Flashcards in Exam 2 Deck (35)
What is paternalism?
-view that social coercion can legitimately be employed to prevent individuals from harming themselves
- permissible for the state to use its coercive power to “protect people from themselves” even when others are not harmed.
exists when people are willing to take an undue risk because the costs associated with that risk would be partially or wholly passed on to others
patterns of reasoning that lead to illogical or irrational conclusions
The Rule of Law
-No one is above the law
-There is a substantive and procedural due process to power is not abused
any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession
-punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed,
-intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind,
-when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
"Ticking Time Bomb" cases
Incidents were torture is considered moral due to the urgency needed to obtain information that could prevent danger that is imminent
privacy is the right to control access to our bodies, personal spaces, and information about us.
The "Market Place of Ideas"
the truth arises out of the competition between different ideas in a free, unconstrained public dialogue—just as the best products arise out of the competition between different products in a free, unconstrained economic market.
The Offense Principle
the fact that speech or conduct is seriously offensive to others is a good—though not necessarily decisive—reason to prohibit it.
The Brandenberg Test
-whether the advocacy of free speech can be directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action;
-if it can not directly cause lawless conduct then the speech is a acceptable
those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction."
Preventing an individual from committing unlawful acts by incarceration.
Preventing general public from committing crimes by utilizing the punishment of others as an example.
-basic principle of justice that those who are guilty of crimes deserve to be punished
-Punishment should occur whether or not there is a deterrence factor
Lex Talionis ( The Principle of Porportionality)
-law of retaliation
-punishment should match the degree and kind of offense committed
-"eye for an eye"
Brandenburg v. Ohio
KKK rally leader was convicted for hate speech that occured in a forest but appealed conviction due to violation of his first amendement.
-Supreme Court reveresed his conviction on grounds that there was "no clear & present danger" or this was no "immenient lawless aciton" that could have occured as a result of the speech.
Skokie v. NSAP
-National Socialist Party plans march through Skokie, Illinois which is a predominately jewish community with Holocaust suvivors.
-Circuit court prohibited those attending rally from wearing nazi memorabilia
-Supreme Court decided that the swastika is a form of free speech and could not be considered "fighting words"
Texas v. Johnson
was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American flag enforced in 48 of the 50 states. Justice William Brennan wrote for a five-justice majority in holding that the defendant Gregory Lee Johnson's act of flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Snyder v. Phelps
was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that speech on a public sidewalk, about a public issue, cannot be liable for a tort of emotional distress, even if the speech is found to be "outrageous".
Paternalism is the view that social coercion can legitimately be employed to prevent individuals from harming themselves. So, according to this view, a person's freedom can legitimately be restricted for that person’s own sake; thus, paternalism implies that it is permissible for the state to use its coercive power to “protect people from themselves” even when others are not harmed.
What is Mill's rejection to paternalism?
1)Individuals know better and care more about what makes them happy than anyone else
2) Even when an individual makes a bad decision, the bad consequences resulting from that decision are outweighed by the good of allowing people to exercise their freedom
- Since the utilitarianism aim of gov. is to maximize happiness a government should not be paternalistic
Conly's three objections to Mill's argument against Paternalism?
1. Sometimes even competent adults do not know what is in their own self-interest
2. But, what’s more, even when they do know what is in their own self-interest, they often do not have the strength of will to do it.
3. Sometimes our behavior has irreversible, far-reaching, and dangerous consequences. So, Mill’s assumption that, when people make bad choices, the freedom of being allowed to act on these choices outweighs the bad consequences is false. For example, the possible consequences of riding a motorcycle without a helmet are irreversible, extensive, and really bad.
Explain of the UN defines torture?
“any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
Why is torture "Prima Facie" morally wrong in both utilitarianism and rights framework?
-There is no utility to torture, intentionally inflicting pain does not bring amount happiness therefore should be avoided
-Torture violates the autonomy of an Invidvidual therefore rights are destroyed in the process
Deroshowitz's case for torture warrants ?
- ticking time bomb cases
1) allow torture to take place in secret, conducted by governmental officials acting on their own with no independent oversight, or we can “outsource” the job to allies who do not share our moral qualms about torture;
- 2)we can develop a system of judicial oversight, which requires government agents to provide evidence to an independent authority (judge) showing that the candidate for torture has vital information needed to avert an imminent threat and that torture is the last resort and is likely to elicit the information.
What is Mill's argument against society censoring opinions, even false or offensive?
1. Let us suppose that the censored opinion is completely true: if this is the case, censorship is bad because people are denied the truth.
2. Let us suppose that the censored opinion is partially true (and partially false): if this is the case, censorship is bad because it prevents the truth from emerging through a process of rational debate.
3. Let us suppose that the censored opinion is completely false: if this is the case, censorship is still bad because: a) unchallenged true opinions will become mere dogma, and b) people will forget why false opinions are false.
Explain Mill's notion of "Market Place of Ideas"?
That all opinions are freely expressed whethere true or false; those who carry strong evidence will be supported and those ideas that have weak evidence will not be