PLCY 340 Final

Harm principle

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others

-insividuals should be free to act in cases where their actions pose no significant risk of harm to others

Harm principle applies to

1. competent decision makers- not children or adults lacking the capacity to repsonsibly make their own choices (e.g. people with dementia)

2. societies "capable of ebign improved by free and equal discussion"

Line of reasoning for the harm principle

1. principle of utility: governments should enact those laws and policies that can be reasonably expected to maximize the happiness of their residents

2. The free development of individuality: e.g. through experiments in living-contributes greatly to human happiness

3. So, people should be free to act as they wish, provided that they do not harm others (from 1-2)

4. harms to others diminish people's happiness

5. Government may only interfere with people's liberty of action in order to prevent them from harming others

Nudges

any aspect of the choice architecture that alters people's behavior in a predictable way without forbidding or significantly changing their economic incentives

Nudges are distinct from

1. coercive policies (restrictions or mandates)

2. Taxes

3. Provision of information/reasons

Choice architecture

one who has the responsibility of organizing the context in which people make decisions.

Importance: the design of choice situations affect the decision individuals make

ex. doctos, parents, websitee designers, salespeople

Nudging in the supermarket

Arguments for:

. consistent with the harm principle- respects people's liberty

. more effective than providing information

Arguments against:

. paternalistic

. respects people's autonomy? perhaps manipulative?

varieties of conservatism

1. orthodoxy

2. philosophical conservatism

orthodoxy

Commitment to preserving/realizing traditional moral norms and favored economic arrangements on grounds that they fulfill some ultimate truth- e.g. fulfill "natural law" or realize a particular religious doctrine

philosophical conservatism

loosely defined political philosophy holding that existing institutions ought to be conserved (through conservatism may involve/necessitate gradual reform)

Five conservative themes

1. Order: societies need authoritative institutions to ensure order, a precondition of living well

2. Freedom: freedom to live in accordance with traditions and conceptions of the good life.. But freedom need to be ordered and restrained by religious institutions, families, schools, trade unions, and social aid organizations

3. Community: recognition of communities as necessary for good lives and transmission of moral education and tradition

4. Property: private property as a way to ensure freedom and order, but also preserve ties to family and place

5. Tradition: institutions customs, and habits constitute inherited solutions to problems of social interaction whose rationale is not immediately apparent to social scientists/philosophers- e.g. chesterton's fence

Liberal elite hypocrisy

Elite liberals "talk left" on family structure and marriage, emphasizing personal autonomy and destigmatization (i.e. they are nonjudgmental regarding these issues)

-But they "walk right," getting married, staying married, and encouraging their children to get and stay married before having children.

conservatism vs. libertarianism

1. rejection of an intrusive state: both yes

2. support for free markets and private property: both yes

3. rejection of equalizing: both yes

4. individualism (e.g. immigration policy- need to preserve culture and tradition): C= no, L=yes

5. Primary of freedom (e.g. recreational drugs, sale of secual services, dangerous weapons): C=no, L=yes

6. Rationalism (e.g. traditional institutions: C=no, L=yes

Conservatism on the left?

1. Conservatism and ecological conservation: both involve taking care of existing resources, whether the environment or social capital

2. Architectural preservation: preservation of historical buildings

3. Anti-gentrification movements: preserving neighborhoods-people, social capital, etc.

4. Opposition to free trade and out-sourcing: preservation of existing industries and communities they support

justice and immigration

1. Is there a right to exclude? Do states have a moral right to control their borders? What are the limits of this right?

2. If there is a right to exclude, how must states exercise it? What are legitimate reasons for including prospective immigrants? What are the legitimate reasons for excluding prospective immigrants?

3. What should states do with prospective immigrants who have entered or remained in their territory without authorization?

4. Who is a refugee? What are states' responsibilities with respect to refugees?

Open borders

the lifting of restrictions on people's movement acorss national borders, with exceptions for public safety and public health ex. 19th century, European Union

arguments for open borders

1. welfare

- concern: brain drain

2. equality of opportunity

- concern: does justice require cosmic fairness or just fair treatment?

