PPECMC2022Sextons

I wanted to touch on the distinction between efficient and final causes that Smith laid out. But Zac got there first, and I think per explained it in far greater detail than I would've. So, instead, I want to write about Smith's later remarks in Pt. 2, Sec. 2, Ch 3. that discuss the relationship between society and the individual against the backdrop of his discussion of efficient and final causes.  Later on in chapter 3, Smith continues by discussing punishment within the context of the efficient and final causes. First, however, we should recall the connection between justice and punishment. Justice is a virtue "of which the observance is not left to the freedom of our own wills, which may be extorted by force, and of which the violation exposes to resentment, and consequently to punishment" (96 - Sec. 2 Ch. I). We should keep in mind here the relation of the feeling of resentment to the virtue of justice, and the necessity of punishment as a response to actions tha...

In this blog post, I want to apply Smith’s claims about beneficent actions to the example of nepotism. In doing so, I hope to illuminate how Smith’s delineation between positive acts of beneficence and positive acts of injustice may leave us ill equipped to address problems that we would perceive as unfair or unjust.  In Smith’s view, an act of beneficence is a positive good added to another’s life, and acts of beneficence cannot be seized by force. We have no right to receive acts of beneficence from others, but we have a right that protects us against acts of injustice from others. In this way, acts of positive good are different from acts of positive hurt–acts of positive hurt can be punished, but the lack of acts of positive good cannot be punished. For example, Smith says that the lack of beneficence in a father’s behavior toward his son cannot be punished. In contrast, if a father were to do positive harm to the son’s life by injuring him physically, the father could be punis...

As many of my classmates had pointed out, Smith makes the distinction between efficient and final cause. While "the digestion of the food, the circulation of the blood, and the secretion of several juices" are all necessary operations for the purpose of human survival, and while "the wheels of the watch are all admirably adjusted to the end for which it was made", they have not been ascribed any desire or intention (78). Rather, by their very nature of design, the effects of a healthy human body or an accurate watch are achieved.  The human mind, however, is a different story. Whereas in the previous examples, the processes that are described simply "do", rather than "think and do", humans like to ascribe rationalizations to our actions. As Zac points out, we like to retroactively call our actions efficient, whereas in reality we simply act upon our instincts towards a final cause. Smith describes this as us imagining "that (our actions) to ...

  Smith says “the observance of the rules of [justice seem] scarce to deserve any reward” (82). I think it is fair to say this is a generally accepted sentiment. Most people agree that acting in accordance with the rules of justice does not deserve a reward, but this made me think: when do we reward people for acting in accordance with the rules of justice?  Plea deals are a prominent example of this. One criminal receives a reduced sentence if he pleads guilty and helps the justice department apprehend other criminals. I will consider two types of plea deals in a society with just laws and law enforcement officers. In the first, the criminal receives a deal in exchange for testifying in the case of other criminals. In the second, the criminal goes undercover and helps the police obtain evidence.  In the first example, it is hard to say that the criminal is doing anything more than observing the rules of justice. The court could have subpoenaed him and brought him int...

I found reading Smith's theory of Moral Sentiments interesting because a lot of it felt nothing like what he's purported to be according to all the "father of capitalism" stuff. I see how he developed something like the invisible hand because of how he develops his theory: based on observation. He makes empirical claims above human behavior in relation to which actions we approve and disapprove based on how much we can sympathize with the actor. Both this theory and the one about the invisible hand seems to be an explanation about an observed phenomena.  While I think that the method he uses to develop his theories are similar, the ideas present in this piece seems radically different than ideas on capitalism. The ideas that he present in Chapter two remind me a lot of Kantian ethics. The specific passage that reminded me of this was:  "When he views himself in the light in which he is conscious that others will view him, he sees that to them he is but one of the...

