consequentialist argument for political authority

Question 1

argument

Answer 1

1. Thestateproducesverylargebenefits.
2. For the state to produce these benefits, individuals must obey the state.
3. If people must do X to produce some very large benefit, then they are obligated to do so.
   (Shallow pond example.)
4. So individuals are obligated to obey the state.

Question 2

problem

Answer 2

a critic of authority would say that individual actions have no effect on the ability of the state to provide social services. society will not collapse if I disobey a law

• the defender would appeal to rule consequentialism which states you should act according to the general rules that would be best for everyone to follow. it is wrong to do x if it would be bad for everyone to do it.
• critic may use philosopher example- would be bad for everyone to be a philosopher, does that mean it is bad for me to be one? analogous to the claim that I can violate the law provided enough people are already obeying the law
• the conclusion is that the consequentialist argument doesn’t establish political obligation. Either rule consequentialism is false or it fails to support political obligations.

Question 3

problem

Answer 3

a critic of authority would say that individual actions have no effect on the ability of the state to provide social services. society will not collapse if I disobey a law

• the defender would appeal to rule consequentialism which states you should act according to the general rules that would be best for everyone to follow. it is wrong to do x if it would be bad for everyone to do it.
• critic may use philosopher example- would be bad for everyone to be a philosopher, does that mean it is bad for me to be one? analogous to the claim that I can violate the law provided enough people are already obeying the law
• the conclusion is that the consequentialist argument doesn’t establish political obligation. Either rule consequentialism is false or it fails to support political obligations.

Question 4

consequentialist argument for political legitimacy

Answer 4

1. Thestateproducesverylargebenefits.(Law&order,protection.)
2. For the state to produce these benefits, the state must coerce individuals to obey it.
3. If it is necessary to coerce people in order to produce some very large benefit, then it is
   permissible to do so. Ex.:
   Lifeboat: A group of people are on a lifeboat. The boat is taking on water and needs to be bailed out; otherwise, it will sink. People are not voluntarily bailing. One person takes out a gun and forces the others to bail water. Verdict: Seems justified.
4. So it is permissible for the state to coerce individuals to obey it.

Question 5

problem with the consequentialist argument for political legitimacy

Answer 5

• Can’t justify most laws. Some functions served by different kinds of laws: 1. Protecting individual rights. (Murder, theft, etc.)
  2. Promoting public goods. (Environment, national defense)
  3. Paternalism. (Drugs, seat belts)
  4. Legal moralism. (Prostitution, gambling)
  5. Aid to the poor. (Welfare)
  6. Rent-seeking. (Subsidies, licensing, no-bid contracts)
  7. Preserving the government’s own power & protecting its monopoly. (Tax, legal tender,
  vigilantism)
  10
  8. Providing miscellaneous other goods. (Space program, arts)
  9. Emotional laws. (Immigration, gay marriage)
• Can’t justify content-independence. Can only use coercion to implement correct policies. (Lifeboat
  example)
• Can’t justify supremacy. (Lifeboat example again)

Question 6

appeal to fairness

Answer 6

• If it would be bad if everyone did x, and it would be unfair to others for you to do x while they do
  not, then it is wrong to do x.
• It’s unfair to be a free rider. (Taking benefits produced by others while refusing to contribute.)
• Ex.: Lifeboat: Lifeboat needs to be bailed out. You should contribute, not simply let others to do
  all the work.
• Note: avoids the “become a philosopher” counterexample. Being a philosopher not unfair to non-
  philosophers.
  ⋅ Disobeying law while others obey = free riding on the obedience of others.
• General obedience necessary for law & order.
• Obedience is a personal cost (foregone liberty).
  ⋅ Conclusion: you should obey the law.

Question 7

problem with the appeal to fairness

Answer 7

⋅ No basis for content-independence.
- Lifeboat example: May not force people to pray to Poseidon, hand over jewelry, etc.
- No obligation to obey such demands.
- Many laws are similar: drug laws, minimum wage, support for arts, food packaging laws,
restrictions on sale of stevia as a “food additive”, subsidies, etc.
- No obligation to obey laws one regards as harmful. It is not unfair to refuse to do things that you
believe harm society.
⋅ No basis for supremacy.
- Lifeboat ex.: no reason why only one person can force passengers to bail water.