Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackPhilosophy/status/330455811635683329
2 formatting, added tag
source | link

I have over the years seen podcasts or iTunes lectures from Michael Sandel's justice lectures at Harvard ( http://www.justiceharvard.org/lectures from Michael Sandel's justice lectures at Harvard ). HeHe asks many profound questions. The problem I have is that most of them seem to be based around a false dichotomy:

1) The state should at gunpoint force you to do something nice/moral, vs.

2) The people should applaud your living according to your conscience, even if it is unkind, or harms the interests of others.

For so many questions  -- such as the Masters case ( http://www.justiceharvard.org/resources/pga-tour-inc-v-martin-2000/the Masters case ) -- I would be very hesitant to have the state force a particular answer, but I'd encourage people to write letters, or even boycott the sponsors.

How have philosophers dealt with this in the past?

I have over the years seen podcasts or iTunes lectures from Michael Sandel's justice lectures at Harvard ( http://www.justiceharvard.org/ ). He asks many profound questions. The problem I have is that most of them seem to be based around a false dichotomy:

1) The state should at gunpoint force you to do something nice/moral, vs.

2) The people should applaud your living according to your conscience, even if it is unkind, or harms the interests of others.

For so many questions-- such as the Masters case ( http://www.justiceharvard.org/resources/pga-tour-inc-v-martin-2000/ ) -- I would be very hesitant to have the state force a particular answer, but I'd encourage people to write letters, or even boycott the sponsors.

How have philosophers dealt with this in the past?

I have over the years seen podcasts or iTunes lectures from Michael Sandel's justice lectures at Harvard. He asks many profound questions. The problem I have is that most of them seem to be based around a false dichotomy:

1) The state should at gunpoint force you to do something nice/moral, vs.

2) The people should applaud your living according to your conscience, even if it is unkind, or harms the interests of others.

For so many questions  -- such as the Masters case -- I would be very hesitant to have the state force a particular answer, but I'd encourage people to write letters, or even boycott the sponsors.

How have philosophers dealt with this in the past?

1
source | link

How do philosophers distinguish between rights that beg legislation vs. those that not?

I have over the years seen podcasts or iTunes lectures from Michael Sandel's justice lectures at Harvard ( http://www.justiceharvard.org/ ). He asks many profound questions. The problem I have is that most of them seem to be based around a false dichotomy:

1) The state should at gunpoint force you to do something nice/moral, vs.

2) The people should applaud your living according to your conscience, even if it is unkind, or harms the interests of others.

For so many questions-- such as the Masters case ( http://www.justiceharvard.org/resources/pga-tour-inc-v-martin-2000/ ) -- I would be very hesitant to have the state force a particular answer, but I'd encourage people to write letters, or even boycott the sponsors.

How have philosophers dealt with this in the past?