 I left my tutorial in Tuesday with a clear idea of Smith's purpose of TToMS, however after reading this section, once again have doubts. Smith makes it very clear that justice is fundamental to society. He writes that Justice is the "main pillar that upholds the whole edifice. If it is removed, the great, the immense fabric of society, that fabric with to raise and support seems in this world...must in a moment crumble into atoms" (104). It would seem that the maintenance of justice is not just a worthy goal, but one that should explicitly be a priority in society. However, he goes to say that we punish crimes against individuals for a reason other than a "regard to the preservation of society" (108). We are concerned for the fortune and happiness of individuals for a reason other than the fortune and happiness of society" (108). This struck me as surprising given this theme of a harmonious society that I thought to be the point of Smith's writings. Wh...

  And if anyone can explain in their blog post, or in class, why Smith deploys a distinction between efficient and final causes in his argument here, i.e. what the distinction is, and what role it plays in his argument. Challenge accepted. Smiths main focus in part 2 section 2 chapter 3 is on preservation of society. He begins by establishing how a society bound by love and affection with mutual need and mutual injuries and reciprocal assistance as a sort of ideal society. However, he then argues that a society without mutual love, or a society of merchants may be less happy but would still persist through the merchant's persistent sense of liberty. Even societies of thieves may persist so long as they do not steal for each other. However, Smith argues the largest threat to society that prevents its subsistence is a society in which people hurt and injure at all times.  Thus Smith establishes Justice as the main pillar of society which ensures its continued subsistence. He the...

  Smith in chapter 3 develops an argument of why there is a common approbation for punishment of injustice. He states that a society cannot exist unless laws of justice are followed and individuals in general do not injure each other. Thus, for that to happen, we need to create punishments for those who violate the laws of justice.   This line of reasoning will, in Smith’s account, appeal to an individual because his interest relates to the interest of society. As a “man has a natural love for society” and wants to live in an “orderly and flourishing state of society” rather than in “disorder and confusion.” Moreover, because of this connection between an individual and the state. One will do everything one can to prevent the society from being destroyed and thus, injustice. When one will witness injustice, one should do everything in their power to stop it from happening even if it requires the use of force and violence (even capital punishment). Because if it is not stopped ...

In this blogpost, I want to focus on Professor Shelby's discussion/link between prisons, punishment, and condemnation. According to Prof. Shelby the penal system has two roles: (1) to "provide reasonable assurance to law-abiding members of society that free riding won't be available" (232) and (2) "to deter would-be aggressors before they have a chance to victimize others" (233.) In its first role, punishment enforces reciprocity by making sure that others do not benefit from legal protections while themselves not adhering to the laws that provide these protections. In its second role, punishment is used as a threat to halt transgressions against others before they are administered.  If these are meant to be the ideal of a penal system, would you say the American penal system (which relies heavily of imprisonment) meets it? I feel that the American prison system in particular does not just play these two ideal roles. Considering the history of especially pri...

Tim’s critique of Shelby’s argument appears to have an implicitly consequentialist lens (“logical soundness does not tend to correlate or justify real-life consequences”) (¶1). I argue that this seems to conflate “logical soundness” (¶1) with Shelby’s explicit appeal to the existence of justice and one’s duties of justice and self respect. While Shelby would likely argue that achieving a society with institutions and interactions that reflect a just basic structure would produce beneficial consequences—say in the form of increased life expectancy or higher lifetime earnings—that would not be the primary motivation for doing so. The achievement of social justice would be the primary aim.  The consequences to which Tim appeals appear to be a “rapid increase in crime rates which…would undermine the social order” and other associated effects (¶3). While there may be other consequences Tim would appeal to, I will mainly consider the effect of undermining or otherwise disrupting the soci...

