Notes on Paternalism and Legalization of Recreational Drugs PDF

Notes on Paternalism and the Legalization of Recreational Drugs I. Paternalism is defined as: the interference with a person's liberty for his or her own good. More accurately, Gerald Dworkin defines it as: "interference with the liberty or autonomy of another person, with justifications referr...

Notes on Paternalism and the Legalization of Recreational Drugs I. Paternalism is defined as: the interference with a person's liberty for his or her own good. More accurately, Gerald Dworkin defines it as: "interference with the liberty or autonomy of another person, with justifications referring to the promotion of the person's good or the prevention of harm to the person. George acts paternalistically toward Louis if: a.) George acts with the intent of averting some harm or promoting some benefit for Louis; b.) George acts contrary to the preferences, desires or values of Louis; and c.) George's act is a limitation on Louis' autonomy or liberty." The term itself comes from the duty of benign parenting. As a father, I am acting responsibly by not allowing my younger children to do what they want. If I didn't act paternalistically and let my children be free to do as they please, they would fill up on sweets (and not eat healthy food), play in the street (and endanger themselves), stay up until they drop (watching TV or playing video games) and do all sorts of other harmful or unhealthy activities. No one faults me (except my own children sometimes) for trying to protect them from their own inexperience, lack of understanding, poor judgment, and craziness. However, as you all know from your own experience or the experiences of your friends, children might resent such interferences with their freedom---especially as they become older. (Remember High School? esp. if you were 16 going on 30?) But this remains a private, personal matter, as do other forms of paternalism characterized by unequal relationships (e.g., between husbands and wives, and between employers and employees in the private domain). Paternalism does not only apply to parenting and other private relationships. Often, the interference with people's liberty comes from some institution such as the government or religious authority. In the case of the latter, as long as people voluntarily submit to the authority of their religious leaders, it is not a problem that concerns the public. Where paternalism becomes an issue is when one's freedom is compromised contrary to one's preferences or informed consent as a matter of Law or coercion. Thus, paternalism is an ethical issue primarily when the government overrules our preferences for the sake of our real or true interests. This assumes that the people are not smart enough or mature enough to behave responsibly. The main problem is that this overrides the key values of liberty and autonomy. It is also problematic because paternalism often expresses unequal relationships characterized by power and domination in the public domain: another example typically occurred between colonialists and the colonized. Examples of government paternalism are legion: legislation that you need to wear seatbelts when riding in a car or helmets when riding a motorcycle; courts allowing physicians to give children Jehovah's Witnesses blood transfusions (against their will and the will of their parents); forcing workers to put a percentage of their paychecks into social security (which assumes that workers will not be responsible enough to provide for their retirement); not allowing people to swim without a lifeguard on duty; requiring warning labels on alcohol, cigarettes, insecticides, detergents, etc.; banning the sale of 'super-sized' slurpees, and other sugary soda pop; and, prohibiting the use of recreational drugs. Anti-paternalists usually base their view on their strong commitment to freedom and autonomy. People must take responsibility for their own actions. If informed adults still wish to participate in risky behavior, that is their choice. John Stuart Mill supported this view. In his classic book On Liberty he argues for maximum liberty as long as it is "self- regarding," that such freedom does no "harm to others." One problem with this view is that many (if not most) of our actions not only affect ourselves, but they also affect many others. Motorcyclists who crash without a helmet often require medical care that ends up costing the taxpayers. Alcoholics who abuse their families, operate machinery when intoxicated, or require medical attention (when they do not have insurance) end up harming others. As you should recall, one philosophical argument against the welfare state is that once society supports the poor and downtrodden, then we all have less freedom. It is none of our business if the poor, unemployed, or uninsured enjoy gambling and intoxicating themselves. If, on the other hand, the public must pay for their lifestyles (via welfare, unemployment, medicaid, medicare), then one can make a strong case that it is our business and we should have a say in how they live. Similarly, an argument for mandatory vaccinations brings into the equation of the 'other-regarding' effects on the vulnerable immunocompromised and elderly. II\. Recreational Drugs and the Criminal Law In the philosophical literature, the debate is portrayed as one of legalization or maintaining the status quo of prohibition. This is something of a false dilemma , 1 as there are many alternative options that lie between these two extremes (e.g. decriminalization, establishing minimum age requirements, and regulating recreational drugs as we do with other pharmaceuticals by requiring a physician's prescription). Moreover, there are many kinds of illegal drugs, and they differ greatly in terms of their danger, addictiveness, potential for overdosing, etc. (For example, heroin and marijuana are very different in terms of the dangers they pose.) Thus, a more serious approach to the question of legal responses to drug use would require examining different drugs and their particular properties, risks, patterns of usage, etc. A crucial element for an intelligent debate on drug laws and policies is to examine scientific research in order to separate fact from fiction. For those of you who are interested, see my report with Prof. Carl Hart on amphetamine and methamphetamine. 2 Different illicit drugs have different harmful (and/ or beneficial) effects on humans, so wise policies should depend on the properties of specific drugs. Of course, not everyone agrees with my appeal to nuance on this. For example, in a statewide 2020 election, voters in Oregon supported Ballot Measure 110, which decriminalized Heroin, Cocaine, Meth, Ecstacy, LSD, Mescaline, Magic Mushrooms, and Oxycodone. 3 As things turned out, Oregon repealed Measure 110 in 2024, blaming increased drug use for the steep rise in crime, homelessness, addiction, and deaths from overdose. (See below.) To repeat: the best path forward calls for shaping drug policies based on specific drugs and their effects, rather than a 'one size fits all' approach. Nonetheless, to itemize different drugs in this way would make this lecture far more complex and lengthy. If I designed an entire course on this topic, I could dedicate each class to a specific drug. Unfortunately, the list below deals in generalizations. Arguments for legalization One ethical controversy to focus on is the debate on the legalization of recreational drugs. \[Since I began teaching this topic back in the 1900's, many changes have taken place. We have gone from medical cannabis to legalization in several states. Already, people are lobbying for medical use and legalization of psilocybin cubensis.\] For the purposes of this lecture, I will not make distinctions between particular drugs; rather, I will speak to the issues of legalizing recreational drugs in general. Supporters of legalization are philosophers Michael Huemer and Thomas Szasz, and staunch conservatives such as the late Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley. Among their arguments: Anti-paternalism: American values favor liberty and minimizing government interference. Our paternalistic anti-drug laws and Draconian law enforcement come at a great cost to our civil liberties. Moreover, many people regard recreational drugs as essential to their pursuit of happiness. Thus, some regard our drug laws as hypocritical in terms of our professed values. Cost/benefit analysis: A very compelling set of arguments entail the immense financial burden of fighting a war on drugs. In the U.S. we spend multiple billions in a losing war. The burden and cost to law enforcement, court costs, incarceration, parole, etc. are staggering. According to Huemer, a majority of people caught in our Federal criminal justice system are there for drug related offences, as are over 20% of prisoners and parolees in State run correctional facilities. Some put the federal cost of arresting some 750,000 people per year for possession of small amounts of marijuana at \$13.5 billion dollars. This sum rises steeply when one considers law enforcement on the state and local levels. The flip side of this is the immense loss of revenue in taxes and health costs because of illegal drugs. Marijuana, for example, is a much bigger cash crop than most anything else grown in the U.S. Moreover (where it remains prohibited), it feeds an illegal, underground, criminal economy where those who profit do not pay taxes. If drugs were legalized, this would pull the rug out from organized crime as well as individuals involved in production and distribution of illegal drugs. Nicholas Kristof ( NY Times , "End the war on pot" 10/28/10) cites Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron with the figure of \$8.7 billion that could be collected in federal taxes (not sure how Miron estimates this increased drug use for the steep rise in crime, homelessness, addiction, and deaths from overdose. (See below.) To repeat: the best path forward calls for shaping drug policies based on specific drugs and their effects, rather than a 'one size fits all' approach. Nonetheless, to itemize different drugs in this way would make this lecture far more complex and lengthy. If I designed an entire course on this topic, I could dedicate each class to a specific drug. Unfortunately, the list below deals in generalizations. Arguments for legalization One ethical controversy to focus on is the debate on the legalization of recreational drugs. \[Since I began teaching this topic back in the 1900's, many changes have taken place. We have gone from medical cannabis to legalization in several states. Already, people are lobbying for medical use and legalization of psilocybin cubensis.