Welcome to Keith's night. Don't try it on anyone.
Today. We'll be talking with Stephen
Kushner. He is a distinguished teaching
professor in the philosophy department.
At the State University of New York at Fredonia.
He is also an attorney, mr. Kirchner.
Thank you so much for your time. Thank you for having me.
What do you think is the value of thought experiments in
philosophy? So I think what thought
experiments do is that the isolate, the relevant factors,
so we need to have sort of the method of difference.
Whereby we hold everything else, fixed but change one factor and
see what effect it has. So I view that thought
experiments similar to what goes on in science.
We use it to try and identify which are the elements that are
going to making a difference. Now, can you please explain the
trolley problem? I have had a number of different
explanations given to me. How do you understand the
trolley problem? So the kind of traditional
trolley problem is twofold on one version.
You have a trolley going down the tracks and it's going to run
over five people. But if you switch the track, I
think to the right. Then you there's a person on the
right track. Then you're going to kill one
person. If you don't switch is going to
run over 5, and the question is, is it okay to engage in a
killing which occurs when you switch the trolley or a We're
letting die which is where more people died.
And so, it's an issue. That is a killing permissible or
is it more or should we are, we Amanda obligated to have a
letting die? Second version has again, the
trolleys going down, the track, towards five individuals, but
there's a very large man on a track.
And we can push him in front of the trolley, which will slow the
trolley down. So the five can escape and so,
That's another killing versus letting die issue but they are
killing a large man. Is the means by which we save
the five. So this seems to be a difference
in the way in which we view, the one individual, when we turn the
trolley. It's a foreseen side effect.
When we push the fat man or the large man, we're using him as a
means by which to save the five. So yeah, so to the question,
whether it's the same Case was a different case.
And also what we should do in both cases.
So Michael sandel of Harvard says that it's not really that
different or he uses the thought experiment to say, well what if
there's a guy who comes to the doctors just for a checkup and
he has the ability to, you know, have seven of his organs
harvested to save the lives of seven others.
How is it different in principle to kill one person to harvest
their organs to save Seven Lives versus pulling the lever on?
The trolley to kill one person in order to save the others in.
But in both cases, you are ending one life in order to save
the others, right? So, I think the closer analogy
is with regard to the pushing the large man in front of the
trolley there. You are killing one as a means
by which to save the five when you cut open the healthy
patient. What you're doing is you're
again killing the one to save, the five redistributing the
organs or using individual slow down, the trolley seem to be
morally similar. It depends on whether or not
these two differ from turning. The trolley depends on whether
or not you think intention matters.
That is, doesn't matter that when you turn the trolley, the
person who dies on the side is not the means by which you save
the five. He's just a foreseen side
effect, whereas in the case of pushing the large man and
cutting up the healthy, patient. The individual who is killed is
used as a means by which to save the 5ms an issue.
Ooh, I'll because in both cases all three cases, you're doing
something which results in someone's death.
There's an issue as to whether or not what's going on in the
agents had matters. Hmm, very interesting.
So this book theory of Justice by John Rawls.
He says the principles of Justice are chosen behind a veil
of ignorance. This ensures that no one is
advantage or disadvantage in the choice of principles by the
outcome of natural. And or the contingency of social
circumstances, this explains the propriety of the name justice,
as fairness, it conveys. The idea that the principles of
Justice are agreed to in initial in an initial situation.
That is fair. So he's saying in order for us
to realize what is just my understanding.
In order for us to realize what is just or unjust.
We must first decide behind a veil of ignorance without
knowing our future place in society.
What is just or unjust? Is this a valuable thought
experiment or way? To achieve the just Society.
Well, I mean, I think it's an interesting thought experiment.
I mean, whether it's correct. As a side note, I made a
separate issue. So I mean certainly it's one of
the most important developments in the history of political
philosophy and certainly in the late 20th century.
It is, it is it the way to go? I'm not sure it's the way to go
because I'm not sure that it allows us to respect rights.
So nor is it the way to maximize the good.
So I'm not sure it it's helpful because that argue blocks the
two best ways that we should think about normative ethics.
So that's why I lamb I'm skeptical of it.
When I mean, what Rawls assuming is that things don't Come owned.
So, in some sense the sock either they're on own or Society
owns them and any case Society can just write head distribute
them. Whereas if you think that look
objects, our own bodies around than the principles that you
might decide behind the veil of ignorance.
