Introduction to Ethics
Week Eight: Free Speech and Euthanasia
Free Speech
 Can we have an absolute right to free speech?
 Can the right to free speech ever be ‘trumped’?
Free Speech
 Ronald Dworkin discusses free speech in his paper
‘MacKinnon’s Words’.
 MacKinnon advocates banning pornography.
 MacKinnon uses two methods…
Free Speech
 Method One: Shock
 MacKinnon begins her book ‘Only Words’ thus:
“You grow up with your father holding you down and
covering your mouth so that another man can make a
horrible, searing pain between your legs. When you are
older, your husband ties you to the bed and drips hot wax
on your nipples and brings in other men to watch and
makes you smile through it. Your doctor will not give you
drugs he has addicted you to unless you suck his penis”
Free Speech
 MacKinnon’s beginning is unbelievably graphic and
somewhat difficult to read.
 Is there a philosophical point here?
Free Speech
 Method Two: Argument
 In the U.S., the publication of distasteful literature (in
this case, literature degrading to women) is protected
by the First Amendment, which states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Free Speech
 MacKinnon argues that even if this is true, such
literature violates the Fourteenth Amendment that
implies equality:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.”
Free Speech
 Method Two: Argument
 Put quickly, the Fourteenth Amendment, as is
commonly understood, guarantees the dignity of the
individual. Pornography violates this.
 How?
 Is this true?
Free Speech
 Method Two: Argument
 The state has to balance competing claims.
 Equality and dignity trump free speech, at least in this
case, because…
Free Speech
 Method Two: Argument
 The state has to balance competing claims.
 Equality and dignity trump free speech, at least in this
case, because…
 Pornography makes no (obvious) contribution.
Free Speech
 Dworkin wants to argue that even in cases that violate
decency, free speech is something we should hold on
to.
 Is there a conflict between liberty and equality?
“So if we must make the choice between liberty and
equality that MacKinnon envisages – if the two
constitutional values really are on a collision course – we
should have to choose liberty because the alternative
would be the despotism of the thought-police” (Dworkin)
Free Speech
 MacKinnon: Yes (liberty and equality are in tension)
 Dworkin: Not obviously (liberty and equality are not
necessarily in tension in this way).
Free Speech
 Free speech provides a ‘marketplace’ of ideas so that
one strain of thought does not become the dominant
orthodoxy. (This is Mill’s position, Dworkin endorses it.)
 By permitting the stupid and distasteful, these things
can be perceived as stupid and distasteful and,
ultimately, discarded.
 By ‘testing’ our values against the distasteful, we either
have to jettison our values (if it does not stand up to
scrutiny) or we strengthen our conviction that our
values are correct.
Free Speech
 Freedom, then, is real equality. All opinions have to be
treated with equal respect, and discarded/maintained
based on the merit of the idea. By allowing freedom of
expression, we are allowing a vigorous and vibrant
public debate.
Free Speech
 Equality is best served by liberty.
Free Speech
 Thoughts?
Euthanasia
 What is Euthanasia?
 Normally expressed in terms of ‘right to die’.
 Various forms…
Euthanasia
 Form One
 Compulsory Involuntary Euthanasia
Everyone should be killed at a certain age (e.g.),
regardless of their view on this.
 As far as I know (but there will be someone), I do not
know anyone who holds this view. I suspect no-one
sensible does.
Euthanasia
 Form Two
 Non-Compulsory, Non-Voluntary Euthanasia
There are no ‘set times’, but if someone deems you to
have ‘run out of time’, then you don’t get a choice in the
matter.
 Again, I don’t know who holds this view – but it will be
important for reasons that shall become obvious…
Euthanasia
 Form Three
 Non-Compulsory Voluntary Euthanasia
If a person decides that ‘now is the time’, then the state
(or whoever) should respect their wishes.
 This tends to be the form people argue for.
Euthanasia
 Problematic cases…
 Coma patients who have no reasonable chance of
recovery.
 Children.
 Those who lack the capacity to make the decision.
Euthanasia
 Those against euthanasia attribute form two to those
who administer euthanasia in the problematic cases. Is
this fair?
Euthanasia
 Those against euthanasia attribute form two to those
who administer euthanasia in the problematic cases. Is
this fair?
 ‘Acting in the best interest of…’?
Euthanasia
 If we are to grant the ‘for’ camp their argument, who
should be able to make the choice?
 Classic cases tend to centre around those who are in
significant pain/those whose dignity is severely
compromised.
 Thoughts?
Euthanasia
 J. David Velleman in ‘Against the Right to Die’ tells us:
“So although I do not favour euthanizing people against
their wills, of course, neither do I favour a policy of
euthanizing people for the sake of deferring to their wills,
since I think that people’s wills are usually impaired in the
circumstances required to make euthanasia permissible.
The sense in which I oppose a right to die, then, is that I
oppose treating euthanasia as a protected option for the
patient.”
Euthanasia
 Cannot come down to the choice of the agent – if the
agent is sufficiently competent to make such a
decision, then their dignity is sufficiently intact to
warrant not granting them a right to die.
Euthanasia
 Cannot come down to the choice of the agent – if the
agent is sufficiently competent to make such a
decision, then their dignity is sufficiently intact to
warrant not granting them a right to die.
 What about concern for future?
 “I’m fine now, but in two years I’m going to be in a much
worse position…”
 Is this a way out for the advocate of euthanasia?
Euthanasia
 Velleman’s second argument.
 Treating euthanasia as a, legally protected, option will have
extremely harmful consequences.
 Consequentialist argument.
 So we don’t get caught up in ‘what if a patient thinks they’ll
be better off dead, but this is a mistake’ – Velleman asks us
to assume that the patient is infallible (that is, if the patient
thinks they’ll be worse off, then they’ll be worse off). Only
patients who would benefit from euthanasia would choose it.
Euthanasia
 Even so, establishing the right to die would be harmful.
 The sort of autonomy granted would be a) un-Kantian
and b) undesirable.
 Why un-Kantian?
Euthanasia
 Giving patients the option to die might cause some
patients to be guided to decide in a way they think
(perhaps falsely) others will want them to.
 This rests on the idea that finding your life tiresome is a
good reason to die, others finding your life tiresome is
not…
 Is this a good argument?
Euthanasia
 Velleman discusses Shelling, Dworkin, and ‘The
problem of options’.
 More options, we tend to think, are better than fewer.
 We think that exercising an option will make us better
off than we were before we had it.
 Shelling and Dworkin disagree with this claiming that
merely having an option can be harmful and uses some
examples from ‘game theory’ (and others) to illustrate
his point.
Euthanasia
 Put quickly, options can be undesirable because they
put one under unnecessary pressure.
 Refusing a dinner invitation Vs. default
 Offering ‘extra help’ to a student.
 Both are cases where the person is harmed even when
she chooses what’s in their best interest.
Euthanasia
 Velleman argues that offering everyone the option as
the status quo is problematic, what it might lead the
sufferer to think is that they are ‘surviving by default’.
 An agent is now seen as being ‘responsible’, in some
way, for their persistence. One might reasonably ask
such a person for a justification for your continued
existence. How would one answer such a question?
Euthanasia
“If your daily arrival in the office is interpreted as meaning
that you have once again declined to kill yourself, you
may feel obliged to arrive with an answer to the question
“Why not?””