Consent or Public Reason? Legitimacy of Norms Applied in ASPD and Covid-19 Situations

Elvio Baccarini

doi:10.2298/FID2104674B

Autori

Elvio Baccarini University of Rijeka, Faculty of Philosophy, Philosophy Department

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2298/FID2104674B

Ključne reči:

Antisocial personality disorder, COVID-19, justification, legitimacy, public reason, Rawls, reflective equilibrium, Simmons

Apstrakt

This paper extends Alan John Simmons’s conceptual distinction between Lockean (or consent) and Kantian (or justificatory) conceptions of legitimacy that he applied to the question of the legitimacy of states, to the issue of legitimacy of public decisions. I criticise the consent conception of legitimacy defended by Simmons, and I defend the Rawlsian version of the justificatory conception of legitimacy from his objection. The approach of this paper is distinctive because the two conceptions are assessed by investigating, using the method of reflective equilibrium, their respective prescriptions concerning the treatment of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) and epidemiologic measures.

I argue that the method of reflective equilibrium does not support the consent conception. Considering the issues of treatment of APD and of epidemiologic measures, I argue that the consent conception of legitimacy is not well-equipped for the evaluation of norms that are not strictly self-regarding. This causes a deficit of prescriptions for relevant social responses. Further, by considering the case of responses to epidemics, I argue that such a conception can avoid harmful consequences only by recurring to additional, and independent, premises. This does not cause incoherence but reduces the coherence of a normative system. Finally, the consent conception is not equipped to support social cooperation in an optimal way, which has proved to be necessary in critical conditions, like a pandemic. On the other hand, I argue that the method of reflective equilibrium supports the Rawlsian version of justificatory conception of legitimacy, because of its advantages in handling the indicated issues. In addition, I maintain that this justificatory conception is respectful of freedom and equality of agents as moral self-legislators, and, thus, it is not vulnerable to Simmons’s main criticism.

Reference

Andersons, Elizabeth (2011), “Democracy, Public Policy, and Lay Assessment of Scientific Testimony”, Episteme 8 (2): 144-164. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/episteme/article/abs/democracy-public-policy-and-lay-assessments-of-scientific-testimony1/C96369F581A9091635E522D4ED671DBE

Arneson, Richard J. (2016), “Elitism”, in David Sobel, Peter Vallentyne, Steven Wall (eds.), Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy, Vol. 2, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 156–184.

Baccarini, Elvio (2014), „Public Reason and Moral Bioenhancement”, Etica e Politica / Ethics and Politics 16 (2): 1029–1043. Available at: https://www.openstarts.units.it/bitstream/10077/10788/1/BACCARINI.pdf

—. (2015), in A Better World? Public Reason and Biotechnologies, Rijeka: Sveučilište u Rijeci, Filozofski fakultet u Rijeci / University of Rijeka, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences.

Baccarini, Elvio; Malatesti, Luca (2017), “The Moral Bioenhancement of Psychopaths”, The Journal of Medical Ethics 43 (10): 697–701. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28356492/

BBC, (2020), “Coronavirus: Hundreds gather in Madrid for anti-mask protest”, (internet) available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-53802226 , (viewed 1 December 1, 2020).

Bogel-Burroughs, Nicholas, (2020) “Antivaccination Activists Are Growing Force at Virus Protests”, New York Times, 2 May, Updated 26, March 2021, (internet) available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/02/us/anti-vaxxers-coronavirus-protests.html (viewed 1 December 1, 2020).

Bruemmer, René (2020), “Protesters without masks fined $400 each at anti-mask march”, Montreal Gazzette, 4 October, (internet) available at: https://montrealgazette.com/news/protesters-without-masks-fined-400-each-at-anti-mask-march (viewed 1 December, 2020).

Chew, Christopher, Thomas Douglas, and Nadina, S. Faber (2018), “Biological interventions for crime prevention”, in David Birks, Thomas Douglas (eds.), Treatment for crime: Philosophical essays on neurointervention in criminal justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 11–43.