Might not be the principles that a correct in virtue of the fact
that things are already owned and then than not, not free for
the society to distribute. In Anarchy State and Utopia.
Robert nozick says, utilitarian. Theory is embarrassed by the
possibility of utility monsters who get enormously greater gains
in utility from any sacrifice of others than these others lose
for unacceptably. The theory seems to require that
we all be sacrificed in the monsters ma in order to increase
total utility. So what I get that Saying here
is we each get, you know, 10 units of utility by, you know,
eating food, but there's a certain monster that gets a
million units of utility with no point of diminishing return.
Therefore, if we care about increasing utility all efforts
should be geared towards pleasing this monster.
Do you think there's any value in this thought experiment or
its implications? Yes.
I mean, I think it's really useful.
I mean the way these arguments work is that You kind of roll
up, pros and cons or, you know, costs and benefits of different
theories. So I do think that's a
counterintuitive feature of consequentialism.
Consequentialism says that the right maximize the good, that is
what we ought to do to maximize the good and utilitarian, add to
that that when deciding what it is.
What's good? What it is.
We should be maximizing its utility or well-being.
So I think it's a good point. I mean, it's not the only one.
Right? Utilitarianism would tell us
that we should kill people who are depressed, if doing so,
Would increase total or average utility depending on which one
which method you should have. It also tells you that you have
a duty to reproduce. So, for example, imagine a
couple, they're both attorneys and they have two children and
they could have five the ideas that they really did.
Something wrong in virtue of the fact that they prevent to the
world, three happy people coming into the world.
And that's perhaps worse than murdering someone.
Why? Because in murdering someone,
you taking away, one lifetime's worth of utility.
Tails and having only two round 5 you're taking away 3, so
they're going to be all sorts of Bizarro consequences of
utilitarianism. I'll give you just one more
example. Imagine.
I have a friend. I don't friend.
Jim and Jim is a really good guy if there is Heaven and Hell,
Jim's definitely going to heaven.
But if he's going to heaven and that Max is out the member of
utils. Then nothing we can do is going
to make the world worse, Better, or Worse, hence.
There's no limit to the amount of evil, we can engage in.
Because it won't affect the overall amount of well-being.
So, I mean, there's lots of Oddball consequences of Oddball,
results of eco-terrorism. That's one of them.
And there are others as well. Obviously fair, you know,
non-consequential is, impeccably rights Theory, which nowzik is a
proponent and I think nose is great.
I mean, I think is his book and his work in general is
fantastic. But I mean, there are some huge
holes in the theory, you know, so I mean, utilitarian would
take Take too much similar shots at knows that and say well
that's embarrassing as well. So it cuts in both directions.
I gather you're a fan of knows it just because I see I know
this picture on your your Skype address.
You know what I forget that it's there and I should probably
change it to my logo, but I just needed something.
I just needed something a long time ago and I picked him
because I was really motivated by his work.
Well, I mostly your moniker, you know, don't tread on anyone
that. Sounds that sounds very nosy key
and I hope so. Do you see that utilitarianism
is something that people kind of value in their current
circumstance, but don't value historically.
Another words, they'll say racism, inherently evil.
Don't bug me with the costs and benefits.
Don't, I'm gonna suspect you of being evil.
If you even tell me there's a benefit to racism or slavery or
discrimination. But today, instead of thinking
on principle, the biggest, August 14.
Me is, you know, I think conscription is forced to labor
and the slavery against someone's will but they'll argue
with me for 30 minutes about the pros and cons of conscription
when historically there. So, okay, with saying slavery
was inherently immoral racism is inherently immoral, but do you
see that disconnect or is that just something?
I'm making, I agree with you about aside, Old Guard of
conscription, do people care about consequences.
And I absolutely, I think they do when they vote, right?
One of the reasons they vote. Is not just on the basis of
justice, but also on the basis of who's going to bring about
the best results sometimes when people pick an economic theory,
right? Which economic theory they argue
for and they think in terms of consequentialism, so I think
it's a fairly common way that people think.
I also think I also believe that it is it's tracking at least a
important and important moral consideration whether it's the
only one is a separate matter. Okay, final note on nozik.
He has something called The Experience machine Suppose.
There were an experience machine.
That would give you any experience.