\] For the purposes of this lecture, I will not make distinctions between particular drugs; rather, I will speak to the issues of legalizing recreational drugs in general. Supporters of legalization are philosophers Michael Huemer and Thomas Szasz, and staunch conservatives such as the late Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley. Among their arguments: Anti-paternalism: American values favor liberty and minimizing government interference. Our paternalistic anti-drug laws and Draconian law enforcement come at a great cost to our civil liberties. Moreover, many people regard recreational drugs as essential to their pursuit of happiness. Thus, some regard our drug laws as hypocritical in terms of our professed values. Cost/benefit analysis: A very compelling set of arguments entail the immense financial burden of fighting a war on drugs. In the U.S. we spend multiple billions in a losing war. The burden and cost to law enforcement, court costs, incarceration, parole, etc. are staggering. According to Huemer, a majority of people caught in our Federal criminal justice system are there for drug related offences, as are over 20% of prisoners and parolees in State run correctional facilities. Some put the federal cost of arresting some 750,000 people per year for possession of small amounts of marijuana at \$13.5 billion dollars. This sum rises steeply when one considers law enforcement on the state and local levels. The flip side of this is the immense loss of revenue in taxes and health costs because of illegal drugs. Marijuana, for example, is a much bigger cash crop than most anything else grown in the U.S. Moreover (where it remains prohibited), it feeds an illegal, underground, criminal economy where those who profit do not pay taxes. If drugs were legalized, this would pull the rug out from organized crime as well as individuals involved in production and distribution of illegal drugs. Nicholas Kristof ( NY Times , "End the war on pot" 10/28/10) cites Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron with the figure of \$8.7 billion that could be collected in federal taxes (not sure how Miron estimates this sum). Kristof also points out that California spends a staggering \$216,000 per year on each juvenile detainee and only \$8,000 per pupil in the public schools. Reduce crime: not only would what constitutes a crime be redefined, addicts would also have much less incentive to steal and commit crimes to get their drugs. Legal drugs are far less expensive to attain than illegal drugs. Reduce social inequality and racial disparities: Drug legislation, law enforcement, and the judicial system are particularly harsh on the poor and ethnic minorities. For example, vastly different penalties for the same drug (e.g. crack cocaine vs. powder cocaine; methamphetamine vs. d-amphetamine), and more vigorous law enforcement in particular neighborhoods along with racial profiling, have resulted in the world's largest prison population, which is disproportionately African American and Hispanic. (On this, see my research paper cited in endnote.) Quality control: if politicians made drugs legal, they regulations would follow, much like alcohol and tobacco. This would make drugs safer by eliminating bad drugs, tainted drugs, and unknown levels of potency (which are a major cause of fatal overdoses). Less users and addicts: some argue that if drugs were legalized, their mystique and allure would diminish. Pushers would not have the same incentive to bring users into their orbit. \[I regard this as a poor argument. If drugs were legalized, they would be cheaper, more readily available, and hence there would likely be more users and more addicts.\] Human Nature to self-medicate: Many scholars argue that the drive to intoxicate oneself is a natural urge among mammals. Elephants and baboons love to eat fermented fruit, koalas spend their lives intoxicated on eucalyptus leaves, and lab rats, mice, guinea pigs, and even pigeons prefer cocaine to food. Lab animals consistently prefer drugs to food and even choose negative reinforcement (e.g. electric shock) if that gets them another hit. \[On this see UCLA professor of psychopharmacology Ronald Siegel, esp. his Intoxication: Life in Pursuit of Artificial Paradise.\] The argument is that humans will find ways to self-medicate no matter how stringent the anti-drug laws are. The upshot of this is that the 'war on drugs' is doomed to failure, as it is contrary to human nature. Actual benefits: Many people regard drugs as useful and efficacious. Fighter pilots fly on strong amphetamines, steroids do enhance the performance of athletes, artists claim that drugs make them more creative, etc. Famously, for example, Doc Ellis of the Pittsburgh Pirates pitched a perfect game against the San Diego Padres on June 12, 1970, while under the influence of LSD. Some psychiatrists are claiming positive results using psilocybin (magic mushrooms) for people suffering from PTSD. Similarly, many drug aficionados testify that Ayuhuasca works wonders for healing whatever issues one wishes to work on. Example of Prohibition (1919-1933): When the Federal Government enacted the 18 th amendment to ban the sale and use of alcohol, it was an unmitigated disaster. It undermined the rule of law and brought in the heyday of organized crime. Just as prohibition not only failed and made matters much worse, the 'war on drugs' is a dismal failure. Arguments against legalization Danger and Harm: Illicit drugs are dangerous and cause great harm. They destroy individuals, their families, innocent bystanders, and come at a great cost to society. In the case of countries such as Columbia and Mexico, the drug trade leads to severe problems caused by immensely wealthy drug cartels and organized crime. To live in a narco-state is to live in a state of narco-terrorism. Of course, those wishing to shift blame argue that these criminal enterprises are caused by/fueled by American demand to consume drugs. Some argue that if drugs are legalized, the criminal drug cartels won't go away; rather, they will produce and market far more potent forms of their drugs to keep business going (think opium to heroin to fentanyl) or lower their prices (e.g., to compete with legal marijuana). Furthermore, this causes the breakdown of families, government, civil order, and stability. Ironically, calls for legalization in the name of personal freedom, lead to the anarchical breakdown of freedom. Luxury Beliefs: Rob Henderson's recent autobiographical Troubled: A Memoir of Foster Care, Family and Social Class argues that the real-world consequences of relaxing drug laws devastate the working classes and poor. He defines 'luxury beliefs' as "ideas and opinions that confer status on the upper class while inflicting costs on the less fortunate." He writes: "Reflecting on my experiences with alcohol, if all drugs had been legal and easily accessible when I was fifteen, you wouldn't be reading my book." Abandoned by his father before he was born, and taken from his abusive drug addict mother at age 3, Henderson lived in 9 different foster homes before the age of eight. Joining the Air Force at 17 saved him. One may object that the surrender of the 'War on Drugs' has failed. For example, nationwide, the number of drug overdoses has spiked by over 500%. In 2000 in the U.S. there were about 17,000 deaths due to drug overdose. In 2022, there were about 107,000 overdoses. See: National Institute on Drug Abuse: https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates In 2023, overdose deaths in the U.S. were over 112,000. (CDC https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/drug-overdose-data.htm.) Interestingly , the Oregon State Legislator voted to reinstate drug prohibition, due to exponential spikes in overdose deaths. (See above.) In 2019, the year prior to legalization, there were 280 overdose deaths in Oregon. All recreational drugs were legalized in 2020, and in 2021 there were 738 OD deaths. In 2022, 956 people died of overdosing. In 2023 the deaths exceed 1,250. Recall, Oregon was the first state to decriminalize all manner of recreational drugs, including opiates and psychedelics, so the 2024 reversal is symbolic and significant. Accidents will happen: People are stupid and irresponsible. While some people who enjoy the recreational use of illegal drugs are able to do so without causing severe harm to themselves and others, many users are irresponsible. In most instances, it's the wrong people using the wrong drugs for the wrong reasons, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong people. Getting 'stoned' differs from the preparation and work entailed in achieving a 'mystical experience.' Operating machinery while intoxicated is a major cause of accidents. So for example, the problem is not simply one of people using marijuana in the privacy of their homes. The problem is that people often use marijuana and consequently get the munchies so they get in their cars to get their favorite foods. Further, many like to use cannabis and alcohol which makes driving far more dangerous to not only the users, but also innocent people who happen to be driving or out in public. I will be interested to see statistics concerning traffic or work accidents in states that have legalized marijuana. Will there be a spike? Have there been documented cases where drug use is a factor? Increase of drug usage and addiction: If drugs are legalized, it would inevitably lead to a dramatic increase in drug use. \[Cf. "Less users and addicts" above.