Assignment Prompt & Instructions
check file
– ## dic3.docx
**## dic3.docx**
REPLY Eve, Tyl, and Brian’s post below
Eve Ol
1.
**Reconcile the differences, somehow, between libertarianism and utilitarianism. Explain how a person could subscribe to both.**
A person could be both by prioritizing individual liberty while also considering the overall welfare of the society. If they balance individual freedom with overall well-being by limiting government intervention, supporting free markets, and establishing a clear rule of law.
2.
**Which side has the more defensible libertarian position, and why? Show how the other side is using libertarianism inappropriately.**
The heart of libertarianism the principle of individual liberty and self-ownership which means each person has the right to control their own body and make their own choices free from government interference. Pro-choice position is more defensible from a libertarian perspective because it aligns more with self-ownership and limited government intervention. The pro-life requires defining when a fetus has full rights and justifies government intervention, which is less consistent with libertarian principles.
·
**Tyl Sel**
**_Number Two:_** All actions and every decision that humans make stems from the pursuit of pleasure or the avoidance of pain. Now, of course, pleasure and pain are big influences, they are not the sole influences on why we make certain decisions. However, many of our actions are driven by motives that resist hedonic measurement. Consider altruism, where people believe in helping others even at the expense of themselves. For example, consider this scenario: “A fire starts in a small apartment complex, a resident named Luke sees his neighbor, eighty-six-year-old Nanci, trapped on the second floor as the fire continues to rise. Climbing up the stairs would lead to excruciating burns. In the event of the pleasure and pain calculus, many people would retreat, being safe from the pain. However, Luke needs to hurry if he wants to save her or not, the longer he waits the more futile his efforts become, so in a split-second decision he lunges forward running through the flames to get to the second floor. Eventually, he is able to save Nanci, at the expense of recovering from second- and first-degree burns. Feelings did not play any role in his split decision. He did not do it for a reward, or his face in the newspaper. Rather, it was his moral compass that outweighed temporal feelings and binary calculation of pleasure and pain.” Note, that this situation is fictitious, however many similar situations have occurred. This situation illustrates that not every human action can be reduced to solely the pursuit of pleasure, and the avoidance of pain. Instead, as demonstrated, Luke revealed through altruism that there are higher values, such as: Empathy, duty, and moral integrity. If our actions were simply hedonic signals, Luke would have never gone into that fire. Situations that display altruism, the pursuit of moral integrity, or even self-sacrifice shut down the pleasure and pain model.
Some might say that self-sacrifice provides psychological or existential fulfillment, aligning with a broader scale of pleasure, or that altruism can still fit within a pleasure-pain framework. However, this would go against the original claim of avoiding pain and maximizing pleasure. Continuing, let's look at utilitarian John Stuart Mill and his higher and lower pleasures concept. His claim of there being higher and lower pleasures would go against the original claim of utilitarianism. If all human actions were governed solely by pleasure and pain, there would be no need to differentiate the types and qualities of both pleasure and pain. The fact that one must have to rank pleasures mathematically suggests that a simple binary model whitewashes over a complex motivational spectrum. The utilitarian premise is simply reductive, as when ethics are built upon this pleasure and pain calculus. It gives grounds for justifying outcomes that neglect the rights of individuals. When you insist that all human actions are only governed by two sovereign masters you get ethically troubling conclusions. Which could look like sacrificing the rights or well-being of a minority for the pleasure of the majority.
**_Number Three:_** Abortion, a complex issue that many debate about. However, both Democrats and Republicans agree on self-ownership, but they disagree on who has it. Democrats claim women have the right to abortion due to having self-ownership of their own body. Meanwhile, Republicans claim the fetus has self-ownership rights. Libertarianism self-ownership is centered around an individual who is a self-aware autonomous agent, is the rightful owner of their body. Thus, they should be able to freely decide what happens to it. The Democratic defense is that since the fetus is not a self-aware autonomous agent until the last trimester, the woman has the right to abort the baby. Due to the fact that she controls her body and what happens to it. Which by libertarian standards is more defensible, than the Republican argument.
The Republican argument is that the fetus is a potential human being, therefore it is entitled to its own self ownership. However, with Libertarianism standards there are some critical issues in this claim. Continuing, one of the biggest issues is the conflicting rights. If we grant the fetus self-ownership it would directly conflict with the women’s self-ownership.
Libertarian ideology does not support the infringement of one individual’s rights in order to ascribe rights to another entity. In this case, it does not support the infringement of women's rights in order to give the fetus rights. Another point is dependency, a fetus is biologically and physically dependent on the woman. The argument that a fetus is an independent self-owner can’t be true, due to, being the fetus is dependent on the woman; therefore, a fetus cannot be independent. Giving rights of self-ownership to an entity that is not self-aware, independent, or decision-making capabilities goes against the original concept of self-ownership.
