires giving identical things to same men and women however the question without delay arises in any debate about justice same in what respect in Aristotle says we want to fill within the solution to that query by way of trying to the feature end or the crucial nature or the purpose of the factor we are dispensing and so we discussed Aristotle's instance of flutes who must get the excellent flutes and Aristotle's answer become the first-rate flute gamers the high-quality flute player ought to get the great flute because it is a manner of honoring the excellence of flute gambling it is a way of profitable the virtue of a amazing flute player what's interesting though and this is what we are going to explore these days is that it's now not pretty so easy to dispense with Kili logical reasoning whilst we're thinking about social establishments and political practices in widespread is the way to do with out teleology when we are thinking about ethics justice and ethical argument as a minimum it is Aristotle's claim and that i would love to bring out the force in Aristotle's claim by using considering examples one is an instance that Aristotle spends quite a bit of time discussing the case of politics how need to political workplaces and honors how should political rule be dispensed the second one instance is a current debate approximately golf and whether the professional Golfers affiliation must be required to allow Casey Martin a golfer with a disability to journey in a golfing cart both instances deliver out a similarly characteristic of Aristotle's teleological manner of thinking about justice and this is that once we attend to the Telos or the cause every so often we disagree and argue about what the purpose of a social practice simply consists in and when we've got those disagreements a part of what's at stake in the ones disagreements isn't always just who gets what now not just a distributive query but additionally an honorific question what traits what excellences of persons will be commemorated debates approximately reason and Telos are often concurrently debates approximately honor now let's have a look at how that works within the case of Aristotle's account of politics whilst we talk distributive justice nowadays we are particularly involved with the distribution of profits and wealth and opportunity Aristotle took distributive justice to be mainly not about income and wealth however approximately offices and honors who should have the right to rule who need to be a citizen how ought to political Authority be disbursed the ones were his questions how did he pass about answering those questions nicely in step with his teleological account of Justice Aristotle argues that to know how political authority need to be allotted we've got first to inquire into the cause the point the Telos of politics so what is politics approximately and the way does this assist us determine who should rule properly for Aristotle the solution to that query is politics is about forming character forming good person it's about cultivating the virtue of residents it's about the best lifestyles the stop of the state the give up of the political community he tells us in e book three of the politics it's now not mere existence it's not monetary alternate best it is no longer protection best it is figuring out the coolest life that is what politics is for consistent with Aristotle now you would possibly fear approximately this you may say well perhaps this suggests us why those modern theorists of justice and of politics are right because take into account for Kant and for Rawls the factor of politics isn't to form the ethical person of residents it is no longer to make us properly it's to appreciate our freedom to pick our goods our values our ends consistent with a comparable Liberty for others Aristotle disagrees any polis that's simply so-referred to as then it's no longer simply one in call have to devote itself to the give up of encouraging goodness in any other case political affiliation sinks into a trifling alliance law turns into a mere covenant a guarantor of guys's rights against one another in place of being because it need to be a way of existence consisting of will make the members of a polis true and simply this is Aristotle's view a polis isn't an affiliation for house on a not unusual web site or for the sake of preventing mutual injustice and eating alternate Aristotle writes the quit and purpose of a polis is the coolest lifestyles and the establishments of social life are approach to that stop now if it really is the purpose of politics of the polis then Aristotle says we will derive from that the principles of distributive justice the standards that tell us who must have the finest say who ought to have the finest degree of political authority and what is his solution to that question well people who make contributions the maximum to an affiliation of this man or woman specifically an association that targets at the coolest have to have a extra proportion in political rule and within the honors of the polis and the motive is they're in a role to make contributions maximum to what political community is largely about properly so you can see the link that he draws between the principle of distribution for citizenship and political authority and the cause of politics but why you'll quickly ask why does he declare that political existence participation in politics is by some means crucial to dwelling an awesome life why isn't always it possible for human beings to stay flawlessly properly lives first rate lives ethical lives with out participating