\] This would cause more addiction, accidents, long term health problems, less ambition, lower productivity, economic hardships, etc. This would add up to lots of destructive harm. Even if we concede the claim that intoxication is fundamental to human nature, addiction or excessive drug use can also lead to the neglect of one's health, children and other responsibilities. One way to understand addiction is as a form of slavery. Thus, the anti-paternalist arguments in favor of legalization will lead to unfreedom, a diminution of autonomy, and greater problems overall. It is not a contradiction to argue that we need some measure of paternalism to maintain liberty---just as we need laws in order to maximize the liberty of all. (Laws, by definition, restrict liberties.) Actual costs to normal brain function: According to neuroscience, illicit drugs such as hallucinogens, amphetamine, cocaine, heroin, and cannabis distort and cloud the mind. They impair short term memory in the temporal lobe and disrupt communication between the users' limbs and the cerebellum. Moreover, they "cause the pleasure part of the brain (the nucleus accumbens), the emotional part of the brain (the amygdala) and hormonal part of the brain (the hypothalamus) to overrule the self-control part of the brain (the lateral habenula by way of the fasciculus retroflexus). \... whereas heavy drinking can kill cells in the fasciculus retroflexus in a matter of months to a few years, cocaine does it in a few weeks to a month, and meth in a few days to a week.' Drugs interfere with people acting appropriately toward themselves and other. (Adam Barkman, in Breaking Bad and Philosophy ). Pandora's Box: It is bad enough that we allow the sale and use of alcohol and tobacco. If these had not become such a part of our culture, society would be much better off. Why make the irrevocable mistake of legalizing drugs? Once illicit drugs are legalized, we will not be able to put the genie back into the bottle. The status quo is acceptable: While illegal drugs are a problem, it is a problem that is (somewhat) under control---there is no need to surrender in the war on drugs. Two weak (and misinformed) arguments that stem from this position are that crime and addiction are problems of the underclass. In other words, some regard the problems to be on the margins of society and not in the mainstream. They do not recognize the extent of the problem. Another argument for the status quo---which parallels the anti-paternalist argument is that if drug users overdose, get sick, drop out, or otherwise fail, then that is their problem. (As Art Stark used to say: it is "natural selection in progress" and "it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys.") See: Joel Stein, "Save the Pot Dealers!" in Time Magazine , Nov. 16, 2009, p. 64. From a moral point of view, one can certainly criticize this argument as callous. This also applies to past policies of spraying cannabis plants in Mexico with paraquat weed killer. This resulted in marijuana users having severe lung damage from smoking or ingesting poisonous pot. The moral argument asserted: As the late A.M. Rosenthal used to argue, the government must take a moral stand. Illegal drugs are dangerous and the government must protect its citizens from this scourge. This brings us full circle, as it begs the question of paternalism and illegal drug use. A discussion topic: Have you been to Colorado, Oregon, Washington state and Washington, DC, etc. where marijuana is now legal, or Amsterdam or Portugal, where marijuana, hashish, magic mushrooms, and other drugs are/were openly bought and sold? For those who have---was it a pretty sight or an ugly one? As a frequent visitor to Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York, there are hundreds of thousands of 'unhoused'/homeless people living on the streets. A very large percentage of them suffer from drug addiction and mental health issues. March 24, 2024 1 A 'false dilemma' is a logical fallacy. It occurs when one is presented with an argument that presents an 'either/or' choice (or an 'all or nothing' choice) when there actually are other (in-between) options or a spectrum of choices Notes on the Death Penalty Don Habibi Is the Death Penalty wrong and immoral? If so, is it ever justified? If so, in what sorts of cases would it be permissible/appropriate? If it is never justified, then it should be outlawed. But are there not some cases that morality calls for Capital Punishment---that it would be an injustice to provide for the care of vicious criminals? The vast majority (about 90%) of the 'Western Liberal Democracies' of the world have abolished CP. The United States, India, and Japan are the only Western Liberal Democracies that still use capital punishment. Internationally, just over half of the nations of the world have outlawed CP. Interestingly, public opinion polls show that a majority in most liberal democracies support capital punishment in principle, and this is also the case world-wide. (Obviously, there is a range of disagreement as to when it is appropriate.) Why is this the case in countries where the majority rules? The quick answer is that those in positions of power and influence strongly oppose CP in principle, and their commitment to their belief gives them the edge in the public social debate. To paraphrase a great quote by John Stuart Mill, 'One person with a strong belief is worth one thousand with a mere interest.' By "positions of power and influence," I mean the highly educated, who set government policy, dominate the mass media, the arts, universities, etc. There is an effective lobby that makes steady progress arguing against the death penalty. Moreover, through numerous legal challenges A further reason the clear trend internationally is to abolish CP is the fact that Human Rights conventions and related international legal covenants are increasingly moving governments to abolish CP. So abolition of CP carries with it the growing momentum of the international human rights movement and international humanitarian law. (CP is not mentioned in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but comes into international legal conventions in the Stockholm declaration.) Witness that among the requirements for joining the European Union is abolition of CP. Also note that Amnesty International uses its bully pulpit to name and shame 'retentionist' (as opposed to 'abolitionist') countries. Both in the U.S. and among the nations, the steady trend has been to abolish CP. A further reason for the successes of the abolitionist movement are the constant legal challenges to execution techniques. An example of this are the legal challenges to companies that manufacture the drugs used for lethal injections. Through lawsuits and well publicized campaigns to intimidate and discredit pharmaceutical firms that produce drugs used for executions, advocates for abolishing the DP are trying to erode support for any and every method used to carry out executions. \--In the U.S., currently, there are 19 states, along with Washington, DC, that have abolished CP. 26 states retain it, and 4 have declared a moratorium on its use. See: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty \--Among countries that carry out executions, China is far out in front with thousands in 2009\. Iran is a distant 2 nd place with 388, followed by Iraq with 120 and Saudi Arabia with 69. The U.S. carried out 52. \[ Time Magazine. April 12. 2010, p. 16.\] This past year, news reports put Iran in first place. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are high on the list, China stopped reporting their numbers, but they no doubt deserve the dubious crown of first place. So what should we think about executions carried out by the state? Is it always wrong (a position of moral absolutism) or an important principle to uphold in the name of citizens' rights over the injustice of cruel murder? Arguments Against the Death Penalty: \--CP belongs to a barbaric age. It is archaic and violates the sanctity of life. A better, more humane alternative exists---"life without the possibility of parole." 1 \--Among the most fundamental of human rights is the 'right to life.' Killing a human violates the dignity of the human person and violates this basic right. It is simply wrong to kill. This principle is so important that it applies categorically---even bad people have a right to life. \--A practical argument on how CP is outdated: Once upon a time, societies did not have secure prisons, i.e. prisoners could escape. Now, we have incarceration refined to the point where prisons are virtually escape proof. Convicted and incarcerated, very bad criminals are no longer a threat to society. Therefore, society can no longer make the case that executing dangerous convicts is necessary to protect the public. \--Governments and gangs and the social groupings in between (i.e., tribes, kings, aristocrats, generals, the masses) have historically abused CP to eliminate political opponents, petty criminals and all manner of people who do not deserve such a severe punishment. The power to execute is often abused. For example, China, Iran, Sudan and South Sudan find CP to be a handy way to get rid of political rivals, troublemakers, undesirables, and even petty criminals. This is all the more reason for the U.S. to get on board with the other liberal democracies. We should set the example, that it is better to do away with CP, than to support an institution that is so easily abused by the powerful all over the world and throughout history. 1 Note that this argument against CP still comes under fire from opponents of CP. In a prominent opinion piece, Prof. Jennifer Lackey, of Northwestern University, argues that life sentences are "irrational," because people do change over time: "often in profoundly transformative ways." As impulsive adolescents (who commit terrible crimes) age, and their prefontal cortext develops, they become less dangerous and even rehabilitate. Therefore, it is wrong and cruel to deny them parole hearings and the possibility of release. "The Irrationality of Natural Life Sentences," in Catapano and Critchley, eds., Modern Ethics in 77 Arguments (2017), pp. 200-04. However, there certainly are cases which contradict her claims. See, for example: "Judge Said Killer Would Be Too Old to Do It Again; He was Wrong ," New York Times , August 17, 2018, A12. \--Moreover, there are numerous cases where mistakes were made and innocent people were executed. This powerful argument is buttressed by the addition of DNA evidence into criminology in 1989. Over 350 people were exonerated thanks to this relatively new technology---and 20 of them were on death row. https://www.innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/ In one famous instance in 1999, the republican Governor of Illinois, George Ryan ordered a moratorium on CP until each case could be reviewed. Several prisoners were proven innocent by the DNA evidence! We ought not to put absolute trust in a legal system that gets it wrong, and we ought not to think that mistakes and wrongful convictions are a rarity. They happen more often than we assume. \--CP is irreversible. Therefore we need to guard against making mistakes. To repeat: mistakes do happen. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, from 1973 to 2009, 139 people have been released from death row because of evidence that they were innocent. \[editorial, "There is no 'Humane' Execution," NY Times , Dec. 13, 2009.\] There are times when the death penalty silences the killer who may be indispensible for future crime investigations. (e.g., there have been numerous cases where a death row inmate had crucial information regarding unsolved crimes). Also, psychiatrists gain valuable information from studying the lives of and craziness of psycho killers. Might there not be something to learn from studying the likes of Jeffrey Dahmer or Nicholas Cruz? \--There is ample evidence showing the applications of CP are unfair, in that poor people are disproportionately executed in greater numbers than those who can afford good lawyers. The rich are able to benefit immeasurably from good legal representation (e.g., Leopold & Loeb, O.J. Simpson). Even the 6 th Amendment 'right to an attorney,' established in the 1962 Supreme Court case of Gideon v. Wainwright falls far short of fair legal representation. An overworked public defender is usually no match for a high priced criminal defense lawyer. \--Similarly, there are no doubt racial disparities in the application of CP, both in terms of who gets executed and in terms of the race of the victim. In the US, African Americans are disproportionately given the death penalty than are White convicts. From 1976 to 2018, 34.5% of those executed have been African American, 55.6% were White. (During the same time period, 8.3% were Latino.) See: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/race-death-row-inmates-executed-1976\#defend Further, the judicial process and prison sentences in general are harsher on people of color, and the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world! On this see Michele Alexander, The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness (New York: New Press, 2012), See also Carl Hart and Don Habibi https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/ files/methamphetamine-dangers-exaggerated-20140218.pdf \--CP does not accomplish anything---the victims don't come back to life. Remember, there is no such thing as "perfect justice." It is plain wrong to claim that "justice is served" by compounding the killing (i.e., carrying out an execution). \--Social science studies show that CP does not deter criminals. As the NY Times editorial writer put it: "the facts are undeniable. The death penalty does not deter crime." (4/30/11). Amnesty International shares this view. \--CP is 'cruel and unusual' punishment, and it is therefore unconstitutional. Note that advocates of this position contend that lethal injection and the gas chamber are far from painless, and these are cruel and unusual just as all other techniques used for execution. Amnesty International considers CP to violate the right to life and the prohibition of torture (both of which are principles in the "UN Declaration of Human Rights." \--CP is state sanctioned murder. It is nothing more than society taking revenge. \--Given the costs of the mandatory appeals processes, it is cheaper to incarcerate a convict for life than it is to execute. Arguments in Favor of the Death Penalty: \--It is a simple matter of retributive justice (i.e., punishment for wrongdoing). It is unfair and unjust that a mass murderer convicted in a fair trial can eat, laugh, play, search for love, marry and enjoy conjugal visits, hope, enjoy, read, watch TV, etc. when his victims are forever denied these pleasures or aspects of life. Did Timothy McVeigh and Adolf Eichmann deserve to go on living, all provided for at the taxpayers' expense? Some argue that it is a perversion of justice that Anders Behring Breivek, who murdered 77 innocent people (mostly teenagers) in 2011, faces a maximum of 21 years in a four star prison. (See Time Magazine , "Inside the World's Most Human Prison: http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1989083,00.html ) Bear in mind that many death row inmates and serial killers are able to attract large numbers of amorous fans and marriage proposals (e.g., Ted Bundy, Richard Ramirez \[the Hillside Strangler\], the Menendez brother, Scott Peterson, Yigal Amir, Brevik). Further, some capitalize on their fame by making a fortune marketing merchandise (Charles Manson) or writing a book---and hopefully parlaying that into a film project. \--It is society's way of declaring murder (and other crimes perhaps, such as treason) as beyond the pale or evil. So terrible is premeditated, violent murder, that it violates all civilized morality. It is an offence not just to victims and their loved ones, but to society as a whole. It violates the social contract. \[Historically, treason was also universally regarded as a capital offence. However, in the U.S. and the liberal democracies, accusations of treason are no longer prosecuted.\] The most ardent supporters of CP want to see it applied to those convicted of other terrible crimes, such as the couple who violently kidnapped and enslaved 11 year old Jaycee Dugard for over 18 years, or the man who stole and enslaved 14 year old Elizabeth Smart. The wickedness of their crimes make it unfair and unjust for these perverted kidnapper rapists to remain alive and experience the joys of life. It is a matter of retributive justice---plain and simple. In most cases, the "co-victims" (close family members who suffer from the cruel loss of their loved ones) want the murderer who devastated their lives put to death. For many, it is a means of achieving a measure of finality and a part of the healing process. For co- victims, CP brings closure and fulfills a basic measure of justice. Opponents of CP argue that CP brings extensive pain to the co-victims, as they are compelled to follow the many appeals that must take place before the execution is carried out. See "Co-victims against the death penalty," New York Times , 4/20/12: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/30/opinion/30sat3.html?\_r=1 Furthermore, there are many co-victims who are morally opposed to CP. (re: the research of UNCW Prof. Kimberly Cook.) There are people who regard forgiveness as a virtue. \--On the topics of deterrence and costs, some enthusiastic supporters of the death penalty claim that the problem stems from a systematic, legally drawn out process of costly appeals, delays, and a failure to implement most executions. Deterrence would be strengthened and could be achieved if executions were more certain and swift. The automatic series of appeals that require 16-20 years to happen are certainly expensive and may well add to the pain of the co-victims. Hard core supporters of CP argue that sure and swift implementation would resolve these problems. For most of US history, once a defendant is pronounced guilty by a unanimous jury, the execution would be carried out in a matter of days or weeks. Although this is anecdotal (i.e., I am generalizing from a small sample) during my 2017/2018 visit to Singapore, Indonesia, and Malaysia, I can attest that the Western 'hippie backpackers" whom I encountered were very much deterred from traveling with any illegal drugs due to the threat of CP and other harsh penalties for mere drug possession. There is a long list of Australian and British tourists who were executed for possessing marijuana. \--Rights Forfeiture: We all have a right to life (as opponents of capital punishment and abortion point out 2 ), and this is the most basic of human rights. However, those who violate this most basic human right of their victims---who break this most basic premise of the social contract by committing premeditated murder---forfeit their own right to life. Although the forfeiture argument has come under attack, some advocates make a strong case for it. See Christopher Heath Wellman, "The Rights Forfeiture Theory of Punishment," Ethics , 122:2 (January 2012) pp. 371-93. \--CP is a deterrent. Claims that social science research demonstrates otherwise, only show that CP does not deter everyone , i.e., those who were convicted and interviewed by social scientists. (I regard this as an important point as to what social science research can tell us and what it does not.) We have no idea how many people thought about killing someone, but did not---fearing the consequences. For years, it has been an article of faith to opponents of CP that we know for a fact that it is not a deterrent (e.g, the NY Times makes this claim regularly). One major consensus study of the research concluded that neither side should base its position on social science. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13363/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty See also, "Death penalty a deterrent to murder? Study says evidence unclear," Los Angles Times , 4/18/12: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-death-penalty- 20120418,0,7628733.story \--Even if CP deters only one murder per year, it is quite warranted. \--The utilitarian calculus: As far as executing the innocent, this is a major problem for defenders of CP. Fallible humans create flawed institutions and mistakes occur. In a democratic country, even with a very good legal system, mistakes do happen. However, far more innocents might be murdered if there is no death penalty and murderers go free. So for democratic systems with independent judiciaries, the odds of misusing CP are minimized. Furthermore, the growing technology of DNA evidence and the proliferation of video recording have dramatically raised the bar on convictions (i.e., to get a unanimous jury to vote for CP nowadays requires either videotape or DNA evidence). This means that wrongful convictions are increasingly less common. So overall, CP can be justified on utilitarian grounds of protecting the innocent. The analogy is that we build highways knowing that there will be fatalities on these highways; we allow for pharmaceutical medicines knowing that some small number of people will have horrible reactions to these medicines. For absolutists who oppose CP under any and all circumstances, the 'mistakes do happen' argument is disingenuous, as they oppose CP even when there is no doubt that the convict is guilty. 