Everyday Ethics

In several previous articles, we discussed the theoretical principles that underlie our liberal system of government.  These principles include the values of autonomy, equality, and neutrality with regard to conceptions of the good life, as well as the role of the harm principle, paternalism, and legal moralism in limiting these values.  We now turn to the first of several issues where applying these principles, especially doing so consistently, is deeply problematic.

Our first issue is one that is highly contentious in contemporary American society, especially in light of the tendency of gun rights advocates to misunderstand what the Second Amendment does or does not say.  Before we apply our liberal toolbox to this issue, we ought to briefly lay out what is at issue.  On one side, gun rights advocates want to own firearms, believe this should be minimally restricted if at all, and see a denial of this right as a violation of their basic liberties.  On the other side, gun control advocates believe that firearms are exceedingly harmful and ought to be banned in order to protect people from the harmful effects of gun violence.

We can begin our analysis by eliminating certain principles as irrelevant.  Gun control is not typically an issue that is handled paternalistically because the harm caused by gun violence is often directed outward, away from the gun owner and toward other people.  So banning guns in order to protect gun owners somewhat misses the point.  The same can be said of legal moralism.  The issue is not that gun ownership is immoral, but that it is harmful.

The next question concerns the harm principle.  According to the harm principle, we can only ban something if it is harmful to others.  Clearly, gun ownership leads to harmful effects due to gun-related violence.  The equation is fairly simple.  More than any statistical analysis can demonstrate, it should be obvious that a person can cause more harm with a gun than without one.  Gun ownership is clearly an issue that the harm principle allows us to ban.

The liberal values of autonomy, equality, and neutrality are what really make this issue complicated.  Wide liberals place a high value on autonomy, so it’s possible that a wide liberal might say that we cannot ban guns, even if they are harmful, because the value of the liberty is so high.  Further, neutrality with regard to the good life means that we cannot deny a person’s right to own even very harmful guns, because we cannot reject a conception of the good life that includes owning assault weapons and other exceedingly dangerous guns.  There is a liberal argument for ownership of even extremely harmful guns.

We can also construct a narrow liberal argument for gun ownership.  The narrow liberal values equality over autonomy.  Handguns are an extremely effective tool for leveling the playing field between weaker and stronger members of society.  Those who are prone to being victimized can reduce the likelihood that they will be harmed by brandishing a weapon.  Ownership of guns that promote equality, namely handguns, can be supported by the narrow liberal value of equality.

Against these values is the reality that guns are exceedingly harmful.  In fact, they are specifically designed to cause harm.  The harm principle says that we can ban things that are harmful, but this position is at odds with the liberal values of autonomy and equality, making it unclear how a liberal ought to proceed.  As we move into consideration of other relevant social problems, we will see that the issue is not only a lack of clarity regarding what a liberal ought to do.  Consistency will also quickly become a problem for the liberal, and we will soon see the extent to which we find ourselves abandoning liberalism in order to do what we believe to be right.

About the Author

Elijah Weber is a graduate student at Bowling Green State University. He holds a Master's degree in philosophy from Colorado State University, and Bachelor’s degrees in sociology and philosophy from Chapman Univerity. He currently lives in Bowling Green, Ohio with his wife Laura, his newborn son Brandon, and his feline life-partner Monte.