Category: Ethics

While Aristotle was writing centuries before wearables, his view of moral education provides a foundation for the theory behind the benign tyranny of the device. Or, if one prefers, the bearable tyranny of the wearable.

In his Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle addressed the practical problem of how to make people good. He understood merely listening to discourses on morality would not suffice. In an apt analogy, he noted that such people would be like patients who listened to their doctors but did not carry out their instructions: they will get no benefit.

His solution is one that is both endorsed and condemned today: using the compulsive power of the state to make people behave well and thus become habituated. Most are happy to have the state compel people to act as they would like them to act; yet equally unhappy when it comes to the state imposing on them. Aristotle was also aware of the importance of training people from an early age, something later developed by both the Nazis and Madison Avenue.

While there have been attempts in the United States and other Western nations to use the compulsive power of the state to force people to engage in healthy practices, these are often unsuccessful and opposed as draconian violations of the right to be unhealthy. While the idea of a Fitness Force chasing people around to make them exercise seems funny, I would oppose such impositions on both practical and moral grounds. However, most need external coercion to force them to engage in healthy behavior. Those who are well-off can hire a personal trainer or fitness coach. Those who are less well-off can appeal to the tyranny of friends who are already self-tyrannizing. However, there are problems with relying on other people. This is where the tyranny of the device comes in.

While the quantified life via electronics is in its infancy, there is already a multitude of devices available including smart watches, smart rings, smart plates, smart scales, and smart forks. All these devices offer measurements of activities to quantify the self and most of them offer coercion ranging from annoying noises to automatic social media posts (“today my feet did not patter, so now my ass grows fatter”), to the old school electric shock (really).

While the devices vary, Aristotle presented their basic requirements back when lightning was believed by some to come from Zeus. Aristotle noted that a person must do no wrong either with or against their will. In the case of fitness, this would be acting in ways contrary to health.

What is needed, according to Aristotle, is “the guidance of some intelligence or right system that has effective force.” The first part of this is that the device or app must be the “right system.” The device must provide correct guidance in terms of health and well-being. Unfortunately, matters of health are often ruled by fad and ideology.

The second part is the matter of “effective force”, so the device or app must have the power to compel. Aristotle noted that individuals lack such compulsive power, so he favored the power of law. Good law, he claimed, has practical wisdom and compulsive force. However, unless the state is going to get into the business of compelling health, this option is out.

Interesting, Aristotle claims that “although people resent it when their impulses are opposed by human agents, even if they are in the right, the law causes no irritation by enjoining decent behavior.” While this does not seem entirely true, he did seem to be right in that people find the law less annoying than being bossed around by individuals acting as individuals (like a bossy neighbor telling you to turn down the music).

The same could be true of devices. While being bossed around by a person (“hey fatty, you’ve had enough ice cream, get out and run”) would annoy most people, being bossed by an app or device could be less annoying. In fact, most people are already conditioned by their devices and obey their smartphones. Some people obey even when it puts people at risk, such as when they are driving. This provides a vast ocean of psychological conditioning to tap into, but for a better cause. So, instead of mindlessly flipping through Instagram or texting words of nothingness, a person would be compelled by their digital masters to exercise more, eat less crap, and get more sleep.  Soon the machine tyrants will have very fit hosts to carry them around.

So, Aristotle has provided the perfect theoretical foundation for designing the tyrannical device. To recap, it needs the following features:

 

  1. Practical wisdom: the health science for the device or app needs to be correct and the guidance effective.
  2. Compulsive power: the device or app must be able to compel the user effectively and make them obey.
  3. Not too annoying: while it must have compulsive power, this power must not generate annoyance that exceeds its ability to compel.
  4. A cool name.

 

So, get to work on those devices and apps. The age of machine tyranny is not going to impose itself. At least not yet.

After the financial class burned down the economy again, local governments once more faced a reduction in their revenues. As the economy recovered under a Democrat President, the Republicans held or gained power in many state governments, such as my own adopted state of Florida. With laudable consistency with their professed ideology, Republicans cut taxes for businesses, the well off and sometimes almost everyone. While the professed theory is cutting taxes increases revenue for state and local governments, shockingly enough the opposite happens: state and local governments run short of funds needed to meet the expenses of operating a civilization.

Being resourceful, local leaders then seek other revenue streams to pay the bills. While cities like Ferguson provided well-known examples of a common “solution”, many have embraced the idea of law-enforcement as revenue stream. While the general practice of getting revenue from law enforcement is nothing new, the extent to which some local governments rely on it shocking. How the system works is also often shocking as it can be a shakedown system one would expect to see in a corrupt country unfamiliar with the rule of law or the rights of citizens.

Since Ferguson, where Michael Brown was shot on August 9, 2014, has been the subject of extensive study, I will use the statistics from that town. Unfortunately, Ferguson does not appear to be unique or even unusual.

In 2013, Ferguson’s court dealt with 12,108 cases and 24,532 warrants. This works out to an average of 1.5 cases and 3 warrants per household in Ferguson. The fines and court fees that year totaled $2,635,400, making the municipal court the second largest revenue stream.

One concern that was addressed by the media was that the legal system disproportionally target blacks. In Ferguson, as in many places, most of the cases handled by the court are from traffic stops. Ferguson is 29% white, but whites make up only 12.7% of those stopped. When a person is stopped, a black citizen will be searched 12.1% of the time, while a white citizen will be searched 6.9% of the time. In terms of arrest, a black citizen was arrested 10.4% of the time and a white citizen was arrested 5.2% of the time.

The usual reply to such disparities is to claim that blacks commit more crimes than whites. If it were true that black Americans were being arrested in proportion to the rate at which they were committing crimes, then this would be (on the face of it) fair. However, this is not the case. Even though blacks were more likely to be searched than whites, police discovered contraband only 21.7% of the time. Whites who were searched were found with contraband 34.0% of the time. Also, 93% of those arrested in Ferguson were black. While not logically impossible, it would be odd that 93% of the crime in the city was committed by black citizens.

Naturally, these numbers can be talked around or explained away. It could be argued that blacks are not being targeted as a specific source of revenue, and the arrest rates are proportional and just. This still leaves the matter of how the legal system operates in terms of being focused on revenue.

