Personal Notes on Harvard Justice PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Personal Notes on Harvard Justice PDF

Description

No human philosopher can define “what is right thing to do” as Harvard Law Lectures teach. Allah has created the universe and Allah has created Humans only Allah knows what right thing to do. Allah has created morality and has mentioned this morality in His book Quran thus defining what is right thing to do. This morality is based on the higher virtues. Allah is one and Holy therefore all the Laws of Allah are based on Holy virtues. Following those virtues is the only right thing to do. In some ambiguous situations where there Allah has not defined laws in such cases Allah has provided a moral compass to every man and in such case right thing is to follow to moral compass. The moral compass may vary from person to person, bases on his life story and schemata, but there is baseline definition of morality. Below that base line action is immorality. In ambiguous situations “The reward of deeds depends upon the intention” If the intention is bad but the deed is good then the deed will be considered bad on the other hand if the intention is good but the deed is bad then the deed will be considered good. The example of second case is trolley problem. Kill one or many when facing unavoidable accident. The intentions take drive from built in moral compass which can be different for every person but has some fixed base line. Good intention is to remain above this base and the bad intention is to fall below this base line. Almost all philosophers have elements of morality which resonates with the Laws of Allah and drive from internal moral compass. Only Libertarian philosophy is hedonistic philosophy and is based on the satanic principals.

Lecture 1 On Philosophy Not just to enliven these abstract and distant books but to make clear, to bring out what’s at stake in our everyday lives, including our political lives, for philosophy. And so we will read these books and we will debate these issues, and we’ll see how each informs and illuminates the other. This may sound appealing enough, but here I have to issue a warning. And the warning is this, to read these books in this way as an exercise in self-knowledge, to read them in this way carries certain risks, risks that are both personal and political, risks that every student of political philosophy has known. These risks spring from the fact that philosophy teaches us and unsettles us by confronting us with what we already know. There’s an irony. The difficulty of this course consists in the fact that it

teaches what you already know. It works by taking what we know from familiar unquestioned settings and making it strange. That’s how those examples worked, the hypotheticals with which we began, with their mix of playfulness and sobriety. It’s also how these philosophical books work. Philosophy estranges us from the familiar, not by supplying new information but by inviting and provoking a new way of seeing but, and here’s the risk, once the familiar turns strange, it’s never quite the same again. Self-knowledge is like lost innocence, however unsettling you find it; it can never be un-thought or un-known. What makes this enterprise difficult but also riveting is that moral and political philosophy is a story and you don’t know where the story will lead. But what you do know is that the story is about you. Those are the personal risks . Now what of the political risks? One way of introducing a course like this would be to promise you that by reading these books and debating these issues, you will become a better, more responsible citizen; you will examine the presuppositions of public policy, you will hone your political judgment, you will become a more effective participant in public affairs. But this would be a partial and misleading promise. Political philosophy, for the most part, hasn’t worked that way. You have to allow for the possibility that political philosophy may make you a worse citizen rather than a better one or at least a worse citizen before it makes you a better one, and that’s because philosophy is a distancing, even debilitating, activity. And you see this, going back to Socrates, there’s a dialogue, the Gorgias, in which one of Socrates’ friends, Callicles, tries to talk him out of philosophizing . Callicles tells Socrates “Philosophy is a pretty toy if one indulges in it with moderation at the right time of life. But if one pursues it further than one should, it is absolute ruin." "Take my advice,” Callicles says, “abandon argument. Learn the accomplishments of active life, take for your models not those people who spend their time on these petty quibbles but those who have a good livelihood and reputation and many other blessings.” So Callicles is really saying to Socrates “Quit philosophizing, get real, go to business school.” And Callicles did have a point. He had a point because philosophy distances us from conventions, from established assumptions, and from settled beliefs. Those are the risks, personal and political. And in the face of these risks, there is a characteristic evasion. The name of the evasion is skepticism, it’s the idea –well, it goes something like this –we didn’t resolve once and for all either the cases or the principles we were arguing when we began and if Aristotle and Locke and Kant and Mill haven’t solved these questions after all of these years, who are we to think that we, here in Anders Theatre, over the course of a semester, can resolve them? And so, maybe it’s just a matter of each person having his or her own principles and there’s nothing more to be said about it, no way of reasoning. That’s the evasion, the evasion of skepticism, to which I would offer the following reply. It’s true, these questions have been debated for a very long time but the very fact that they have

recurred and persisted may suggest that though they’re impossible in one sense, they’re unavoidable in another. And the reason they’re unavoidable, the reason they’re inescapable is that we live some answer to these questions every day. So skepticism, just throwing up your hands and giving up on moral reflection is no solution. Immanuel Kant described very well the problem with skepticism when he wrote “Skepticism is a resting place for human reason, where it can reflect upon its dogmatic wanderings, but it is no dwelling place for permanent settlement." "Simply to acquiesce in skepticism,” Kant wrote, “can never suffice to overcome the restlessness of reason.” I’ve tried to suggest through these stories and these arguments some sense of the risks and temptations, of the perils and the possibilities. I would simply conclude by saying that the aim of this course is to awaken the restlessness of reason and to see where it might lead.

