Samenvatting
Summary LJM 1 Final Exam Study Guide
- Instelling
- Universiteit Van Amsterdam (UvA)
- Boek
- Justice
study guide for the final exam of the course LJM 1
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 88 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 88 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Gekoppeld boek
Titel boek:
Auteur(s):
- Uitgave:
- ISBN:
- Druk:
Verkoper
VolgenVoorbeeld van de inhoud
Lecture 1A● Question: what is the right thing to do?
○ Contextual: not a single answer, it depends on the context you are functioning in
○ Three domains you can approach this question: law, justice, morality (interrelated)
● (1) Morality: informal, public system of ideas applying to people
○ Aimed at achieving the good life and governing behavior that affects oneself and people
one interacts with
○ Includes moral rules, ideals, virtues: set of theories concerning the good life
○ Informal: no established procedure or authority that can settle all controversial questions
○ Overwhelming agreement on majority of issues: no external actor who can give the final
answer, but not a problem because we mostly agree more than we think we do
○ Public system: should be distinguished from private
■ All those to whom it applies must understand it and it shouldn’t be irrational for
them to use it in making decisions/judging others to whom the system applies
■ But basic set of rules should be clear to do so
■ Some morality can be private/personal: guiding my behaviour without consulting
others (morality in a public consultation)
○ Problem: not morality but moralities
■ Rawls: “We should accept the fact of pluralism of religions and ideas of the good
life.”
■ There is a plurality in our societies, can’t deny: when we talk about morality, we
take specifics (i.e. Christian morality, blue-collar morality)
○ Religion: subcategory of morality
■ Following the rules of religion provides a better life
■ It is a culturally-mediated yet universal feature of human condition
■ Even though religions are written down, they are still informal
● (2) Justice: informal public system of rules, concerning the correct way of collectively organizing
formal institutions in society
○ Rawls: distributing the burdens/benefits of social cooperation in society
■ Membership to such is not voluntary, no real exit option (going to another
country is not it, there is no rule-free space in the world)
■ Since it is involuntary, we should strive to make the rules just for all of us
● Not good life for us as a person but a just-society
○ Informal: a political debate between theorists
○ Public system: the rules should be discussed with others
○ Morality vs. justice
■ Morality is how one should live one’s life and treat others, it is about interactions
in daily lives
■ Justice is how we as members of society organize society to have just rules
● (3) Law: a formal system of public rules, explicitly written down, within a society
○ This explicit part distinguishes law from morality and justice
○ Formal system: unlike morality and justice
■ There is a specific decision procedure that can settle controversial questions
○ It is clear who can make law and by what procedure
, ■ Law making by parliament, adjudicating by judges
○ More consistent, binding, and robust than other two
○ Formal but not set in stone
■ Legislation is a necessary closure of public/political debates
■ There is always law until new law/interpretation
■ “Stroboscopic” alteration with every new, relevant piece of legislation (the
moment decision is made, that is a binding law)
○ Legal positivism: best ways of understanding law vs. justice/morality
■ law/legal order, set of rules laid down by specific people within institutions with
law making authority
■ Whether the law is made by the correct institution:
● only think that is relevant, not that it is moral/just, no legal impact until
translated to law
■ Just because they are reasonable rules doesn’t make it a recognized source of law
■ Primary reason why we treat legal rules as laws is their source: source thesis
●
Morality Justice Law
private/public: can be public public
understood as set of
rules
Informal: no final informal formal
actor to determine
what is correct
Subject The good life The just society A specific set of
binding rules
determined by a
specific set of
institutions
Academic field Ethics Political philosophy Legal studies
● Interrelations: no convincing moral theory, justice, or law without determinance
○ They overlap, but separation of them is helpful in resolving disagreements:
■ “a heuristic division of the inseparable”
● Ordinary life: as citizens, we accept the rules made for us
○ We can disagree, but being a part of society implies that most of the time law is binding
○ Rule-following behavior, but we also critically reflect on law, discuss in public, propose
legal reform
● Rule-breaking alternatives:
○ Criminals: concealed rule breaking, more convenient to break the rule but not necessarily
dispute the rules
○ Civil disobedience: bringing the rules visibly to bring it into discussion done to change
rules
, ○ Vigilantism: illegitimately acting as law enforcer without legal authority
■ (breaking the rule that the state has the monopoly of using force)
○ Revolution: whole set of rules broken, based on considerations of morality or justice
● Theories of justice have very specific roles in society as membership in a society is involuntary
● How do we organize society in a just way? Why do we need the state in the first place?
