What do you think?
Rate this book
Actual Ethics
Actual Ethics offers a moral defense of the 'classical liberal' political tradition and applies it to several of today's vexing moral and political issues. James Otteson argues that a Kantian conception of personhood and an Aristotelian conception of judgment are compatible and even complementary. He shows why they are morally attractive, and perhaps most controversially, when combined, they imply a limited, classical liberal political state. Otteson then addresses several contemporary problems - wealth and poverty, public education, animal welfare, and affirmative action - and shows how each can be plausibly addressed within the Kantian, Aristotelian and classical liberal framework. Written in clear, engaging, and jargon-free prose, Actual Ethics will give students and general audiences an overview of a powerful and rich moral and political tradition that they might not otherwise consider.
- GenresPhilosophy
360 pages, Hardcover
First published June 29, 2002
6 people are currently reading
47 people want to read
About the author
James R. Otteson
19 books18 followersJames R. Otteson is an American philosopher and political economist. He is the Thomas W. Smith Presidential Chair in Business Ethics, Professor of Economics, and executive director of the BB&T Center for the Study of Capitalism at Wake Forest University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
August 8, 2019
Before reading this book, I had anecdotal – and somewhat skeptical – understanding of liberalism (or libertarianism, as it is sometimes called). Not only Otteson’s Actual Ethics makes it crystal clear as to what classical liberalism’s standpoint really is, it also presents a distinct moral framework for liberalism. I am not saying that you will find some groundbreaking explanation of liberalism which hasn’t offered before. However, what strikes here is the way Otteson shows that moral philosophy behind classical liberalism is compatible with Kantian philosophy of personhood and Aristotelian notion of happiness.
Kantian ethics asserts that a human being cannot be used as a means to an end because human have conscience, can deliberate, and can set their own goals/ends. Affix Aristotle’s concept of happiness here and picture is complete: all of these goals/ends are endeavored to achieve happiness; happiness has no further objective.
But how everyone should simultaneously achieve happiness. Are my goals/ends justifiable? And are there any exceptions (like the treatment of minors and mentally disabled)? Since there's no moral formula that can determine which cases can be treated as exceptions to Kantian rule, here, the importance of Judgment comes into play.
Judgment depends on two things: freedom and responsibility. Good judgment develops by enjoying the freedom to exercise it, and by taking the responsibility for its exercise. Therefore, it is very important to develop good judgment, and letting other people develop their good judgment, by allowing them to choose freely and face the consequences of their choices. Letting people develop good Judgment is integral to Kantian personhood.
It is also important to distinguish between virtues and justice. Positive virtues are those actions and behaviors that one has to do to be a good person, those activities that go beyond basic call of duty. However, any system that enforces anyone to do something is essentially coercive. What is needed is a system that forces people to refrain from doing bad things instead of forcing them to do good things. This is Negative Justice. Negative justice concerns those minimal actions and behaviors that one must refrain from in order for a society to survive and social relations to exist. Positive virtues are good, but they are not necessary for maintaining a peaceful society and good social order. For that, negative justice is more important. For example, a society devoid of charity can survive, but a society where everybody pokes their noses into others’ businesses cannot. Moreover, positive virtues are hard to enforce for an authority (charity, generosity etc.) whereas negative justice is easier to implement (refraining from poking one’s nose in others’ business).
How to assess which elements of Negative Justice to implement? What actions are needed not to be done? Justice is an empirical concept, changing over time and over places. The argument that there are purely logical truths in justice is debatable. Otteson argues that Justice is determined a posteriori, not a priori. Whether there are some universal elements in human justice can only be determined through empirical investigation and not through dialectic reasoning.
Now, empirical investigation does reveal that there are some universal elements of Justice. These are: protecting oneself, protecting one’s property and protecting one’s liberty. This is the driving rule of classical liberalism. I want my physical existence, my property and my liberty protected.
Another way of saying this is through defining liberty: Positive Liberty is being able to do what I want to fulfill my potential; Negative Liberty is freedom from interference by other people. Negative liberty is associated with Locke, which holds that people should be free from interference unless it is the matter of defending one’s property or freedom, or enforcing of voluntary contracts. Therefore, government can interfere only to the extent defined above. Author calls it General Liberty Principal: so long as one does no positive harm to another, one is free to decide and do what one likes.