in politics well he offers solutions to that question he offers a partial solution a preliminary answer in book one of the politics in which he tells us that handiest through living in a polis and taking part in politics do we completely comprehend our nature as humans people are by using nature meant to stay in a polis why it is handiest in political life that we can sincerely workout our particularly human potential for language which Aristotle is aware has this capacity to deliberate about proper and wrong the simply and the unjust and so Aristotle writes in book one of the politics that the polis the political network exists through nature and is prior to the person no longer earlier in time however previous in its motive humans aren't self-sufficient residing by means of themselves outdoor a political network man who is isolated who is not able to percentage within the blessings of political affiliation or who has no need to proportion because he is already self-sufficient such someone ought to be both a beast or a God so we simplest fully comprehend our nature we simplest absolutely unfold our human capacities whilst we exercising our college of language which means when we planned with our fellow residents about properly and evil proper and wrong simply and the unjust but why are we able to most effective exercising our potential for language in political community you might ask Aristotle gives a second part a fuller a part of his solution in the Nicomachean ethics an excerpt of which we have a few of the readings and there he explains that political deliberation living the existence of a citizen ruling and being ruled in turn sharing and rule all of this is important to virtue Aristotle defines happiness not as maximizing the stability of pleasure over ache but as an interest and interest of the soul in accordance with virtue and he says that every student of politics ought to examine the soul due to the fact shaping the soul is one of the gadgets of law in a great city but why is it vital to live in a great metropolis for you to live a virtuous life why can not we just examine suitable ethical concepts at domestic or in a philosophy magnificence or from a ebook stay in line with the ones principles the ones rules the ones precepts and leave it at that Aristotle says virtue isn't always obtained that manner virtue is simplest something we can gather through practicing with the aid of exercising the virtues it's the sort of aspect we will handiest study by doing it does not come from e book learning in this admire it is like flute gambling you could not discover ways to play it musical device well simply by studying a e book approximately it you need to exercise and you need to listen to different finished flute players there are other practices and capabilities of this kind cooking there are cookbooks however no excellent chef ever learns how to cook by using analyzing a cookbook best it's the sort of component you handiest analyze by means of doing funny story telling might be another example of this type no outstanding comedian learns to be a comedian just by means of reading a book at the ideas of comedy it wouldn't work now why now not what dude joke telling and cooking and playing a musical tool have in commonplace such that we can not analyze them simply through grasping a principle or a rule that we would study from a book or a lecture but they've in not unusual is that they may be all concerned with getting the grasp of it but additionally what's it we get the dangle of when we learn how to cook dinner or play a musical instrument or inform jokes nicely discerning details unique functions of a state of affairs and no rule no principle ought to inform the comic or the cook or the high-quality musician the way to get inside the addiction of the exercise of discerning the specific functions of a situation Aristotle says virtue is that manner too now how does this hook up with politics the simplest way we will acquire the virtues that constitute the best existence is to exercise the virtues to have certain conduct inculcated in us and then to engage in the exercise of deliberating with citizens about the character of the good that's what politics is ultimately approximately the acquisition of civic distinctive feature of this potential to planned among equals it really is some thing we couldn't get living a existence by myself outdoor of politics and so it truly is why so that you can realize our nature we have to have interaction in politics and that is why those for a best in civic distinctive feature like Pericles are those who nicely have the finest measure of workplaces and honors so the argument approximately the distribution of workplaces and honors has this teleological person but also an honorific dimension because a part of the factor of politics is to honor human beings like Pericles it isn't always just that Pericles must have the dominant say due to the fact he has the quality judgment and so as to lead to the exceptional consequences to the high-quality effects for the citizens it is authentic and that is crucial but a in addition motive people like Pericles need to have the finest degree of offices and honors and political authority and sway in the polis is that part of the point of politics is to unmarried out and honor folks that own the relevant distinctive feature in this situation civic virtue civic excellence sensible know-how to the fullest volume it is the honorific dimension bound up with Aristotle's account of politics here's an instance that suggests the hyperlink in a present day controversy the hyperlink