From a strictly libertarian perspective, the Democratic position of the woman’s self-ownership is the more defensible position. Due to, it follows the principle that only self-aware autonomous individuals can be the rightful owners of themselves. Thus, when you extend self-ownership rights to a fetus it mislabeles the libertarian principles by conferring rights to an entity that lacks independent agency.
**Brian**
**Prompt 1: Reconciling Libertarianism and Utilitarianism**
While libertarianism and utilitarianism are clearly in how they define justice, i think it's possible for someone to subscribe to parts of both. Libertarianism values personal freedom and the idea that we own ourselves, while utilitarianism is more about maximizing happiness and minimizing harm for the most people. These don't always have conflict.
For example, someone could generally believe in individual rights but still support certain policies that promote overall well- being. Think about public health policies- wearing a seatbelt might restrict freedom in a small way, but it saves lives and reduces harm, so a person might support that form a utilitarian perspective. So even though the theories start from different premises, i believe someone could find a middle ground: defend freedom unless the consequences would cause serious harm to others. That seems like a more balanced and realistic approach to ethics in the real world.
**Quote:** "Libertarians believe that each of us has a fundamental right to liberty- the right to do whatever we want with the things we own, provided we respect other people's rights to do the same." (Chapter 3: Do We Own Ourselves?)
**Quote:** "The utilitarian idea of maximizing the sum of satisfactions may seem straightforward, but it sometimes leads to troubling moral conclusions." (Chapter 2: The Greatest Happiness Principle)
**Prompt 3: Abortion and Libertarian Reasoning- Which Side Applies It Better?**
To me, Democrats have a more defensible libertarian position on abortion. Libertarianism is about self-ownership and the freedom to make decisions about your own body. From that view, it seems more consistent to say that pregnant person should have the final say. If libertarians argue that the government shouldn't control what to do with your own property or body (like selling organs), then logically, they shouldn't support the government forcing someone to carry a pregnancy they don't want.
Republicans often try to use libertarian logic by claiming to defend the fetus's rights. But that seems inconsistent, because it ignores the bodily autonomy of the pregnant person. You can't really claim to support personal freedom and self-ownership while also saying the government should control someone's reproductive choices. So, I think the democrats apply libertarian principles more consistently in the case.
**Quote**: "The idea that we own ourselves- that our bodies and out talents belong to us- underlies the libertarian case for individual rights." (Chapter 3)
**Quote**: "For libertarians, to coerce someone for the sake of promoting virtue, or to prevent self-inflicted harm, is a violation of that person's liberty." (Chapter 3)
**## dic3.docx**
REPLY Eve, Tyl, and Brian’s post below
Eve Ol
1.
**Reconcile the differences, somehow, between libertarianism and utilitarianism. Explain how a person could subscribe to both.**
A person could be both by prioritizing individual liberty while also considering the overall welfare of the society. If they balance individual freedom with overall well-being by limiting government intervention, supporting free markets, and establishing a clear rule of law.
2.
**Which side has the more defensible libertarian position, and why? Show how the other side is using libertarianism inappropriately.**
The heart of libertarianism the principle of individual liberty and self-ownership which means each person has the right to control their own body and make their own choices free from government interference. Pro-choice position is more defensible from a libertarian perspective because it aligns more with self-ownership and limited government intervention. The pro-life requires defining when a fetus has full rights and justifies government intervention, which is less consistent with libertarian principles.
·
**Tyl Sel**
**_Number Two:_** All actions and every decision that humans make stems from the pursuit of pleasure or the avoidance of pain. Now, of course, pleasure and pain are big influences, they are not the sole influences on why we make certain decisions. However, many of our actions are driven by motives that resist hedonic measurement. Consider altruism, where people believe in helping others even at the expense of themselves. For example, consider this scenario: “A fire starts in a small apartment complex, a resident named Luke sees his neighbor, eighty-six-year-old Nanci, trapped on the second floor as the fire continues to rise. Climbing up the stairs would lead to excruciating burns. In the event of the pleasure and pain calculus, many people would retreat, being safe from the pain. However, Luke needs to hurry if he wants to save her or not, the longer he waits the more futile his efforts become, so in a split-second decision he lunges forward running through the flames to get to the second floor. Eventually, he is able to save Nanci, at the expense of recovering from second- and first-degree burns. Feelings did not play any role in his split decision. He did not do it for a reward, or his face in the newspaper. Rather, it was his moral compass that outweighed temporal feelings and binary calculation of pleasure and pain.” Note, that this situation is fictitious, however many similar situations have occurred. This situation illustrates that not every human action can be reduced to solely the pursuit of pleasure, and the avoidance of pain. Instead, as demonstrated, Luke revealed through altruism that there are higher values, such as: Empathy, duty, and moral integrity. If our actions were simply hedonic signals, Luke would have never gone into that fire. Situations that display altruism, the pursuit of moral integrity, or even self-sacrifice shut down the pleasure and pain model.