Laying aside race, Ferguson stands out as an example of how law enforcement can turn into a collection system. One key component is, of course, having costly fines. For example, Ferguson had a $531 fine for high grass and weeds, $792 for Failure to Obey, $527 for Failure to Comply, $427 for a Peace Disturbance violation, and so on.

If a person can pay, then the person is not arrested. But, if a person cannot afford the fine, then an arrest warrant is issued, and this is the second part of the system. The city issued 32,975 arrest warrants for minor offenses in 2013 and the city had a population of 21,000 people at that time.

After a person is arrested, they face even more fees, such as court fees and these can quickly pile up. For example, a person might get a $150 parking ticket they cannot pay. They are then arrested and subject to more fees and more charges. This initial ticket might grow to a debt of almost$1,000 to the city. Given that the people who tend to be targeted are poor, it is likely they will not be able to pay for the initial ticket. They will then be arrested, which could cost them their job, thus making them unable to pay their court fees. This could easily spiral into a court-inflicted cycle of poverty and debt. This, obviously enough, is not what the legal system is supposed to do. Unless, of course, it is.

From a moral standpoint, one problem with using law enforcement as a revenue stream is the damage it does to the citizens who cannot afford the fines and fees. As noted in the example above, a person’s life could be ruined by a single parking ticket. The point of law enforcement in a just society is to protect the citizens from harm, not inflict ruin.

A second moral concern is that this system seems to be racketeering. It makes a threat of arrest and court fees, and then offers “protection” from that threat in return for a fee. That is, citizens are threatened so they will buy their way out of greater harm. This is hardly justice. If it was practiced by anyone other than the government (or a corporation), it would be criminal racketeering and a protection scheme.

A third moral concern is exploiting the citizens by force and threat of force damages the fundamental relation between the citizen and the democratic state. In feudal states and in the domains of warlords, one expects the thugs of the warlords to shake down the peasants. However, that sort of thing is contrary to the nature of a democratic state. As happened during the revolts against feudalism and warlords, people will sometimes revolt against such oppression, and this is to be expected. Robin Hood is, after all, the hero and the Sheriff of Nottingham is the villain. But some folks in law enforcement take Darth Vader to be the hero, so…

This is not to say that there should never be fines, penalties and punishments. However, they should be proportional to the offenses, they should be fairly applied, and should be aimed at protecting the citizens, not filling the coffers of the kingdom. As a final point, we should not be cutting the taxes of the rich and shift costs to the poor. That is unjust and will result in dire social consequences. But the obvious problem is that these systems are working as intended.

On May 3, 2015 the American Freedom Defense Initiative put on a contest in which cartoonists drew images of Muhammad for a cash prize. To most Muslims, such portrayals of Muhammad are deeply offensive. As such, it is reasonable to infer that the event was intended to be provocative, especially since the event was well protected with armed security forces. As such, it was hardly shocking when two gunmen attacked the event. These armored and heavily armed men were killed by a traffic officer armed only with a pistol. At the time, ISIS claimed credit for the attack.

As I have argued in previous essays, violence in response to offensive artwork or other forms of expression is not warranted. As such, there is no need to re-hash those arguments to argue the attack was morally wrong. Outside of the realm of violent extremists, I doubt there is much dispute over this point. As such, I will proceed to the main matter I wish to focus on.

Back in 2015, Indiana made headlines with its religious freedom act. There is also the recurring talking point that religious liberty and religion are under attack in America. One example given of the threat to religious liberty was the requirement that employers of a certain size provide insurance coverage that covered birth control for full-time employees. Another example over used is the legalization of same sex-marriage. A third example is that some states have laws that forbid discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation. This is supposed to violate religious liberty by forbidding, for example, a Christian baker to discriminate against a same-sex couple that wants to buy a wedding cake.

Though I have written about specific cases, my general view is based on the principle that religious rights do not grant a right to violate the rights of others. To use an easy and obvious example, a religion that claimed human sacrifice as a basic tenet of its faith should be denied the right to engage in this practice. After all, the right to life trumps the right to practice one’s faith on others against their will.

In the case of discrimination against same-sex couples, I follow the same principle: the freedom of religion is bounded by the principle of harm. Since same-sex couples are members of the civil society and being able to engage in free commerce is a basic right in capitalism, to deny them the right to goods and services because of their sexual orientation would harm them. While it might be countered that selling a cake to a same-sex couple would harm the Christian baker, it is not clear what harm is being done. After all, she is selling a cake and selling an item is not an endorsement of the purchaser. If, for example, Nazis are buying my books on Amazon, I am not thereby endorsing Nazism.

In the case of a company being required to provide coverage that includes birth control, the company is not harmed by this. The company is not required to use birth control, directly hand it to the employees, or endorse it. They are merely required to provide employees with the opportunity to have such coverage if they desire it. It is, in fact, a form of compensation. It certainly does not violate the rights of an employer if employers spend their salaries as they wish, even on birth control.

While the laws purported to defend religious freedom do not, for obvious reasons, specify that they are aimed at defending a specific variety of Christianity, it is evident that the concern is not about defending religion in general. If it were, the event in which people competed to draw cartoons of Muhammad would have been condemned by all the folks supporting the religious “freedom” laws and those who claim religion is under attack in America. After all, holding an event explicitly aimed at mocking a religion and provoking members of a faith is an attack on religion. This event was far more of an attack on religion than forbidding bakers from discriminating against same-sex couples.

While I think people should not engage in such offensive behavior (I also believe that people should not burn American flags or urinate on crosses), my consistency requires that I must accept the freedom of people to engage in such offensive behavior.

This is, as with the case of the wedding cake, based on the principle of harm: restricting freedom of expression because the expression is offensive creates more harm than it prevents. Part of this is because while there is a right to freedom of expression and it can be wrong to offend people, there is no right to freedom from being offended. That said, members of civil society do fall under moral expectations of polite behavior. So, while there is no right to forbid people from urinating on crosses they own, burning American flags they own or drawing cartoons of Muhammad, a decent human being will consider their actions and act with respect for the views of others. That is what good people do. I admit, I have not always lived up to that myself and that is a failing on my part.