In Chapter 8 of Dark Ghettos, Shelby makes a distinction between legitimate authority and legitimate enforcement rights. While a place like the United States (due to its complicity and inadequacy in addressing the unjust inequalities still prevalent especially in areas such as ghettos) does not have legitimate authority and can not condemn on the grounds of civic reciprocity, it does have enforcement legitimacy and thus the right to punish some crimes in order to deter and contain it. Shelby explains the justification for enforcement legitimacy is to protect the vulnerable from unjustified harm (248). He then describes an example of a poor black person refusing to submit to the state’s efforts to hold him accountable for alleged lawbreaking (247).  In this case, the state retains its right of enforcement but the accused also has a right to resist being held accountable. The accused has no duty to submit to the state’s mechanisms and can not be blamed for attempting to evade capture...

 In Dark Ghettos, Shelby argues that members of the ghetto poor are entirely justified in committing crimes against people who unfairly benefit from the unjust systems at hand. This is because the failure of reciprocity warrants committing crimes against people who are unfairly benefiting from current systems.  Shelby states that "Persons with a strong sense of self-respect sometimes refuse to co-operate with the demands of an unjust society. They stand up for themselves, are defiant in the fact of illegitimate authority, refuse to comply with unjust social requirements, protest maltreatment and humiliation, and so on, even when they know that such actions will not bring about justice or reduce their suffering. Self-respect, then, can be a matter of living with a sense of moral pride despite unjust conditions." I would argue this means that for members of the Black ghetto poor, committing crimes is an act of self-respect. Black people see the ways in which their suffering is ...

 I generally agree with former posts on how the justification of crimes committed by the ghetto poor can yield morally questionable court decisions and social consequences. However, I would like to approach the critique of Shelby’s argument in a different manner. Shelby seems to be enlisting two standards for tolerable or even reasonable crimes. One is that “we do not have obligations to unjust institutions, or at least not to institutions that exceed the limits of tolerable injustice” under the general expectation of reciprocity (214). Another one is that in a consumerist capitalist society, citizens have the right to acquire a certain level of quality of life, beyond merely their “constitutional essentials” being secured by the institutions (214 to I don’t remember). I would like to offer some points of theoretical critique on these standards. Shelby is clearly using a “closer to” approach rather than a “better than” one here. As we discussed in the last seminar, there is a dic...

  In this blog post, I want to consider the legitimacy of criminal actions perpetrated by residents of the dark ghettos in which the victims of the crimes are other residents of the dark ghettos.  Shelby argues that when society doesn't include adequate opportunities for individuals to avoid demeaning forms of labor, crime becomes reasonable (216). This is because, when individuals are not afforded that opportunity, they can reasonably claim they are not being treated as equal members in a cooperative society and that the requirement for reciprocity is not being met (217). When members of the ghetto poor are not treated in accordance with reciprocity, they are not bound by civic obligations (213). However, all people are bound by natural duties, including the obligation not to cause unnecessary suffering and the obligation to respect the personhood of others. In Shelby’s view, a category of crimes emerge as reasonable under this framework–crimes that would violate civic obliga...

In this post, I will apply Shelby to the founding of the Crips. Raymond Washington is considered the founder of the Crips. Washington was a teenager living in a "dark ghetto" in Los Angeles in the wake of the Watt's Riots. He joined a gang for protection. He got into fist fights with other gang members after they held a gun to his brother's head. Washington quickly developed a reputation as a skilled street fighter who was not afraid to take on large gangs. He formed his own gang, which grew and came to control other gangs. Eventually, he formed an alliance with other gangs in LA in an attempt to establish a confederation of gangs and monopolize crime in LA. Shelby's account in Chapter 7 is helpful in understanding the early history of the Crips. He identifies that "[the] norms that govern the world of street crime also have an enormous impact on ghetto residents who want to avoid participating in and being the victims of crime" (206). This explains why ...