You desired super duper neuropsychologist, could
stimulate your brain. So that you could think and feel
that you were writing a great novel or making a friend, or
reading an interesting book all the time.
You would be floating in a tank with electrodes attached to your
brain. Should you plug into this
machine for life? I mean, your life's experiences.
How would you respond to that? Would you plug in and why?
Or why not? So I actually go back and forth
in that. I don't have a decided view that
strong intuitive you is that we would not plug-in and the reason
knows it gives us three reasons. We don't want to plug in first.
He says we want to be a sort of a certain sort of person.
We don't want to have the experience of being virtuous or
Brave or caring. You want actually be that sort
of person second. We want to have agency.
We want actually do things not just have the experience as if
we're doing things and the third reason he gives that we want to
contact with reality. You know you want to actually
know things. We don't want to have the
experience as if we know things and that's a fairly strong
intuition. On the other hand, in terms of
what's in my interest. I'm not sure there's something
in my interest other than pleasure and because the
experience between gives you more pleasure than any other
option. It's not clear that we shouldn't
want to be hooked up to the experience machine for
theoretical purposes, even though it seems intuitively
distasteful. There are factors which make the
experiment messy and among the factors that make it.
Messy are the fact that we're worried about other people,
write not just what the effect in our self is.
But what is the effect of our actions on others?
And you might think, well, we're going to harm others.
We hook open to the experience machine.
And also there's a risk factor, right?
If you if you're not controlling the experience machine and how
do you know they're not just going to plug in, you know, one
nightmare after another. So I am torn on the experience
machine for theoretical reasons. And if I was viewing making the
city, a land-based of self-interest, it seems that we
probably would want to be hooked up to the machine, on the other
hand, intuitively seem not to and then they're just some some
others and moral reason not to concern for others and then just
a risk factor. Mmm.
Yeah, there is a. I believe he was a professor of
Economics at the University of Nevada Las.
Las Vegas Hans Hermann, Hapa writes quite commonly as been
observed, that argumentation implies that a proposition
claims Universal acceptability, or should it be a norm proposal
that is universalizability applied to Norms proposals.
This is the idea as formulated in the golden rule of Ethics or
in the continent. Categorical imperative that only
those Norms can be justified that can be formulated as
general principles which are valid forever.
One without exception. So do you think universalizing
something is key to knowing whether or not it's just or
unjust. No, I think the problem
universalization is that it's their issues as to whether or
not there is a restriction on how you universalize things that
is standard accounting universalization as you plug in
a situation and then an action And so there's an issue.
You know, what, what are the limits the way you universalize
this on top of the fact, I'm not sure how universalization is
relevant. It seems to me what with
relevant to things. Like.
Are you maximizing? Good?
Are you respecting people's rights?
You are you satisfying, what other, whatever other moral
considerations are relevant, you know, perhaps a quality or
exploitation or dessert, but I'm not sure how the
universalization is met on top of the fact that You can always
sort of narrowly describe things.
So it's Universe Eliza below. So yeah, now in against
democracy, Jason Brennan gives the jury examples.
He says, imagine we have five juries.
The first jury is ignorant. They just ignore the evidence.
The second Jerry is irrational day.
They're just bias there. Non-scientific, the third jury
is impaired. So even though they tried their
just so uncommon incompetent that they can't.
Wise information. The fourth jury is a moral know,
if you're black Jewish or republican.
They will convict you, regardless of the evidence and
the fifth jury is corrupt. Anyone who gives them 10
thousand dollars. They will come up with that
verdict. He then asks, may we enforce the
jurors decisions in these cases. Should the defendant submit to
their Authority. It seems not in each case, the
jury acts badly and everyone knows it intuitively.
It seems that these jury decisions lack Authority and
legitimacy. His point is all of those five
criteria, apply to voters in democracies.
Therefore we have no obligation to obey laws.
That exist has a cause of result of democratic decision-making.
What do you think about that? Well, in general I think
Brandon's Works. Excellent.
I particularly liked that book. I'm sort of a little mixed on on
The View that given the failure of the voters in terms of to be
informed and to think in a very clear manner.
Or the amount of authority you might think of the state as
Authority. It has it because we Valley
consent to it. And if we value the consent to
it, then we can send to it in terms of the flawed decision
making on the other hand. If we don't valve the consent to
it, then it doesn't seem to be and it's hard to see why we
should care whether or not the voters are well, informed or
rational. So I'm not sure why valid
consent doesn't preamp the issue.
