Group 9 tutorials

Oct. 1 changed to Oct. 8

Oct. 8 will discuss Thank You For Smoking

New dates: Sept. 17, Oct. 8, Oct. 22, Nov. 5, Nov. 19

You must write a short answer (2 pages) to one question on each of 8 movies (out of 10).

Due at the end of the course.

50% of your grade

Assessment summary:

Class presentation in tutorial: 20% Tutorial participation: 30% Portfolio: 50%

We know what’s best for you.

The state should protect people from themselves.

The state is modeled after the family

Very popular historical understanding of the state’s relationship to its citizens

Aristotle compared the family to the state, the head of household to the monarch, the wife, children and slaves to the subjects

Confucius

Five relationships:

1) Ruler to Subject2) Father to Son3) Husband to Wife4) Elder Brother to Younger Brother5) Friend to Friend

In every relationship except friend to friend, the relationship is hierarchical, with the former using his wisdom and power to govern, guide and protect the latter.

John Stuart Mill “On Liberty” 1859

Rejected paternalism in favor of freedom

Proposed the harm principle:

That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. 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. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

Utilitarianism (Mill)

› Mill’s view: if the harm principle is followed, the greatest good for the greatest number will result

› Problem: is that true? What if violating rights leads to an increase in the general welfare? E.g. putting an innocent person in jail to avoid violent riots, likely deaths

Lockean justification

› People by nature are free and equal› Everyone has an inborn right to life

and liberty

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

Self-evident:

Known to be true by immediate understanding or by definition and requiring no proof or explanation, e.g. “I think therefore I am”

Obviously true to all right-thinking people, esp. morally self-evident

Inalienable:

Cannot be denied, surrendered or taken away

Suicide/euthanasia Motorcycle helmets Smoking in public places Smoking privately Illegal drugs, e.g. marijuana, cocaine,

heroin Refusing life-saving medical treatment on

religious grounds for yourself/your children

In the ideology of the United States, freedom of speech is one of the most important freedoms

Even in the U.S., though, there are restrictions on freedom of speech, e.g.

› Slander› Shouting fire in a crowded theater› Calling for overturn of the government› Revealing state secrets› Inciting a riot› Perjury (lying under oath)

Many countries have more extensive restrictions to free speech. E.g. Germany the following are illegal:

Insult Malicious gossip Hate speech Holocaust denial Rewarding and approving crimes Insulting faiths and religious beliefs

What kind of limits to free speech are justifiable?

Is causing offensive considered causing harm (hence falling under the harm principle?)

What about offensive language, pornography, satirizing political and religious leaders

Some use of symbols are protected by freedom of speech laws and some aren’t, e.g. wearing a swastika, burning the flag, defacing a picture of the king

Another related right which is widely recognized as a fundamental human right is the right to a fair trial

All people accused of a crime are entitled to the best possible defense

Is it wrong for a lawyer to defend someone he thinks is guilty?

No, because:

A defending lawyer is not a judge. It is not his job to decide if his client is guilty, but to put his client’s case to the judge as strongly as possible

Judges and juries make judgments, not lawyers If lawyers refused to defend people who seem guilty, then seeming

guilty would be tantamount to being guilty – without a trial

Ideas, like people, need defense

The public are the judge, not the state or a state-appointed authority

Seemingly wrong ideas should be defended as vigorously as possible, so the public can make an informed decision

Examples: communism is good, capitalism is good, women are inferior, smoking is not bad for your health, gun control is unnecessary

Defending ideas legitimately can involve promoting controversial views and philosophies, finding and promulgating evidence and putting facts into favorable contexts, but not lying.

1) An idea that seems wrong might be right. Only open debate can ensure that we eventually arrive at the truth.

2) Outlawing the expression of a wrong-headed idea doesn’t get rid of the idea, but just drives it underground.

3) Countering wrong-headed ideas requires the correct ideas to be clarified and sometimes improved

“…there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered…. If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” (Mill, On Liberty)

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (Evelyn Beatrice Hall, describing the beliefs of Voltaire)

“Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend” 百花齐放，百家争鸣 (Mao Zedong)

J.S. Mill, “On Liberty”, full text at: www.serendipity.li/jsmill/on_lib.html

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, at: http://plato.stanford.edu/ entry on Paternalism

“The Ethics of Justice: Why Criminal Defense Lawyers Defend the Guilty”, Ethics Scoreboard at: www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list/defense.html

Ronald Bayer, “Ethics of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention” at: www.asph.org/UserFiles/Module6.pdf