[MUSIC] Hi, I'm Rob Gressis. I'm a professor of philosophy at
California State University, Northridge, where we are right now. My job is to ask students
difficult questions in order to improve their philosophical thinking. Today, the difficult questions I'm
gonna be asking along with learn and liberty are about morality and
I have some predictions about this. I think every student is gonna say it's
wrong for an individual to use force to take another individual's money and give
it to a charitable cause of their choice. However, I think they're
all gonna say it's okay for the government to do that very same thing. I'm gonna ask them why. My prediction is that they're
not really gonna know why. Here's the first question. Are there any causes, political,
charity, that you agree with? >> I like AIDS research and
cancer research. I think that's good for the community. >> PETA.
>> PETA. >> I give some money to PETA. >> I personally donate to my high school. >> I am in a sorority, so we have national philanthropies that each
of our separate organizations benefit. Ours is Reading is Fundamental. >> I like Habitat For Humanity. >> Okay. Habitat For Humanity.
>> I think it's a great cause, building homes for people. >> Great, great answer. Here's another simple question. Do you think it's morally okay for you to
give your own money or time to Habitat for Humanity? >> Yeah, I think it's a good cause,
so I wouldn't see why not. >> Yes.
>> Yeah. Obviously, I haven't had anybody
disagree with me about that. Now here's another question. Is it moral to force others to
give to the cause of your choice? >> No. >> No, okay, so put it no. Would it be morally okay if you forced me
to give my money or time to this cause? >> Force is a really harsh word. >> Yeah, yeah. Let's say you say, do it or
else I'll fine you. >> No. >> I guess the answer is no. Would it be okay for
you to stick a gun in my face and say give money to
the Red Cross [CROSSTALK] or else I'll shoot you in the knee. >> No, no. >> So that's one kind of force. How about just lightly beating me up? >> No. >> What about just the threat of force? >> No. >> Why is it not okay for you to force
me to give my money to the homeless? >> Out of respect to charity,
you've got to respect people's wishes, if they want to donate to something,
then they're going to donate to something. If they don't want to donate to something,
they don't have to. >> I certainly believe that there's
certain organizations that people should give to. But then if somebody is
given that same power, then they can obviously use it
against me and make me donate money to something that I think is either bad or
something that I wouldn't agree to. >> Let's go to the next board, here. Let me just reveal this. [SOUND] Is it moral for the government to force others
to give to cause of your choice? Let's say a cause you really
believe in is women's heart health. Is it moral for the government to use the
threat of force, police, IRS, that kind of thing, to force others to give some
of their money to women's heart health? >> No. >> I feel like it's just like taxes. It's a civic duty. The fact that we all use roads. The fact that we all use school and
things and public services and they're all funded by taxes,
I think that it is morally okay to do so. >> Is what makes it morally okay,
the fact that we all benefit from it? >> Definitely,
especially if my choice is education. If more money is put into education,
then we are producing far more successful students, which could
then benefit us on an economic level. >> But what if you just gave
me the same argument earlier? What if you said, hey, I'm gonna force you to give me your
money to support my high school. After all,
we all benefit from my high school. So then you, Raul, tell me Robert, you
say, hey Robert, give me some money and if you don't, I'll fine you. I'll take even more of your money and
if you don't pay that fine, then I'll lock you in my basement. You say, hey, we all benefit
from education, so it's okay. >> I think this kind of goes back to
the nature of like what a society or even a city is. One person cannot do all
the jobs of everyone else, so we have this agreement,
this social contract. >> And you said no. >> I say no, yeah. >> Why is that? >> I said yes at first. I wanted to say yes, but
then after second thought, I realized that if I include myself
as being part of the government, which I think most people would say
that their choice matters in government, at least, in democratic process,
then I didn't see how I could use force to make others
give to any cause of my choosing. >> Right.