2 Regarding the 'right to life,' note the irony: most people who support legal access to abortion oppose the DP, and that those who support CP oppose abortion. \--Regarding the major discrepancies between rich and poor (and Black and White) in the judicial system, this is indeed a problem of distributive justice. However, social inequality is a persistent, universal problem. It has been with us since time immemorial. As long as defendants have a 'right to an attorney,' we cannot deny an individual defendant the option of obtaining the best legal counsel---and a good lawyer can usually avert a death sentence. Perhaps someday, the government will pay more for public defenders and lighten their workload. \-- It is certainly true, that historically CP has been used to eliminate opposition, dissent, petty criminals, and innocents\--and that this is commonplace in dictatorships to this day. However, the relevant debate pertains to the U.S. (and NC) legal systems. \--Regarding the noticeable racial disparities throughout the legal system, including CP, this is indeed a problem, but it correlates with the crime rate. Defenders of CP will point out that it is fallacious to suppose that the prison population, and the death row population, should be proportionate to the ethnic makeup of the overall population. Thomas Sowell claims that there is no historical evidence (in the U.S. or anywhere else) showing that, were it not for discrimination, there would be proportional representation in anything by race, sex, nationality, etc. Sowell argues that economic and social outcomes differ among individuals and groups in ways that cannot be explained by any one factor. See Thomas Sowell, Discrimination and Disparities (New York: Basic Books, 2018). In the U.S., women comprise 51% of the population, yet less than two percent of lawful executions were of women. Are we to conclude that American society discriminates against men? 3 \--The abolitionists' claim that CP is 'state sponsored murder' is misleading and ridiculous. It blurs the distinction between 'murder' and 'lawful homicide.' There is no moral equivalence between the perpetrator and the victim. By calling lawful executions an act of murder, opponents of CP belittle the crime of premeditated murder. If CP is 'state sponsored murder,' then, by the same token, imprisonment can be considered to be 'state sponsored kidnapping.' \--The argument that CP constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" is a giant stretch. Without question, the founding fathers who used this phrase in the 8 th Amendment did not regard CP as cruel or unusual---the Constitution allowed the death penalty. The methods used in the civilized world are designed to bring a fast and relatively painless death. (We can certainly debate whether the guillotine or electric chair kill quickly with minimal suffering, but there is not much debate that gunshots, stabbings, vicious beatings, drownings are generally far more painful, lengthy, and terrifying. Moreover, such techniques as lethal injection or lethal gas are quite far removed from tortuous, protracted, pain-maximizing techniques. Though they be imperfect, they certainly 3 See Victor L. Streib, "Gendering the Death Penalty: Countering Sex Bias in a Masculine Sanctuary," Ohio State Law Journal vo. 63:433, 2002. http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2012/03/63.1.streib.pdf \--Regarding the major discrepancies between rich and poor (and Black and White) in the judicial system, this is indeed a problem of distributive justice. However, social inequality is a persistent, universal problem. It has been with us since time immemorial. As long as defendants have a 'right to an attorney,' we cannot deny an individual defendant the option of obtaining the best legal counsel---and a good lawyer can usually avert a death sentence. Perhaps someday, the government will pay more for public defenders and lighten their workload. \-- It is certainly true, that historically CP has been used to eliminate opposition, dissent, petty criminals, and innocents\--and that this is commonplace in dictatorships to this day. However, the relevant debate pertains to the U.S. (and NC) legal systems. \--Regarding the noticeable racial disparities throughout the legal system, including CP, this is indeed a problem, but it correlates with the crime rate. Defenders of CP will point out that it is fallacious to suppose that the prison population, and the death row population, should be proportionate to the ethnic makeup of the overall population. Thomas Sowell claims that there is no historical evidence (in the U.S. or anywhere else) showing that, were it not for discrimination, there would be proportional representation in anything by race, sex, nationality, etc. Sowell argues that economic and social outcomes differ among individuals and groups in ways that cannot be explained by any one factor. See Thomas Sowell, Discrimination and Disparities (New York: Basic Books, 2018). In the U.S., women comprise 51% of the population, yet less than two percent of lawful executions were of women. Are we to conclude that American society discriminates against men? 3 \--The abolitionists' claim that CP is 'state sponsored murder' is misleading and ridiculous. It blurs the distinction between 'murder' and 'lawful homicide.' There is no moral equivalence between the perpetrator and the victim. By calling lawful executions an act of murder, opponents of CP belittle the crime of premeditated murder. If CP is 'state sponsored murder,' then, by the same token, imprisonment can be considered to be 'state sponsored kidnapping.' \--The argument that CP constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" is a giant stretch. Without question, the founding fathers who used this phrase in the 8 th Amendment did not regard CP as cruel or unusual---the Constitution allowed the death penalty. The methods used in the civilized world are designed to bring a fast and relatively painless death. (We can certainly debate whether the guillotine or electric chair kill quickly with minimal suffering, but there is not much debate that gunshots, stabbings, vicious beatings, drownings are generally far more painful, lengthy, and terrifying. Moreover, such techniques as lethal injection or lethal gas are quite far removed from tortuous, protracted, pain-maximizing techniques. Though they be imperfect, they certainly 3 See Victor L. Streib, "Gendering the Death Penalty: Countering Sex Bias in a Masculine Sanctuary," Ohio State Law Journal vo. 63:433, 2002. http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2012/03/63.1.streib.pdf constitute a vastly kinder death, than the victims of the convicted murderers were forced to suffer through. Even in "botched executions," there can be no comparison with the terror of the innocent victims. I have endured countless instances of multiple pinpricks, but I would never try to argue that this was cruel and unusual punishment or torture or in any way comparable to the horrible death of a murder victim. \--Life without the possibility of parole might be rendered somewhat meaningless as parole boards, governors, and the president, can issue pardons. Moreover, convicted murderers who are imprisoned can still murder fellow prisoners and prison guards. (As recently as Oct. 30, 2018, the infamous gangster James 'Whitey' Bulger was murderd by fellow inmates on the day he was transferred to Federal prison.) As mentioned earlier, some argue that natural life sentences are irrational and wrong. And, the claim that our high tech, supermax prisons are 'escape proof' is belied by the spectacular 2015 escape of Joachin "El Chapo" Guzman. (His 2001 escape is also worthy of a motion picture thriller.) Abolitionists can rightly reply that this case is the exception that proves the rule. Summaries from two classic articles : Ernest van den Haag , "In Defense of the Death Penalty," from Harvard Law Review , 1986. Hardly any murderers get DP in the US. \[In 2004 there were 59 executions but over 16,000 murders.