Week 2 Power and Oppression

Review: Potential impediments for rational debate on

normative social political issues
Descriptive vs. normative
Subjectivism: a moral norm is binding iff the
subject holds it
Cultural relativism: a moral norm is binding iff the
culture holds it

My attempt at a solution: moral norms / social

rules are metaphysically like tools (hammer,
screwdriver, etc.,)
The descriptive / normative distinction applies
to both moral norms and tools: e.g., you ought
to use such-and-such a type of hammer for
that job; this society ought to use such-andsuch a moral principle to solve this social
problem.
There are objective facts about both moral
norms and tools
o These facts are relative to the type of thing
we are (homo sapien) and the kind of
environment we find ourselves in (both
natural environment and social
environment)
1 | Page

 Both tools and moral norms are not the kinds

of things that are true or false
Both tools and moral norms can have varying
degrees of quality about them; improvement
overtime is possible and actual; focus on
function / pragmatics
Different societies may have different uses for
different tools / moral norms
o But all people / cultures have a need for
some tools or other, and some types of
tools /moral norm homo sapiens just cant
do without (wed become extinct without
them)
Werthheimers Liberty, Coercion and the
Limits of the State
Our course starts with an examination of what is
probably the most important social institution in
the modern day, the State. Particularly, we will
explore arguments about when its morally
appropriate for the State to limit the liberty of its
members, via coercion, including violent coercion if
need be; and we will examine arguments for and
against such coercive rules.
Why do we start with an examination of state
coercion?
2 | Page

Because such a starting point is fruitful one:

historically, states of many different types have
wielded power in an effort to oppress people
(women, Jews, slaves, impoverished people, etc.,).
Often, states have used laws for this purpose. So,
our questions are the following: what kinds of
moral principles can render legitimate coercive
state laws?
A Modern background assumption:
We believe that the individual is the primary locus
of moral value and that individual freedom is of the
utmost importance. At the same time, we think
that the state is justified in using its coercive
powers to limit individual liberty if it does so for the
right reasons. Unfortunately, we disagree as to
what those reasons are. (Page 38)

Limiting Liberty:
When people are at liberty to do as they please,
people would tend to be less oppressed than
otherwise; when people are not at liberty, the
possibility of oppression abounds.

3 | Page

According to Werthheimer, the key social political

philosopher on these topics is J. S. Mill;
Werthheimers goal in his paper is to explore
whether or not Mills Harm Principle is successful.
Wertheimers thesis is that Mills (supposedly
simple) account fails. Ultimately, Werthheimer
offers us a pluralistic account of the reasons that
may justify liberty limiting principles.

Lets examine a few examples of some liberty

limiting principles: (page 38-41)
Are there any examples of principles on this list
that you cannot imagine a
society/culture/group of humans failing to
(attempt to) enforce?
What are a few examples of some principles
you endorse, but suspect others may not?
What are a few examples of some principles
you do not endorse, but suspect others may?
Wertheimers three questions he asks of each
principle:
(1) Does the policy constitute an interference
with liberty?
4 | Page

(2) Does the policy involve the use of state

coercion?
(3) Is the policy morally justified?
For our purposes, we can add:
(4) Does this policy give some people (too
much) power over others?
(5) Does this policy oppress groups of people?
Llets spend a quick moment on (1) and (2)

Some background relevant to Questions (1)

and (2)
What is liberty?
o Many philosophers agree that only adult
humans of (more or less) sound mind are
potentially free in the social political
sense we are focussing on at present (so:
not cats or dogs; and not young children
nor the mentally incompetent).
o Negative accounts of liberty: a person
is free so long as no agent or agency stops
the person from doing as the person wants
5 | Page

or desires (no cage, chains, lies, fraud,

etc.,); free = freedom from X, Y
o Positive accounts of liberty: a person is
free so long as internal and external
obstacles are not impeding a persons
capability to do things that are in the
persons interest; free = freedom to do
X, Y

What is coercion?
o Let us say A coerces B to do X when A
proposes to make B worse off if B does not
do X. Let us also agree that A limits Bs
freedom of action if A coerces B to do X.
(Page 41)
E.g. paradigmatic case of state
interference with individual liberty is
when the state uses the criminal law to
forbid us from behaving in certain ways
6 | Page

