A dialogue on Obediance and Law: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » A dialogue on Obediance and Law » A dialogue on Obediance and Law

A dialogue on Obediance and Law
A short story

Page: 1 2 3 4

A dialogue on Obediance and Law

dftaylor
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 19, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 3

Posted 10/22/09 - 09:51 PM:	#31
ben_tam64 wrote: "For by what standards should the rightness of an action be measured? In my experience, a policy is justified if it's practice produces more good then harm for the individuals that are affected by the policy. It is unjust, if more harm than good is a result of it's practice.” I could see reason in his point of view, but I was still unsatisfied with his answer: “I concur with your utilitarian view so far, but my lack of experience still inhibits me from grasping the full picture. How can a policy which requires the use of force, like your guns, bring about good?” “By the negation of a negative. An individual is considered negative if his or her actions directly infringes on or inhibited the lives and freedom of others. Justice is a reaction to injustice, we are officers charged with the duty to neutralize the efforts of negative individuals by means of enforcement. By jailing criminals who are intent on harming others, I believe that we make the streets safer.” “So is that to say that if the effect of an individual's actions are limited to the individual, then the individual should be left free from persecution?” “Exactly.” I don't think this step, from a utilitarian ethic to a libertarian state apparatus which exists only to protect negative liberties, is the most logically rigorous. I'm actually more inclined to think that paternalism could be derived more consistently from utilitarianism, though neither political scheme follows by necessity. The two doctrines most associated with utilitarianism are (1) the most ethical or preferred action is that which results in the greatest amount of good or happiness for the most persons, and (2) inclusion into the moral sphere is entailed by a capacity to suffer. The former doctrine entails that every person counts for one and none for more than one, and the second instrumentalizes rights, for as Bentham said, "Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense — nonsense upon stilts." So it seems like any invocation of rights in a political scheme structured off of utilitarianism would be only to reference the second doctrine, not to represent any inherent value of persons as ends in themselves - that would be precisely Kantian/anti-utilitarian! Hence, from the first doctrine, the objective of the state is to maximize the greatest amount of good for all people. I would argue that this inclines more toward the ethical self-determination and value-formation of radically communitarian and republican thinking than toward compromising between competing individuals or factions as per the libertarian model. The libertarian, market-structured model of democracy facilitates individual representation of individual interests. To put it crudely, the factions/individuals that "win" representation win their personal, private interests catered to - not a communal good. But this is not the greatest good for the most amount, so here arises an inconsistency. Even if this wasn't the case, the second doctrine of utilitarianism absolutely undermines any notion of negative liberties for law to protect. What would be the basis of these liberties? You repudiated contractarianism above. Utilitarianism entails that one's good is considered equally with others' - negative liberties to be protected in no way follow from this. All that follows is that the role of the state would be to reduce the unhappiness/pain of the populace and maximize the happiness/pleasure. I anticipate you'll say something about an individual's autonomy, but if you're a strict utilitarian, on what basis can you lay claim to autonomy? The only way you could reasonably claim an individual's self-rule is the most adequate means of achieving the greatest good is by assuming rationality. But people do not act strictly rationally. If they did, we wouldn't even need a state apparatus in the first place. An example: suppose I want to drive without a seatbelt. If I get in an accident, I have made a bad utilitarian calculation. My preference to be comfortable does ultimately not procure a greater good than surviving an accident. Despite that it is my choice to be comfortable, any reasonable person would concede that this is not the most entirely reasonable conclusion I could come to by utilitarian means. Yet this is a choice people make. Hence, to ensure that every individual has their good maximized, there must be constraints and impositions by the paternalistic state apparatus to limit irrational behavior. Another objection could be simply: no man is an island. What happens to my condition concerns my family and friends. Hence, I could develop an addiction to marijuana which would stress and concern them and, ultimately, the calculation could result in more unhappiness than happiness. Then, there are Peter Singer's arguments which regard this on a broader scale. Allocating funds towards drugs, when they could be allocated toward UNICEF or Oxfam or whatever, is unethical as it is a voluntary disregard, and hence exacerbation of, strife in the world in favor of one's base physical pleasures. In view of all this, how is libertarianism/a liberal model of democracy more consistent with republicanism/a communitarian model of democracy? I look forward to your response. Edited by dftaylor on 10/22/09 - 10:45 PM
"The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, to whom it occurred to say 'this is mine,' and found people sufficiently simple to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders, how many miseries and horrors Mankind would have been spared by him who, pulling up the stakes or filling in the ditch, had cried out to his kind: Beware of listening to this impostor; You are lost if you forget that the fruits are everyone's and the Earth no one's." - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

ben_tam64
An inquisitive individual

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 63

Posted 10/22/09 - 10:42 PM:	#32
If you were the state, what would happen if I disagreed and chose to live differently?

dftaylor
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 19, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 3

Posted 10/22/09 - 11:27 PM:	#33
ben_tam64 wrote: If you were the state, what would happen if I disagreed and chose to live differently? The supposition here is that I am a sovereign monarch, with my particular and limited will and my subjective inclinations and prejudices, endowed with legislative and executive power. I don't quite understand how my responding to this is relevant to the vastly different circumstance of the most extreme republicanism, a democratic community of strict utilitarians, operating off the maxim that what is best for the most should be striven for, participating in the formation of a general will and placing private autonomy and negative liberties secondary to public autonomy and positive law, and not alienating sovereignty to an individual. If you're asking me to guess what the sovereign would determine, it would of course require elucidating how you're living differently. In this circumstance, living differently would likely entail doing something to your own detriment or the community's detriment, so your living differently would, depending on the nature of the infraction, violate law and be punishable. Reformulating my question to you: So long as utilitarianism formulates that the Good is the greatest amount of happiness that can be achieved across the greatest number of people, each (including oneself) to count for one and none for more than one, how can libertarianism, a doctrine that prioritizes private autonomy over the public autonomy and selfishness over selflessness, be derived? If you continue to hold this position, how so in lieu of my objections?
"The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, to whom it occurred to say 'this is mine,' and found people sufficiently simple to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders, how many miseries and horrors Mankind would have been spared by him who, pulling up the stakes or filling in the ditch, had cried out to his kind: Beware of listening to this impostor; You are lost if you forget that the fruits are everyone's and the Earth no one's." - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

ben_tam64
An inquisitive individual

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 63

Posted 10/23/09 - 09:07 AM:	#34
Greatest amount of good for whom? At the expense of whom? Who defines what is good and by what standard? If by voluntary consent people who are affected by your plan agree with you, it is legitimized. If you use coercive measures, like the state, to enforce your ideology, then it is unjust. Ultility is a great concept, but not at the point of a gun. I believe it is to the greatest benefit and interest of everyone to look out for themselves. As individuals. For only they know what is good for them. There is more ultility in letting people foster thier self reliance and autonomy in the long run as the human race matures.

ben_tam64
An inquisitive individual

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 63

Posted 10/23/09 - 09:09 AM:	#35
"Ultility is a great concept, but not at the point of a gun" I forgot to mention that the use of violence is also not always bad. For example, there is nothing wrong with using violence as a reaction to violence. But it would be wrong is initate violence agaisnt the non-violent

Ionakani
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 8

Posted 11/13/09 - 01:10 PM:	#36
BenTam is the whole beach story situation hypothetical or did it really happen? If it really happened my hats off to you because that took some guts, what was the outcome? However, your POV cant change my stance against drugs. Its clear that you're a intelligent rational person, and may be able to handle the adverse effects of drugs. But I personally know people whose entire lives have been ruined because they thought they could handle it. The police's job is not only to protect you from others, but also to protect you from yourself...

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 2250

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/13/09 - 03:36 PM:	#37
I also know people whose lives have been ruined by drugs and more whose lives have been ruined by alcohol. I also know people whose lives have been ruined by avarice and greed and religion and outright insanity. People ruin their lives all the time for any number of reasons. I also know people who have used drugs for decades and are happy and productive members of society, upstanding citizens who happen to prefer illegal drugs for recreation. Drugs are not really the problem here. There is something deeper, something wrong with society that drives so many people so crazy on drugs and alcohol and other particular obsessions. The job of the police is to protect society.

ben_tam64
An inquisitive individual

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 63

Posted 11/15/09 - 03:20 PM:	#38
This story is a figment of my imagination. But after it was written, I spoke with a few police officers, to test my hypothesis. In experimentation, I could, with ease, get them to admit that law was not absolute, but when I asked if they would enforce a law they felt unjust, the response varied from with the individual. Some would ignore the question and leave, while some other officers would give a straight answer: whether it be yes, I'll enforce the law, or no, I will not enforce an unjust law. I got my marijuana taken away a few times, but it was definately worth it! The police's job is to maintain peace within society. Which means preventing one person from harming another. But that does not forfiet the right of the individual to choose for him/her self, if one's actions are self-contained. It is the responsibility of the individual to be accountable for his or her actions. No amount of policing nor policys can replace the natural consequences which teaches us life lessons by way of trial and error.

Page: 1 2 3 4

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.