Concept of positive liberty (i.e. having the power and capability to perform an action) presents sort of a restrictive picture of freedom (I am able to do something, but I do not have the resources to do it). Therefore, negative liberty presents freedom more strongly than positive liberty. Moreover, negative liberty is compatible, i.e. every person can exercise negative liberty simultaneously with everyone else and no one will be interfering with anyone else’s similar exercise. On the contrary, positive liberty is not compatible; it is not possible for everyone to exercise positive liberty because such exercise by some will eventually be at the expense of someone else.
Now the stage is set to define the idea of Classical Liberalism: government is created to protect people’s lives, liberty and property, and it can use coercive powers to support itself in these activities and to punish infractions in those principles only. It cannot do anything else or otherwise it will imperil people’s personhood. This is the only way to ensure individual and thereby collective happiness.
Otteson argues that an ideal state is the one which only have the following characteristics:
a. It refuses to privilege one person or group above another, is skeptical about one person or group’s ability to decide for another, and disallows one person or group from coercing others into adopting beliefs, behaviors and ends against their will.
b. The sole aim of such state is to ensure justice for its subjects. The core of the ‘justice' is to protect each individual’s personhood, i.e. state works to secure people’s lives, their liberty and their property.
c. To ensure such justice, state will have to have three things: (i) an agency to make rules as to what constitutes as property and ownership, and what are the punishments for violations, (ii) a system to adjudicate disputes regarding property and contracts, and (iii) defensive agencies to protect life, liberty and property by enforcing rules.
d. Taxing only to the extent that the provision of the above can be guaranteed.
e. Any state or government extending its authority beyond what is defined in points above will eventually be violating personhood.
f. Caring for the poor is social responsibility, which means person or group of persons should care for the poor independently, voluntarily and using their own resources. Moreover, since it is personal money, one would ensure that it is used in the best possible manner (setting up free education, microfinance etc.). Use of political power to establish state subsidy would mean coercing one to give his/her money to pay for the other. Moreover, it will be hard to distinguish between needy people and free riders in the case of state subsides. Political power is justified only in the enforcement of justice. (American-style welfare state does not fulfil this criterion.)
g. Since the ideal system puts personhood above anything else, anyone who doesn’t want to pay for state protection of his/her life and property (because he/she can arrange for private protection) cannot be forced into paying taxes. However, state will ensure that he/she does not free-ride.
h. There are no moral exceptions for state action, politician or state agent. Everyone is subject to the same standards of conduct and to the same standard of justice.
i. People who want to spread a cause, promote a religion or introduce a new political philosophy are all more than welcome to do it. Those who want to oppose them are also welcome.
Now, the most striking thing is to understand some of the practical implications of liberalism. And it’s not easy to accept them! There is no room for affirmative action; public schooling is waste of resources; sexual harassment is tolerable unless it’s physical etc. etc. Using Otteson’s concept of justice, a person’s bad deed may not necessarily be unjust unless it impinges one’s physical existence, liberty or property. Under classical liberalism, the only way to counter such actions (discrimination, sexual harassment. etc.) is through advocacy, not enforcement. Otteson asserts that this is the best way to live your life.
Kantian ethics asserts that a human being cannot be used as a means to an end because human have conscience, can deliberate, and can set their own goals/ends. Affix Aristotle’s concept of happiness here and picture is complete: all of these goals/ends are endeavored to achieve happiness; happiness has no further objective.
But how everyone should simultaneously achieve happiness. Are my goals/ends justifiable? And are there any exceptions (like the treatment of minors and mentally disabled)? Since there's no moral formula that can determine which cases can be treated as exceptions to Kantian rule, here, the importance of Judgment comes into play.
Judgment depends on two things: freedom and responsibility. Good judgment develops by enjoying the freedom to exercise it, and by taking the responsibility for its exercise. Therefore, it is very important to develop good judgment, and letting other people develop their good judgment, by allowing them to choose freely and face the consequences of their choices. Letting people develop good Judgment is integral to Kantian personhood.
It is also important to distinguish between virtues and justice. Positive virtues are those actions and behaviors that one has to do to be a good person, those activities that go beyond basic call of duty. However, any system that enforces anyone to do something is essentially coercive. What is needed is a system that forces people to refrain from doing bad things instead of forcing them to do good things. This is Negative Justice. Negative justice concerns those minimal actions and behaviors that one must refrain from in order for a society to survive and social relations to exist. Positive virtues are good, but they are not necessary for maintaining a peaceful society and good social order. For that, negative justice is more important. For example, a society devoid of charity can survive, but a society where everybody pokes their noses into others’ businesses cannot. Moreover, positive virtues are hard to enforce for an authority (charity, generosity etc.) whereas negative justice is easier to implement (refraining from poking one’s nose in others’ business).