>> This would be the same. >> Same thing as over here,
where you said no >> Yeah, even though, intuitively, I wanted to say yes,
given what we understand government is, I just couldn't say yes. I just followed my logic there and
brought it over here. >> So it's okay for the government use force to make people
donate to something everybody needs. Is it okay for you to use force to get somebody to
donate to something everybody needs? Could you beat me up, take my money,
and give it to the police and say, I'm using this money to support you? >> I couldn't do that, no. I don't have the morals for that. >> How come it's okay for
the government to do it but not you? >> Maybe they're a lot stronger than I am. [LAUGH]. >> Why isn't it okay for me to force you to give money to
the police to help that community? Why is it only okay for the government? >> I do see the immediate conflict. >> Here's one thing I might want to say,
it's okay for the government to use force when it's okay for you to use
force but when it's not okay for you to use force, maybe it's also not
okay for the government to use force. >> I feel like this is kind of
like a contract with this country. It's just kind of like how
they've built their system, while others might not do that,
I think because of that, yes, it is fair. >> Was this contract something
that you and I signed or anything? >> No, I was born here, so. >> Did you have a choice about that? >> No. You can't not agree to it, right? If you don't vote,
you still have to do it. >> Yeah.
>> If you vote for the person who loses,
you still have to do it. Is it really an agreement, if there's
no way to opt out of the agreement? >> I think it does
undermine the agreement. >> Is it okay for
the government ever to use force to get people to give money,
like taxes or anything like that? >> I don't think so. >> Doesn't that make you like
an anarchist or something? >> Everyone's going to do what they want
to do, they'll have their own opinions but the government just kind of goes
with the majority of everyone. >> Yeah. It just depends, I guess. >> Is it okay for the government to force
a minority of people to give to a cause the majority likes? Let's say the majority wants to go to
war against Iraq or something like that. Is it okay for
the government to say, okay, you have to spend tax dollars to
support the military so we can do that? >> These are hard questions. >> I know, I know,
I just try to make people think. >> [LAUGH]
>> It's good. I don't know,
that's kind of how society is now and people are just prone and
used to how it works. >> It's okay, cuz they're used to it? Should they say, know what? We're sick of this, we're gonna stop. >> Yeah. >> You think they should? >> Yeah. >> All right, maybe you are an anarchist. >> You don't look like an anarchist but
maybe you are. >> I think, yes, because it's our system. It's the way things work. If we didn't have that going on,
who knows how we would get money toward the military,
how we would get money towards education. I think we need something in place
to make those things happen. >> What if it could get done without
taxes, then would it be wrong for them to do it? What if you, we can have a society where people
voluntarily donate money to the military. >> Then they would have no reason
to tax us and things like that. I mean, but would it be okay? >> Yeah, would it be wrong to? They might not have a reason but
they'd still do it. >> I don't think it'd be wrong? >> Why not? >> Cuz it's not a horrible pressing
thing you're asking people to do. >> What if said to you, give me 50 bucks
or else I'll lock you in my basement. Now 50 bucks isn't that harmful. >> Right.
>> Is it okay for me to do that? >> No. >> Why is it okay for the government
to take 50 bucks but not me? >> Because the consequences aren't that. >> No they are, right? >> I guess jail. [LAUGH]
>> It's not my basement but it's not necessarily better but
my basement is pretty cool. [LAUGH]
>> It's got games and everything. So is it okay then, for the government to
put you in jail if you don't pay taxes but it's not okay for
me to put you in basement jail? >> If you put it like that,
it's not okay for anyone to do it. [LAUGH]
>> Right, but yet, I think most people think it's okay for
the government to do it but not okay for
an individual [CROSSTALK] or a mob. >> Yeah, like I said, because the government has this
prestigious like look on them. >> They have the badge. [CROSSTALK]
>> They've got authority. >> Exactly, some people are like
screwed that, like no taxes, they can't make us do it but then other
people are this the way it's been, you just got to keep the system flowing. >> Yeah, it's almost like this is
just what we all tell ourselves. >> Yeah. >> What I think is best for the nation,
may not be best for the nation. So if the majority of the nation feels
one way and they vote someone in who is looking out for what most people
believe is in their best interest, then I'm all for listening,
going with that person. >> Let me ask you this question. Let's say you're hanging out
with four other friends. >> Right. >> You go to a restaurant and
you get a check. The five of you have a $200 check. >> Okay. >> Then the four friends get together and
they say, you know what? We all want Chris to pay for
the whole thing. >> Right.