I mean, he makes a good point that democracy.
It is a pretty flawed method of decision making.
And, you know, some people have argued.
Well, look, there's an empirical issue as flawed.
It is, is it better than other methods?
Other methods might involve no government?
Or, you know, more of more conservation protection of
Rights, or sort of non democratic means.
So this kind of an empirical issue.
So, I think it's a fairly messy issue, but I think before we get
to that issue, there's an issue of state state legitimacy.
That is does the state of right to coerce us and sort of related
notion. Do we have a duty to obey the
state? I think that what we first have
to adjust that issue before we have to address whether or not
democracy is, is fatally flawed. But what's your view about
democracy? I would say that democracy is
morally justified in so far as the participants are engaging
voluntarily. So I would say this is the
principal difference between a organization that is
democratically run and they're constantly voting like a worker
Cooperative versus a nation. Yes, they are very different in
size. But in one case you have people
voluntarily entering into contractual agreements.
The other, I just really see as being subject to mob rule,
wouldn't see it as any different whether a group called Congress
is doing it. Or if Amazon says, You get to
vote for our CEO once every four years and you have to abide by
our laws and we get to tax your income.
But if you want to change things, you can apply to work at
Amazon. Maybe we'll hire you.
Maybe you could work your way up the ranks and change the system
from within I, just hold the state to the same standard as
anyone else. So coercive democracy against
voluntary, democracy is, I think is fine, even though there's
still the shortcoming with the division of labor.
So, I mean I don't necessarily look at you know, the things I
like like my iPad and say, God, I really wish more people had
voted on how this was made. I'm like thank God.
It was a small Elite of intellectuals that write the
books that I love. Make the iPads that I like to
learn on. So, I'm not really that big of a
fan of democracy. II mean, I heard you saying, I'm
So when you say voluntary democracy, does that mean people
can opt out at any one time? Yeah.
Yeah, so it would, it would be very much like a worker
Cooperative, which a lot of people, you know, say is the
great way of finally being liberated from the Bourgeois Z.
I don't see it at all. If I wanted to opt out on Monday
and steal. My neighbor's car on Tuesday.
I couldn't be prosecuted for it. Well, you would be prosecuted
for stealing your neighbor's car, regardless of whether it
was part of a democratic decision or not.
The very Act of stealing would still be taking property.
You haven't justly acquired. So I would see those as two
separate issues Farrah. I mean, I hear what you're
saying. I mean, it is interesting,
though that you think the criminal justice system exists
independent of state's Authority.
I'm not sure that that's correct.
When the state doesn't have authority over me.
It's unclear why I can tell me what to do or not.
Do. Of course.
My neighbor could call in the state to protect his Goods, but
I'm not sure that the criminal justice system can operate if
the state is illegitimate. Yeah, I read the work of Ed
Stringham who had a book published by Oxford called
private governance in which he makes the case.
That a lot of the reason we are secure is because of things
like, you know, alarm systems in our house guns.
We have the discipline of repeated interactions that give
people an incentive to respect property rights.
He says that that happens more. So as a causal result of Market,
It's as opposed to, you know, the state and certainly if you
look at civil asset forfeiture, not to mention taxation, to the
tune of trillions or the wars that states initiate that maybe
just from a cost-benefit analysis.
It's not worth having, you know, maybe there's better ways to
protect your property, then the state stealing, 40 percent.
Annually. Sure.
I look, I'm highly sympathetic that.
I mean, but my concern is that things like the civil court
system. Unless we volunteered, you know,
to leave out of the consented to it beforehand.
It's not clear, why? We should ban be bound by it.
So some of these mechanisms. I'm a little worried.
Again. They presuppose legitimacy.
I'm also a little more skeptical that in the state of nature.
However, sophisticated that we would have.
Peace and and sort of, you know, clearly functioning markets, a,
perhaps. We wouldn't, I would hope we
would, but I'm just I'm not fully confident.
That's the case. I'm not sure that we have
historical precedent for that, and I suspect there's reason to
doubt that things wouldn't to generate pretty quickly, but
perhaps I'm wrong. I do I want to continue with us
some of these thought, experiment experience.
I know that you have a written about abortion.
There is a paper that I came across by Thompson, a defense of
abortion and she has by far the most famous paper on the topic.
See, I never heard of it until two days ago.
So the the violinist is you wake up in the morning and find
yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist a
famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a
fatal kidney ailment and the Society of music lovers has
canvas all the available medical records and found that you alone
have the right blood type to help they have therefore
kidnapped, you and last night, the violinist circulatory system
was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to
extract poisons from his blood, as well as your own if he is
unplugged from you. Now, he will die, but in nine
months, he will have recovered from his Moment and can safely
be unplugged from you. So I guess the question is, do
you have a right to unplug? Can you explain why this was so
popular and why? This is an important thought
experiment and where you stand on it.
So it's an enormously popular and an important thought
experiment. This is one of if not the most
widely read philosophy paper in the world.
The reason it was so groundbreaking was that
traditionally The debate over abortion was thought to rest on
whether or not the fetus has a right to life. but, What
Thompson was showing is even if you say that, you know, whether
or not the fetus is a person with a full set of moral rights,
what Thompson's move was it was to concede that the fetus is a
person. Just like you or me say that the
concede that the fetus has the same rights that you and I have.
But argue that still does not show that abortion is wrong in
particular. That's unjust.
So what the violinist thought experiment shows is that you do
not have a duty to save someone, even if you have less at stake
and they do. So, in the case of the
violinist, the violence is going to die.
If you just disconnect yourself, nevertheless, because you didn't
valve the consent to connect yourself to the violinist
intuitively. It's just more proof that it's
permissible to disconnect yourself.
Even though this was going to result in the violinist death.
So, the more specific. Lesson that Thompson draws from
this is that the right to life does not entail a right to be
saved. So merely because the violinist
has a right to life, does not mean that the violinist has a
right to be saved. So I think in terms of thinking
about the structure abortion, I think it's an incredibly helpful
thought experiment, and I think that Thompson's work in general
is just groundbreaking and lots of different areas that said, in
terms of thinking about abortion.
I don't think, I think the example is not the central run,
we should focus. And the reason is because it's
so letting die, right. So, if you disconnect yourself
from a fetus, the person to disconnect themselves from the
fetus and the person who does the stories about he is letting
the, the violinist died in abortion.
The fetus is killed, right? It's not.
It's very in most cases leaving aside.
The abortion pill. In most cases.
The abortion is killed. If the Portion is killed.
Then we have to say okay then, you know, could you would it be
okay to let's say, cut the vinyl, listen half or is that
not the proper analogy? So, to your question, do I think
this is do? I think it's an important
thought experiment. That's incredibly important.
Do I think it's extraordinary really helpful?
Yeah. I think it's extremely helpful.
Do I think it's the one that's most on point now?
And that's because the violence case involved, with letting die
and abortion and piles of Do you have a closer thought experiment
to understanding the root morality of the abortion
argument? Yeah, I have to.
So one is imagine you're in prison and a person is, you
know, so if a weaker person committed, let's call him
Sheldon. And then you have a big powerful
individual. Let's call them big amp, right?
So big, a has, you know, the 450 pound bench and you know, he's a
sexual predator. Isn't he's also hemophiliac.
So the only way that Shelby can defend himself is to use a
prison knife. Let's call Shank to defend
himself against big am. And so the issue is, can he kill
began prevent began from sexually victimized him or
baguette was already sexualizing victim?
And can you kill him to make him stop?
My intuition is, yes, I think most people most people's
intuitions are yes, which shows that a bodily Invasion allows
for lethal Force. So, if the pro-choice sighs, I
can show that pregnancy is morally similar to a bottle
Invasion. Then there's, at least an
initial case to suggest that the woman can use lethal Force to
either prevent the bottle The Invasion or to make it stop.
And what is the second thought? Experiment, you have thought
experiment. And by the way, these are both.
I have both he's in the boat for my book.
Does the pro-life view makes sense?
The second experiment, is we have a Nazi woman was in prison.
Should not outside a Jewish woman who was in a Nazi death
camp and the Nazi officers give her the following choice.
You can either have sex or Nazi officer or you.
Can carry a Nazi couples fetus. The term?
and the question is, The first is going to be a case of rape,
right? Because in essence, you know,
the third option is death so you can be killed.
He can, you know, we have sex with a mouse, a Nazi, officer
carry a Nazi couples fetus the term.
So Because we think that you can use lethal Force, prevent rape.
It seems that you could use lethal Force to prevent that
option. But if the third option that is
tearing, the Nazi couples fetus to term if that were as much of
a an injustice or much of the right infringement as the sex,
then that would suggest that that also warrants lethal force.
And I do in fact think that A Jewish woman in that situation,
might have a hard time deciding which is worse and that, that
would be it in. There would be nothing wrong
where she decide to decide that the sex is worse, than carrying
the the fetus term, which suggests that the bodily
invasion of a fetus is severe. That is it is at least as severe
as that of a rape and because rape, Warrants the use of lethal
force in self-defense. So does an unwanted pregnancy.
So here's the thought experiment, I use they rest on
the they assume that the fetus does not have a right to be
inside the woman and that's going to require separate
augmentation. S s says separate argument and
do you see the difference between, you know, a woman being
five months pregnant and not wanting the child versus having
a five-year-old child and, you know, just deciding to not feed
it anymore and essentially starve.
It is the difference between Not that the fetus, would be
considered a trespasser. Where's the five-year-old is
alive and able to, you know, survive outside of the mother?
Therefore, she has an obligation to find a household for it.
Do you see a difference? Believe you said, if I rolled,
there's a big difference, just in terms of one, is a bodily
invade? Or the other is not.
So that, that's that's right. One involves our trust past.
One doesn't in terms of what is the obligation, the woman.
You might think that she is validly consented to.
Take care of the five-year-old and because she's done.
So she then has an obligation or at least she has to make sure
that someone's going to fulfill that obligation before she sees
to do it. It's a little murky as to how we
should think about that issue. But the that they're different
is exactly for the reasons. You mentioned, one of the trust
pass. The other is not okay.
There is a movie called, Don't breathe in, which a girl is
driving drunk. And then, Kills another girl.
So the father of the girl who died kidnaps, the girl, who
killed his daughter and impregnates her so she can give
him another child. Do you think?
Because that's the closest you can come to maybe just not
retribution, but, you know, paying back.
Something that you took away. Do you think that that would be
morally Justified under any circumstance?
Forcing, someone to have a child?
Old, because they killed your child.
So, I need some time to think through that.
Thought experiment. My initial view would be, no,
because I'm worried about the way in which compensatory
Justice Works in that instance. So, but we asked how I don't
know the answer to that. I'd have to have to take some
time to thank for it. So I don't have the terminal
thoughts on. The name of movies.
Don't breathe. Correct.
It's actually a horror movie, which I usually hate, but I
loved this one. I thought this was great.
I'm unfamiliar with that on this issue.
I mean, I have to think about the the mechanism of
compensatory Justice. And yeah, so I'd have to think
of it through it. Yeah, Michael humor a philosophy
professor at University of Boulder.
Colorado has the Starvin. Marvin thought exact thought
experiment where he says Starvin?
Marvin is going to the store but it's in a different town and in
between towns, you stop him and say I don't want your kind being
in this town. You need to go back to your
house as a causal result of this.
Marvin does not go to the store to get food and starve to death.
He says you were there for responsible for his death.
He then says this is analogous to government's stopping people
from immigrating into certain geographical areas.
And as a calls result of poor people, stay in poor countries
and die. Do you think it is morally?
Analogous for immigration? Restrictions to equal?
You just saying, I'm going to murder you if you go to the
grocery store without my permission, right?
So I as I don't on Michael humor is an outstanding philosopher.
Just a real pleasure to read some breakthrough and all sorts
of breakthroughs and all sorts of areas and just it just an
intellectual giant. So, On this case though.
I don't agree with Michael humor.
You might think there's this Collective property.
So for example, you might think there's a difference between
going to the store where the store owner invites you in and
going on to people's property when it's owned by a collection
and the collection Valley descends from a Allowing you on
to it or does not valid consent to allow you on to it.
So for example, imagine there's a country club, a fancy Country
Club in, in Westchester New York and the country club says look,
no one may enter here except for the members.
And so you have a bunch of, let's say A large group of just
has example, a group acts like a large group of paternity
Brothers decide. They want to enter the
fraternity. Are they want to enter the
country club and use the facilities?
Go swimming, eat the food playing, the tennis play, tennis
and Tennis Courts, you know, play golf and, you know, relax
in the steam room and you might think well, they have not been
given permission by the people who own the country club and
it's collectively owned. So they may not enter.
This is true. Even if let's say instead of
turning Rose. Let's say it's a bunch of
starving. And they want to break into the
country club and eat the food to stay alive.
Now. This might be permissible All
Things Considered because their interest in staying alive, might
override the country club Owners rights, but It would still be
unjust you would be case of overriding people's rights are
case of Injustice, that was justified because of prevent a
catastrophe. But it would not be just
similarly. If you think, parts of the
United States, like our roads and certain certain benefits.
We hand out, medical benefits, cool benefits for things like
that are collectively owned. Then you might think that people
may not enter and use Collective property even Doing so would
have good results. As a side that I'm not sure what
have good results, but the there is an issue as, to whether or
not, there's a property, right infringement.
I think there is so four humors example to work for humans
analogy to work. It would have to be the case
that when the people came into this country without the
permission. In fact against the laws of the
country and started using the collective property and taking
some of the resources. That this was not an
infringement of anyone's Collective, right?
I do not think that's correct. So again, I mean, I think it's I
think it's a great thought experiment and like I said, I
you know, I read lots of humors books.
I mean, he's a fantastic philosopher, but on this one, I
don't agree that he's right. Also, there's an issue of at
what you know, so if you thought this were true, is there a limit
as to how many people could enter the country.
So the US has what roughly 330 million.
People, imagine that a billion people from around the world,
went into the country. Is there any any point with you?
Hey, look, we don't want to Country.
We have, you know, point three billion people today.
We don't want a country of 1.3 billion could with a response.
Me. Well, look, you know, they're
not infringe on anyone's property rights.
So what's the objection? If they are infringing on
someone's property rights for the same reason people to Billy
and you could keep that one. So, it seems to me as an issue
as to, whether or not there's a property rights, what whether
there is a property, right? That's being infringed.
I think there is and its Collective property, right?
It's also the case that usually, when people come across the
border. They also across private
property, which is another probably an individual property,
right Invasion. So yeah.
Thomas, E. Woods, Junior, a PhD from
Columbia says that, imagine you have a society where Walmart,
controls the schooling system. They do this by taking a
percentage of the value of what they say.
The value of your property is and only some people are allowed
to opt out of this. It's compulsory to fund its
compulsory to attend. Some people can opt out.
Out. But you have to get Walmart's
permission to opt out of the Walmart education system and you
spend a lot of time talking about the amazing
accomplishments of the Walmart CEOs.
And there's rumors the First wall Mart CEO never told a lie,
and without Walmart terrible. Things would happen.
Would this Society in any rational way be able to just lie
judge the actions of Walmart. He says, He says, well for the
same reason, governments engaging in any sort of
Education funding especially coerced funding compulsory
attended government schools makes it so though.
Well of democracy is so poisoned that it renders almost
everything illegitimate. What do you think about this
thought experiment? So this this kind of two
features to it. I'm not familiar with this one,
but one feature of is would should Walmart be able to to
coerce people. And this seems to be similar to
the issue of Dewey Valley consent, the government.
Now, there are three standard objections to the consent.
To the notion that we justify the state.
Through valid consent, one objection is that we simply
don't do something, right? The simply that it's not the
case. We valid consent.
If we don't take an eye out for an example, only at least many
of us have not s, the claim is even if we did valve e-consent,
it would be involuntary to use David Humes example, it would be
like someone on a ship at Sea who was taken against his will
and put on a ship. The cap says, look if you don't
like, you know, if you don't like my legitimate Authority,
feel free to leave. Price would be too high to
leave. Similarly.
The price is too high to leave the state.
Some people can't even leave the state.
So the idea is that either, you can't descend to the price of
the Senate's, too high. The third objection, which comes
from a John Simmons, is that you need to give prior consent
before the state even Can give you this choice, right?
You have to consent that the state to put the same position
by which can give you a choice. Either validate us through
consent. You know, that we have the, we
have the standing by which to give you the choice that for
this territory. You can either set the consent
or descent. But what you can't do is you
can't set up a separate government.
You can't set up no government, those, your options.
So, there's an issue as to how you get around those.
So leaving those aside, the notion that you couldn't
criticize a government. I mean, I'm not sure why that
would be the case. We do criticize the government.
The government said, the criticism of government has
resulted in math changes of it. Some of these, I don't agree
with. In fact, a lot of the changes, I
don't agree with but the fact of the matter is that we do
criticize it and we have mechanisms by which change it,
there are parts of the Constitution that tell us how we
can change the Constitution and through a change the government.
We have elected representatives that can vote for changes.
So I'm not sure why the structure doesn't laugh or
change. His argument might be that
psychologically. It's very difficult to change.
Once you have a group that's embedded in power and I don't
know enough about this. So I'm not sure that I see why
in theory, you can't change things in practice.
I'm not sure. I know enough why.
You couldn't change the government.
Now, these next couple are not necessarily thought experiments,
but just way of understanding concepts, John has Ness.
I forget where he works. I should have written it down,
but he wrote a paper called the myth of the rule of law.
And he says, before you travel to different states, you're able
to go to other states without having to read all the laws and
you're able to cooperate with people.
You're even able to go to different countries where people
speak different languages without Going to read all the
laws of every country even in America.
The first amendment, when you read those words, you know,
freedom of speech. This still doesn't allow for
sharing secrets in Wartime screaming.
Fire in a crowded theater doesn't allow for you to
Advocate violence against someone.
So there's no objective rule of law for us to delegate to all
that could ever exist is the arbitrary more or less laws of
some people. Do you agree with this?
I must had a jailhouse. Another excellent philosopher.
It's always worth reading. So do I agree with this?
I mean this is going to get us into a deeper issue as to
whether or not there is such a thing as law and also if there
is do we have a duty to obey it? So, I mean, they're different
theories out there of what law is on one Theory laws.
Just a collection of rules with a certain structure to it might
is there's one rule which would validate the other rule.
The rule that validates them can itself be validated that comes
from HLA heart. Another theory which comes from
Ronald dworkin says the rule consists of some combination
rules and principles and the. Yeah, so the The principles fit
in have to fit both fit and justify the rules.
So there's an issue as to whether or not either one of
these things is an adequate description of what law is.
And again, that's going to be a fairly complex issue.
The separate issue is do we had a duty to obey the law?
And I guess, I think that assuming that there is Law, and
if it is the case that the government has legitimate Ready,
and if it's further case, we have do to obey the government,
then it would seem that we have a duty to obey the law.
Now you're right that when we cross into a new state, we don't
look the laws up. Most people never know what the
laws are at least in plenty of areas.
And for a lot of people, even if they did look it up, it would be
in unreadable. The laws are you know, when you
actually read them, this surprisingly murky.
So how can you be duty-bound to read to follow rules that you
don't understand? It's not clear that you
reasonably can understand them. So it's kind of an issue as to
whether or not you ought to do something, when it's not clear
that you can know what it is that you want to do.
So I think I think that it does raise a very interesting issue.
Again, it's going to be a fairly complex here.
There might be an issue ought you to obey the laws, and are
you blame really for not doing so are those are separate
issues. So again, I think it's going to
be fairly complex. My final question for you is, if
you could recommend three books to anyone interested in
philosophy, they sort of have the love of wisdom.
They want to be able to think rationally, see through the
propaganda, not be manipulated and, you know, sort of have
self-knowledge. What's three books?
Would you recommend? Well, in terms of I mean, I
think the best books in terms of introduction of philosophy, are
these sort of collection works because you see lots of
different arguments. So in terms of someone who has
not seen a lot of philosophy, I would get an introduction of
philosophy book, the ones I've enjoyed over the years teaching.
Our this is not an, I don't know what version it's on.
Now, that's a lot of years ago, which is Joel, feinberg's
reasons. Reasons.
I'm responsibility the lowest point man's quest for truth.
I find a piece that are really short and readable collection.
In terms of political philosophy.
You've cited, Anarchy, State, and Utopia.
I find that just a fantastic font of ideas.
So these sorts of these sorts of edited collections, I think of
the best, the best entree into philosophy because they allow
you to explore a lot of the great minds reason at work put
forth by George shares, Stephen Kahn.
If you get the other editors are so any of these edit editions, I
think are an excellent entree into philosophy.
Excellent. Well, mr.
Kirchner. Thank you so much for your time.
I greatly appreciate it. Please, check out the
description below to get access to mr.
Kirchner's books, as well as his other work in philosophy, sir.
Thank you so much for your time. Well, thank you for having me.
I really appreciate the interest and I appreciate the excellent
question to ask, so it's been a real pleasure.
Thank you.