STUDY QUESTIONS 14 NOZICK LIBERTARIAN RIGHTS 1 WHAT ARE

  INTERNATIONAL PILOT STUDY ON THE EVALUATION OF
  RESILIENCE IN THE FOOD CHAIN A STUDY
STUDY NAME OPTIONS ANALYSIS PREPARED BY NAME TITLE JOB

14 8BXXXE INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION RADIOCOMMUNICATION STUDY
14 CUSTOMS COOPERATION CASE STUDY FOR CANADA
283 FUENTE WWWITUINTITUDSTUDYGROUPS SGP20022006SG2133000S4DOC RESULTADO SUPLEMENTARIO

PHIL 462 – Study Questions


Study Questions #14

Nozick: Libertarian Rights


  1. What are the functions of the minimal state, as identified by Nozick?

  2. What is the ‘ultraminimal state’ and how does it compare with the ‘night-watchman’ state?

  3. What is the theoretical challenge caused by the redistributive nature of the night-watchman state?

  4. What is the possible inconsistency faced by the supporter of the ultraminimal state?

  5. What is the difference between viewing the nonviolation of rights as a moral goal and viewing it as a moral constraint? (This is a difficult, but important question) How does this distinction help dissolve the purported inconsistency referred to in question 4?

  6. Why might one think that side constraints are irrational?

  7. In what way do side constraints reflect a Kantian idea?

  8. What particular ways of using others is political philosophy concerned with?

  9. In what ways does the view that one should violate persons for the greater social good fail to respect the separateness of persons?

  10. What is the difference between side constraints in general and libertarian side constraints in particular? How are they related, according to Nozick? (Note his discussion of the argument from moral form to moral content)

  11. What is an innocent threat? What do libertarian side constraints imply about the treatment of innocent threats? Innocent shields?



To Discuss:

This reading delves into foundational questions of moral theory. One of the most interesting questions it raises has to do with the relative attractiveness of side-constraint versus consequentialist theories of morality. Nozick advocates a Lockean theory of rights, where rights are construed as side-constraints. Consequentialists, however, find such a theory puzzling. If it is bad for you to kill an innocent person, consequentialists will say, isn’t it five times as bad for someone else to kill five innocent people? And if that’s the case, then shouldn’t one kill one innocent person whenever doing so is necessary to prevent five others from being killed? But if so, then side-constraints aren’t absolute. We are not absolutely forbidden from murdering, we should simply act so as to minimize the total number of murders committed.


Is there anything wrong with such a view? What can be said in favor of the deontological position to keep it from being ‘converted’ in this way into a consequentialist one?

© Routledge 2014



3 RADIOCOMMUNICATION STUDY GROUPS SOURCE DOCUMENT 4CTEMP42(REV1)
6 7BL13E INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION RADIOCOMMUNICATION STUDY
9 7D129 (ANNEX 3)E RADIOCOMMUNICATION STUDY GROUPS


Tags: libertarian rights, do libertarian, libertarian, questions, rights, nozick, study