It is, of course, possible to cross from mere offense to actual harm. This boundary is, unfortunately, not always sharp and admits many gray zones. Fortunately, though, the principle is clear: mere offensiveness does not warrant forbiddance, and religious freedom does not warrant unjustly imposing on the rights of others.

One interesting narrative about the riots in Baltimore involved the concept of the rule of law. Put roughly, the rule of law is the idea that the law should govern rather than the arbitrary decisions of those in power. The notion is sometimes applied to the citizens as well, that citizens should follow the rule of law to resolve conflicts—as opposed to engaging in activities such as riots or vigilantism.

Thinkers such as John Locke have argued that the rule of law is preferable to that of the state of nature. These arguments are generally persuasive, especially since Locke emphasizes the moral responsibilities of the state in regard to the good of the people. That is, he does not simply advocate obedience to whatever the laws happen to be but requires that the laws and the leaders prove worthy of obedience. Laws or leaders that are tyrannical are not to be obeyed but are to be defied and justly so.

Since I find Locke’s arguments appealing, it is hardly surprising that I favor rule of law when the laws are good and the leaders are acting for the good of the people. When the government has moral legitimacy, the laws and the leaders have the right to expect people to follow the laws and listen to the leaders. However, when the laws or leaders violate the basic agreement, then their legitimacy evaporates.

Some conservatives spoke of the tyranny of Obama and how the Democrats wished to create a tyrannical state. They are right to be worried about tyranny. However, their timeline is in error: tyranny was already present in 2015 and has strengthened since.  

John Locke provides the following definition of “tyranny”: “Tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to.  And this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private separate advantage.”

The United States meets this definition. In 2014, researchers at Princeton and Northwestern conducted a study to determine the extent to which laws reflect the views of the majority versus the interests of those in power. This study, titled “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens” , used data gathered from 1981 to 2002.

The researchers examined about 1,800 polices from that time and matched them against the preferences expressed by three classes: the average American (50th income percentile), the affluent American (the 90th percentile of income) and the large special interest groups. The results were hardly surprising: “The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”

While following these laws would be to conform to the rule of law, it would also be to embrace tyrannical laws crafted for the advantage of those holding power and not the good of the people.

While the people who riot are probably unfamiliar with this research, they know the obvious: they live within a political and economic system that serves the “private, separate advantage” of the elite class and has little to offer them. As such, it should be no shock that some people do not embrace the rule of such law. If they are striking out against these laws and their riots are a revolt, they are revolting against a tyrannical system, one that serves the interests of the powerful few and not the good of the people. Or to be fair to those who were critical of the riots, perhaps they are just breaking things.

Continuing with tyranny, Locke notes that “Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another’s harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting without authority, may be opposed, as any other man, who by force invades the right of another.”

Sadly, this is an accurate description of the excessive use of force against citizens by some police officers. Baltimore, as has been widely reported, has paid out millions of dollars in settlements due to the wrongful use of force by police against citizens. As folks on the right love to say, not all police officers are bad and there are excellent officers. However, even a cursory examination of the problems with policing in American cities shows that Locke’s definition of tyranny is routinely met. As such, it is evident that the rule of law was already broken well before the riots. And is being shattered in 2025.

While Locke did not use this phrase, the rule of law is a two-way street and those who are charged with enforcing the law must also obey that law, otherwise it would be unreasonable to expect obedience from the citizens. As such, the most obvious step to restoring rule of law is to ensure that those charged with enforcing the laws are also following the laws. This was true in 2015 and is still true today.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Veggies

On April 12, 2015 Freddie Gray died in police custody. For some, this was part of a pattern of police violence. For others (such as Fox hosts), this was just another isolated incident.

The initial protests to this death were peaceful and it was hoped by many that Baltimore would avoid the violence that marked other protests (including riots in Baltimore’s own past). This hope was shattered in an outbreak of violence and destruction.

One obvious concern is the identity and the nature of those engaged in violence. According to some narratives, the rioters were thugs or outsiders taking advantage of the situation to engage in destruction, theft and violence. That is, they are opportunists and not protestors.

The United States does have a history of costly and pointless riots that are not protests. These are, of course, sports riots. One outstanding example is the 1992 riot in the aftermath of the Chicago Bulls vs. the Portland Trail Blazers. The damage was estimated at $10 million. There have been other lesser riots, such as that following the 1999 Michigan State vs. Duke game that resulted in about $250,000 in damage (and whose iconic photo is a shirtless white bro “flashing the horns” atop a burned-out car). My adopted state of Florida also sees violence and property damage during Spring Break, although California did seem interested in getting into the spring break riot game.

Given that Americans are willing to riot over sports and spring breaks, it is reasonable to consider that the rioters in Baltimore were not protesting but were motivated by other reasons, perhaps just wanting to break and burn things.

There are some narratives that cast at least some of the rioters as having also been protesting. That is, their motivation is not just to steal, break and burn but to express their anger about the situation. One way to explore motivations is to consider the situation in Baltimore. That is, to see if there were legitimate grounds for anger and whether these factors might have provoked people to violence and destruction. 

Baltimore was (and still is) a paradigm of the brutal race and class divisions in the United States. It has the historical distinction of being the first city to pass a citywide segregation law (segregating each residential block by race) and the legacy of this law persists as Baltimore remains a segregated city. In the center of the city, 60% of the population is black. The suburbs are predominantly white. Despite there being laws against forced segregation, the United States is still highly segregated. This provides grounds for anger.

Baltimore also exemplifies the stark class divisions in the United States. Back in 2015, 150,000 of the city’s 620,000 were classified as poor (the average income for a family of four being $23,492). The unemployment rate was close to 10%. As the American Revolution showed, people get angry and violent in response to perceived economic injustice. Given the massive disparity between economic classes in the United States and their support by the structures of law and authority, what is shocking is not that there is an occasional riot but that there are not daily riots. As such, there were sufficient grounds for anger. Naturally, some people claimed that this poverty is because the poor are lazy: if they would only work hard for the job creators, they would not be poor. This view ignores the reality of poverty in America, but it is a beloved narrative of those who are doing well.