Christiano, Thomas (2008), The Constitution of Equality. Democratic Authority and Its Limits, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Craig, Andy (2020), “Libertarianism and the Coronavirus Pandemic”, CATO Institute, (internet) available at: https://www.cato.org/blog/libertarianism-coronavirus-pandemic (viewed 27 October 2020).

de Tocqueville, Alexis (1835/1840/2004), Democracy in America, New York: The Library of America.

Douglas, Thomas (2014), “Criminal Rehabilitation through Medical Intervention: Moral Liability and the Right to Bodily Integrity”, The Journal of Ethics 18: 101–122. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10892-014-9161-6

—. (2018), “Neural and Environmental Modulation of Motivation: What’s the Moral Difference?”, in David Birks, Thomas Douglas (eds.), Treatment for crime: Philosophical essays on neurointervention in criminal justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 208–223.

Fabiano Koich Miguel, Gisele Magarotto Machado, Giselle Pianowski, Lucas de Francisco Carvalho (2021), “Compliance with Containment Measures to the COVID-19 Pandemic Over Time: Do Antisocial Traits Matter?”, Personality andIndividual Differences 168, 1 2021, 110346, (internet). Available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110346 (viewed 27 March 2021).

Flanigan, Jessica (2020), “Interview with Michel Martin”, NPR, (internet) available at: https://www.npr.org/2020/07/19/892855760/bioethicist-on-libertarian-views-toward-face-mask-laws (viewed 27 October 2020).

Gaus, Gerald (2011), The Order of Public Reason. A Theory of Freedom and Morality in a Diverse and Bounded World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Greene, Amanda (2016), “Consent and Political Legitimacy”, in David Sobel, Peter Vallentyne, Steven Wall (eds.), Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy. Vol. 2, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 71–97.

Horton, John (2012), “Political Legitimacy, Justice and Consent”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 15 (2): 129–148. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13698230.2012.651015

King, Martin Luther Jr. (1991), “Letter from Birmingham City Jail”, in Hugo Adam (ed.), Civil Disobedience in Focus, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 68–84.

Kuznicki, Jason (2020), “How not to Argue for Liberty”, Libertarianism, (internet) available at: https://www.libertarianism.org/articles/how-not-argue-liberty (viewed 11October 2020).

McMahan, Jeff (2018), “Moral Liability to ‘Crime-preventing Neurointerventions”, in David Birks, Thomas Douglas (eds.), Treatment for Crime: Philosophical Essays on Neurointervention in Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press,

pp. 117–123.

Mill, John Stuart, (1859/1977), “On Liberty”, in Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. Volume XXI: Essays on Equality, Law, and Education, John Robson (ed.), Toronto: University of Toronto Press and London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 213–310.

Nagel, Thomas (1991), Equality and Partiality, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nowak, Bartłomiej; Bróska, Pawel; Piotrowski, Jarosław; Sedikides, Constantine; Żemojtel-Piotrowska, Magdalena; Jonason, Peter K. (2020), “Adaptive and Maladaptive Behavior during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Roles of Dark Triad Traits, Collective Narcissism, and Health beliefs”, Personality and Individual Difference 167 (1): 110232, (internet) available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110232 (viewed 27 October 2020).

Rawls, John (1999), A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

—. (2005), Political Liberalism, New York: Columbia University Press.

Shaw, Elizabeth (2018), “Against the Mandatory Use of Neurointerventions in Criminal Sentencing”, in David Birks, Thomas Douglas (eds.), Treatment for Crime: Philosophical Essays on Neurointervention in Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 321–337.

Simmons, A. John (1976), “Tacit Consent and Political Obligation”, Philosophy and Public Affairs 5 (3): 274-291. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2264884

—. (1999), “Justification and Legitimacy”, Ethics 109 (4): 739-771. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/233944

Sparrow, Robert (2014), “Better Living Through Chemistry? A Reply to Savulescu and Persson on ‘Moral Enhancement’”, Journal of Applied Philosophy 31 (1): 23–32. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/japp.12038

Stark, Cyntya A. (2000), “Hypothetical Consent and Justification”, Journal of Philosophy 97 (6): 313. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2678406

Winsberg, Eric; Brennan, Jason; Surprenant, Chris S. (2020), „How Government Leaders Violated Their Epistemic Duties During the SARS-CoV-2 Crisis“, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 30 (3): 215-242. Available at: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/773103