5 Consequentialism and Fairness - The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey by Michael Huemer - sovranitàconfutata bimbocheannega aiutoridondante testkantianoconfutato ilcomandantepazzodellanave legislatorecriminogeno ilproblemadelleremita legittimitàecontenuti supremaziaconfutata
5 Consequentialism and FairnessRead more at location 2425
Note: l argomento c. è il più semplice x giustificare il dovere all obbedienza la metafora della barca che imbarca acqua 3 beni: crimine coordinamento difesa tesi: anche assumendo l esistenza di beni pubblici da ciò nn deriva alcun dovere tesi c.: poichè lo stato fornisce molti beni a basso costo obbedire alle sue leggi è dovrroso un certo livello di disobbediaenza può far collassare lo stato ma lontani da quel livello la disobbediaenza nn ha conseguenze sulla tenuta complessiva dello stato... quindi in casi del genere nn esiste un dovere all'obbedienza e l'universale kantiano? 1 ma qs nn è un prcetto consequenzialista bensì un consequenzialismo delle regole (c.r.). Come teoria c.r. traballa in molti casi è assurda: ho promesso a mio padre di fare il rag. ma e tutti facessero il rag? e se la regola fosse + generale tipo "fai la professione che + ti aggrada"? a qs punto anche la regola di chi disubbidisce potrebbe essere generalizzata ad hoc quando l u. delle regole vale e quando no? domanda difficile che fa ripiegare verso il concetto di equità: le regole si applicano x impedire comportamenti iniqui e solo x quelli. hart, rawls... confutati u. e u.regole il c. ripiega sul concetto di equità. l equità tralascia le questioni di legittimità x concentrarsi sul dovere di obbedire. in qs. modo si aggirano le analogie più imbarazzanti: io ho il diritto di diventare ragioniere ma ho il dovere di ubbidire alla legge? definizione di correttezza: esempio della barca che affonda e dei passeggeri che svuotano acqua: il tuo contributo è inutile ma dovuto x correttezza... anche obbedire alla legge è quindi un comportamento corretto anche se disubbidire nn creerebbe problemi seri di coordinamento ma se ti chiedono di "svuotare" e di pregare poseidone sei obbligato anche all' inutile preghiera? sei obbligato ad obbedire a leggi inutili se nn dannose? come minimo c è un concorso di colpa dello stato che le ha fatte! conclusione preliminare: nn si possono difendere contemporaneamente la legittimità dello stato e l'obbedienza del cittadino. @@@@ se è un problema vedere l obbligo di partecipare all inutile preghiera è decisamente difficile giustificare l o. politica a partecipare a progetti dannosi (indigeni anarchici eremiti pacifisti...)... chi si oppone sincrramente nn è un oportunista se sally ritiene che pregare jehova possa offendere cthulu è ugualmente doveroso x lei unirsi alla preghiera... terzo problema: esistono alternative più efficienti all obbedienza? di sicuro sì: givewell presenta una lista di onlus x efficienza l argomento c. è il più usato x giustificare la legittimità dei governi: forzare le persone al fine di evitare gravi danni è legityimo. se mio figlio sta morendo posso anche rubare una macchina al fine di condurlo all ospedale. nota: gli esempi fattibili sono molti ma tutti specifii e ben costruiti: devo avere un piano corretto ed efficiente x essere giustif. nell uso della forza. se mio figlio sta male nn ho il diritto di uccidere tuo figlio come sacrificio umano al buon dio. Questo è un problema xchè il governo pretende di averr un diritto generico e sstratto. il governo nn solo pretende legittimità ma pretende anche il monopolio della forza xchè? sulla barca ci sono pocky e gamby il fatto che picky agisca x primo nn gli dà alcun monopolio sui casi che segupno e che eventualmente giustificano un ontervento violento. esempio: se lo stato nn fornisce sicurezza xchè mai i privati nn potrebbero farlo? Edit
5.1.1 The structure of consequentialist arguments for political obligationRead more at location 2427
The simplest arguments for political authority are consequentialist ones.Read more at location 2428
ascribe moral weight to the goodness or badness of an action’s consequencesRead more at location 2429
These arguments proceed in two stages. First, one argues that there are great values that are secured by governmentRead more at location 2431
Second, one argues that this fact imposes on individuals an obligation to obeyRead more at location 2432
(a) we have a duty to promote the values addressed in the first stage of the argument or at least not to undermine them, and (b) obedience to the law is the best way of promoting those values and disobedience is a way of undermining them.Read more at location 2433
The first major good ascribed to government is that of protection from crimes committed by individuals against other individuals,Read more at location 2436
Those who are most pessimistic about human nature fear that society would be reduced to a barbaric state of constant war of everyone against everyone.Read more at location 2440
The second major benefit ascribed to government is the provision of a detailed, precise, and public set of rules of social conduct that apply uniformly across society.Read more at location 2444
The third salient benefit provided by government is that of military defense.Read more at location 2453
In Part II of this book, I challenge the widespread assumption that government is needed to provide these benefits. Nevertheless, in the present chapter I shall grant that assumption for the sake of argument. I contend that, even with this concession, one cannot derive political authority as commonly understood.Read more at location 2456
Take the case in which you see a child drowning in a shallow pond: you could easily wade in and save the child, though this would entail getting your clothes muddy and missing a class.Read more at location 2464
if the child were drowning in the ocean and you had to assume a significant risk to your own life to save the child, then you would not be obligated to do so.Read more at location 2466
many laws are routinely flouted without the government’s collapsing as a result. Nor is it true of any individual that that individual’s obedience is required for the government to provide the benefits that it provides.Read more at location 2479
Of course, there are some laws that you should obey for independent moral reasons. For instance, you should not rob other people.Read more at location 2483
This is not an example of a political obligation; it is simply an example of a general moral obligationRead more at location 2484
To defend political obligation, one must argue that there is a content-independent obligation to obey the law because it is the lawRead more at location 2486
Return to the case of the child drowning in the shallow pond (Section 5.1.3). But this time, suppose that there are three other people nearby ready to save the child. They do not need help; there is no danger that the child will drown or sufferRead more at location 2488
The case of a citizen deciding whether to obey the law is more analogous to this last versionRead more at location 2493
your own obedience is just as redundant as an extra rescuer jumping into the pond when there are already three rescuers wading out to save the child.Read more at location 2496
This idea is closely related to that of rule consequentialism in ethics. Rule consequentialism holds that, rather than always choosing the particular action that will produce the best consequences given the present circumstances, one should act according to general rules,Read more at location 2503
Take the case of a newly planted lawn on a university campus. Students and professors are tempted to take short cuts across the lawn while walking from building to building. One person cutting across the lawn will have no noticeable effect. But if everybody does it, the pristine lawn will be marredRead more at location 2507
But in other cases, the principle seems absurd. Suppose I decide to become a professional philosopher. This seems permissible. But what if everybody did this?Read more at location 2512
Perhaps when I decide to become a philosopher, I am not acting on the rule ‘Be a philosopher’ but on some more complex rule, such as ‘Be a philosopher, provided that there are not already far too many philosophers’Read more at location 2517
‘Break the law when what the law commands is not independently morally required, provided that there are not too many people breaking the law’Read more at location 2522
to disobey is unfair to other members of one’s society, who generally obey.Read more at location 2529
The argument is not a consequentialist one – the claim is not that one’s disobedience will cause harmful consequences.Read more at location 2531
Contrast the following scenario. You are in a lifeboat with several other people. You are caught in a storm, and the boat is taking on water, which needs to be bailed out. Other passengers take up containers and start bailing. The other passengers’ efforts are clearly sufficient to keep the boat afloat; thus, no large negative consequences will result if you refuse to bail. Nevertheless, it seems obvious that you should help bail water. Intuitively,Read more at location 2540
Advocates of the Fair Play Account argue that to disobey the law is to treat other members of one’s society unfairly.Read more at location 2558
suppose that one of the other bailers tells you to go and make him a sandwich. This you are not morally required to do.Read more at location 2566
How, then, is the notion of fairness supposed to generate political obligations? The argument is that, in this particular case, obedience to the law constitutes sharing the cost of providing the benefits of the cooperative scheme.Read more at location 2568
a closer analogy would be as follows. The lifeboat is taking on water. The passengers gather and discuss what to do about the problem.Read more at location 2596
A majority (not including you) want Bob to devise a solution. Bob thinks for a minute, then announces the following plan:Read more at location 2597
You know that item (i) is useful, item (ii) is useless, and items (iii) and (iv) are harmful to most passengers.Read more at location 2602
If you refuse to pray, self-flagellate, or pay Sally, do you thereby act wrongly?Read more at location 2603
One must examine the content of a particular law to determine whether the behavior it enjoins genuinely contributes to the provision of political goodsRead more at location 2609
disobedience risks bringing down the government and all social order. We have criticized this sort of claim above (Section 5.1.4). But if it were true, it would do as much to undermine content-independent political legitimacyRead more at location 2612
Presumably, if individuals are obligated to help maintain social order, the state is similarly obligated. If disobedience to any law risks causing a collapse of social order, then the state, in making laws that are not necessary to maintaining social order and that are likely to be widely disobeyed, is itself threatening social orderRead more at location 2614
individuals who feel they do not need the state; for example, hermits living in the wilderness or indigenous peoples who would prefer that European colonists had never arrived on their continent.Read more at location 2622
it is also difficult to account for an obligation to assist in projects to which one is sincerely opposed,Read more at location 2628
suppose that the other passengers on the lifeboat believe that praying to Jehovah will assist themRead more at location 2629
Sally believes that praying to Jehovah will more likely be harmful, because it will offend Cthulhu. She therefore opposes the other passengers’ plan. In this situation, would it be unfair of Sally to refuse to pray to Jehovah?Read more at location 2631
in many cases, their view, whether correct or incorrect, is perfectly reasonable. I should think this is the case in regard to those who oppose the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, drug prohibition, immigration restrictions, and several other controversial laws or governmental projects.Read more at location 2641
If one reasonably regards a project as unjust or immoral, one is hardly free riding,Read more at location 2644
obeying the law often interferes with doing more important things. For instance, suppose you have the opportunity to safely evade $1,000 worth of legally prescribed taxes. It would perhaps be wrong to evade the taxes to spend the money on a new television. It would, however, be permissible to evade the taxes to use the money in a more socially valuable way than giving it to the government.Read more at location 2649
the marginal social benefit of a dollar given to any of a variety of extremely effective private charities.17 In this case, it is not wrong to evade one’s taxes to send the money to charity;Read more at location 2653
duress excuses the payment of taxes, but it does not render it praiseworthyRead more at location 2656
suppose you are at a board meeting at which you and the other members are discussing how to improve your company’s sales. You know that the best way to do this is to hire the Sneaku Ad Agency. Your plan will be morally unobjectionable and highly beneficial to the company. Nevertheless, the other members are not convinced. So you pull out your handgun and order them to vote for your proposal.Read more at location 2660
similar behavior can be justified in emergency circumstances.Read more at location 2664
Christopher Wellman offers an example with a similar lesson.18 Amy has a medical emergency and needs to be taken to the hospital immediately. Beth is aware of this but has no vehicle with which to transport Amy. So she temporarily steals Cathy’s carRead more at location 2669
it is permissible to coerce a person or violate a person’s property rights, provided that doing so is necessary to prevent something much worseRead more at location 2673
Thus, perhaps the state is justified in coercing people and seizing people’s property through taxation, because doing so is necessary to prevent a virtual collapse of society.Read more at location 2674
In the version of the lifeboat scenario discussed in Section 5.4.1, you are entitled to use coercion to save everyone on the boat. But this entitlement is neither comprehensive nor content-independent. Your entitlement to coerce is highly specific and content-dependent: it depends upon your having a correct (or at least well-justified) plan for saving the boat,Read more at location 2679
You may not coerce others to induce harmful or useless behaviorsRead more at location 2683
How many governmental activities might be considered legitimate on this basis?Read more at location 2697
Let us extend the story of the lifeboat a little further.Read more at location 2720
You have forced the other passengers to bail water out of the boat, thus saving it from sinking. While you have your gun out, you decide you might as well accomplish a few other desirable goals. You see a passenger eating potato chips, which will elevate his risk of heart disease.Read more at location 2720
This is a problem because the state’s authority is generally held to be comprehensive and content-independent. On a very strict reading of the comprehensiveness and content-independence conditions, the existence of just a few laws that the state is not entitled to make would preclude the state’s having genuine authority.Read more at location 2735
The state’s authority is also supposed to be supreme, in the sense that no one else has the right to coerceRead more at location 2742
This, too, is difficult to account for. Modifying the lifeboat scenario once again, suppose that on the boat there are two armed passengers, Gumby and Pokey,Read more at location 2744
It seems, then, that the state does not, on consequentialist grounds, have supreme authority.Read more at location 2758
if the state fails to provide adequate protection from crime, there is no obvious reason why private agents may not provide security usingRead more at location 2760
So there is no clear sense in which the state has supreme authority;Read more at location 2776
Consequentialist and fairness-based arguments come closest to justifying political authority. Nevertheless, they cannot ground content-independent, comprehensive, or supreme authority for the state.Read more at location 2780
No one has the right to coercively enforce counterproductive or useless policies