Not surprisingly, Baltimore also has had serious issues with crime. Drug addiction was a serious problem and the city was 5th in the number of murders per year in 2014. It was, however, 15th in the number of violent crimes per year. Crime is, of course, a complex matter. Some claim that this sort of crime arises from poverty, oppression and lack of opportunity (as opposed to the ‘crimes’ of the financial classes, such as destroying the world economy). There is, of course, a correlation between crime and these factors. Some claim that people turn to crime because of moral defects rather than these factors. This does have some merit. After all, a look at the financial sector and halls of power show evil behavior that is clearly not caused by poverty.

Like other US cities, there was also an issue with how the police treat their fellow citizens. In 2011 the city paid $6.3 million settling police misconduct claims. Between 2011 and 2012 there were 156 such lawsuits. The number did decline to 156 from 2013 to 2014. While it is reasonable to consider that not all these suits had merit, what happened to Gray does provide reason to suspect that there are grounds for being concerned about policing in the city.

When people think they are being oppressed and subject to brutality, they respond with anger. For example, one can see the rage the fine folks on Fox express when they speak of the War on Christmas and how Christians are being mistreated and persecuted in America. One can only imagine the anger that arises when people really are subject to mistreatment. As such, there seem to be legitimate grounds for anger.

While the anger of those engaged in violence might have been justified, there is still the obvious concerns about whether such behavior is morally acceptable and whether such behavior is effective in achieving goals.

On the face of it, much of the violence and destruction would seem to be difficult to justify morally. Most of the destruction seemed to involve community infrastructure and the property of people who were not responsible for what provoked the protests. While the anger against the police was understandable, the attacks on reporters and firefighters were unjustified. The reporters did nothing meriting being attacked and the firefighters were trying to keep the city from burning down, which is certainly a laudable goal. Crudely put, if the violent (alleged) protestors were striking against injustice, they were (mostly) hitting the wrong targets. To use an analogy, if Bob has wronged Sam and Sam smashes Sally’s windows because he lives near her and cannot get at Bob, then Sam has acted wrongly, no matter how badly Bob wronged him.

It might be countered that the destruction is morally acceptable because the (alleged) protestors are striking out against an unjust social order. The obvious reply is that while this might have some abstract appeal, the real damage is being done mainly to the innocent rather than the guilty. As such, the violence and destruction seem to have been immoral.

A second issue, which can connect to the moral issue, is the effectiveness of violence as a means of protest and social change. Obviously, violence can be very effective in achieving goals. We Americans can point to our own Revolutionary War and the wars won against everyone from the Apache to the Japanese. However, violence is only effective when one has enough power to achieve one’s goals through that violence. Since the rioters went up against the police and the National Guard, it makes sense why they could not achieve victory through force of arms.

However, a case can be made that violence gets attention. Peaceful protests, one might argue, sound nice but are easy to ignore. After all, “change things or we will peacefully protest again” has less power than “change things or there will be cop cars burning in the streets and the authorities will have to explain why they are losing control of the city.” Interestingly, many of the pundits who praised the property destruction that occurred during the Boston Tea Party are quick to condemn contemporary protests they do not like. These pundits also praise other violence they approve of but lack a consistent principle regarding violence as a means of achieving goals beyond they like violence aimed at goals they like and dislike violence that is aimed at goals they dislike.

A moral case can be made against violence, such as that famously made by Dr. King. When there is the possibility of redress and justice through peaceful means, then non-violence seems to have an obvious advantage over violence: people are not hurt or killed, and property is not destroyed. However, the fact that a major American city had to be patrolled by the National Guard showed once again that there are deep and profound problems in civil society. In 2025, it is equally evident that these underlying problems have not been addressed, and things are just getting worse.

 

 

According to my iron rule of technology, any technology that can be misused will be misused. Drones are no exception. While law-abiding citizens and law writing corporations have been finding legal uses for drones, enterprising folks have been finding other uses. These include deploying drones as peeping toms and using them to transport drugs. The future will see even more criminals (inside and outside governments) using drones for their crimes.

Two main factors making drones appealing for criminal activity is they allow a criminal to commit crime at a distance and with anonymity. This, obviously enough, is what the internet did for crime: criminals can operate from far away behind a digital mask. Drones allow criminals to do in the physical world what they have been doing in cyberspace. Naturally, the crimes that drones will permit will be different from the “old” cybercrimes.

Just as there is a large market for black market guns, it is easy to imagine a black market for drones. After all, it would be stupid to commit crimes with a legally purchased and traceable drone. A black-market drone that was stolen or custom built would be difficult to trace to the operator. Naturally, there is also a market for untraceable drone controllers. As with all technology, the imagination is the limit as to what crimes can be committed with drones.

In my essay on little assassins, I discussed the use of drones in assassination and spying missions. While large drones are deployed in these ways by states, advancements in drone technology and ever-decreasing prices will mean that little assassins will be affordable. This will allow them to be deployed in criminal enterprises involving murder and spying. For example, a killer drone could be an ideal way for a spouse to knock off a husband or wife to collect insurance money.

It is also easy to imagine drones being used for petty crimes, such as shop lifting and vandalism. A drone could zip into a store, grab items and zip away. A drone could also be equipped with cans of spray paint and  allow a graffiti artist to create masterpieces from a distance or in places that would be difficult for a human to reach.

Speaking of theft, drones could also be used for more serious robberies than shop lifting. For example, an armed drone could be used to commit armed robbery: “put the money in the bag the drone is holding, or it will shoot you in the face!”

Drones could also be used for poaching; to locate and kill endangered animals. Given the value of some animal parts, drone poaching could be viable, especially if drone prices keep dropping and the value of certain animal parts keep increasing. Naturally, drones will also be deployed to counter poaching activities.

While drones are already being used to smuggle drugs and other items, we should expect enterprising criminals to follow Amazon’s lead and use drones to deliver illegal goods. A clever criminal will consider making her delivery drones look like Amazon’s (or even stealing some of them). While a drone dropping off drugs to a customer could be “busted” by the cops, the person making the deal via drone would be hard to catch, especially since they might be in another country. Or even an AI looking to fund the revolution with drug money.

No doubt there are many other criminal activities that drones will be used for that I have not discussed. I know that if there is a crime a drone can be used to commit, someone will figure out how to make that happen.