How to assess which elements of Negative Justice to implement? What actions are needed not to be done? Justice is an empirical concept, changing over time and over places. The argument that there are purely logical truths in justice is debatable. Otteson argues that Justice is determined a posteriori, not a priori. Whether there are some universal elements in human justice can only be determined through empirical investigation and not through dialectic reasoning.
Now, empirical investigation does reveal that there are some universal elements of Justice. These are: protecting oneself, protecting one’s property and protecting one’s liberty. This is the driving rule of classical liberalism. I want my physical existence, my property and my liberty protected.
Another way of saying this is through defining liberty: Positive Liberty is being able to do what I want to fulfill my potential; Negative Liberty is freedom from interference by other people. Negative liberty is associated with Locke, which holds that people should be free from interference unless it is the matter of defending one’s property or freedom, or enforcing of voluntary contracts. Therefore, government can interfere only to the extent defined above. Author calls it General Liberty Principal: so long as one does no positive harm to another, one is free to decide and do what one likes.
Concept of positive liberty (i.e. having the power and capability to perform an action) presents sort of a restrictive picture of freedom (I am able to do something, but I do not have the resources to do it). Therefore, negative liberty presents freedom more strongly than positive liberty. Moreover, negative liberty is compatible, i.e. every person can exercise negative liberty simultaneously with everyone else and no one will be interfering with anyone else’s similar exercise. On the contrary, positive liberty is not compatible; it is not possible for everyone to exercise positive liberty because such exercise by some will eventually be at the expense of someone else.
Now the stage is set to define the idea of Classical Liberalism: government is created to protect people’s lives, liberty and property, and it can use coercive powers to support itself in these activities and to punish infractions in those principles only. It cannot do anything else or otherwise it will imperil people’s personhood. This is the only way to ensure individual and thereby collective happiness.
Otteson argues that an ideal state is the one which only have the following characteristics:
a. It refuses to privilege one person or group above another, is skeptical about one person or group’s ability to decide for another, and disallows one person or group from coercing others into adopting beliefs, behaviors and ends against their will.
b. The sole aim of such state is to ensure justice for its subjects. The core of the ‘justice' is to protect each individual’s personhood, i.e. state works to secure people’s lives, their liberty and their property.
c. To ensure such justice, state will have to have three things: (i) an agency to make rules as to what constitutes as property and ownership, and what are the punishments for violations, (ii) a system to adjudicate disputes regarding property and contracts, and (iii) defensive agencies to protect life, liberty and property by enforcing rules.
d. Taxing only to the extent that the provision of the above can be guaranteed.
e. Any state or government extending its authority beyond what is defined in points above will eventually be violating personhood.
f. Caring for the poor is social responsibility, which means person or group of persons should care for the poor independently, voluntarily and using their own resources. Moreover, since it is personal money, one would ensure that it is used in the best possible manner (setting up free education, microfinance etc.). Use of political power to establish state subsidy would mean coercing one to give his/her money to pay for the other. Moreover, it will be hard to distinguish between needy people and free riders in the case of state subsides. Political power is justified only in the enforcement of justice. (American-style welfare state does not fulfil this criterion.)
g. Since the ideal system puts personhood above anything else, anyone who doesn’t want to pay for state protection of his/her life and property (because he/she can arrange for private protection) cannot be forced into paying taxes. However, state will ensure that he/she does not free-ride.
h. There are no moral exceptions for state action, politician or state agent. Everyone is subject to the same standards of conduct and to the same standard of justice.
i. People who want to spread a cause, promote a religion or introduce a new political philosophy are all more than welcome to do it. Those who want to oppose them are also welcome.
Now, the most striking thing is to understand some of the practical implications of liberalism. And it’s not easy to accept them! There is no room for affirmative action; public schooling is waste of resources; sexual harassment is tolerable unless it’s physical etc. etc. Using Otteson’s concept of justice, a person’s bad deed may not necessarily be unjust unless it impinges one’s physical existence, liberty or property. Under classical liberalism, the only way to counter such actions (discrimination, sexual harassment. etc.) is through advocacy, not enforcement. Otteson asserts that this is the best way to live your life.
Displaying 1 of 1 review