Joseph Raz

(? - 2022)

ABSTRACTThe paper offers a few reflections on moral implications of making sacrifices and on possible duties to make sacrifices. It does not provide an exhaustive or a systematic account of the subject. There are too many disparate questions, and too many different perspectives from which to examine them to allow for a systematic let alone an exhaustive account, and too many factual issues that I am not aware of. Needless to say, the observations that follow are in part stimulated by the popularity of some views that are mistaken. I will not however examine any specific view or account of these matters. The aim is to provide some pointers that will be helpful when considering specific issues regarding the moral significance of sacrifice.

Central to liberalism is the concept of political freedom. Revisionists wrongly claim that liberty has only instrumental value, but they do nevertheless contribute several cogent arguments relevant to the question of how the value of liberty is to be justified. The doctrine of the presumption of liberty and the thesis that liberty ‘just has’ intrinsic value are rightly rejected by revisionists, since neither can ground distinctions between different freedoms. Linguistic analysis is of limited use to the justification of the value of liberty, since distinctions between notions of freedom and unfreedom do not match normatively relevant distinctions. This book seeks to defend a liberal theory of limited government without resort to the mistaken premises of individualism, which it rejects.

A view of socially constructed values created and sustained by social practices is examined. In many cases, it may be that the social dependence of evaluative beliefs testifies not to the social construction of value but to the social dependence of access to value. It is argued that if we maintain the view that some values are socially constituted, we do not have to fall prey to the seemingly inescapable conclusion of additional arguments and puzzles that bedevil some theses affirming the social constitution of value. The social dependence of value has nothing to do with the affirmation of social practices as reasons for their own validity. Relevant social practices are sustaining practices necessary for the existence of value.

Legitimate authorities provide pre‐emptive reasons for action, in that the reasons they provide are not to be added to all other relevant reasons when assessing what to do, but should exclude and replace some of those other reasons. Furthermore, legitimate authorities are dependent in the sense that they ought to issue directives that are based on reasons applying independently to the subjects of the directives. The pre‐emption thesis and the dependence thesis are closely related to the normal justification thesis, which states that the normal justification for authority involves showing that the alleged subject is likely to comply better with reasons applicable to him if he accepts the authoritative directives rather than trying to follow the reasons directly. The chapter ends with a discussion of the nature of the explanatory‐normative reasoning employed in the book.

Begins with a definition of rights and a discussion of the relation between rights and duties. The right to promise, and rights generated by promising are used as examples to show how rights and duties function. Rights are held to be grounded in interests, since their instrumental value derives from the intrinsic value of well‐being. Thus only those whose well‐being is intrinsically valuable have rights, and rights cannot be regarded as trumps but must be weighed against other valuable ends. The view that rights should be grounded in respect for persons is discussed and rejected.

Political neutrality, conceived of as the exclusion of ideals, prevents governments from acting for reasons, which appeal to conceptions of the good, whether valid or invalid. Such a position relies on an elusive distinction between one part of morality, the good, and another, the right. Political welfarism, which allows governments to act specifically to increase want satisfaction, is mistaken in regarding want satisfaction as an intrinsic good. The Nozickean style aversion to coercion cannot be effectively grounded in autonomy, since no agents enjoy complete autonomy, and not only human intervention but also nature can restrict autonomy.

The normal justification of authority, as examined in Ch. 3, yields the conclusion that the extent of governmental authority varies from person to person. It cannot justify the authority that governments, in fact, claim for themselves in the case of most people. An analysis of consent is provided in order to explore the prospect that consent might serve to extend the scope of the authority of states. It is argued that consent can ground an extension of political authority only so far as it is non‐instrumentally valuable. Those who, as a mode of expressing identification with their community, consent to the authority of reasonably just governments or respect their laws, are subject to that authority since such modes of consent have non‐instrumental value.

It is argued that rights alone cannot provide a complete account of morality. Personal autonomy is incompatible with moral individualism and strong rights against coercion, since autonomy requires not just options but acceptable options, requiring the provision of collective goods. Collective goods are public goods that are intrinsically valuable, public goods being goods that are valuable for many people in society. There are, then, fundamental moral duties that do not derive from rights. We should not seek to draw a fundamental distinction between moral principles concerned with one's personal goals and those independently concerned with others.

A person's well‐being consists in his successful pursuit of valuable, willingly embraced goals. Many of these goals have a nested structure, and presuppose the existence of social forms or collective goods. Self‐interest is a narrower notion than that of personal well‐being. Self‐interest is advanced by fulfilment of a person's biologically determined needs and desires, including his feelings of satisfaction or contentment that arise from his pursuit of goals, which he was not biologically determined to have. Unlike the division between morality and self‐interest, there is no deep division between morality and personal well‐being.

The existence and nature of a moral point of view is explored. There is a philosophically deep way of dividing considerations into moral and non‐moral such that even thought other context‐dependent, uses of the terms are legitimate marks the correct or significant delineation of morality. Moral considerations are a distinct type, distinct in how we find out about them and in what makes them into considerations with a call for our attention. A powerful argument for the distinctness of the moral point of view is provided, and it is one that is relevant to the thesis that there are internal and external reasons for action, and to forms of agent‐relativism, which depend on it.

Under what conditions can one compare the strength of conflicting reasons for and against an action where they are a function of irreducibly different values that its performance manifests, contributes to, or detracts from? Two sets of conflicting reasons are incommensurable when neither is at least as weighty as the other, and so are the actions they are the only reasons for. It is argued that it is a conceptual truth that one has reason to realize value, and that the greater the value, the more stringent the reason. Moreover, belief in value explains why the action was done and makes its performance intelligible. The extent to which social practices are relevant to the existence or validity of at least some values is also explored.

The ideal of autonomy, together with pluralism, underlies the doctrine of political freedom. Autonomy underlies both positive and negative freedom. Toleration is underpinned by the competitive pluralism that is essential to autonomy. Autonomy is consistent with perfectionism, yet also underlies the ‘harm principle’, which asserts that the only purpose for which the law may use its coercive power is to prevent harm. Perfectionism and the harm principle are consistent with one another because the recommended type of perfectionism abjures coercion, focusing instead on maintaining the framework conditions that are conducive for pluralism and autonomy.

The doctrine of liberty is underpinned by the ideal of autonomy. While the rights that have traditionally been of concern to liberals serve the interests of the individuals protected by those rights, they also tend to promote collective goods, such as the good of toleration, and the good of membership. What accounts, in part, for the force of these rights is their ability to serve such collective goods. The connection between rights and collective goods shows that rights should not be constitutionally entrenched in such a way that they are forever beyond the reach of political action.

Two options are incommensurable if it is neither true that one of them is better than the other, nor true that they are of equal value. A test of incommensurability between two options, which yields a sufficient but not necessary condition of incommensurability, is that there is, or could be, another option that is better than one but is not better than the other. Two incommensurable options may be of roughly equal value, but do not have to be. The existence of significant incommensurability is attested to in our refusal to compare the value of options, and this refusal to compare the value of options helps, in turn, to determine the nature of those values. Incommensurability also helps to illuminate the nature of moral dilemmas.

In previous writings, I joined those who take the view that action with an intention is an action for a reason, where whatever value there is in the action is a reason for it. This paper sketches the role of reasons and intentions in leading to action with an intention. Section 1 explains that though belief in the value of the intended action is not an essential constituent of intentions, nevertheless when humans act with an intention they act in the belief that there is value in the action. Section 2 explains the relative role of value and intention in “producing” the action, and relates their role to that of motivation.