Some contemporary Just War theorists, like Jeff McMahan, have recently built upon an individual right of self-defense to articulate moral rules of war that are at odds with commonly accepted views. For instance, they argue that in principle combatants who fight on the unjust side ought to be liable to punishment on that basis alone. Also, they reject the conclusion that combatants fighting on both sides are morally equal. In this paper, I argue that these theorists overextend their self-defense analysis (...) when it comes to the punishment of unjust combatants, and I show how in an important sense just and unjust combatants are morally equal. I contend that the individualistic and quid pro quo perspective of the self-defense analysis fails to consider properly how the international community, morally speaking, ought to treat combatants, and I set forth four elements of justice applicable to war, which, together, support the conclusion that in principle the international community should not take on the activity of punishing combatants solely for fighting on the unjust side. (shrink)

A multitude of reasons are given for banning various forms of symbolic clothing. The only thing that is clear is that there has not been a definitive way to proceed. The lack of clarity and ambiguity over what children should be allowed to wear in schools is apparent. Consequently, policies regarding symbolic clothing are inconsistent and erratic, at best. This article explores the reasons used for the banning of symbolic clothing in schools and recommends four principles that may assist educators (...) and policy analysts in developing more consistent guidelines. It is hoped that the principles put forward will underpin future policy discussions in defining the acceptable parameters of symbolic clothing. (shrink)

The author questions himself about what is known as “the paradox of blackmail,” that is, the fact that blackmail is the result of the combination of two ways of behaving which are often both lawful if taken individually, but unlawful once they are connected. The author also examines whether the harm principle typical of liberal orders provides the justification (the rationale) for the assumption of blackmail as a crime, or whether it is instead necessary to turn to another justificatory basis: (...) the exploitation principle. However, as this principle leads to legal moralism, it opposes a liberal ethics. Thus, one is faced with the dilemma of either accepting the harm principle thus decriminalizing blackmail, or accepting the exploitation principle and going against principles of liberalism. To escape this dilemma the author distinguishes between various types (five categories) of blackmail, concluding that only non‐paradoxical types fit the common‐sense expectation of criminalization. (shrink)

Patricia White (Stud Philos Educ 18:43–52, 1999) argues that the virtue gratitude is essential to a flourishing democracy because it helps foster universal and reciprocal amity between citizens. Citizens who participate in this reciprocal relationship ought to be encouraged to recognize that “much that people do does in fact help to make communal civic life less brutish, pleasanter and more flourishing.” This is the case even when the majority of citizens do not intentionally seek to make civic life better for (...) others. Were citizens to recognize the appropriateness of gratitude in these situations, the bonds of our democratic communities would be strengthened. In this paper, I examine White’s argument more carefully, arguing that it fails to address adequately the difficulties that arise when we attempt to encourage the virtue of gratitude in our students. To address these difficulties, I turn to an unlikely source for democratic inspiration: Friedrich Nietzsche. In spite of his well-known anti-democratic sentiments, Nietzsche offers democratic citizens insights into the social value of gratitude. I argue that Nietzsche’s ideas resolve the educational difficulties in White’s argument and viably establish gratitude as an important democratic virtue that ought to be cultivated. (shrink)

This article focuses primarily on the emotion of guilt as providing a justification for retributive legal punishment. In particular, I challenge the claim according to which guilt can function as part of our epistemic justification of positive retributivism, that is, the view that wrongdoing is both necessary and sufficient to justify punishment. I show that the argument to this conclusion rests on two premises: (1) to feel guilty typically involves the judgment that one deserves punishment; and (2) those who feel (...) guilty after wrongdoing are more virtuous (or less vicious) than those who do not. I shall argue that premise (1) is false on both empirical and conceptual grounds and that there are no particularly good grounds supporting this premise (2). Finally, I consider and reject the claim that anger, as opposed to guilt, can afford the type of epistemic justification needed by positive retributivism. (shrink)

Abstract:I argue that, since the legal order is a public good, an act of legal punishment may be viewed as the imposition of a kind of tax, which I label ‘a quasi-tax’. Once punishment is viewed as a quasi-tax, the traditionally opposed approaches to punishment may be reconciled, as both utility and retribution jointly justify an act of legal punishment. I discuss objections to my argument and I reply to them.

Punishment involves deliberating harming individuals. How, then, if at all, is it to be justified? This, the first of three papers on the philosophy of punishment (see also 'Punishment: Nonconsequentialism' and 'Punishment: The Future'), examines attempts to justify the practice or institution according to its consequences. One claim is that punishment reduces crime, and hence the resulting harms. Another is that punishment functions to rehabilitate offenders. A third claim is that punishment (or some forms of punishment) can serve to make (...) restitution to victims, and a fourth is that it can strengthen social values. The paper examines these claims, and finally considers pluralist theories which combine retributive and harm-reductive or utilitarian considerations. (Retributive theories are examined in their own right in 'Punishment: Nonconsequentialism'.). (shrink)

This paper is intended to be a summary of the author's views on the relationship between law and morality worked out over the past three decades in jurisprudence. The paper preliminarily clarifies the matter by isolating some lines of cleavage separating different questions askable about this relationship. With this done, the author argues for two theses. One, that judges are obligated to use morality in their decisions in particular cases; and two, that the morality judges are obligated to use in (...) their judicial reasonings, is best seen as the natural lawyer sees it, namely, as being part of the law that obligates judges in their role as judges. The author not only believes these theses to be true; he also thinks that these theses are practically important, in that their acceptance by judges makes for better judging. (shrink)

I will argue that the fairly common assumption that brain imaging may compromise people’s privacy in an undesirable way only if moral crimes are committed is false. Sometimes persons’ privacy is compromised because of failures of privacy. A normal emotional reaction to failures of privacy is embarrassment and shame, not moral resentment like in the cases of violations of right to privacy. I will claim that if (1) neuroimaging will provide all kinds of information about persons’ inner life and not (...) only information that is intentionally searched for, and (2) there will be more and more application fields of fMRI and more and more people whose brains will be scanned (without any coercion), then, in the future, shame may be an unfortunately common feeling in our culture. This is because failures of privacy may dramatically increase. A person may feel shame strongly and long, especially if his failure is witnessed by people who he considers relatively important, but less than perfectly trustworthy. (shrink)

It is generally acknowledged that school discipline is failing. Through a comparison of two very different disciplinary situations, I inquire into possible causes of failure and conditions of success. The argument is made that if discipline is to succeed, students must believe in and identify with the goals it is designed to support. Questions are raised as to just how embracing (pervasive throughout school life), lofty (transcending the classroom), and moralized (emphasizing social over personal) such goals should be. Without specifying (...) the ideal scope and content of an educational mission, I conclude that a moral component is both practical and proper; for it responds to a child's aspirations, builds self-esteem, and provides the social 'glue' that binds members of a society. (shrink)