SULL'OBBLIGAZIONE POLITICA

SULL'OBBLIGAZIONE POLITICA

https://feedly.com/i/entry//4+l7BW7+DDp+RS+igdsWNy9P2lXUW4d4A612kSr/rs=_1705dbde97e:de9da08:31d4c877

Puoi studiare per anni la filosofia politica ma alla fine la domanda a cui devi rispondere è sempre la stessa:

supponiamo che una ex gelosa minacci di uccidersi (o di uccidere qualcuno) se sposerai la tua nuova fidanzata. Cosa è giusto che tu faccia? Restare single a vita o sposarsi ugualmente?

***

Hai risposto di "no"? Nota il parallelo:

1) Una società di giusti non ha bisogno dello stato. Ok?

2) Da 1) segue che lo stato non puo' avere pretese morali su un giusto. Ok?

3) Ma lo stato puo' dire: se non ti assoggetti alle mie coercizioni, Tizio compierà un crimine.

4) Nota il parallelo con la situazione di cui sopra: non puoi fare qualcosa di legittimo perché un terzo potrebbe compiere un crimine.

5) Anche in questo caso si ripropone la domanda: è giusto cedere al ricatto morale?

6) Non so cosa rispondere, anche se molto dipende dai livelli: se Thantos minaccia di distruggere l'universo se non smetti di ascoltare la musica punk, probabilmente è giusto cedere.

Violenza contro la polizia

Se Vedete un poliziotto che esercita una violenza eccessiva vi ritenete in diritto di intervenire contro di lui in modo violento?

La tesi della parità. Tutti gli uomini sono uguali. In questo caso il poliziotto non ha uno status morale specifico.

Secondo la tesi della parità, resistere alle violenze dello Stato in modo violento è permesso.

Dall'assunto più comune è differente. Si ritiene che nelle democrazie liberali solo la resistenza passiva possa essere concessa.

Etica della disobbedienza civile

Supponiamo che io creda sia pericoloso assumere caffeina e che decida, annunciandolo, di bloccare per 30 giorni in una stanza predisposta chiunque nel mio quartiere ne faccia uso. Quando ti incontro uscire dal bar l’odore del tuo fiato è inconfondibile cosicché cerco di afferrarti per sequestrarti nella “stanza punitiva” ma tu reagisci in modo violento ferendomi. Si è trattato di una legittima difesa?

Mi aspetto che tutti rispondano di sì: non solo è legittimo ma è auspicabile che si reagisca.

Ecco, la “morale a standard unico” stabilisce che le conclusioni di cui sopra valgono sempre, sia che il sequestratore sia un civile, sia che sia un poliziotto.

In pratica la “morale a standard unico” sostiene la legittimità di violare una legge ingiusta. Attenzione, stabilire la legittimità di un comportamento non significa affermare che sia strategicamente corretto, ma questo è un altro discorso.

Tuttavia, qualcuno obietta che la “morale a standard unico” sia pericolosa, le persone potrebbero violare anche “leggi giuste”.

Si tratta però di un’obiezione che vale per tutte le teorie: quando si dice “se X allora Y”, non si sta dicendo “quando credi X, allora Y”.

Ma a parte questo, vale anche la contro-obiezione: così come c’è il rischio di una resistenza sbagliata c’è anche il rischio di una obbedienza sbagliata.

In realtà la contro-obiezione sembra ancora più potente poiché gli psicologi hanno stabilito un nesso asimmetrico tra obbedienza e resistenza, l’ “obbedienza irrazionale” sembra più probabile: chi non ricorda gli esperimenti di Milgram e Zimbardo?

Is Belief In the Moral Parity Thesis Dangerous?