to which Aristotle draws our interest between arguments approximately justice and rights on the only hand and figuring out the Telos or the cause of a social practice on the other no longer best that the case of Casey Martin and his golfing cart also brings out the link among debates approximately what the cause of a social exercise or a game is on the only hand and the query of what characteristics have to be commemorated on the alternative the hyperlink between teleology and honor based totally standards of distributive justice who turned into Casey Martin well Casey Martin is a excellent golfer able to compete at the very best stages of golf but for one aspect he has an extraordinary circulatory problem in his leg that makes it very difficult for him to stroll not simplest tough however dangerous and so he requested the PGA with governs the pro tour in golfing that allows you to use a golf cart whilst he competed in expert tournaments PGA stated no and he sued beneath the people for Disabilities Act he sued in a case that went all the way to the united states supreme court docket the question the ideal court had to answer was does Casey Martin have a proper that the PGA provide him allow him to use a golf cart on the excursion or now not how many right here think that from a ethical factor of view Casey Martin need to have a right to apply a golf cart and how many assume that he have to not have a right to a golfing cart inside the match's so most people are sympathetic to Casey Martin's proper though a significant minority disagree allow's first pay attention from those of you who could rule towards Casey Martin why would you already know say that the PGA ought to give them a golf cart sure because the inception of golfing because it's been part of the game it's now intrinsically part of golf taking walks the course and that's due to the fact its intrinsic to golfing i would argue that no longer having the ability to stroll the course it is simply no longer being capable of carry out an component of the sport which is important to acting at a expert up desirable stay there for a minute what is your call Tommy are you a golfer by means of the way Tom appearance uh no longer a lot however yeah little bit are there any are there any golfers right here I suggest actual golfers thank you professor that one oh no I i'm simply taking your phrase for it who're there may be there a person right here at the golf crew yes inform us your call and inform us what you believe you studied my call is Michael and i typically take a cart so probably there likely the incorrect character to invite is that why your hand went up slowly you went ah sure all right but tom is pronouncing let's uh Tom said a minute in the past that as a minimum at the professional level taking walks the direction is critical to the game do you compromise i'd yes you do then why do you're taking a card and also you call yourself a golfer no no no no no i'm kidding i am kidding what do you say what do you say to that I when i've walked a route it does add fairly to the to the game makes it plenty more difficult it in reality does yeah all right let's permit's hear Michael and Tom's live there let's listen from folks who say that he ought to have a proper to a golf cart why who's organized to defend that function yes properly I assume the PGA need to truely be required to offer him a golfing cart due to the fact they argue in the decision that it's not only a depend of he's no longer no longer experiencing fatigue for him he's still walking about a mile the cart cannot move everywhere with him and in that mile he's nevertheless experiencing extra fatigue and ache than a healthy participant might so it's now not as in case you're eliminating the disadvantage what's your name Reba Reba what do you are saying to Tom's point that taking walks the route is critical to the sport it might be as though a disabled participant should play within the NBA but not should run up and down the courtroom nicely I think they're two responses at the start I do not suppose it's it's essential to the sport due to the fact maximum golfers who play patchouli recreationally don't play with a cart why numerous like Michael and several of the tours you can not play with a cart at the Senior PGA tour on the Nike excursion in a lot of the college activities and those occasions are just as competitive and simply as excessive level because the PGA excursion so truely it's only a count number of selective reasoning in case you argue that it's a vital part of the sport however although it's far he still does need to stroll he still plays golf standing up it's no longer as though he is playing golf from a wheelchair all proper who who else supply I suppose the complete point of a competition is that it calls out the first-rate from the second one excellent word from the third nice and when we're talking about the country wide stage we are speaking about you understand the best the best I imply I assume the what they're arguing about right here is the motive of opposition and i assume within the sake of opposition you can't change the regulations so the cause of the competition consists of on foot it is an essential you consider Tom and what's your call David the splendid court ruled that the PGA did ought to accommodate Casey Martin and that they did it on grounds that Riva cited that strolling isn't truly part of an essential part of the sport they noted testimony announcing that taking walks the court docket consumes no extra calories than you get eating a huge Mac that's what strolling is in golf in step with