Syllabus

According to edX course site:

This course is an introduction to moral and political philosophy.

It explores classical and contemporary theories of justice, and applies these theories to contemporary legal and political controversies.

Topics include

1. affirmative action
2. income distribution
3. same-sex marriage
4. the role of markets
5. debates about rights (human rights and property rights)
6. arguments for and against equality
7. and dilemmas of loyalty in public and private life.

The course invites students to subject their own views on those controversies to critical examination.

The principal readings are texts by Aristotle, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, and John Rawls.

We also read some contemporary court cases and articles about political issues that raise philosophical questions.

Outline

1. Lecture 1: Doing the Right Thing
2. Lecture 2: The Lifeboat Case
3. Lecture 3: Utilitarianism: Jeremy Bentham
4. Lecture 4: Utilitarianism: J.S. Mill
5. Lecture 5: Libertarianism: Free Market Philosophy
6. Lecture 6: Libertarianism: Do We Own Ourselves?
7. Lecture 7: John Locke: Property Rights
8. Lecture 8: John Locke: Individual Rights and Majority Rule
9. Lecture 9: Markets and Morals: Military Service
10. Lecture 10: Markets and Morals: Surrogate Motherhood
11. Lecture 11: Immanuel Kant: What is Freedom?
12. Lecture 12: Immanuel Kant: The Supreme Principle of Morality
13. Lecture 13: Immanuel Kant: A Lesson in Lying
14. Lecture 14: The Morality of Consent
15. Lecture 15: John Rawls: The Case for Equality
16. Lecture 16: Distributive Justice: Who Deserves What?
17. Lecture 17: Arguing Affirmative Action
18. Lecture 18: Aristotle: Justice and Virtue
19. Lecture 19: Aristotle: The Good Citizen
20. Lecture 20: Aristotle: Freedom vs. Fit
21. Lecture 21: Justice, Community, and Membership
22. Lecture 22: Dilemmas of Loyalty
23. Lecture 23: Debating Same Sex-Marriage
24. Lecture 24: Conclusion: Justice and the Good Life

Lecture 1

Trolly Car Case

1. You are the driver
   1. Choose between 5 vs. 1
2. You are NOT the driver
   1. Leaning over the bridge - a fat guy you can push
   2. Fat man stands over a trap door - you only steer a wheel

A derived case from the Trolly Car:

1. 6 patients come to a doctor. They’ve been in a terrible trolley car wreck.
2. A healthy guy comes for a check-up. And he’s taking a nap.

The Afghan Goatherds

The story of Petty Officer Marcus Luttrell and three other U.S. Navy SEALs.

Moral principles 道德原则

1. Consequentialist moral reasoning 后果主义

   locates morality in the consequences of an act.

   The right thing to do depends on the consequences that will result from your action / In the state of the world that will result from the thing you do.

2. Categorical moral reasoning 绝对主义

   locates morality in certain absolute moral requirements in certain categorical duties and rights, regardless of the consequences.

We’ll spend weeks to explore the contrast between consequentialist and categorical moral principles.

后果主义 VS. 绝对主义 的差别

Jeremy Bentham

Famous for Consequentialist moral reasoning

（功利主义：道德哲学中的一个理论 提倡追求“最大幸福”（Maximum Happiness）） 后果主义道德推理中最具影响的 就是功利主义

Utilitarianism: a doctrine invented by
Jeremy Bentham, the 18th century English political philosopher.

Emmanuel Kant

Famous for categorical moral reasoning

18th century German philosopher.

（道德绝对主义：相信存在着判断道德伦理问题的__绝对标准__，并不受社会或者场合的影响） 则是18世纪德国哲学家康德

Risks

Risk of self-knowledge:

1. Personal
2. Political

Personal Risks

Philosophy teaches us and unsettles us by confronting us with what we already know.

There’s an irony: Philosophy estranges us from the familiar not by supplying new information but by inviting and provoking a new way of seeing.

But, 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 unthought or unknown.

Those are the personal risks.

Political Risks

One way of introducing of 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’ll 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).

Philosophy is a distancing even debilitating activity.

There’s a dialogue, the Gorgias in which one of Socrates’ friends Calicles tries to talk him out of philosophizing.

Calicles 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” Calicles 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.”

Calicles is really saying to Socrates quit philosophizing, get real go to business school.

Calicles did have a point he had a point, because philosophy distances us from conventions from established assumptions and from settled beliefs. (哲学将我们与习俗, 既定假设, 以及原有信条相疏离)

Skepticism

The evasion of the risks

In the face of these risks, there is a characteristic evasion, the name of the evasion is skepticism.

It’s the idea like this: “We didn’t resolve, once and for all, neither the cases nor the principles”.

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 can resolve them?

So it’s just a matter of each person having his own principles and there’s nothing more to be said about it – no way of reasoning. That’s the evasion.