>> It's in our best interest if we don't pay at all and Chris pays everything. >> Right. >> Would that make it okay? >> No. >> Why not? They voted. >> There was a majority vote. >> Right, but I didn't vote for
them to make that decision for me. >> What if you don't vote for
the candidate who goes to war and you still have to give your taxes? >> If my friends were
elected by a different body. Say, we're a part of a group in whole and
just our friends went out to dinner but this whole group that we're a part of
voted them to make decisions for me, then I'm going to let them
make decisions for me. But if we're just a group of people
that no one like allotted of them to do anything, then yeah, I'm not going to
let them make me pay for anything. >> What if you knew that your
friends were out to get you? >> Right. >> You were trying to tell people
to not vote for these guys. >> Right.
>> But they still voted for your friends to hold the office
of restaurant deciders and then they made you go to
a restaurant that you hated and they made you pay three times
what everyone else pays. >> No one's going to make me do anything. >> The government can though. >> Right.
>> And you think it's okay when the government does it? >> Right, because I trust our government. >> What would happen if it fell apart? That's tough.
>> Yeah, that's tough. It wouldn't be able to do
what it's supposed to do. [CROSSTALK] Force us to do certain things. >> Yeah, that we need to do or
else we'll maybe collapse. >> Right. >> Even if that's right, even if it's
true that there are only certain things the government does and
if it doesn't do them, we collapse, most of what the government
does isn't that, is it? >> Right, it would only be
a certain number of things. >> Right, so that would only, at best, justify a very small number-
>> Yeah. >> So this collapse argument,
it seems like, it's your big thing. >> Yeah. >> If you can be shown that there's
a society that could work pretty well, or as well, or even better than our
current society and it had no taxes, everything happened voluntarily,
then you'd be on board with that? >> Absolutely. >> Do you think most people ever
even think of this question? >> No, I don't think so. I think we just blow right by it,
and if more people stopped by and saw only this question,
I think the tax would be filled. >> Yeah, they would all be yeses. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, when you do this question
first and this one, things change. >> Yeah, definitely. >> Which is an interesting lesson
about the power of philosophy. >> Yes. >> I think we're gonna leave it there. What have we learned today? Seems to me that we've
learned a couple things. First of all, people value self ownership. They value the fact that they have
control over their own lives. They think it's okay for them to do with their bodies and
their property what they want but that it's not okay for other people to
do to them what those other people want. That makes sense. This is how most people live. This is how most people want to live. But all of a sudden, when you bring up
the government, things start to change. As you'll see, a fair number of people
thought it was okay for the government to invade your self ownership in order
to further causes it wants to do. But why is this? Why do people think things change
when the government gets involved? Does it have to do with philanthropy? Does it have to do with large numbers? Does it have to do with the fact that
people claim that they have agreed to it in some way? Then why do they think agreements
are these funny things that change when it comes to the government? This brings up a fundamental question
about the proper role of government. What is government allowed to do? A very natural answer is that
people own themselves and they own their property and the government
is not allowed to do things to those people that they
don't let others do. However, when people
are actually asked about this, what is a government allowed to do,
their answers change. They think, the government is allowed
to tell me what I'm supposed to do with my property, with my body,
with these sorts of things. Why is that? What gives the government
the right to do that? Is it the fact that there's
lots of people in it? Is it the fact that it's gonna have
some allegedly beneficial effects? Is it the fact that we have all
agreed to it, whatever that means? It's not entirely clear based on
talking to the students if there is any general thing that most people mean that allows them to think that
the government has this right. At the end of the day, I think that people
aren't really sure why they give this answer but they do give this answer and I
think one of the things we should try and figure out is why people
are thinking the way they do. In fact, what do you think? [SOUND] [MUSIC]
Men man kan också argumentera från den andra siden med samma retorik som kommer att leda till motsatta svar som den här herren fick. Så tycker inte det här visar något speciellt bara att retorik fungerar.