the general public Scalia become in dissent Justice Scalia agreed with David he said there's no cause it's now not and it is clearly no longer for courts to try to figure out the critical purpose of golf golfing like any recreation is strictly for entertainment and if there may be a group that desires to have one model of the sport they are able to have that version of the game and the market can determine whether or not people are amused and prefer and show up for that and watch the television declares Scalia's dissent turned into an anti Aristotelian dissent due to the fact notice two matters about the argument first we're thrust into a dialogue approximately what the crucial nature or motive or Telos of golf sincerely is does it include taking walks and right here's some thing I think is rumbling beneath the surface of this debate whether on foot partly determines whether golf is absolutely an athletic competition after all of the ball sits nevertheless you have to positioned it in a hollow it's miles it extra like basketball baseball and football golf's and athletic competition or is it more like billiards the ball sits nevertheless there too you could be out of form and prevail it includes skill however no longer athletic skill should it be that the ones professional golfers who excel at golfing have a stake in golf being commemorated and identified as an athletic occasion no longer just a game of ability like billiards and if that's what's at stake then we've a debate about the purpose the teleological dimension and also a debate about honor what virtues genuinely does the sport of golfing honor and understand two inquiries to which Aristotle directs our interest we'll keep on this situation next time what what's abnormal and seem paradoxical to me about Aristotle's standpoint is if you are like a pirate and also you speak like a pirate you should not be an funding banker due to the fact that's it truly is no longer what you're inherently speculated to do when you have a peg leg and a watch patch and a disgruntled disposition you know you should be on a pirate ship on the high seas so he would not his uh a few would say some might say the the difference between the two vocations isn't always as clear as you advocate while we ended final time we have been talking approximately whether Casey Martin has a proper to journey in a golfing cart inside the PGA tournaments and it's worth remembering how we were given into this debate and what is at stake for an knowledge of political philosophy don't forget we were looking at Aristotle's concept of justice and one manner of describing his approach to justice we've known as it teleological teleological because he says to allocate rights we first ought to discern out the purpose or the give up of the social practice in question every other manner of describing Aristotle's account of justice is that justice is for him a count number of in shape it's a count number of fitting persons with their virtues and excellences to an appropriate roles now I want to finish our dialogue approximately Casey Martin and his declare for a golfing cart and then cross lower back to at least one greater consequential utility in Aristotle particularly the question of slavery what do you reflect onconsideration on Casey Martin's request should there be an lodging or now not given the nature of the game and of the event and its functions is not it discrimination if he's no longer supplied the golf cart as an lodging say a few others reply no if he got a cart it might be unfair to the other golfers due to the fact they exert themselves emerge as winded fatigued walking the direction it's wherein we left it what about the equity argument okay Jenny my query changed into why doesn't the PGA just make the choice of a cart available to all golfers from our readings I discovered that there are numerous golf tournaments aside from the PGA had been the use of a carts isn't prohibited and for something just like the seniors tournament it is even allowed and encouraged so why doesn't the PGA simply try this permit all of us use a cart or give every body the option of using a cart and allow them to select so the traditionalists can say well I still pick to stroll the route but I do this understanding that I may be greater tired at the stop and the people who took the cart excellent all right so what about Jenny's solution for the sake of fairness don't give Casey Martin an advantage if indeed there's an advantage to driving in a cart allow everyone who desires to use a cart is each person happy with that answer does it placed to relaxation this complete quandary who has a solution for Jenny sure I also spread up final time if you do which you you sort of ruined a number of the spirit of golfing as plenty of humans want to see it in case you let all people take a cart although it gives absolutely everyone the same gambling discipline now it type of makes golfing much less of an athletic recreation such as you pointed out final class it is much like if a person makes a decision to go into another recreation and that they desired to gain like if you have swimming and then you definitely say ok he wishes flippers so why don't we simply allow everyone to have flippers going swimming and what would that do to the Olympic swimming opposition if human beings have been loose to apply Jenny and here we better allow Jenny reply to this ah says it might form of ruin the spirit of the athletic opposition as though in Olympic swimming you let all and sundry who desired to swim with flippers all proper Jenny what do you assert to da it'd damage