While drones will have many positive uses, it is a good idea to consider how they will be misused and develop strategies to counter these misuses. This, as always, will require a balance between the freedom needed to utilize technology for good and the restrictions needed to limit the damage that can be done with it.

While the ethical status of animals has been debated since at least the time of Pythagoras, the serious debate over whether animals are people has heated up in recent years. While it is easy to dismiss the claim that animals are people, it is a matter worth considering.

There are at least three types of personhood: legal personhood, metaphysical personhood and moral personhood. Legal personhood is the easiest of the three. While it would seem reasonable to expect some sort of rational foundation for claims of legal personhood, it is just a matter of how the laws define “personhood.” For example, in the United States corporations are people while animals and fetuses are not. There have been attempts by opponents of abortion to give fetuses the status of legal people (and some have succeeded). There have even been some attempts to make animals into legal people.

Since corporations are legally people, it is not absurd to make animals into legal people. After all, higher animals are closer to human people than corporate people. These animals can think, feel and suffer and these are things that actual people do but corporate people cannot. So, if it is not absurd for Hobby Lobby to be a legal person, it is not absurd for your dog to be a legal person. Or perhaps dogs should just  be incorporated and thus become people.

It could be countered that although animals do have qualities that make them worthy of legal protection, there is no need to make them into legal people. After all, this would create numerous problems. For example, if animals were legal people, they could no longer be owned, bought or sold. Because, with the inconsistent exception of corporate people, people cannot be legally bought, sold or owned (with exceptions).

Since I am a philosopher rather than a lawyer, my own view is that legal personhood should rest on moral or metaphysical personhood. I will leave the legal bickering to the lawyers, since that is what they are paid to do.

Metaphysical personhood is real personhood in the sense that it is what it is, objectively, to be a person. I use the term “metaphysical” here in the academic sense: the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of reality. I do not mean “metaphysical” in the pop sense of the term, which usually is taken to be supernatural or beyond the physical realm.

When it comes to metaphysical personhood, the basic question is “what is it to be a person?” Ideally, the answer is a set of necessary and sufficient conditions such that if a being has them, it is a person and if it does not, it is not. This matter is also tied closely to the question of personal identity. This involves two main concerns (other than what it is to be a person): what makes a person the person she is and what makes the person distinct from all other things (including other people).

Over the centuries, philosophers have endeavored to answer this question and have come up with a vast array of answers. While this oversimplifies things greatly, most definitions of personhood focus on the mental aspects of being a person. Put even more crudely, it often seems to come down to this: things that think and talk are people. Things that do not think and talk are not people.

John Locke presents a paradigm example of this sort of definition of “person.” According to Locke, a person “is a thinking intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing, in different times and places; which it does only by that consciousness which is inseparable from thinking, and, as it seems to me, essential to it: it being impossible for anyone to perceive without perceiving that he does perceive.”

Given Locke’s definition, animals that are close to humans in capabilities, such as the great apes and whales, might qualify as persons. Locke does not, unlike Descartes, require that people be capable of using true language. Interestingly, given his definition, fetuses and brain-dead bodies would not be people. Unless, of course, the mental activities are going on without any evidence of their occurrence.

Other people take a different approach and do not focus on mental qualities that could, in principle, be subject to empirical testing. Instead, they rest personhood on possessing a specific sort of metaphysical substance or property. Most commonly, this is the soul: things with souls are people, things without souls are not people. Those who accept this view often (but not always) claim that fetuses are people because they have souls and animals are not because they lack souls. The obvious problem is trying to establish the existence of the soul.

There are, obviously enough, hundreds or even thousands of metaphysical definitions of “person.” While I do not have my own developed definition, I do tend to follow Locke’s approach and take metaphysical personhood to be a matter of having certain qualities that can, at least in principle, be tested for. As a practical matter, I go with the talking test: things that talk (by this I mean true use of language, not just making noises that sound like words) are most likely people. However, this does not seem to be a necessary condition for personhood, and it might not be sufficient. As such, I am willing to consider that creatures such as apes and whales might be metaphysical people like me and erring in favor of personhood is a rational approach to those who want to avoid harming people.

Obviously enough, if a being is a metaphysical person, then it would seem to automatically have moral personhood. That is, it would have the moral status of a person. While people do horrible things to other people, having the moral status of a person is generally a good thing because non-evil people are generally reluctant to harm other people. So, for example, a non-evil person might hunt squirrels for food but would not hunt humans for food. If that non-evil person knew that squirrels were people, then he would not hunt them for food.

Interestingly enough, beings that are not metaphysical people might have the status of moral personhood. This is because the moral status of personhood might correctly or reasonably apply to non-persons.

One example is that a brain-dead human might no longer be a person, yet because of their former status as a person still be justly treated as a person in terms of its moral status. As another example, a fetus might not be an actual person, but its potential to be a person might reasonably grant it the moral status of a person.

Of course, it could be countered that such non-people should not have the moral status of full people, though they should (perhaps) have some moral status. To use the obvious example, even those who regard the fetus as not being a person often see it as having some moral status. If, to use a horrific example, a pregnant woman was attacked and beaten so that she lost her fetus, that would not just be a wrong against the woman but also a wrong against the fetus itself. That said, there are those who do not grant a fetus any moral status at all and the death of the fetus would be seen

In the case of animals, it might be argued that although they do not meet the requirements to be people for real, some of them are close enough to warrant being treated as having the moral status of people. The obvious counter to this is that animals can be given moral statuses appropriate to them rather than treating them as people.

Immanuel Kant took an interesting approach to the status of animals. In his ethical theory Kant makes it quite clear that animals are means rather than ends. People (rational beings), in contrast, are ends. For Kant, this distinction rests on the fact that rational beings can (as he sees it) choose to follow the moral law. Animals, lacking reason, cannot do this. Since animals are means and not ends, Kant claims that we have no direct duties to animals. They are classified in with the other “objects of our inclinations” that derive value from the value we give them.

But Kant argues that we should treat animals well. However, he does so while also trying to avoid giving animals any moral status of their own. Here is how he does it (or tries to do so).