\] Most death row inmates will die of natural causes. Unequal distribution of DP is irrelevant to justice or morality. In response to the notion that CP violates human dignity, Van den Haag argues that, when deserved, execution does not degrade; rather, it affirms the convict's humanity by affirming his rationality and responsibility for his actions. (Philosophers Hegel and Kant make this point.) Does not life imprisonment violate human dignity by keeping alive a prisoner deprived of all autonomy? Hugo Bedau , "The Case Against the Death Penalty," ACLU Furman v. Georgia \(1972) DP constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and therefore unconstitutional. Gregg v. Georgia \(1976) reinstates the DP in 38 states and the Federal government. Argues that CP is not a deterrent, it's unfair, irreversible, and unjustified retribution. Mistakes will always be with us. Despite precautions, most human activities cost lives (truckers, construction workers). In the case of executions, we are not talking about accidents, but of intentional killing. Punishment (regardless of the motivation) is not intended to avenge, offset, or compensate for the victims' suffering. Punishment is to vindicate the law and the social order undermined by the crime. Justice Brennan insisted that DP is uncivilized, inhuman, and inconsistent with the sanctity of life and human dignity. (But he does not argue for his assertions.) Similarly, Justice Harry Blackmun believed that for the state to put someone to death is inherently barbaric. Introduction: Death is a fact of the human condition, the one great certainty we must all face. The fact that our time is limited adds urgent value and meaning to the time that we have. 1 For most of human existence, having a precise, agreed-upon definition of death was not an issue; however, the innovations of biomedical technologies (e.g. feeding tubes, intravenous feeding, respirators, artificial kidneys, pharmacology, etc.) have now made it possible for people to be kept alive by 'artificial means' (i.e., beyond the point where they could sustain life on their own). Machines can provide respiration and blood flow indefinitely, thus allowing a patient to 'live' for decades in a comatose/vegetative state without a functioning brain. If we consider that our definition of 'human' and 'personhood' includes our capacity to think, reason, plan, and feel, then what are the implications of existing in a persistent vegetative state? What are we to make of situations where a patient is 'alive' in terms of a beating heart and breathing, but 'dead' in terms of brain activity and consciousness? Might there be reasons to "pull the plug?" beyond saving money on hospitalization costs or putting comatose people out of their misery? For example, the need to obtain convenient 'fresh' organs for transplants, instantiates a major temptation for using euthanasia to terminate patients. 2 Euthanasia has its etymological origins in Greek, meaning "good death." It is the act of causing the quick or painless death, usually to relieve or avert suffering. The concept has been around since Ancient times. But nowadays, it usually refers to an easy death as an escape from some condition---usually a terminal condition that the patient feels to be intolerable. Oregon and other states (Washington state and D.C., Montana, Hawaii, Colorado, Vermont, and California), allow physician assisted euthanasia for patients who request it during the last six months of a fatal illness. Belgium also allows this for cases of depression. 3 It is understood for purposes of the ethical debate that euthanasia is 1 If you think about it, if immortality were possible, would that make life boring? Disconcerting? How far would you want to go in your study of math? How many languages should we learn? How many musical instruments should we learn to play? Prof. Todd May (Clemson U.) regards immortality as evil---it would cause us to put things off to our never-ending future and sap the meaning out of life. (I disagree! As long as my body was healthy, I would love to keep learning and growing in skills and be a witness to history as it unfolds!) 2 Among other things, consider organ transplants: The success rate of transplants is correlated to how quickly the organs are harvested after (or at the point of) death. There is pressure on physicians to harvest the organs as quickly as possible and get them to the recipients as quickly as possible. If a young, healthy accident victim is an organ donor, then indeed much depends on how we define 'death.' If the donor is 'dead,' then harvesting the organs can save lives. The moral questions of euthanasia are academic. However, if the donor is 'alive,' then harvesting the organs is ' murder '---or at least brings into focus the moral implications of euthanasia as well as the definitional problems in defining 'death.' strictly limited to cases where the intention is to relieve suffering, where death is regarded as the lesser evil. The underlying presupposition is that the person is better off dead. (So we are not discussing the separate question of suicide as a matter of personal autonomy.) However, there are clear cases of 'utilitarian' decisions to euthanize patients, based on considerations such as triage, allocating medical resources, or saving money. This set of problems has now come into focus where all medical costs are borne by the state (i.e., national health insurance). In Canada, euthanasia became legalized for exceptional cases, but it has now become routine---the 4 th or 5 th leading cause of death (although the patients' ailment is recorded as the cause of death, rather than 'euthanasia.') In several cases, doctors and hospital administrators pressure patients to consent to euthanasia by threatening them with exorbitant costs that national health insurance will not cover. The pressure tactics are motivated by freeing up hospital beds and allocating public medical resources more efficiently. 4 \[This serves as an example of the difference between religious sanctity of life policies versus secular policies driven by principles of utility, the general welfare, or the common good.\] At the other end of the debate, there are those who argue for a 'right to die,' and see euthanasia as a 'liberty right' based on human autonomy. They assert a right to die peacefully and painlessly---if people so choose. Similarly, there is another angle of the debate surrounding terminating the unborn or even infants who are afflicted with genetic disorders that will greatly limit their life chances and quality of life. Should the family or society have the authority to decide when a life is not worth living? Or too costly? Or simply inconvenient? (Note, such factors also come into play in terms of abortion.) Euthanasia is widely used for domesticated animals, with the underlying presupposition that a painless death is in their interests as well as in our interests. Horses, dogs, and cats are routinely euthanized. Factory farming, on the other hand, often entails slaughtering methods that make for better tasting or juicier, tenderer meat, even if this causes greater pain and suffering. For the purposes of this lecture, we will be referring to the moral issues that pertain to humans. The issues surrounding euthanasia include defining such terms/concepts as death and personhood, and noting distinctions between suicide and assisted suicide, killing and allowing to die, and ordinary and extraordinary methods of treatment. Some major ethical concepts/principles that are at issue are those of Autonomy, Benevolence, Mercy, and the Sanctity of Life. We must also distinguish between the 3 See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo8Hn0DEcpw In addition to Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, and the Australian state of Victoria allow for physician assisted suicide. 4 See Nicholas Tomaino, "Welcome to Canada, the Doctor Will Kill You Now," Wall Street Journal , Sept. 3, 2024, p. A17. The opinion piece cites Alexander Raikin, a Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. morality of euthanasia in principle and the morality of euthanasia legislation (i.e., the appropriate role of the State). Voluntary Euthanasia occurs when the patient (preferably an informed, adult) freely chooses to die. This could include some cases of suicide, or assisted suicide. An example of this includes the specific controversy over physician assisted suicide, when the patient wants for the doctor to administer, say, a lethal injection or withhold life support to hasten death. Most commonly, voluntary euthanasia is requested by a patient who is suffering from a terminal condition or even someone who anticipates a protracted, degenerative illness that would make her incompetent and dependent on others. Some states allow for the former. 5 For example a person with Alzheimer's might prefer to terminate before she became so senile that she would not recognize her own children or even know who she is; or so infantile that she no longer knew enough to use a toilet. (Voluntary euthanasia could also apply for a mortally wounded comrade on the battlefield, i.e., a coup de grace.) The key ingredient to voluntary euthanasia is the patient's consent. Involuntary euthanasia occurs when death is a result of actions carried out without consent, or is imposed, or where no voluntariness exists, such as with patients in a permanent vegetative state. Non-voluntary euthanasia entails causing death to someone deemed incompetent with the consent of someone else, e.g., adult children, parents, spouses. It is often the case that candidates for mercy killing are in no shape to make decisions for themselves, so the decision would then fall to the next of kin. The distinction between involuntary and non-voluntary is of great significance. In most cases, we trust our next of kin to decide for us. However, there are instances where the next of kin are very anxious to avoid the costs of long term life support and get their inheritance as quickly as possible. Different parties often have different interests. Active euthanasia occurs when a deliberate act such as a lethal injection or a lethal dose of pills results in the patient's death. It requires that someone, preferably the patient herself, takes positive steps to kill. This killing is morally equivalent to assisting suicide (when carried out by another person), and to suicide (when carried out by the patient himself). Passive euthanasia occurs when death results from a deliberate omission of life sustaining measures, e.g., withholding of life-supporting care or treatment, such as antibiotics, nutrition, hydration, or mechanical life-support. Here, the idea is to let nature take its course and in effect, allowing the patient to die. The distinction between active and passive euthanasia roughly corresponds to the distinction between doing harm and allowing harm. Another difference between active and passive corresponds to the distinction between actually intending and causing the death of the patient vs. pursuing other goal s on behalf of the patient, such as relieving pain and suffering with the expectation that the patient will die more quickly. 