the spirit of it you're also ruining the spirit of golfing through not letting those who are truely obsessed on the sport and superb at it compete clearly due to an component of golfing which is not the principle factor of golf is you operate this membership to make strokes and hit it right into a hole as i am no longer a golfer however this is basically my gist of the game from what I see it and i used to be reading the PGA vs Casey Martin selection that become one of the centers that they stated is because on foot the direction isn't always an inherent a part of golf handiest swinging the membership is ideal so Jenny replies to da well it isn't always honestly crucial any how to stroll the path so we're again to the reason I mean i'm sure there are like wheelchair basketball there are positive one of a kind reduce competitions that may be made for people whom can also best be capable of use their fingers proper yes all proper well what do you think and also you just stated that there stuff like we're choke wheelchair basketball where if you can't play a basketball there is any other option I think there is other options than the PGA excursion but the PGA tour is just like the it is it is the pleasant it is the top and you have to have sure necessities fulfilled to carry out all proper Michael you need to mention to Casey Martin you cross there may be a this type of thing as the special Olympics for individuals who are disabled pass play inside the golfing golfing model of the spectral Olympics that is what you will say Michael yeah I assume that taking walks is part of the game of golfing and Casey Martin you recognize you can not if you can't stroll the route I do not think you must be capable of play inside the PGA all proper correct thanks very a whole lot for that trade what comes out of this exchange that is going returned to Aristotle's idea of justice properly one thing is the query is on foot an important a part of golfing and the very truth that figuring out whether or not there is a proper for Casey Martin that the PGA have to appreciate appears to depend as Aristotle indicates it need to on debating and resolving the query is walking important to the game of golfing this is one moral of the tale but there's a 2d moral to the story from an Aristotelian point of view what is at stake here that is the second one inheritor stallion stake in this debate is honor Casey Martin wants the lodging so that he can compete for the honor of triumphing the pleasant tournaments now why is it that the expert golfers the great golfers testified in this situation Jack Nicklaus Tom Kyte inside the readings against letting the song art and they i think could be similarly vehement Jenny in opposing your concept of letting anybody experience a cart and this goes returned in a way to Dad's factor how to placed this gently professional golfers are touchy about whether their recreation is in reality a recreation because if everybody rode round in a cart or should then it'd become clear or clearer relying on your point of view that golf isn't in reality an athletic competition but as a substitute a sport a recreation of ability but now not a recreation and so no longer only the query of debating the purpose the teleological function but also from the standpoint of viewing debates about the reason of golf what's important to golfing the ones debates Aristotle indicates inevitably are also debates about the allocation of Honor because a part of the motive of golfing is not simply to amuse spectators Scalia's incorrect approximately that from Aristotle's factor of view it is no longer just to provide leisure it's now not simply to make people satisfied it is no longer an Amir enjoyment it is honoring it is rewarding it's spotting a positive sort of athletic excellence at the least the ones who've executed the very best honors have a effective stake in maintaining that view now some of you took the location the Scalia role that is an extremely tough and stupid question Scalia stated what's the vital nature of golf it's not the kind of aspect that the us splendid court is equipped to determine or should decide that Scalia however he handiest says that because he is taking a very robust and because it occurs anti Aristotelian position on what a sport is it's far the very nature of a recreation to haven't any object no factor besides enjoyment said Scalia that is what distinguishes video games he says from effective interest you can just imagine what kind of sports activities lovers Kalia must be and so he says it's not possible to mention that any of the video games arbitrary guidelines is vital after which he rates Mark Twain's disparaging observation approximately golfing he says many consider on foot to be the central function of golf for this reason Mark Twain's conventional complaint of the sport a good stroll spoiled but Scalia misses an essential characteristic of video games and the arguments approximately rights and fairness that rise up from games while he casts video games sports activities athletic competitions as totally for the sake of leisure and totally a utilitarian hobby however an Aristotelian view of sports says no it is no longer pretty much entertainment actual sports real athletic occasions are also approximately appreciation not simply enjoyment and those who comply with sports activities and care about sports and play sports know this that is any other way of pronouncing there may be a difference among a game and a trifling spectacle and the distinction is that a sport is a exercise that calls forth and honors and prizes certain excellences