• Suppose that I come to believe, stupidly, that taking caffeine is dangerous. I announce henceforth that I will lock any people I catch drinking coffee in my basement for 30 days as a punishment. I see you walking out of Starbucks and try to grab you. You fight back, and, in the struggle, injure or kill me. What you did was permissible self-defense.
• The “Moral Parity Thesis”holds that nothing magic happens if the would-be kidnapper is a cop rather than a private civilian.
• Given that cops are armed and dangerous, it may not be strategic to do so, but morally, it’s permissible.
• One putative objection to the Moral Parity Thesis is that it is dangerous, because people will misapply it.
• This objection is closely related to a mistaken objection I was discussing this point with a law professor a few years ago, when the professor said, “So you think people may break unjust laws?”“Sure,”I responded, “And indeed I hope they do, if they can get away with it.”
• LA DIFFERENZAI’m saying that some laws are in fact unjust—that there’s an independent moral truth about whether laws are just or not. When the law is in fact unjust, then there is no duty to obey it. That’s not the same thing as saying that you can break any law because you believe it’s unjust.”
• TUTTE LE TEORIEthat’s a problem for every theory. Every moral theory says something like, ‘Under conditions A you must do X; under conditions B you must not do Y; etc.’The theories don’t say ‘Do X when you judge you’re in A’—
• CONCLUSIONEThe fact that most people would botch applying a theory does not show that the theory is wrong.
• ES UTILITARISMO So, for instance, suppose— as is often argued— that most people would misapply utilitarian moral standards. Perhaps applying utilitarianism is too hard for the common person. Even if so, this does not invalidate utilitarianism.
• DRONI For instance, since our best evidence indicates that about 90% of drones strikes kill innocent people, a person might feel free to shoot down any drone she sees.
• PROBABILITÀ Suppose A) I turn the corner and see a police office beating someone with a baton. Suppose in another scenario, B) I turn the corner and see an ordinary man beating another man with a bat. Now, it’s statistically more likely that cases like B are instances of injustice than cases like A—it’s more likely that a police officer beating a person is justified in doing so than a random person.
• AL CONTRARIO All that said, I wonder if this objection mostly has the problem backwards.it seems more plausible that citizens are more likely to engage in wrongful obedience than they are to engage in wrongful resistance. Consider: Many experiments show that we are biased to conform our opinion to that of the majority (or that of whatever group we want to be part of), even when it is irrational to do so. consider the Milgram experiment.
• RESISTENZA VS OBBEDIENZA These are just two major experiments, of course. But in general, it seems that psychology shows that citizens tend to err on the side of wrongful obedience rather than the side on wrongful resistance.
• CONCLUSIONE. Thus, to whatever extent these epistemic concerns push against my view, they push even harder against the other side.

In Defense of Defensive Violence against Government Agents By Jason Brennan

OIn Defense of Defensive Violence against Government Agents By Jason Brennan

the parity thesis: Whenever it would be morally permissible to kill a civilian in self-defense or in defense of others against that civilian’s unjust acts, it would also be permissible to kill government officials, including police officers,

permissible, even and perhaps especially in reasonably just democratic regimes.

Andrew Altman and Christopher Wellman say, “Surely, it would have been permissible for somebody to assassinate Stalin in the 1930s.”If so, is it also permissible to kill a president, Member of Parliament, bureaucrat, or police officer from a democratic regime, if killing is necessary to stop them from harming the innocent?

Philosophers and laypeople often assume not. They assume that in liberal democracies, only non-violent resistance to state injustice is permissible....The prevailing view is that, when it comes to government agents, the practice of killing in self-defense or defense of others is governed by different moral principles from those that govern defensive killing in other contexts.

A. Shooter in the Park A masked man emerges from a black van holding a rifle. He starts shooting at children in a public park. Ann, a bystander, has a gun. She kills him

B. Health Nut Health guru John sincerely believes caffeine is unhealthy, that it causes laziness, and that it induces people to use hard drugs. John announces that he and his followers will capture coffee drinkers, confiscate their belongings, and imprison them in John’s filthy basement for years. Ann, who is too poor to move away from town, loves coffee. She secretly drinks it in the morning in her kitchen. One day, a henchman breaks into her house and attempts to capture her. She struggles to defend herself, and, in the process, kills him.

C. Terrorist Cobra Commander, leader of the terrorist organization COBRA, has a device that allows him to launch the United States’nuclear arsenal against Russia. Ann, a private civilian, somehow stumbles upon COBRA’s secret control room.

I expect most people believe it’s permissible for Ann to kill the wrongdoers in A-C. Probably only radical pacifists would deny

D. Minivan Shooter Ann witnesses a police officer stop a minivan with a female driver and three children in the back. Ann sees that the woman is unarmed. The police officer emerges from his car and immediately starts shooting at the van’s windows. Ann has a gun.

E. War on Drugs Town leaders decide to make marijuana illegal, even though there is overwhelming evidence that marijuana is in every respect less harmful than alcohol, a drug that is legal for any adult to consume.

F. Hawk Ann, a janitor, happens to be cleaning the Situation Room when the president and his staff enter and lock the door. She hears the president inform the Joint Chiefs and his cabinet that he intends to unload the United States’nuclear arsenal on Russia..

Special Immunity Thesis: Democratic government agents enjoy a special immunity against being killed in self-defense or defense of others....The Moral Parity Thesis implies that if killing is permissible in any of the cases A-C, it is permissible in the analogous case from D-F.

Note that I focus solely on the ethics of defensive killing against immediate threats from democratic government agents. I am not here discussing punishment,

Many philosophers and activists believe that non-violent civil disobedience is both morally superior to and more effective than violent resistance in changing unjust laws. They might be correct, but that is not my concern here.