5 Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. California, Colorado, Hawaii, Vermont, and Washington also allow for voluntary euthanasia in cases of terminal illness. Both bio-ethics and the law are much more open to passive euthanasia rather than active. An irony here is that sometimes this withholding of treatment condemns the patient to a longer, more painful death---which might be avoided through active euthanasia. For example, a lethal injection would be more merciful than removing a feeding tube. A lethal injection could cause death in less than a minute. Removing a feeding tube will result in starvation---but this is a long, drawn-out, painful process. A legal circumvention used to blur the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is to prescribe a particular drug to alleviate pain, with the understanding that the very same drug, in a higher dose, is fatal. So, for example, a doctor prescribes morphine for a terminal patient to ease her pain, but also lets the patient know that a large dose will cause a pleasant death. (This is a case of 'double-effect.') Some variants: Voluntary active: the doctor deliberately acts to cause death at the patient's request (e.g. physician assisted suicide, a la Dr. Kevorkian). (This would also apply to the badly wounded soldier, who begs for the coup de grace.) Voluntary passive: the doctor, at the patient's request, suspends treatment, which hastens the patient's death. Involuntary active: death is caused by actions taken without reference to the patient's wishes. Involuntary passive: death is caused by omissions or withholding of treatment carried out without reference to the patient's wishes. In the last two cases, the defensive argument may be made that such action was taken in the patient's interest or to reduce the patient's suffering. Arguments for and against often parallel the debate over the ethics of suicide. Among the chief arguments for euthanasia is mercy: to relieve pain and suffering. There are many ways to die, and we all hope to die with a minimum of pain and degradation, and a maximum of comfort, peace and dignity. Furthermore, none of us wants to be an unbearable burden on our loved ones as we go through the inevitable process of death. Other arguments invoke the values of freedom and autonomy, and the right to choose. A utilitarian could point out that a quick and easy death minimizes pain and suffering and also saves lots of money. Philosopher Peter Singer believes that rational policy calls for rationing medical resources. e.g., think of discussions on who gets ventilators under conditions of scarcity during the Covid-19 pandemic. As the cost of medical care, hospitalization, home care, and medicine become increasingly dear and people live longer, euthanasia is a money saving measure. Both bio-ethics and the law are much more open to passive euthanasia rather than active. An irony here is that sometimes this withholding of treatment condemns the patient to a longer, more painful death---which might be avoided through active euthanasia. For example, a lethal injection would be more merciful than removing a feeding tube. A lethal injection could cause death in less than a minute. Removing a feeding tube will result in starvation---but this is a long, drawn-out, painful process. A legal circumvention used to blur the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is to prescribe a particular drug to alleviate pain, with the understanding that the very same drug, in a higher dose, is fatal. So, for example, a doctor prescribes morphine for a terminal patient to ease her pain, but also lets the patient know that a large dose will cause a pleasant death. (This is a case of 'double-effect.') Some variants: Voluntary active: the doctor deliberately acts to cause death at the patient's request (e.g. physician assisted suicide, a la Dr. Kevorkian). (This would also apply to the badly wounded soldier, who begs for the coup de grace.) Voluntary passive: the doctor, at the patient's request, suspends treatment, which hastens the patient's death. Involuntary active: death is caused by actions taken without reference to the patient's wishes. Involuntary passive: death is caused by omissions or withholding of treatment carried out without reference to the patient's wishes. In the last two cases, the defensive argument may be made that such action was taken in the patient's interest or to reduce the patient's suffering. Arguments for and against often parallel the debate over the ethics of suicide. Among the chief arguments for euthanasia is mercy: to relieve pain and suffering. There are many ways to die, and we all hope to die with a minimum of pain and degradation, and a maximum of comfort, peace and dignity. Furthermore, none of us wants to be an unbearable burden on our loved ones as we go through the inevitable process of death. Other arguments invoke the values of freedom and autonomy, and the right to choose. A utilitarian could point out that a quick and easy death minimizes pain and suffering and also saves lots of money. Philosopher Peter Singer believes that rational policy calls for rationing medical resources. e.g., think of discussions on who gets ventilators under conditions of scarcity during the Covid-19 pandemic. As the cost of medical care, hospitalization, home care, and medicine become increasingly dear and people live longer, euthanasia is a money saving measure. Among the chief arguments against euthanasia is the sanctity of life: it is not for us humans to take over the role of God by taking human life. As intelligent as we might be, we are not qualified to decide when a person is better off dead. Furthermore, as the permissible reasons to use euthanasia expand, the possibilities of abuse and violations expand as well. Many fear the widespread use of euthanasia will lead to situations whereby the elderly are pressured to (and made to feel guilty if they do not) go quickly and quietly rather than hang on and experience the natural process of death. There are also possibilities of misdiagnosis and new possibilities for recovery. At one time, to be HIV positive meant the inevitability of AIDS and death. Now, there are medications that enable people with HIV to continue living active, normal lives. (e.g., When Magic Johnson announced that he was HIV positive in 1991, he retired from basketball facing death. Fortunately, he was saved by new medications that could stave off the AIDS virus.) Finally, proponents of the sanctity of human life argue that we erode this important value at our peril. The more this is compromised, the closer we are to the 'slippery slope' of compromising the consensus that human life is of infinite value and not to be discounted or taken lightly. What would you choose for yourself? Might your opinion change if you were experiencing great pain and/or great indignity? If you were to end up in a 'persistent vegetative state,' would you want to linger on for decades in that state? Might it be possible that in ten years time, breakthrough medical technologies will be developed that can rehabilitate brain damaged patients? If so, would that make a difference in your thinking? On a final note, it is very important to have a 'living will.' End of life issues are not the exclusive domain of the elderly. Young people can become deathly ill, of suffer from terrible accidents. You (and your family members) should discuss these scenarios and write up living wills that make clear where you stand on these issues and how you wish to be treated, should tragedy strike. Are ethics and war compatible? Surprisingly (perhaps) Yes!! There are actually rules that militaries must follow. The problematic questions over when we have legitimate cause to go to war, and the actual 'rules' of warfare have been an issue since ancient times. Before Christianity, the ancient Hindus, Egyptians, Hebrews, Greeks and Romans all dealt with at least some of these issues. The Egyptians had pronounced views on identifying the competent authority for declaring war (the divine Pharoah) and the special status of Egypt that legitimated conquering others. See Rory Cox, " Expanding the History of the Just War: The Ethics of War in Ancient Egypt," International Studies Quarterly , 61:2 (June 2017), pp. 371--384, https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqx009 Among the Greeks, Aristotle discusses the question of how to fight justly in detail. Keep in mind that his most famous pupil was Alexander the Great, as well as the disconnect between theory and practice (i.e., Alexander and his army did not consider themselves bound by the rules established by Aristotle). The Stoic philosopher Panaetius developed ideas about the ethics of war that influenced the Roman statesman, orator, philosopher, and skeptic Cicero who presented his ideas in his treatise De Officiis (On Duties) Ancient Christianity also took on these questions pertaining to the morality of when to fight and how to fight. As you know, the Roman Empire was the dominant power in the Mediterranean region of North Africa, Europe, and the Levant. In 306 C.E. Constantine became Emperor. At this point in time, he was a pagan. In 312 during a battle with a rival Roman army (there were civil wars back then) he and his soldiers saw a cross of light in the sky along with the words in Greek: Σε αυτό το ζώδιο κατάκτησε ("in this sign, Conquer!") He became a Christian. In 313 with the Edict of Milano, persecution of Christians was ended and tolerance of Christians became the policy. By 323, Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. This created something of a dilemma. How does one control a vast empire---and all that this entails---while following a religion that (in some moods) preached pacifism , which forbids war (and violence) under any circumstances? Preserving and expanding and defending a vast land empire requires armies, navies, police, and a readiness to use violence and force. This adoption of Christianity called for rewriting the rulebook of war. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) was an early Church scholar who dealt with this topic. He was heavily influenced by Cicero. Also known as Saint Augustine, he fulfilled a need by developing his version of JWT. For several centuries the Catholic Church followed his teachings. Eventually, during the 13 th century, St. Thomas Aquinas articulated the version that is the version that philosophers discuss. So the gist of this lecture stems from his take on just war theory. Historical Context: the Medieval era. We pick up the action in the 11 th century. In 1053 began the "Great Schism" between the western Roman Catholic Church and the eastern Orthodox Church. (They bickered bitterly over such matters as Papal supremacy and the use of unleavened bread for the sacrament of holy communion.) In 1071 the Seljuk Turks slaughtered the Byzantine army at the Battle of Manzikert. Despite the Schism, this event was understood as a setback to Christendom and Pope Gregory VII wanted to raise an army to fight the Turks, and also to reopen the pilgrimage routes to the Holy Land, which was taken over centuries before by Muslim Arabs. Pope Gregory's idea never 'got off the ground.' In 1095, Pope Urban II responded to pleas for help from the Byzantine emperor by calling for a Crusade to liberate the Holy land from the 'infidel' Muslims. This time, the idea took hold, and for the next several centuries, Western Christians fought a series of wars to liberate Jerusalem. Recall from our lecture on Divine Command Theory, that in ancient and medieval times, warfare was "up close and personal." (i.e., a bloody mess, without the buffers of killing people from a distance.) Many Christian soldiers returned from their battles traumatized and guilt ridden, as they noted the contradiction between the nonviolent message of 'turn the other cheek' and stabbing and hacking people up close. What to do about this problem? This brings us to St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13 th century. Sensitive to the plight of traumatized crusaders, Thomas reexamined the ethics of war as presented by the philosopher Aristotle, as well as St. Augustine. The entire point of this historic background is to let you know that the version of JWT that we all study is the Aquinas version. The Why and the How: Jus ad bello : Under what circumstances is it right to go to war? 1. Just Cause : The basic idea behind a Just Cause for going to war is that going to war will result in less evil than not going to war, i.e., the good will outweigh the harm. The most recognized cause that justifies war is self- defense Note how this is often ambiguous, or 'in the eye of the beholder. This also holds true for a muscular version of self-defense, preemption. IF an enemy is openly threatening war, amassing troops on your border in offensive formations, then a pre-emptive strike is justified. Another just cause is contractual, i.e. Treaty obligations. The US has signed on to many treaty obligations, such that we have committed to defending any NATO member who is attacked. Note that this 'kept the peace' in Europe for many decades. \[Also note that there are many cases where an ally, committed to fighting alongside it's beleaguered partner, turns its back on its contractual obligation. E.g., France just before the Six Day War in 1967, and the US and Britain deciding to not fight alongside Ukraine when Russia invaded in 2014. The key point in this case was that when the USSR collapsed, Ukraine possessed the lion's share of Soviet nuclear missiles. After Russia and the US, Ukraine inherited the 3 rd largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Russia demanded that Ukraine give the Soviet nukes to Russia. Ukraine said 'no,' and specifically cited they needed those weapons to deter any Russian aggression against them. The US and UK pressured Ukraine to surrender their nukes to Russia in exchange for security guarantees. We can now see how that worked out!\] So\...inasmuch as nations obligate themselves contractually to defending or aiding an ally, they sometimes tend to weasel out when 'push comes to shove.' That said, aiding an ally is legitimately regarded as a just cause. (The insane folly of World War I happened due to nations honoring their treaty commitments to Serbia, Austro- Hungaria, etc.) 2. Right/ Good intentions: stop aggression; prevent genocide; does the good outweigh the bad? These constitute legitimate reasons to go to war. This rules out territorial aggrandizement, seizing resources (gold, oil), seizing a warm water port, which reflect crass self-interest or gaining advantage. Good intentions are supposedly separate from selfish interests. 3. Publicly declared by competent authority. i.e., King, Prince, Pope, Congress, Prime Minister is this outdated? Note, in our technological age, Osama bin Laden (i.e., a nobody, he was not even a scholar) went right ahead and declared war. 4. Last resort Have other means been tried, e.g., diplomacy, blockade/embargo 5. Probability of success ? If there is no hope for victory, then the cause is much harder to justify. 6. Proportionality costs/benefits Will the benefits outweigh the costs? \--this transitions to: Jus in Bello : How to conduct war justly 1. PNI principle on noncombatant immunity , i.e., discriminate between combatants and civilians. Note that the rules of land warfare are designed for nation state vs. nation state/empire. What to do about combatants who do not wear identifiable uniforms? Who intentionally blur the distinction between civilians and combatants, or Who deliberately use civilians as 'human shields'? Technically, these are clear violations of the rules, i.e., 'war crimes,' however, the corrupt human rights organizations, international humanitarian law organizations (e.g., the ICRC), and international media reward these tactics. For soldiers / combatants to fight out of uniform is a war crime. (A bit more on this below.) 2. Proportionality : Combatants should use enough force to achieve their objectives---not "excessive force." (e.g., you don't shoot ants with a canon.) Wanton destruction is forbidden. Massive destruction is permitted if there is military necessity. Killing civilians is acceptable if they are killed in pursuit of military necessity. The euphemistic term for this is 'collateral damage.' 3. Just means : Wars must be fought using just means, i.e., within the agreed-upon rules. Now, this raises all sorts of interesting questions. Whose rules? which rules? This might mean International humanitarian law (IHL), as in the Laws of Land Warfare and Laws of Naval Warfare, e.g., no forbidden weapons but plenty of explosive options, combatants represent nation states and wear identifiable uniforms. This might mean the rules, according to sharia, the Mohawks, the Manusmurti (Ancient Hindu Laws of Manu), etc. There are lots of different ideas about the rules and what is fair. Nation states are legally bound to follow IHL, which is one reason that the militant enemies of nation states often skirt the law with unconventional 6. Proportionality costs/benefits Will the benefits outweigh the costs? \--this transitions to: Jus in Bello : How to conduct war justly 1. PNI principle on noncombatant immunity , i.e., discriminate between combatants and civilians. Note that the rules of land warfare are designed for nation state vs. nation state/empire. What to do about combatants who do not wear identifiable uniforms? Who intentionally blur the distinction between civilians and combatants, or Who deliberately use civilians as 'human shields'? Technically, these are clear violations of the rules, i.e., 'war crimes,' however, the corrupt human rights organizations, international humanitarian law organizations (e.g., the ICRC), and international media reward these tactics. For soldiers / combatants to fight out of uniform is a war crime. (A bit more on this below.) 2. Proportionality : Combatants should use enough force to achieve their objectives---not "excessive force." (e.g., you don't shoot ants with a canon.) Wanton destruction is forbidden. Massive destruction is permitted if there is military necessity. Killing civilians is acceptable if they are killed in pursuit of military necessity. The euphemistic term for this is 'collateral damage.' 3. Just means : Wars must be fought using just means, i.e., within the agreed-upon rules. Now, this raises all sorts of interesting questions. Whose rules? which rules? This might mean International humanitarian law (IHL), as in the Laws of Land Warfare and Laws of Naval Warfare, e.g., no forbidden weapons but plenty of explosive options, combatants represent nation states and wear identifiable uniforms. This might mean the rules, according to sharia, the Mohawks, the Manusmurti (Ancient Hindu Laws of Manu), etc. There are lots of different ideas about the rules and what is fair. Nation states are legally bound to follow IHL, which is one reason that the militant enemies of nation states often skirt the law with unconventional tactics and asymmetric warfare. Such things as fighting in civilian clothes, hostage taking, using human shields, and terrorism are effective in inhibiting conventional militaries that do fight by the rules. From the standpoint of international law, blurring the distinction between civilians and combatants constitutes serious war crimes. It violates and undermines the fundamental principle of noncombatant immunity. Ambitious human rights activists assert their own feelings as rules, often because they favor one side over the other, and/or they side with the 'underdog.' This implies that virtue coheres in weakness, vulnerability, and underdog status. It flips the 'might makes right' fallacy by assuming that power makes wrong, regardless of who is the aggressor, who initiates attacks, or who dictates the tempo and pace of the conflict. This also leads to subjective definitions of torture, proportionality and disproportionate force, collective punishment, and war crimes. Many human rights organizations, including the major organizations, are partisans, selectively invoking human rights violations to advocate for their preferred sides. (I have written on this, for those of you interested.) Aquinas' version is unpopular among (and criticized by) Human Rights advocates. I have heard this again and again at human rights conferences I have attended. When I ask why they don't like Aquinas' JWT, the answers I get is that it is medieval, Catholic, and we \[human rights advocates\] can do much better. If you delve into how Amnesty Int'l and Human Rights Watch decide the ethics of war, we would never have been permitted to win WWII (or most any other war), i.e., the only moral outcome would have been a cease fire, leaving the Nazi regime in power. Michael Walzer's version is also much discussed, and his classic Just and Unjust Wars is also widely studied. When I was a graduate student, it was the book on the subject. Walzer is well worth reading for those of you who are interested.