3. freedom

-concern: value of membership?

Blake's position

policy of exclusion may promote state's ability to realize a just order, namely through promotion of three goods: decolonization, solidarity, social insurance

Blake's 3 arguments for borders

1. decolonization

2. solidarity

3. social insurance

note: aim is not to reject open borders, but rather to identify possible costs of immigration/value of exclusion

Blake and solidarity

Positive particularity: people rightly flourish only within particular communities and traditions, and they are right to promote the interests and values of group members over others

Negative particularity: the prediction that people are morally flawed and limited in attention, and so are likely to limit their moral concern to the local group- i.e. people are bad at solidarity.

Blake and solidarity continued

Given negative particularity, exclusion may promote solidarity, which undergrids trust in government and commitment to redistribution

Blake: “if people are predictably hostile to increases in demographic diversity and if that hostility can issue in a reduction in solidarity, then an increase in demographic diversity borne by migration may be expected to issue in a reduction in solidarity – with all the associated difficulties for public administration that entails.”

Robert Putnam: Increased ethnic diversity has benefits, but also is accompanied by decreased amounts of trust, altruism, and social cooperation.

Upshot (if empirical claim is true): You can have high levels of immigration or a high trust society with lots of redistribution, but very challenging to have both.

Blake and insurance/risk

States must decide on how to balance security for the unemployed and the elderly with innovation and entrepreneurship.

Open borders allow people to favor jurisdictions that reward their present stage of life.

Hypothetical: after working for 30 years in low-tax/low-social safety net North Carolina, the canadian academic retires to home province of british columbia and takes advantage of the excellent, public healthcare system.

Blake: exclusion enables states to opt for security for citizens-security requires most people to live and work in the jurisdiction from which they derive benefits.

Just war theory definition

war is morally permissible (perhaps even morally required) under certain conditions

Just war theory 3 aspects

1. Jus ad bellum: justice of resorting to war

2. Jus ad bello: justice in war

3. Jus post bellum: justice after war

Jus ad bellum (justice resorting to war)

1. Just cause:

National defense (of one's own state or ally)- including pre-emptive strikes

-Humanitarian intervention

2. Legitimate authority: body fighting the war must have the appropriate authority to do so- e.g. north carolina cant start a war with canada

3. Right intention: states must have the right intention- i.e. fulfilling the just cause

4. Proportionality: the relevant harms and benefits of the war must be proportional to the wrong it aims to address.

5. Reasonable hope of success: states may only go to war if they have a reasonable hope of success- prohibition on reckless waste of citizens lives and resources.

6. Last resort: before resorting to war, states must seriously consider all reasonable non-military options- e.g. diplomacy, sanctions, etc.

Jus ad Bello (justice in war)

1. Discrimination (non-combatant immunity): targeting noncombatants is impermissible.

2. Proportionality of means:

- The harms of the use of force must be proportional to the value of the strategic end;

- The least harmful feasible means must be chosen

Discrimination (non-combatant immunity)

targeting noncombatants is impermissible

Civilians (and civilian infrastructure) should not be deliberately targeted, even if they are in favor of the actions of their government/military, and steps should be taken to minimize civilian casualties.

- Precautions in military attacks

- Advance warning

- Removal of civilians from vicinity of military objectives

Doctrine of double effect

It is morally permissible to cause harm to innocent people if:

1. the harm is not intended, but merely a foresseable side effect (double effect) of the action.

2. The intention of the action is to bring about a good result.

3. There is no less harmful way to bring about good result.

4. The good result outweighs the harm.

ex. terror bomber vs. tactical bomber

Proportionality

- The harms of the use of force must be proportional to the value of the strategic end.

-The least harmful feasible means must be chosen (even if this involves putting soldiers in great danger).

Principles of research ethics- practice

Interventions (including experimental interventions) designed solely to enhance the well-being of an individual patient or client and that have a reasonable expectation of success.

Principles of research ethics- research

Activity designed to test a hypothesis, permit conclusions to be drawn, and thereby to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.

If there is an element of research in an activity, it should undergo independent review.

- research activities are designed to generate knowledge, not promote health or welbeing of patients/clients.

Principles of research ethics- respect for persons

1. individuals should be treated as autonomous agents;

2. persons with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection.

Autonomy: the capacity for self-determination- to deliberate about personal goals and act in accordance with them.

Principles of research ethics-application 1) informed consent

individuals are entitled to decide whether to participate in research or not on the basis of their own values and preferences.

1. information: information that is materially relevant to decision to enroll (e.g. risks, procedures, benefits, available alternatives) must be disclosed

2. Comprehension: subjects must understand information that is materially relevant.

3. Voluntariness: consent must be free of coercion and undue influence.

beneficence

1. do no harm

2. maximize possible benefits; minimize possible harms.

Principle of research ethics- Application 2) assessment of risks/ benefits

1. minimize risks to subjects

2. favorable risk/benefit ratio

Justice in research ethics

1. justice in selection of subjects;

2. justice in distribution of benefits and burdens of research

Principle of research ethics- application 3) justice

1. fair selection of research subjects

a. non-discrimination ins election of subjects of beneficial research;

b. concern for social, racial, sexual, and cultural biases institutionalized in society, and how they impact opportunities for participation;

c. prioritizing of subjects on basis of ability to bear burdens of research; and

d. protection for vulnerable populations (institutionalized, easy to manipulate)- racial minorities, ill, economically disadvantaged, prisoners).

2. justice in the distribution of benefits and burdens of research

Standard of care

The level and type of care to which clinical research participants with a particular condition have a moral claim.

ex. penicillin for syphilis (TSS)

Standard of care example

Government agency A may assign participants to an intervention only if it is not reasonably expected to be inferior with respect to the realization of target outcomes than the policy A has a duty to implement, that is, the most effective policy that it has the authority and resources to sustainably implement.

Towards a Standard of care for policy experiments

Governments have duties of justice to realize 'target outcomes' for residents.

To realize target outcomes, governments must implement policies that are:

1. best proven (evidence-based)

2. consistent with people's rights

3. attainable and sustainable (given resources and multiple target outcomes).

So, for any particular target outcome, governments have a duty to implement the policy that is best proven and morally and practically attainable and sustainable (BPA policy).

Randomization is permissible in the context of policy RCTs when decision-makers are in a state of indeterminacy:

1. indeterminacy regarding the intervention and control arm; or,

2. indeterminacy regarding who should have access to the intervention arm.

Retributivism

criminals deserve to be punished

-appropriate punishment should follow principle of lex talionis- "an eye for an eye."

Problem: seems to imply that torturers should be tortured, kidnappers should be kidnapped, etc.

Principle of proportionality

Severity of punishment should be equivalent to severity of crime- most severe punishment should be reserved for most severe crime.

Principle of commensurability

punishments must be commensurable to crimes- e.g. not okay to only have fines between $1 and $100.

Stichter on proportionality and commensurability

If death is proportional to and commensurable with first-degree murder (or some other terrible crime), capital punishment would seem to be morally permissible.

policy equipoise

A state of uncertainty among policymakers, researchers, or ethicists about which policy option will lead to the most just or effective outcome. It is often invoked to justify experimentation, pilot programs, or comparative policy evaluation when no option has a clearly superior balance of benefits, harms, or fairness considerations.

Prohibition on legal moralism

The laws that are put in place to prohibit or regulate behavior that is considered morally wrong, cannot be justified solely on the basis of moral disapproval or society's belief that something is immoral. Harm principle states that the only valid reason to restrict personal liberty is to prevent harm to others.

Fair equality of opportunity

-Those who are at the same level of talent and ability, and have the same willingness to use them, should have the same prospects of success regardless of their initial place in the social system, that is, regardless of the income class into which they are born.

-people are neither advantaged nor disadvantaged in their life prospects by their socio-economic starting point.

- mitigates inequalities based on class/social position to least advantaged.