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?
I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability.
The coolest thing is when you don’t care about being cool anymore. Indifference is the greatest aphrodisiac - that’s what really sums up style for me.
Nationalism has two fatal charms for its devotees: It presupposes local self-sufficiency, which is a pleasant and desirable condition, and it suggests, very subtly, a certain personal superiority by reason of one's belonging to a place which is definable and familiar, as against a place that is strange, remote.
The spirit of man is more important than mere physical strength, and the spiritual fiber of a nation than its wealth.
I wanted pure love: foolishness; to love one another is to hate a common enemy: I will thus espouse your hatred. I wanted Good: nonsense; on this earth and in these times, Good and Bad are inseparable: I accept to be evil in order to become good.
But what if your obsession has nothing to do with drugs or thrills or money? What if what you want most in the world is to recapture the way life was a week, a month, a year ago-and you are willing to do whatever it takes?
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.