positive virtues and the people who recognize those virtues are the authentic lovers the knowledgeable enthusiasts and for them looking the game isn't mere enjoyment however which means that it is constantly possible to make feel of a debate approximately what feature of a recreation is essential to it we will make experience of those arguments by no means mind the question whether the court docket need to decide the PGA in its very own inner deliberations can make sense of that discuss which is why they cared very lots about their view insisting on their view that walking and exertion and fatigue are important not peripheral parts of game well this is all to demonstrate the teleological and the honorific characteristic of debates about rights which Aristotle says we want to take account of in about justice now I want to start for us to keep in mind whether or not Aristotle's theory of justice is right or wrong whether or not it's persuasive or unpersuasive I need to get your mind about that however I want to expect one apparent and vital objection if justice is about suit becoming folks to roles matching virtues to the appropriate honours in popularity if that's what justice is does it leave room for freedom and that is one of the important objections to Aristotle's teleological account of Justice if positive roles social roles are becoming or suitable to me where does that depart my proper to pick my social roles my lifestyles functions for myself what room does teleology depart for freedom and in fact can also bear in mind Rawls rejects teleological bills of justice because he says that teleological theories of justice threaten the same simple rights of residents so allow's allow's start to take a look at whether Aristotle is right and mainly whether or not his teleological way of considering justice is at odds with freedom now one obvious motive to fear is Aristotle's defense of slavery he defends slavery which existed as an group in the Athens of his day well what is his defense of slavery two matters two conditions ought to be met for slavery to be just first it needs to be essential and Aristotle says as a minimum in our society slavery is essential why is it necessary if there are to be citizens who're freed from guide and menial and household chores to go to the meeting to deliberate about politics there need to be a few who appearance after those menial responsibilities the mere requirements of lifestyles he says except you can invent in some science fiction a technological repair then there are going to be the ones who've to do the hard and tough and menial labor if there are to be citizens taking into consideration approximately the coolest and understanding their nature so slavery is necessary for the existence of the polis for there to be open to residents the lifestyles of deliberation of argument of realistic understanding however there may be a further situation that must be met slavery has now not simplest to be important for the community as an entire to characteristic however it also must be the case don't forget the criterion of healthy it also needs to be the case that there are some human beings for whom being a slave is the just or the best or the right circumstance now Aristotle concurs that through his own requirements each of these situations ought to be met should be genuine if slavery is to be just and then in a deplorable passage he says nicely it's miles true that there are some people who are match with the aid of nature who're cut out to be slaves these are those who differ from regular human beings inside the identical manner that the body differs from the soul these are individuals who are meant to be ruled and for them their nature is first-class realized if they are slaves they can understand reason in others however they cannot partake of it they can't workout it and one way or the other we are able to know this now Aristotle have to have recognised that there was something dodgy something strained about this declare because he speedy acknowledges that those who disagree may additionally have a point and what folks that disagree point out is that there are quite a few humans in Athens who are slaves now not due to the fact they have been born to be slaves or match to be slaves however because they were captured they were losers in a war and so Aristotle admits that as practiced in historical Athens slavery didn't necessarily line up with who definitely is healthy or born to be a slave due to the fact a few actual slaves just have been slaves through awful good fortune by using being captured in a conflict and on Aristotle's very own account despite the fact that it's necessary to have slavery for the sake of this of citizenship it's unjust if folks that aren't properly slaves are solid in that position there's a misfit Aristotle acknowledges that slavery for individuals who are not match for the challenge is a kind of coercion the motive slavery is incorrect isn't because it's coerced coercion is a trademark that it is wrong as it's not herbal if you have to coerce a person into a position it is a quite correct indication that they don't belong there that that position isn't always becoming for them and Aristotle diagnosed this so all of this is to mention the example of slavery Aristotle's protection of it doesn't show that us something incorrect in principle with teleological argument with the concept of Justice as match among humans and roles as it's perfectly feasible inside Aristotle's very own phrases to give an explanation for what's wrong with this software this realistic application that he