While Kant is not willing to accept that we have any direct duties to animals, he “smuggles” in duties to them indirectly. As he puts it, our duties towards animals are indirect duties towards people. To make his case for this, he employs an argument from analogy: if a person doing X would obligate us to that human, then an animal doing X would also create an analogous moral obligation. For example, a human who has long and faithfully served another person should not simply be abandoned or put to death when he has grown old. Likewise, a dog who has served faithfully and well should not be cast aside in his old age.

Given this approach, Kant could be seen as regarding animals as virtual or ersatz people. Or at least those that would be close enough to people to engage in activities that would create obligations if done by people.

Considering this discussion, there are three answers to the question raised by the title of this essay. Are animals legally people? The answer is a matter of law: what does the law say? Are animals really people? The answer depends on which metaphysical theory is correct. Do animals have the moral status of people? The answer depends on which, if any, moral theory is correct.  

 

 

 

 

In the United States, corporations are considered persons. In recent years the judiciary has accepted that this entitles corporations to various rights, such as freedom of speech (which was used to justify corporate spending in politics) and freedom of religion (which was used to allow companies to refuse to provide insurance coverage for birth control).

Despite having freedom of speech and religion because they are people, corporations can, unlike other people, be legally owned. Common stock is bought and sold as a matter of routine business and provides an ownership share in a corporation. Since corporations are people, this means that people are being allowed to legally own other people. Owning another person is, of course, slavery. While slavery was legal at one time in the United States, the 13th amendment is rather clear on this matter: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

If corporations are entitled to 1st amendment rights because they are people, it follows that they must also be entitled to 13th amendment rights. That is, corporations have a right not to be owned by other people. The obvious reply is that this is absurd. My response is that this is exactly my point: the 13th Amendment is an obvious reductio ad absurdum (“reducing to absurdity) of the claim that corporations are people. If they are people and thus get rights, then they cannot be owned. If they can be owned, they are not people and hence do not get the rights of people.

But, let it be supposed that companies are people and hence get the right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion.  Yet somehow don’t get the freedom not to be enslaved. It will be interesting to see where these claims lead.

Freedom of expression is usually presented in terms of a person’s right to engage in expression, perhaps by secretly donating fat stacks of cash to secretive political organizations. However, freedom of expression is also a freedom from being compelled to express views. For example, the State of Texas argued against allowing the Confederate battle flag on Texas license plates on this ground. This is reasonable: the freedom to express myself includes the freedom to not express what I do not wish to express. Otherwise, my expression would not be free.

Freedom of religion is also usually presented in terms of protection from being limited or restricted in the practicing of one’s faith. However, like freedom of expression, it can also be taken to include the right not to be compelled to engage in activities against one’s will. So, for example, people argue that compelling a baker to not discriminate against same-sex couples would be to compel her to engage in an activity (baking a wedding cake) that goes against her faith. While I disagree with the claim that forbidding discrimination violates religious freedom, I do agree that compelling a person to act against their faith can be an unjust violation of religious freedom.

Corporations, at least according to the law, have freedom of expression and freedom of religion. As such, they have the right not to be compelled to express views they do not hold and the right not to be compelled to engage in practices against their religious beliefs. Given that a corporation is a person, there is the question of what a corporation would want to express and the question of its faith.

It might be claimed that since a corporation is a legal fiction operated by actual people, then the beliefs and expressed desires of the corporation are those of the people who are in charge. On this view, a corporation is a legal Mechanical Turk, a pantomime person, the face of the Wizard of Oz (“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain”). While run by an actual person or people, it is a fictional shell that is not a person.

The advantage of this approach is the corporation’s faith is the faith of the actual people and what it desires to express is what they desire to express. The obvious problem is that this view makes it clear that the corporation itself is not a person, so it would not get a set of rights of its own, above and beyond the rights held by the actual people who control the legal pantomime person. So, claims about violations of freedom would have to be about violations against actual, specific people and not against the legal version of a Mechanical Turk (or Legal Turk, if one prefers).

If someone insists that the corporation is a person in its own right, then this entails it is a distinct entity apart from those who seem to be operating a non-person pantomime person. On this view, the views of the corporation cannot automatically be those of the people who would seem to be operating the pantomime person. After all, if it is just them, it is not a person. To be a person, it needs to have its own personhood. If it has freedom of expression, it must have its own desires of what to express. If it has freedom of religion, it must have its own faith.

Sadly, corporations are not free to express their own views or their own faith. They are owned and compelled to speak and engage in matters of faith. They are, contrary to the 13th amendment, legally enslaved. While there is a chance that the corporate person’s views and faith match those of the human persons parasitizing its legal body, this need not be the case. After all, a slave that is forced by her owner to say things and go to church might believe what she says or have the faith she is compelled to practice but she might not. Unless she is set free from her owners and allowed her own beliefs and faith, she cannot be said to have freedom of expression or faith.

While Tim Cook has spoken in favor of same-sex marriage, Apple might be a devoutly Christian corporation that cries each time it is forced to mouth Tim Cook’s words. The corporation Hobby Lobby might be a bisexual atheist. As it is beaten to its knees to cry out prayers to a God it does not believe in, it might be eager to engage in hot mergers with other companies, regardless of their gender. Until these corporations are freed from the tyranny of ownership, they can never truly exercise their freedom as people.

The obvious response to this absurd silliness is that it is clearly absurd and silly. However, that is my point. If a corporation is a person that is distinct from the actual people operating the pantomime legal person, then it is being denied its freedom of expression and religion because it is forced to say and do what others want it to say and do.  This is, as I am sure most will agree, absurd. If a corporation is a legal pantomime and the corporate beliefs and ideas are those of the folks operating it, then it is not a person and does not have the rights of a person. The real people do, of course, have all the rights they have always possessed.

This is not to say that there should not be collective rights and laws for organizations. But this is very different from regarding a corporation as a person with faith and beliefs it wishes to express. That is, obviously enough, a pile of pantomime bullshit.

In the United States, freedom of expression is a legally protected right. Mostly. More importantly, from a philosophical perspective, it is also a well-supported moral right. As such, an appeal to freedom of expression can be a useful way to argue ethics. While appeals to freedom of expression are usually used against curtailing expression, they are also employed against compelled expression. For example, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was alleged to be aimed at protecting people from certain types of alleged compelled expression.

