The fundamental question of political philosophy, one that precedes questions about how the state should be organized, is whether there should be any state at all. Why not have anarchy?
Robert NozickRead
There are only individual people, different individual people, with their own individual lives. Using one of these people for the benefit of others uses him and benefits the others. Nothing more. What happens is that something is done to him for the sake of others. Talk of an overall social good covers this up.
Interpretation
The quote emphasizes the importance of individual lives and the ethical implications of using one person for the benefit of others.
In this quote, Robert Nozick critiques the notion of social good by highlighting that individuals should not be seen merely as means to an end for collective benefit. It suggests that prioritizing the needs of a society over the rights and dignity of individuals leads to exploitation, obscuring the moral weight of using people for the advantage of others while ignoring their own individual lives and objectives.
In practice
During a discussion on ethics in a philosophy class, this quote can be used to highlight the dangers of utilitarianism.
The fundamental question of political philosophy, one that precedes questions about how the state should be organized, is whether there should be any state at all. Why not have anarchy?
Given the complexity of interpersonal relationships and institutions and the complexity of co-ordination of the actions of many people, it is enormously unlikely that, even if there were one ideal pattern for society, it could be arrived at in an a priori fashion. And even supposing that some great genius did come along with a blueprint, who could have the confidence that it could work
And although it might be best of all to be Socrates satisfied, having both happiness and depth, we would give up some happiness in order to gain the depth.
I think philosophers can do things akin to theoretical scientists, in that, having read about empirical data, they too can think of what hypotheses and theories might account for that data. So there's a continuity between philosophy and science in that way.
The history of philosophy is actually full of people who argue for rather wild and incredible views, and their reputations are based on the skill of arguing for them.
What else can matter to us, other than how our lives feel from the inside?
To be sure, those who are actually engaged in combat - those who actually see the maimed bodies and mourning mothers - struggle more than the rest of us to make sense of the reality of war.
A tyrant... is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader.
My respect for human beings is based not on the colour of a man’s skin nor authority he may wield, but purely on merit.
So long as we only believe in the justice of the state, of the law-made by those in power, to serve those in power-so long will we continue to be exploited by those in power.
If a man devotes himself to the instructions of his own unconscious, it can bestow this gift [of renewal], so that suddenly life, which has been stale and dull, turns into a rich unending inner adventure, full of creative possibilities
The sick man must follow his illness to the place where it is treated... He is set aside in one of the technical and secret zones (hospitals, prisons, refuse dumps) which relieve the living of everything that might hinder the chain of production and consumption, and which repair and select what can be sent back up to the surface of progress.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.