1. Consequentialist moral reasoning (Finds Morality in consequence of action) 2. Categorical moral reasoning (Finds morality in certain duties and Rights)

The solution to ambiguous situations as presented in the lecture (Trolley case and The Queen vs. Dudley and Stephens (1884) Life boat case can never be found out by philosophers. Philosophy is the invention us mortals and is based on the morality of Human mind. Human mind is shaped by the environment resulting in formation of schemata, based on these schemata one reach a conclusion to the problems. There is certain amount of innate morality by birth.

The question “What is right thing to do?” can be viewed from two dimensions Atheist perspective (There is no God) In this case the right answer could not be found out by any means since human knowledge and observation is limited and all the explanations which he will come out with will be based on his personal schemata and will not have a general and universal application. Religious Perspective (There is a God)

In this case the morality is ingrained inside the psychology of human by birth. However later on society adulterate and shape it accordingly, Example people living in Africa naked. Then there is revealed knowledge of God in which by virtue of Him being All- knowing and being the creator of human psychology and morality knows what is right and what is wrong and has defined the rules and laws to abide by. However, still there remain some situations where a human don’t have the law of the creator or precedence of Prophet then in this case the best action is the action based of positivity. The Messenger of Allah Hazrat Muhammad ( ‫ )صلى ال عليه وسلم‬said, "The reward of deeds depends upon the intention and every person will get the reward according to what he has intended. So whoever emigrated for Allah and His Apostle, then his emigration was for Allah and His Apostle. And whoever emigrated for worldly benefits or for a woman to marry, his emigration was for what he emigrated for." Sahih Bukhari, Kitab-ul-Imaan, Hadith No. 53 In the light of this rule then it is up to humans which ever moral reasoning he may adopt given the intentions are correct. Both of the following moral reasoning stands correct in case of ambiguous situation where there is no Law of Allah and precedence from Prophet Muhammad SAW Consequentialist moral reasoning (Finds Morality in consequence of action) Categorical moral reasoning (Finds morality in certain duties and Rights)

Lecture 2 Philosophy of Utilitarianism: One of the moral theories. Maximize utility. Pleasure over suffering; the greatest good for the greatest number; the greatest happiness principle; Maximize general welfare Lecture 3 Philosophy is a debate given the condition that there is no God. Philosophy rules out an important variable therefore it is partial. Philosophy is like taking a view at small part of a bigger picture and making conclusion. In such a case the conclusions that a philosopher will come up will be stories compelling powerful stories based on the scheme of a philosopher and his life story so it is nothing more

than a powerful story. This story will resonate with other people because somehow life stories of people have overlapping themes and ideologies. Therefore stories coming out of them will have powerful effect on masses and will provoke a thought. The story which is based on natural ethical code and laws of Allah will always be more powerful and compelling and will resonate with the masses. Libertarian philosophy is a partial as it rules out Allah. Libertarian philosophy is a hedonistic philosophy and places personal pleasures above everything. It says the wealth of person is purely his property which he earned because of his intelligence. However, after reading Quran bigger picture becomes clear that it is Allah who gives success therefore all wealth is of Allah and must be used as explained in Quran. Lecture 4 Libertarian philosophy is countered by John Locke who says that we are bounded by the laws of nature. Lecture 5-7 Immanuel Kant philosophy is based on Hadith of Prophet Muhammad SAW. "The reward of deeds depends upon the intention” If the intention is pure then deed even wrong will be considered good on the other hand if the intention is bad but the deed is good then the deed will be considered bad. I addition to it Kant say that one cannot speak a lie even to achieve good ends. Example if a killer comes to gate and ask where your friend is? In this case although you know where he is, it is a bad deed to tell lie even if the end is good which is to save your friend. Kant say in this case rather than speaking outright truth or to speak a lie tell a misleading truth or evasion. This point of Kant resonates with the incident in Islamic History. When Prophet Muhammad SAW migrated to medina the Meccan’s came to murder prophet and found Hazrat Ali. They Asked Hazrat Ali where the prophet is to which Hazrat Ali replied “did you handed over prophet to me that you are asking me where he is”

The Question is how is Immanuel Kant able to reach such conclusion? The answer is that Allah has built in a moral compass inside every man. That moral compass drives on the Laws of Allah. Almost all philosophers have elements of morality which resonates with the Laws of Allah and drive from internal moral compass. Only Libertarian philosophy is hedonistic philosophy and is based on the satanic principals. In real life I must not give example of these philosophers rather I must always give examples from life and philosophy of Muhammad SAW and Laws of Quran. Lecture 8-9 John Rawls's theory of "justice as fairness" recommends equal basic rights, equality of opportunity, and promoting the interests of the least advantaged members of society. Here again the drive behind this theory is moral compass given by Allah and is extraction of the laws of Allah about equality and that the success a person gets is from Allah and thus no body is superior because of his innate abilities. Keeping in view this Law of Allah one can see the Rawls theory is application of law of Allah to his theory of equality. Lecture 10-11 Argumentation in philosophy is like extrapolating the life experience and mental models from one walk of life to other walk of life. Using mental models of person in sickness to analyses a situation to consider giving extra benefit to a handicapped person (Golf cart to handicapped person) People have emotional attachment to family, ancestors and other close relatives. I cannot feel this attachment because my childhood did not had such family connections but it does not mean that such kind of an emotional attachment does not exist people have a strong emotional connections with family and ancestors even Quran has stated this kind of a connection. This attachment plays an important role in daily actions of a person from general decision making to ethical decision making. Lecture 12...