Reply to Skepticism

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 reoccurred and persisted may suggest that though they’re impossible in one sense their unavoidable in another.

And the reason they’re unavoidable and inescapable, is that we live some answer to these questions every day.

So skepticism, simply giving up on moral reflection, is no solution.

Emanuel 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.” (康德的《纯粹理性批判》: 是理性自省 以伺将来做出正确抉择的地方, 但绝非理性的永久定居地)

“Simply to acquiesce in skepticism,” Kant wrote, “can never suffice to overcome the restless of reason.” (康德认为 简单地默许于怀疑论, 永远无法平息内心渴望理性思考之不安)

Conclusion

I’ve tried to suggest through theses 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 (唤醒你们永不停息的理性思考) and to see where it might lead thank you very much.

Queen v. Dudley and Stephens

Known as the case of cannibalism at sea (a 19th century British law case).

Dudley describes their rescue in his diary with staggering euphemism, quote:

“on the twenty fourth day as we were having our breakfast a ship appeared at last.”

The three survivors were picked up by a German ship. They were taken back to Falmouth in England where they were arrested and tried.

They claimed they had acted out of necessity.

they argued in effect better that one should die so that three could survive

Discussion

1. Asking for Consent

If the 17-year-old __Richard Parker__ were asked consent, would it be morally justifiable?

Otherwise, it's a __coerced consent__. 

What if Richard volunteers?

2. Lottery

Lack of __fair procedure__.

What about the lottery idea? Would it make a moral difference?

Maybe what bothers you is not the cannibalism, but __the lack of due process__.

3. Categorically wrong

Murder is murder. 

> In fact the London newspaper at the time and popular opinion sympathized with Dudley in Stephens.
>
> The paper said, "If they weren't motivated by affection and concern for their loved ones and dependents, surely they wouldn't have done this."

Overview

1. 柏林国际电影节
2. Berlin International Film Festival
3. Internationale Filmfestspiele Berlin

原名__西柏林国际电影节__，创立于1951年

柏林国际电影节分为“主竞赛”、“遇见”、“短片竞赛”、“全景”、“论坛”、“特别展映”、“新生代”等单元。

欧洲三大国际电影节

1. 柏林国际电影节
2. 戛纳国际电影节
3. 威尼斯国际电影节

欧洲三大电影节分别是:法国的戛纳国际电影节，德国的柏林国际电影节和意大利的威尼斯国际电影节

创办时间:威尼斯1932、戛纳1939、柏林1951。

三大电影节中，威尼斯电影节历史最悠久，嘎纳电影节影响力最大，柏林电影节最政治化 (同时，奖项设置最接近奥斯卡)。它们的最高奖分别叫__金狮奖、金棕榈奖、金熊奖__。

欧洲三大电影节都有强烈的“排他性”，一部影片只能参加一个电影节，如果“脚踩两只船”那两边都不会给你奖。

银熊奖

银熊奖（Silver Bear Award）是德国柏林国际电影节的主要奖项，仅次于最高奖项金熊奖。银熊奖分为评审团大奖银熊奖、最佳导演银熊奖、最佳主角银熊奖、最佳配角银熊奖、最佳剧本银熊奖、杰出艺术贡献银熊奖等。

Sybil Attack

2002年，由微软研究院的John R. Douceur在《the Sybil Attack》提出，它是p2p网络中的一种攻击形式，主要是针对服务器节点的攻击。

Flora Rhea Schreiberie 在1973年的小说《女巫》（Sybil）改编的同名电影，是一个化名Sybil Dorsett的女人心理治疗的故事。

她被诊断为分离性身份认同障碍，兼具16种人格。我的那个天。高度精分一枚。

Why exist?

女巫攻击之所以存在：

1. 网络中很难保证每一个未知的节点是一个确定的“身份”。
2. 而女巫攻击是攻击数据冗余机制的一种有效手段。

例如

1. 矿工利用n个身份，承诺会存储n份数据。但是，实际上只存储小于n份的数据，但谎报自己存储了n份数据。
2. 羊毛党在一台计算机上通过软件切换ip手段大量薅羊毛；
3. 网络投票的时候，可以通过利用多个ip地址来作假等
4. 很多公司也利用女巫攻击来获得google等搜索引擎的排名，骗取大量用户去点击。

联盟链中的 sybil attack

联盟链当中，女巫攻击问题更为棘手。

因为公有链的共识机制是不依赖节点数量的，所以不存在女巫攻击的风险。而联盟链为了提高共识效率，将节点数减少在一定范围内。就相当于把共识机制变简单了，所以攻击也变得简单了。这样，女巫攻击就有了“用武之地”。

Reference

https://www.tuoluo.cn/article/detail-9992848.html

https://0xzx.com/2022021204132081029.html

Template

All note with 【Crypto】 prefx should be tagged as one of:

1. crypto
2. nft
3. defi
4. crypto-people

Template

All note with 【Read】 prefx should be tagged as one of:

1. liberal
2. books
3. knowledge
4. people

Template

All note with 【Tech】 prefx should be tagged as one of:

1. technology
2. ubuntu

Ryan Zurrer

• Polychain 前合伙人
• 后来 Web 3 Foundation 总监
• 后来重启 theDAO 项目

Key Take-aways

Chit-chat

以下是 Ryan 的观点。

1. 亚洲市场微妙。不能用美国的投资逻辑。
2. 唯一能在中国实现商业化取得成功的方法：找本地合作伙伴，给予激励，实现双赢。
3. 中国人更喜欢社会主义、喜欢强权政府、喜欢资源聚合，只为完成一件事情。
4. 798 艺术区的艺术在进化：从 90年代表达伤心、愤怒和政治宣言的「伤痕艺术「 到今天的比较自信、表现民族精神风貌的艺术表达。

以前可以看到金发女性更多出现在艺术作品里，等我过几年再回来，就成了更自信的表达中国独有的女性美的作品。

Web 3.0

• Web 2.0 是一个中心化网络，一个__资本和权利协同统治__的网络。
• MakerDAO 是一套中国哲学的项目 —— 核心团队有比较强的决策权，也包括一票否决权。
• 百度 CEO 说过，中国人喜欢放弃隐私或者说是愿意为了方便而做出妥协。这与 web 3.0 并不矛盾 —— 这是用户为中心。

如果想实现 Web 3.0

1. 实现__隐私保护__和去中心化。
2. 在新的经济体制下，有竞争力的__金融激励机制__，吸引用户__参与和创造__。
3. 不应该拿自己是 decentralized 作为理由，不注重用户 UI/UX 的体验。

关于协议 vs 应用

Joel Monegro 提出的「胖协议」理论非常棒，但是前几天我们谈过一次，他也有了关于协议层和应用层的一些认知转变。他也承认现在很多价值还是会落到应用层面的，所谓的「瘦」，更多是相比我们经历的上一个时代的应用「瘦」，但是可能相比于协议层还是可能是更大的机会。比如 Web 3 的各种应用，都应该是千亿级别的机会。人们之前过于兴奋，一直都在谈协议层、协议层、协议层，但我们现在也看到很多人重新聚焦于应用上。

比如 MetaCartel，就花了很多精力放在产品开发上，为人们提供了很好用的 UI 界面。当然还有很多问题需要解决，比如通用链上身份这种任何 app 都有需求的。庆幸的是，我看到了越来越多的人才加入这个开发圈子，这些人都给了我很好的启发。

关于 UX

人们不愿意相信自己的电脑，不相信自己的硬盘，自己的脑子，最不信任的却是自己。我们得把 UI 设计的恰当，才能让人们相信自己能够真正地掌控自己的资产，而不是每天晚上睡觉前都在担心会忘记助记词，或者担心有人爬进屋里偷走电脑和私钥，也不用每天早上醒来去学一遍 Shamir’s 密钥分片技术来把自己的私钥分片存储起来。这些限制都是普通人难以接受的。

theDao

Ryan 关于 The Dao 的看法，摘抄如下：

所以我想创造这么一种社区，就是每个人通过在社区里带来的价值来定义。每个人都由两类属性来评价定义，一种是都客观可查的数据指标，比如说 github 的代码提交次数，Google pagerank 搜索排名数据，Discord 讨论数量，另一种是主观的数据，比如由基于个人名誉和贡献加权的同伴评价。比如创始人已经在项目里面做了很多贡献，那他对一个人的评价所占的比重就要比一个还没什么贡献的新人的评价占的比重高。

这就类似 Ray Dalio 的「可信度」指标，我参与进来，贡献价值，就可以获得好的名声，投票的时候我的票就更有价值。这与个人财富无关，与呆的时间长短无关，只跟名誉值有关，也就是与你在历史上创造了多少价值有关。当我在做 A 事的时候做了贡献，拿了名誉，在社区进行到 B 事准备分配奖励的时候，我更有话语权去说谁可以拿到更多奖励。并且整个过程并非完全主观的，我们还是有一部分基于第一类客观指标的评估。因此我们就可以通过调整这些参数的占比，来激励不同类型社区的参与者，我认为这才是 DAO 的核心基石。

这是历史上首次，信用来源（source credit）让我们能够将去中心化的团队组织起来，实现去中心化的价值创造。例如，你 Mable 作为一个专业的投资人，参与了投资人社区，在社区里开始推荐项目。当社区几个参与者投资了这个项目并且获得了收益，Mable 就会由于最初带这个项目进来，也获得一部分分红奖励，因为在这个社区里，Mable 是最初那个带来价值创造的人。

Reference

https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/80354805