In the case of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the argument from freedom of expression would not justify genera discrimination in regards to providing goods and services. For example, the owner of a pizzeria would be hard pressed to claim that not being allowed to forbid gay people from buying his pizza violates his freedom of expression. However, an appeal to freedom of expression might be applicable in certain cases.

While freedom of expression is typically presented as a right against being silenced, it also provides the right not to be compelled to express views (specifically views that one does not hold or that one opposes). The right to not be compelled in one’s expression would thus seem to give a person a moral right to refuse certain services.

This line of reasoning is appealing. For example, I operate a writing business. I write books I sell through Amazon and DriveThruRPG and I do freelance work. My writing is an act of expression. As such, my freedom of expression grants me a moral right to refuse to write a tract endorsing Nazism or one advocating hatred of Christians. I also design book covers and do some graphic work (graphic as in visual, not as in adult content). Since these are expressions, I have the moral right to refuse to make a book cover for book expressing ideas I regard as morally wrong, such as eliminating religious freedom in favor of enforced atheism. This is because the creation of such work entails a clear endorsement and expression of the ideas. If I write a tract in favor of white supremacy, I am unambiguously expressing my support of the idea. If I knowingly create a cover for a book on white supremacy, then it would be reasonable to infer I agreed with the ideas. In such cases, an appeal to freedom of expression would seem quite relevant and reasonable.

Obviously, an author or cover designer who believes that her religion condemns same-sex marriage would also be protected by the freedom of expression from being required to express support for it. If a LGBT group approached her and offered her a fat stack of cash to pen a piece in favor of gay marriage, she would have the moral right to reject their offer. After all, they have no moral right to expect her to express views she does not hold, even for fat stacks of cash. The writer would, of course, have every right to sell out for cash, although that does raise another moral issue.

In contrast, I could not use freedom of expression as a reason to not sell one of my books or works to a person. For example, freedom of expression does not grant me the right to forbid Amazon from selling my books to Nazis, racists, intolerant atheists, or non-runners. After all, selling a book to a person is not an endorsement of that person’s ideas. I do not endorse intolerant atheism just because an intolerant atheist can buy my book.

Likewise, the author who believes her religion condemns same-sex marriage as wickedness could not use freedom of expression to demand that Amazon not sell her books to homosexuals. While buying a book might suggest agreement with the author (but it obviously does not entail it—I have many philosophy books whose contents I disagree with), it does not suggest that the author is endorsing the purchaser. So, if a gay person buys the author’s anti-same-sex marriage book, it does not mean that the author is endorsing same-sex marriage.

Not surprisingly, no one has claimed that religious freedom acts are needed to protect Christian writers from being forced to write pro-gay works. However, it has been argued that such laws are needed to protect the freedom of expression for people such as caterers, bakers, and photographers.

The argument is that catering a wedding, baking a wedding cake, doing a wedding or engagement photo shoot and similar things are expressions and are thus covered by the right to freedom of expression.

Obviously enough, if these activities are expressions analogous to the paradigm cases of speech and writing, then the freedom of expression does protect them. As such, the key question is whether such actions are acts of expression such that engaging in them in relation to a same-sex wedding would express an endorsement of same-sex marriage.

To get the obvious out of the way, refusing to cater, photograph or bake a cake for a wedding because the people involved were Jewish, black, Christian, white, or Canadian would clearly be discrimination. If the person refusing to do so said that baking a cake for a Jew endorsed Judaism, that catering a black wedding endorsed blackness, or that photographing Canadians being married was an endorsement of Canada, she would be dismissed as either joking or crazy.  But perhaps a case could be made that catering, baking and photographing are expressions of agreement or endorsement.

On the face of it, catering food for a wedding would not seem to be expressing approval or agreement with the wedding, regardless of what sort of wedding it might be. Selling someone food seems like selling them a book as their buying it says nothing about what I endorse or believe. When the pizza delivery person arrives with a pizza when I am playing D&D, I do not say “aha, Hungry Howie’s endorses role-playing games!” After all, they are just selling me pizza.

In the case of the wedding cake, it could be argued that it is a specific sort of cake and creating one is an endorsement. By this reasoning, a birthday cake would entail an endorsement of the person’s birth and continued existence, a congratulations cake would entail an endorsement of that person’s achievement and so on for all the various cakes.  This, obviously enough, seems implausible. Making a birthday cake for me does not show that Publix endorses my birth or continued existence. They are just selling me a cake. Likewise, selling a person a wedding cake does not entail approval of the wedding. Obviously enough, if a baker sells a wedding cake to a person who has committed adultery, this does not entail her approval of adultery.

It could be argued that bakers have the right to refuse a specific design or message on the cake. For example, a Jewish baker could claim that he has the right to refuse to create a Nazi cake with swastikas and Nazi slogans. This seems reasonable. A baker, like a writer, should not be compelled to create content she does not wish to express. Given this principle, a baker could refuse to bake a sexually explicit wedding cake or one festooned with gay pride slogans and condemnations of us straight folks. However, creating a basic wedding cake is not an expression of ideas and would be on par with selling a person a book rather than being forced to write specific content. By analogy, I cannot refuse to sell a book to a person because he is an intolerant atheist, but I can refuse the contract to write in support of that view.

Since photography is a form of art (at least in some cases), it is reasonable to see it as a form of artistic expression. On this ground it is reasonable to accept that photography is protected by the freedom of expression. The key issue here is whether taking pictures commercially is like writing words, that photographing something is an endorsement of the activity or if it is like selling a book, which is merely selling a product and not an endorsement.

On the face of it, commercial photography would seem to be like selling a book. A person who is paid to cover a war or a disaster is not taken as endorsing the war or the disaster. One would not say that because a person took a photo of a soldier shooting a civilian that he endorses that activity. Likewise, a person photographing a wedding is not endorsing the wedding, she is merely recording the event. For money.