○ It is a social construction
○ Rules that we make together to organize our lives
○ Basic facts of the conditions of human life: these make necessary for state to emerge
■ Scarcity: equality of need, limited altruism, we want ro help but ensure that our
family and ourselves are okay as well
● If all of us were altruists, we wouldn’t need rules to distribute resources
or natural resources
■ Moral plurality: so we need state
■ Essential equality of human power: not a single strongest person (natural leader
doesn’t exist, so we need a way to organize leadership without fights, civil war)
○ We need something that governs all of us: so a state
○ It is evident for the majority that we need a state, so current political theorists focus on
the question: if the state is justified, how should the government be organized to represent
a just state?
● Do we have an alternative to the current state?
○ Hobbes/Locke: only alternative is the “state of nature,” romantic idea, we live together
without formal legal limitation (no law)
■ No one to help us, we figure it out on our own.
■ This might look attractive, but when you realize you aren’t the only one liking
that way, it generates insecurity, mistrust, violence
■ So state of nature is an unpleasant place to be
■ Why would I invest in long-term plans if anyone can violate?
■ So nothing would evelop: no culture, navigation, knowledge
■ No time to do so because we would try to get food and not be attacked by others,
rather than building knowledge
● So state: apparatus that protects one from others
○ Hobbes: social contract (beginning of institution of law)
■ People come into an agreement consisting of the set f rules that allow peaceful
social order
■ Rules that both limit us and protect us: limiting opportunities of both myself and
others, but I don’t have to worry about my security
■ We all accept to give up some freedom to the state to be protected from others
who might attack us
○ Rousseau's social contract: more romantic
■ When we become citizens in a state, we become a different person
■ We get rid of instincts of take whatever you can
■ Thus, your acts get morality
■ Once you are protected by the state you can start investing your time to fruitful
things
, ■ Entering civil society makes you a “person,” intelligent being (not merely a
human being)
● Earlier theories of justice explain why we need the state, but current discussions take states for
granted and talk about how we can organize states so that they are just
● State is primarily there to provide public goods:
○ Public goods are non-excludable (important to exclude people)
■ Non-rivalrous (one’s use doesn’t limit others)
■ Security as the most fundamental public good (Hobbes)
■ Problem: public goods open room for free-riding (having such goods without
paying): as they are non-excludable, even if one doesn’t pay they can use it
○ Private goods can be distributed through market
Tutorial 1A
● Moral reasoning meets legal reasoning
○ Sandel: moral reasoning is the ability to develop sound moral principles
● Origins of the legal system: how did law come about?
● Origins of civil law legal systems: Western Europe
○ Roman law
○ Canon law (church law)
○ Commercial law
○ Revolutionary law
○ Legal science
● Codification allows for legal certainty: presumed security that law will be applied consistently
● Origins of common law:
○ civil (not strict) vs. common law traditions (more developed by judicial law-making)
● Sources of law:
○ Customary law
○ Natural law
○ Positive law (always stems from a legitimate actor/source)
■ Something that we decide to create, not something floating in the universe
■ Dominant in the 19th century
■ From a purely positivist perspective: Nazi law is valid
● So we need to go beyond positivism
● Source thesis: if a rule stems from an official source, it is a legal rule.
○ Moral thinking shouldn’t be involved
● Status: laws passed by parliament through official procedures
● Private law: presumed equality within parties
○ Property law
○ Contract law
○ Tort law
○ Family law
○ Law of commerce
○ Private international law
● Public law: difference between the equality of parties involved
○ Criminal law: shields to protect individual from overwhelming power of state
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper mynymn. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €6,89. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 67866 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen