Adam Edwards. April 12, 2013

Transcription

1 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign adamdedwards.com/phil100 The Harm Harm April 12, / 15

2 Outline The Harm Harm The Harm Harm 2 / 15

3 The Harm Harm 3 / 15

4 A1) Different cultures have fundamentally different moral codes. A2) If there were objective moral truths, there would be widespread agreement regarding moral truths. A3) There is not widespread agreement regarding moral truths. A4) So, there are no objective universal moral truths. The Harm Harm 4 / 15

5 Why think that A2 is true? It seems like there is widespread agreement about at least *some* moral truths. Doesn t this undermine A3? What are we even talking about when we talk about moral truths? The Harm Harm 5 / 15

6 B1) If there are objective moral truths, it is very unlikely that we would know them (or, at least, that we would know them perfectly). B2) If so, then it is very unlikely that our moral beliefs are objectively true. B3) If it is unlikely that X is true, we should not force, require, or expect others to believe that X is true. B4) So, we should not force, require, or expect others to believe that our moral beliefs are true. The Harm Harm 6 / 15

7 What does this say about our moral progress? If relativism is true, can we say anything useful about morality, in general? If relativism is true, where does this leave us on debates about marriage equality, drug policy, abortion, privacy law, etc.? The Harm Harm 7 / 15

8 The The Harm Harm 8 / 15

9 A1) It is unjust for a government to punish people for doing something, unless there is a good argument for doing so. A2) There is no good argument for punishing people for using drugs (meth). A3) So, it is unjust for the government to punish people for using drugs (meth). The Harm Harm 9 / 15

10 Harm B1) Meth use is harmful to users. B2) If people harm themselves by doing X, then the state should prohibit X. B3) So, the state should prohibit meth use. The Harm Harm 10 / 15

11 Why Protect People From Themselves? Cases Where We do 1. Seatbelt and Helmet Laws 2. Building Codes 3. Others? Cases Where We Don t 1. Obesity Regulations 2. Financial Irresponsibility 3. Infidelity or Promiscuity The Harm Harm 11 / 15

12 C1) If it s wrong to prohibit directly bringing about result R, then it s wrong to prohibit something only because it might indirectly bring about R. C2) It s wrong to prohibit directly cutting off all relationships C3) So, it s wrong to prohibit someone for drug use simply because it might indirectly cut off all relationships The Harm Harm 12 / 15

13 Harm D1) Doing drugs increases the likelihood that the user will harm others. D2) If doing X increases the likelihood that the person doing X will harm others, the state should prohibit X. D3) So, the state should prohibit drug use. The Harm Harm 13 / 15

14 How should we treat cases where we want to condemn X, but not on moral grounds? What role, if any, does the state have in regulating personal, nonviolent activity of any kind? Suppose our goal is to minimize drug use. And, further, suppose that drug use is (in some morally relevant sense) out of the users control. Under these circumstances, how can we justify punishment and incarceration as a morally appropriate response? The Harm Harm Why think (as James Q. Wilson does) that drug use alters and, more importantly, corrupts one s soul? 14 / 15

15 on the Drug War Amount spent annually in the U.S. on the war on drugs: More than $51,000,000,000 Number of Americans incarcerated in 2011 in federal, state and local prisons and jails: 2,266,800 or 1 in every 99.1 adults In 2005, 4 out of 5 drug arrests were for possession not trafficking, and 80% of the increase in drug arrests in the 1990s was for marijuana. The Harm Harm There are more African-Americans under correctional control today in prison or jail, on probation or parole than were enslaved in 1850, a decade before the Civil War began. Sources: Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow. New York: New, Drug War Statistics. Drug Policy Alliance. Web. 11 Apr / 15