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.