Callie was a cheerleader in a wheelchair. She got lots of support but was cut out of the team because she was not able to perform physical activities as much as others.
This raises some questions. What are the roles of cheerleaders? Why did others feel resentment? Which actions are worthy of honor? What is fair? This leads us to study Aristotle’s philosophy.
- Justice is teological. Defining rights requires us to figure out the telos (the purpose, end, or essential nature) of the social practice in question.
- Justice is honorific. To reason about the telos of a practice—or to argue about it—is, at least in part, to reason or argue about what virtues it should honor and reward.
Aristotle emphasizes honor, virtue, and the nature of good life.
Why do contemporary politics want to separate them?
To Aristotle, justice means giving people what they deserve; moral desert. That depends on the person and the thing being distributed. For equal persons, they should get equal things.
Aristotle believes that people should be discriminated against by merit (ability), and not by arbitrary factors. For example, the best flutes should be given to the best players.
To clarify, Aristotle does not mean the superior person gets everything. He looks at things specifically, like the example just mentioned: the best flute player gets the best flutes, not the most handsome person.
The reason is not utilitarian. It is not that it is a means to produce the best music. Rather, the reason is that playing, preferably good playing, is what flutes are for.
Let us apply this to a few scenarios. Should skilled tennis players get better courts than scientists? Should a valuable violin be auctioned off to the highest bidder, or given to the best player?
This logic looked stronger in ancient times. Plato and Aristotle thought fire rose to reach the sky, and stones fell down to go to the ground. They thought the world had a meaningful order. They thought to understand nature, we should understand its essential meaning. Now, society has changed, understanding nature in the laws of physics.
This theory still holds some power in moral and political philosophy.
After explaining this theory, Sandel circles back to the question of affirmative action.
What is the purpose of a university?
Some can say it is to reward scholarly excellence. Others can say it is to foster leaders in a diverse society.
This is not easy to decide. Aristotle also believes that the purpose is not fixed. He gives a guide on how to discuss.
Today’s distributive justice concerns how income, wealth, and opportunities should be shared. Teological thinking also considers the distribution of offices and honors. Who should have the right to rule? How should political authority be distributed?
Aristotle would not say “one person, one vote,” of course. He would discriminate by merit. So what is politics for?
Most people in current society say there is no answer to politics, and that it is up to the voters to decide. Aristotle sees differently. It is to form good citizens and to cultivate good character.
According to Aristotle, oligarchs are wrong because certain people get political rights arbitrarily. Democrats are also wrong because each person gets one vote arbitrarily.
(Democrats here mean majoritarian people.)
Neither system serves the purpose of people living a good life.
So who should get high offices and honors? Those who contribute most to an association of this character. They are those who excel in civic virtue, and who are best at deliberating about the common good. Those who are the greatest in civic excellence—not the wealthiest, the most numerous, or the most handsome—are the ones who merit the greatest share of political recognition and influence.
Then why does Aristotle say a gathering is necessary to live a good life? Why can’t individuals cultivate good character?
His reason is that language exists for a purpose. People are different from other animals. They can learn about the good through interaction with others. In Book I of The Politics, Aristotle writes that polis is prior in function of individuals.
Aristotle uses the word “happiness” to describe his goal, but his definition is quite specific. He says happiness is a way of being, “an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue.”
Why must it be in a polis we can learn about the virtuous life? It is because we learn virtue by exercising it. It is intuitive logic: for example, we learn how to cook by cooking ourselves.
In fact, he thinks that is the purpose of law: to cultivate the habits that lead to good character.
Aristotle is not trying to say virtue should be rote behavior. Rather, we get to see the value of our virtuous behaviors after we exercise them habitually.
Moral knowledge has limitations when it is abstract. Knowing when to apply helps.
Aristotle has an interesting approach to slavery, as he is not always against it. If some people serve the purpose of being a slave, they should be that. However, Aristotle acknowledged that many were not slaves because they served that purpose, rather forced to be there. He sees coercion as a sign of incompatibility with telos.
Let us look at another scenario. Should people who feel pain when walking be allowed to ride golf carts in golfing tournaments? The reason why Sandel introduced this one is that it forces us to use teological philosophy to assess it.
Proponents of the usage of carts would say that the purpose of golf tournaments is to test the excellence of swinging the clubs. The sport itself is not physically demanding, but rather tests the precision of swings.
Opponents will argue that feeling tired because of a bunch of walking is a part of the sport. The fact that golfers are exhausted from walking impacts their game. Note that to take this argument to teology, it is that the purpose of golfing is to assess players by not only their swings, but their ability to swing in that particular situation.
Thoughts
I do not think this should be treated as a first principle, but rather a line of logic that can be used in certain situations. I think it works in some situations, but it should always be combatted against the discussion on freedom, equality, and welfare (by welfare here I mean happiness, the utilitarian thought).
I think in the golf cart dilemma, teological thinking can be used to discuss what is fair. To figure out the fair distribution, it’s good to decide what the competition should distribute and why distribute in the first place.