To what degree should the answer to that question determine your expectations, actions, and moral compass when engaging in the practice?
What are some boundary conditions of this calculation?
For purposes of the discussion, we can either assume or not assume strict protection of individual rights without exception (ie. we should not, necessarily, use pre-existing moral or legal boundaries).
We could begin to incorporate a sliding scale of the importance of individual rights based on a moral judgment of "fairness" (certainly, our experience would indicate this to be the eventual conclusion, whether that is a purely political result or not, and whether or not that distinction would matter).
I assume the discussion would vibrate back and forth (potentially around a varying or sliding center point) between "it violated that person's rights and therefore should not be tolerated" and "the violation of that person's rights is justified by the benefit that can be provided to another individual who, through either his/her own fault or factors outside his/her's control, did not receive the same/an acceptable degree of opportunity/result as the person whose rights are to be infringed upon.
So, should Robin Hoods be prosecuted or not?
Should governments engage in redistribution? If so, should it be done as blindly as possible (with all the potential unintended consequences) with rules as well-defined and fixed as possible? Or should it be done in as undefined a manner as possible?
Which is likely to lead to the greater number of unintended consequences and/or corruption?
It's quite possible that the entire intellectual exercise is a waste of time. I don't know if there would be broader implications of such a determination.
What are your questions?
Q. Is this going to be on the exam?
A. How should I know? I don't even work for this institution. Security will now escort me out. Have a great rest of your lives!
No comments:
Post a Comment