 I want to comment on Tim's post here and possibly defend but question Shelby in a few cases although I fundamentally come to similar conclusion to Tim. The first example is where a person steals something and is chased by the owner who is killed in defense of the thief. Tim points out that this seems to result in an absurd conclusion and thus could not be feasibly adopted. The first thing I would say is that if this understanding of crime is adopted, then the person chasing the thief would not be chasing them in the first place. Secondly, I believe Shelby would respond that some crimes are reasonable and some are not. So, theft, particularly minor theft, is a reasonable crime to commit. I do not think Shelby would call murder a reasonable crime in this context as killing the person does not imply this idea of a willingness to honor the terms of social cooperation that other accept and abide by (212). So some crimes are reasonable and some are not from people who are oppressed. I t...

 In Chapter 7 Crime Shelby asks Is crime unreasonable? AI and Expectations provide two avenues for exploring this question and Shelby's discussion of it. Some rhetoric around AI use in criminal justice advocates for solely algorithmic decisionmaking removing the judge or human elements from criminal decision-making. A recent speaker of the Ath supported this view, and identified 12 factors that ought be used in criminal guilty verdicts and recidivism estimations including whether the suspect is Married, Age, etc. In this role AI seems to magnify proxy discrimination on a massive scale by enabling discrimination across minute 3rd factors. Perhaps more concerning for Shelby is AI from the utilitarian computer scientist's lens completely side steps the quesiton about whether crime is unreasonable. For them crime causes suffering, so they ought to reduce crime, and thus design and AI algorithm that has the highest prediction accuracy for reducing it with no relevance to justice or ...

  Shelby in the chapter on crime tries to seek an answer to the question: if the ghetto poor have an obligation to respect and abide by the law (204). He paints an image of the ghetto poor choosing crime, as a way of supporting oneself, because of the material deprivation and institutional racism (205). These two conditions combined with an unjust justice system does not allow the ghetto poor to get good jobs, which would allow them to gain an income, which would be enough for them. However, as they still need income, they turn to crime to sustain themselves (205). Shelby’s argument on if such behavior is reasonable rests on the idea of justice of the overall system (213). The USA can be agreed not to be a fully just society but rather should be considered either a society with some injustice but not fundamentally unjust or fundamentally unjust (213). To answer this question, Shelby wants to distinguish between civic obligations and natural duties (213). Civic obligations are owed ...

I think Shelby's line of argument in terms of punishment, and the role of state legitimacy with regards to that punishment is logically quite sound. However, as is with many aspects of philosophy, logical soundness does not tend to correlate or justify real-life consequences. The specific question I want to address here is the question posed on page 212, which is "is the crime committed by the ghetto poor unreasonable?". The conclusion is that petty crimes committed by the ghetto poor are not unreasonable, due to the illegitimate criminal justice system that is in place, and the role that system plays in entrenching the position of the ghetto poor.  By extension of that logic, an illegitimate state incapable of ensuring basic constitutional provisions (such as the United States), would not be justified in the prosecution of crimes committed by the ghetto poor if they are securing whatever basic interest that they are otherwise entitled to. On a theoretical level, this see...

  Shelby’s chapter, Work, was very interesting and I found his argument compelling. In the beginning, he describes voluntary joblessness, where some people choose not to work even though they are jobs they could get and retain. There are many theories as to why people choose voluntary joblessness. Shelby suggests that the “basic structure of US society is deeply unfair, and thus, on grounds of justice and self-respect, [people] refuse to accommodate themselves to their low position in the stratified social order.” Ultimately his argument is that many of the black urban poor have sufficient reason to refuse to work, and thus be in voluntary joblessness.  This led me to think about women in the workplace, and if some women also have sufficient reason to refuse work. I thought about Anderson’s book, because she mentioned that about 90% of women experience sexual harassment in the restaurant industry. This industry is known to have high numbers for sexual harassment, however, it i...

I've been racking my brain about how to properly attempt Anderson's project of voice and I was wondering what their thoughts would be on doing it by giving employees stock or shares in the company. I think its important to acknowledge that part of the reason CEO's are sanctioned to exercise such massive control over the functions of the firm including its employees is because we recognize their liberty to do so as a majority shareholder in a company meaning they've invested the most money into the success of the firm (at least from my limited understanding of how stocks and the firm works.) Stock is I think a fixed way to shift power over the company from one entity to another and this can be seen from an example of a hostile takeover which involves buying out the current management of a firm. Then I dont see why giving employees stock, wouldn't accomplish the same goal of shifting or tilting the power dynamic. And though I dont know the specifics of how stocks work...

