[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]