Everyday Ethics

In the last several articles on liberalism and social problems, we have focused on a variety of different liberal arguments regarding illegal drugs, gun ownership, and pornography.  We saw that one can give a liberal argument on both sides of these issues, and that relevant considerations on one matter sometimes suggest an undesirable policy endorsement on a different issue.  The big concern seems to be that one cannot be consistent with regard to liberal values without endorsing certain allowances or prohibitions that seem boldly counter-intuitive.  In this final installment of the series, we will consider how both narrow and wide liberalism might handle worries about consistency.  We will conclude by offering our own interpretation of how one might be morally consistent while endorsing seemingly different interpretations of liberal policies.

A narrow liberal, as we’ve discussed previously, values equality over autonomy.  The usefulness of guns as a means of self-defense is a presumption in favor of gun ownership, and a narrow liberal can allow for gun ownership.  However, pornography would seem to promote inequality with regard to gender roles, leading the narrow liberal to ban it.  Illegal drug use is not really an equality issue, so on the presumption that the narrow liberal still cares about autonomy, he can allow drug use.  The narrow liberal position seems to be that guns and drugs are legal, but pornography is not.

A wide liberal values autonomy over equality.  The harms associated with guns, pornography, and illegal drug use would seem to indicate that, on wide liberalism, all three activities ought to be permitted.  However, the wide liberal does have a significant worry with the amount of harm he is willing to tolerate.  The wide liberal position is tolerant of a variety of autonomous actions, but also must be tolerant of a substantial degree of residual harm as a result.

One thing that we have not done in the above examples is place a high degree of significance upon harm considerations.  Our own view is that guns ownership ought to be heavily restricted, illegal drug use should be largely permitted, and pornography should be fully permissible.  This hierarchy is based on the causal link to harm and the potential effectiveness of regulation.

In the case of gun ownership, there is a clear, obvious, and substantial causal connection between guns and physical violence.  The harm principle strongly supports prohibitions on gun ownership.  Further, guns are largely traded in a legitimate economic market.  It is not unreasonable to think that we can sufficiently regulate guns, thereby reducing the amount of gun violence in society while still allowing responsible gun ownership.

Illegal drugs have a less obvious causal connection to harm.  Our own view is that much of the harm associated with illegal drugs is due to their illegal status, rather than anything about illegal drugs that makes them inherently dangerous.  Certain drugs, like PCP and methamphetamine, do influence peoples’ behavior in a potentially violent way, and we can rightly restrict certain types of illegal drugs when they are especially harmful or directly cause harm to innocent individuals. Because illegal drugs are part of a black market, it is conceivable that legalization might actually make them less harmful.

Pornography has the least compelling causal connection to harm, leading to the endorsement of very few prohibitions against it.  In stark contrast to illegal drugs, the status of pornography as an illicit, underground activity is a likely contributor to harm in the form of forced participation and a connection to sexual sadism.  Further, there are a number of causally relevant factors regarding acts of sexual violence that are not related to pornography, such that we can question the extent to which pornography actually causes physical harm to women.

At first glance, it might seem that a liberal must be either deeply permissive of illicit social activities, or defend a position that seems inconsistent and counter-intuitive.  However, by focusing on the relevant harms and the strength of the causal connection between the activity and the associated harm, we can paint a picture of a liberal society that is neither presumptively restrictive of all potentially ill-intended actions, nor permissive of obviously harmful activities.  We can defend the liberal values of autonomy, equality, and neutrality without permitting immeasurable harm to our citizenry, provided we do a little philosophy along the way.

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.