 In this blog post, I want to partially echo Zac and Frank in their discussion of the three types of liberty Anderson identifies. Anderson lays out compelling examples as to why incomplete possession of the forms of liberty results in a circumstance that doesn’t seem to resemble ‘genuine’ freedom. This seems to imply that the state of actual human freedom is, at least partially, defined by the possession of all three forms of liberty. That is, it is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a free person to possess positive, negative, and republican liberty. Thus, it seems there are, or may be, other considerations that allow a person to attain a state of freedom—or will allow us to determine tradeoffs between each of the three types of liberty. However, it seems we run into a problem. Liberty seems to be a value that must supersede many other values, but perhaps not all of them. For example, economic utility cannot supersede liberty because that could allow for the possibility ...

After reading Anderson’s essay on Locke and the Progressive Work Ethic , I had some initial thoughts and questions about Locke.  I was reminded of how differently people think and how it is possible for us all to read the same thing and come out with completely different conclusions. It was fascinating reading about how while most people will read and understand Locke as supporting a neoliberal view, others, like Anderson, can view Locke as having a pro-worker political and economic agenda. I also appreciated the way Anderson situated Locke’s texts in the context they came from to better understand the author in his time period. At the same time, her essay helped me consider the importance of having an open mind towards adapting the text and applying it to modern society.  From the quote, “Rather when people enter political society, they consent to be governed by rules such as the community, or those authorized by them to that purpose, shall agree on,” Anderson explains how Lo...

 I think free speech is a difficult line to navigate. There is free speech, but there is also responsible speech. When CMC decides to have a speaker at the atheneum that talks about how voting is a negligible action and will never have any impact, some argued that was not responsible of the college to do. When CMC decides to have a speaker at the atheneum who repeatedly invalidates sexual assault in a time where many women have expressed having experiences of sexual assault, there is a very powerful argument that having that speaker come caused harm to the students. Maybe firms and college campuses cannot police free speech but can/should they regulate speech so that all speech produced is responsible? Even in the article shared by Marta, the girl specifically talked about how she feels as if her political opinions are unpopular. What is the college supposed to do about that? Make her classmates nod or force them to agree with her? That seems counterintuitive to the claims you desc...

Regarding Kara's Post: I want to try and tease out how Kara's blog post fits the college into Anderson's image of a private government. It seems like Kara's suggesting that the college itself is the private government. The professors are the governors and the students are the governed. The college constitutes a government because a government "exists wherever some have the authority to issue orders to others, backed by sanctions" (Anderson 42). Professors can issue orders by assigning tasks students must perform, and professors can sanction students who fail to complete these tasks or fail to do them successfully by giving them poor or failing grades in courses. The college is a private government because the "governed are kept out of decision-making" (45). The students do not, for the most part, come up with their own assignments or come up with grading rubrics for those assignments.  I agree with Kara, based on the image of the college as a private...

 In Private Government, there seems to be some implication that the goal is to maximize freedom through tradeoffs between the three types of freedom.      If all three types of freedom, positive, negative and republican, are valuable and "there are sound reason to make tradeoffs between them (46), then there seems to be some goal for trading off between them. Furthermore, private government is worth discussing not just because it exists and is needed to supplement the "impoverished vocabulary" of public discourse, but also  because it is in fact a bad thing. It gives too much authority to the employers. This seems to be implying that too much authority infringes on people's freedoms.     However, we also know that the reduction of some freedoms are ok provided they increase others by more than the decrease. So, "too much authority" given to employers means that the decrease in freedom outweighs its gain and that is the problem. I want to ask ...