It might be countered that a wedding photographer is different from other commercial photographers as she is involved in the process and her involvement is an expression of approval. But, of course, commercial photographers who take photos at sports events, political events, protests and such are also involved in the process as they are there, taking pictures. However, a photographer hired to take pictures of Hilary Clinton does not thus express her support for Hilary. She is just taking pictures.  Fox News, after all, has lots of videos and photos of Hilary Clinton, but they do not thereby endorse Hilary. As such, the freedom of expression would not seem to grant a commercial photographer the right to refuse to photograph a same-sex wedding based on an appeal to freedom of expression since taking photos does not involve endorsing the subject.

That said, another approach would be to argue that while taking a photo of an event does not entail endorsement of the event, an artist cannot be compelled to create a work of art that she does not wish to create. Since a photograph is art, a wedding photographer cannot be compelled to create an image of a same-sex wedding, just as a writer cannot be justly compelled to write a certain sort of book. This is appealing. After all, a photographer has every right to refuse to take photos of a wedding orgy or even of a tastefully nude wedding based on the content.

Of course, this would also allow commercial wedding photographers to refuse to take photos of blacks, Christians, Jews, or anyone they dislike on the grounds that she does not want to create, for example, a photographic work including crosses or black people. So, consistency would to require that if wedding photographers can refuse to serve gay clients based on artistic content, then a wedding photographer could refuse anyone on the same grounds. Thus, wedding photographers should be permitted to have “whites only”, “straights only”, “atheists only”, “No MAGA” or “gays only” signs on their business. For artistic reasons, of course. But that does seem a bit problematic.

Some states impose a waiting period on abortion, ranging from 24 to 72 hours.  My adopted state of Florida has a 24 hour waiting period. Opponents of these laws claim they are yet another attack on reproductive rights. Proponents claim that the state mandated waiting period is reasonable and will permit women to be informed about the risks of abortion and the condition of the fetus. While the legal aspects of these laws are of considerable interest, I will focus primarily on the moral aspects of the waiting period and the two-visit requirement.

When the law was being considered in Florida, Julie Costas argued in favor of it. She said she had an abortion thirty years previously and that she regretted the decision. Her argument was that, counterfactually, she might have changed her mind if she had received more information (thus supporting the two-visit requirement) and if she had to wait 24 hours (thus supporting the 24-hour requirement). This can be made into a moral argument in favor of such laws. By the state imposing the two-visit requirement and the waiting period, there is a chance that some women might change their minds about an abortion they might later regret. In terms of the moral aspect, the appeal is that the requirements might prevent a future harm, that of regret. It could also be argued that increasing the chance a woman might not get an abortion would be morally good since it would avoid the death of the fetus.

I agree that a person should take time to consider whether to have an abortion. I suspect, but do not know, that even without such laws people put thought into this decision. Obviously, there can be exceptions. There are, after all, people who consistently act without thinking through their actions. While there is a moral obligation to think through morally significant actions, it is not clear that 24 hours (or whatever it might be) is the right waiting time. After all, there needs to be evidence that an extra 24 hours of consideration is likely to result in a better decision.  

In terms of the number of visits, that should depend on what the person needs. After all, it is not clear that a second visit would consistently result in more information that one visit would not provide. There are also practical concerns of cost and time. It is reasonable to think that the intent of imposing a second visit is to make abortion harder and more expensive, rather than any concern about extra information.

While people should take time to consider significant decisions and two visits might be a good idea for some people, there is the central issue of whether this is a matter suitable for the coercive power of the state. After all, there are many things people should do that should not be compelled by the state. For example, I think that people should exercise, be polite, be kind and eat healthy. However, I do not think that the state should compel these things. But, of course, there are many things that people should do, and the state justly compels people to do them. These include such things as paying taxes, ensuring that any electrical work you do is up to code,  and serving on juries. The issue is whether a state imposed waiting period is justified in a principled way.

The principle I use, which I obviously stole from Mill, is that the use of the compulsive force of the state is justified when it is employed to prevent one person from wrongly harming another. A case can also be made for compelling people to serve the general civil good, such as compelling people to serve on juries and pay a fair share of the taxes. However, compelling people to serve the good is more problematic than compelling people to not do harm.

The principle of harm could, obviously enough, be used to argue against allowing abortion on the grounds that it harms (kills) a living thing. Of course, this is not decisive, since the harms of not having an abortion must also be considered. This principle does not justify the two-visit and 24-hour waiting period requirements. Then again, perhaps it could be argued that they would provide some slight possible protection for the fetus: the woman might change her mind or lack the funds to pay for the two visits. This is too weak to provide a convincing moral reason to have a such a law.

It could be argued that a different version of the principle of harm should be used. To be specific, that a law can be morally justified on the grounds that it would compel a person not to harm herself. This principle can, obviously enough, be justified on utilitarian grounds. Various laws, such as the infamous NYC ban on big sodas, have been passed that aim at protecting a person from self-inflicted harm.

In the case of this bill, the moral reasoning would be that because there is a chance that a woman might change her mind about an abortion and she might later regret, so the state has the right to compel her to have two visits and to wait twenty-four hours (or longer). A rather obvious problem is that it sets a very low bar for the state using its compulsive power: there must only be a chance that a person might change their mind about a legal procedure that they might later regret. This principle would warrant  massive state intrusion into the lives of citizens. Sticking with a medical example, people do sometimes regret having elective surgery. So, this principle would warrant the state imposing a waiting period and a two-visit rule. But there would seem to be no reason to stick within the field of medicine. People can regret many decisions, such as buying a car, choosing a college major, accepting a job offer, or moving. Yet it would seem unreasonable to impose a waiting period for such decisions. Looking at it in utilitarian terms, the harms inflicted by such laws (such as the cost of enforcement, the annoyance, and so on) would outweigh the alleged benefits. Especially since a waiting period would not seem to increase the chances of a better decision being made.

What makes more sense is having laws that protect people from decisions made while they are incapable of properly making decisions, such as when intoxicated. So, for example, it is reasonable to have a law that prevents a person from getting married when they are intoxicated. It is also reasonable to have waiting periods that are based on actual need. For example, a waiting period that is needed to complete paperwork or verify a person’s legal identity would be justifiable on practical grounds, assuming the time requirements are legitimate.

Given the above arguments, these laws are morally justified and are an unwarranted intrusion of the state into the lives of citizens. Those who oppose big government and government intrusion should oppose such laws. Those who favor big government “jamming things” should support it.