product of his idea I want to turn to the larger mission to Aristotle in the call of freedom but before I do that I need to see what human beings consider Aristotle's account of Justice as healthy his teleological manner a reasoning about justice and the honorific dimension of Rights and of distributive justice that emerged in our dialogue of flutes and politics and golf questions of explanation about Aristotle or objections to his standard account yes my objection to Aristotle is that he desires to match someone to a role and in case you stroll like a pirate and also you talk like a pirate you understand you must be a pirate and and that is what is right and so what what is abnormal and seem paradoxical to me about Aristotle's viewpoint is that in case you walk like a pirate and you communicate like a pirate you shouldn't be an investment banker due to the fact that is that's no longer what you in right here and he's alleged to do if you have a peg leg and a watch patch and a disgruntled disposition you already know you must be on a pirate deliver on the high seas so he doesn't his a a few could say some could say the the difference among the two vocations isn't always as clean as you propose all right however it's true I take the factor sure pass beforehand it simply seems to ignore individual rights so I is probably the right janitor inside the entire world and i can try this activity the maximum efficaciously out of anyone that exists proper now however I might not want to do that i would need to do another quantity of pursuits and it seems to say that that isn't in reality a great alternative for me all proper and what's your name Mary Kate true all right permit's allow's take a couple more sure I suppose that the golf cart change kind of delivered up what I see is my major objection to this theological mode of reasoning I imply Michael I suppose that became your call right believes that taking walks is an inherent a part of golf myself I agree with the strolling is not an inherent part of golfing and i feel that regardless of how lengthy we debate this unique factor of competition we're by no means going to attain an accord the theological framework of reasoning I believe doesn't genuinely allow us to return to any kind of settlement all proper and what is your call Patrick Patrick all proper allow me try to deal with this set of objections to Aristotle permit me begin with Patrick's it's an important objection we had a debate approximately whether on foot is vital to golfing and even in so reputedly trivial or at least contained the cases that we couldn't agree how can we likely hope to agree while the stakes are better and when we are debating the fundamental functions or ends a political network and so if we can not agree on what the ends or the goods of our shared public existence consist in how are we able to base justice and rights on some notion of what the end or the cause or the best consists in it really is an vital of Jack a lot so that plenty modern-day political idea takes that involved approximately confrontation over the best as its place to begin and concludes that justice and rights and constitutions ought to now not be based totally on any particular theory of the coolest or the functions of political existence but should as a substitute provide our framework of Rights that leaves human beings loose to pick out their conceptions of the good their personal conceptions of the purposes of life now Mary Kate stated what if a person is very properly appropriate to having a positive position like the function of being a janitor however what some thing else desires to attain higher wants to select every other way of lifestyles so that is going back to this query about freedom if we take our bearing as persons from roles which are stated to fit our nature shouldn't it at the least be up to us to decide what the ones roles are in reality shouldn't or not it's as much as us to outline what roles are suitable to us and that's going to take us back to the disagreement between Aristotle on the only hand and content Rawls on the alternative content material Rawls assume Patrick has a point they say exactly because people disagree in pluralist societies approximately the character of the coolest existence we shouldn't try to base justice on any precise answer to that question so that they reject teleology they reject the concept of tying justice to a few concept of the best what is at stake within the debate about teleology say Rawls Ian and Conte and liberals is this in case you tie justice to a specific concept of the best if you see justice as a remember of fit between a person and his or her roles you don't leave room for freedom and to be unfastened is to be unbiased of any specific function or traditions or conventions that can be handed down through my dad and mom or my society so which will determine as among these wide traditions whether or not Aristotle is proper or whether or not Canton guidelines are proper we need to investigate whether the proper is prior to the good query one and we need to investigate what it manner to be a unfastened character a free ethical agent does freedom require that I stand in the direction of my roles my ends and my purposes as an agent of choice or as a person seeking to find out what my nature really is massive questions and we're going to take them up subsequent time don't miss the risk to engage on line with different viewers of Justice join the verbal exchange take a pop quiz watch lectures you have neglected and examine plenty more go to justiceharvard.org it's the proper component to do