Some might say that self-sacrifice provides psychological or existential fulfillment, aligning with a broader scale of pleasure, or that altruism can still fit within a pleasure-pain framework. However, this would go against the original claim of avoiding pain and maximizing pleasure. Continuing, let's look at utilitarian John Stuart Mill and his higher and lower pleasures concept. His claim of there being higher and lower pleasures would go against the original claim of utilitarianism. If all human actions were governed solely by pleasure and pain, there would be no need to differentiate the types and qualities of both pleasure and pain. The fact that one must have to rank pleasures mathematically suggests that a simple binary model whitewashes over a complex motivational spectrum. The utilitarian premise is simply reductive, as when ethics are built upon this pleasure and pain calculus. It gives grounds for justifying outcomes that neglect the rights of individuals. When you insist that all human actions are only governed by two sovereign masters you get ethically troubling conclusions. Which could look like sacrificing the rights or well-being of a minority for the pleasure of the majority.
**_Number Three:_** Abortion, a complex issue that many debate about. However, both Democrats and Republicans agree on self-ownership, but they disagree on who has it. Democrats claim women have the right to abortion due to having self-ownership of their own body. Meanwhile, Republicans claim the fetus has self-ownership rights. Libertarianism self-ownership is centered around an individual who is a self-aware autonomous agent, is the rightful owner of their body. Thus, they should be able to freely decide what happens to it. The Democratic defense is that since the fetus is not a self-aware autonomous agent until the last trimester, the woman has the right to abort the baby. Due to the fact that she controls her body and what happens to it. Which by libertarian standards is more defensible, than the Republican argument.
The Republican argument is that the fetus is a potential human being, therefore it is entitled to its own self ownership. However, with Libertarianism standards there are some critical issues in this claim. Continuing, one of the biggest issues is the conflicting rights. If we grant the fetus self-ownership it would directly conflict with the women’s self-ownership.
Libertarian ideology does not support the infringement of one individual’s rights in order to ascribe rights to another entity. In this case, it does not support the infringement of women's rights in order to give the fetus rights. Another point is dependency, a fetus is biologically and physically dependent on the woman. The argument that a fetus is an independent self-owner can’t be true, due to, being the fetus is dependent on the woman; therefore, a fetus cannot be independent. Giving rights of self-ownership to an entity that is not self-aware, independent, or decision-making capabilities goes against the original concept of self-ownership.
From a strictly libertarian perspective, the Democratic position of the woman’s self-ownership is the more defensible position. Due to, it follows the principle that only self-aware autonomous individuals can be the rightful owners of themselves. Thus, when you extend self-ownership rights to a fetus it mislabeles the libertarian principles by conferring rights to an entity that lacks independent agency.
**Brian**
**Prompt 1: Reconciling Libertarianism and Utilitarianism**
While libertarianism and utilitarianism are clearly in how they define justice, i think it's possible for someone to subscribe to parts of both. Libertarianism values personal freedom and the idea that we own ourselves, while utilitarianism is more about maximizing happiness and minimizing harm for the most people. These don't always have conflict.
For example, someone could generally believe in individual rights but still support certain policies that promote overall well- being. Think about public health policies- wearing a seatbelt might restrict freedom in a small way, but it saves lives and reduces harm, so a person might support that form a utilitarian perspective. So even though the theories start from different premises, i believe someone could find a middle ground: defend freedom unless the consequences would cause serious harm to others. That seems like a more balanced and realistic approach to ethics in the real world.
**Quote:** "Libertarians believe that each of us has a fundamental right to liberty- the right to do whatever we want with the things we own, provided we respect other people's rights to do the same." (Chapter 3: Do We Own Ourselves?)
**Quote:** "The utilitarian idea of maximizing the sum of satisfactions may seem straightforward, but it sometimes leads to troubling moral conclusions." (Chapter 2: The Greatest Happiness Principle)
**Prompt 3: Abortion and Libertarian Reasoning- Which Side Applies It Better?**
To me, Democrats have a more defensible libertarian position on abortion. Libertarianism is about self-ownership and the freedom to make decisions about your own body. From that view, it seems more consistent to say that pregnant person should have the final say. If libertarians argue that the government shouldn't control what to do with your own property or body (like selling organs), then logically, they shouldn't support the government forcing someone to carry a pregnancy they don't want.
Republicans often try to use libertarian logic by claiming to defend the fetus's rights. But that seems inconsistent, because it ignores the bodily autonomy of the pregnant person. You can't really claim to support personal freedom and self-ownership while also saying the government should control someone's reproductive choices. So, I think the democrats apply libertarian principles more consistently in the case.
**Quote**: "The idea that we own ourselves- that our bodies and out talents belong to us- underlies the libertarian case for individual rights." (Chapter 3)
**Quote**: "For libertarians, to coerce someone for the sake of promoting virtue, or to prevent self-inflicted harm, is a violation of that person's liberty." (Chapter 3)