(Murder, Abortion, Lewdness, etc.,);

or require that we do something
specific (Seat Belts, Voting, Bad
Samaritan, etc.,)
o Trickier cases:
Monogamy, Adultery, Heterosexual
Marriage
A does not interfere with Bs freedom
when A uses incentives to motivate B.
E.g. contrast: Mow my lawn or Ill
break your arm with Mow my
lawn and Ill pay you $25; first
case is paradigm of coercion, 2nd
case is simply making an offer.
o But, on what basis ought
society determine what to
motivate and what not to?
How does society decide by
vote? Is a simple 50%+1 vote a
fair way to determine what
lifestyles ought to have
incentives?
Question (3): For what reason is the state
justified in limiting individual liberty?
Potential answers: the state is justified in limiting
As liberty...
7 | Page

(1) The Harm Principle: ...to prevent A from

harming others. (Murder, Assault;
Abortion?)
(2) The Offense Principle: ...to prevent A from
offending others, even if A isnt harming
them. (Lewdness; public fecal
consumption?! ewww)
(3) Legal Paternalism: ...to prevent A from
harming him or herself. (Seat Belts;
Minimum Wage?)
(4) Legal Moralism: ...to prevent A from
engaging in behaviour that is or is regarded
as immoral, even if A isnt harming others
without their consent. (Monogamy;
Cocaine? Art?)
(5) Collective Benefit Principle: ...in order to
provide a public benefit that cannot be
obtained otherwise. (Converters; Blood?)
(6) The Justice Principle: ...on grounds of
justice. (Non-discrimination; Public
schools?)
(7) The Need Principle: ... to provide for other
peoples needs. (Bad Samaritan,
Welfare; Organs?!)

8 | Page

(1) The Harm Principle

Mill argues that we can use one and only one
very simple principle to determine when it is
legitimate for the state to limit individual
liberty. That principle is that... 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. His own good, either physical or
moral, is not sufficient warrant... Over himself,
over his own body, the individual is
sovereign. (Page 44)
Uncontroversial principles are easily defended:
Murder, Assault, Theft;
But, appropriately, not:
o Historical case, circa. 1910-1930 in North
America, of eugenics and enforced
sterilization of humans judged to
have, and be spreading, immoral
blood to their offspring (i.e., people who
were blind, poor, epileptic, low IQ, etc., had
state-enforced tubal ligation /
hysterectomy or vasectomy)
Problems with the Harm Principle as being a
simple, single principle:

9 | Page

 What is harm? does failing to help count as

harm? Is psychological harm, harm? (page 45)
Issues of harms that are consented to
Morally permitted harms (e.g., job hunting and
harming)
The Offense Principle and 6 criteria
The state is justified in limiting As liberty to
prevent A from offending others, even if A isnt
harming them.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

Avoidability
Pervasiveness
Magnitude
Legitimacy
Social value
Individual integrity

e.g., While on a long bus trip, a troupe of artists

perform un-unscheduled and unannounced show
that includes fecal consumption.
e.g. While on a long bus trip someone loudly
recites a particularly disgusting version of the
Aristocrat joke [no version of this joke is
recommended by me, and it is NOT part of
course content. I merely wish to refer to an
example of something extreme in our cultural for
the purposes of an example. I will warn you that
10 | P a g e

MANY versions of this joke will CHURN your

stomach. Almost all version of this joke are R rated
18+ disgusting and juvenile... at your discretion,
you tube it.]
Legal Paternalism: Soft and Hard
The state is justified in limiting As liberty to
prevent A from harming him or herself.
Soft legal paternalism is when the state limits
As liberty for her own good and As cognitive
status is in question to some extent. (e.g.,
stopping a person from crossing a rickety old
bridge over a raging river where you know the
person is depressed and wishes to die.)
Hard legal paternalism is when the state limits
As liberty for her own good and As cognitive
status is not in question (e.g. stopping a person
from crossing a rickety old bridge over a raging
river where you know the person has the
dangerous hobby of crossing rickety old bridges).

11 | P a g e