Nation of Cowards

ملّت بزدلان

---

Participants •Citizens •Theory •
Posted by Rezwan • Sep 16, 2008 • (1) Comments •
Printer friendly • • مطلب را به بالاترین بفرستید:

Full title: Nation of Cowards: Essays on the Ethics of Gun Control

A collection of essays revolving around the issue of firearms in civic and personal life, but at its heart, it isn't about guns at all, it's about the difference between utilitarianism and rights based approaches to social order. Its arguments could be applied to many things, such as hejab or internet access.

This distinction provides an interesting angle for approaching issues of rights and freedoms. A number of liberal thinkers in the US are pro gun control (restricting access to guns for citizens), at the same time they are also pro internet access and against compulsory hejab (unrestricted freedom of speech and dress). However, the arguments used by Islamic governments for internet access denial and hejab are the same ones used by liberals for gun control. To put it simply, many liberal Americans are using a utilitarian approach to gun control, and a rights based approach for speech and dress. The Islamic Republic consistently uses a utilitarian approach for all three. It seeks to protect citizens from themselves and create a utopian society by restricting certain "rights".

The utilitarian argument for gun control holds that if access to guns is constrained, there will be fewer opportunities for citizens to be involved in firearm incidents. Whether or not the citizens want to kill each other, the argument goes, they will be unable to do so. Fewer guns, fewer murders. Protecting our citizens from themselves.

Likewise, the utilitarian argument for hejab [need to research and see what the actual legal argument used by IRI is, this is my Grandfather's argument] holds that people must be covered to prevent immorality, adultery, promiscuity, etc. If you can't see the women, you won't be tempted to pursue carnal relations with them. See no booty, do no booty. Protecting our citizens from stupid mistakes of passion.

The utilitarian argument against gun control holds that the fewer gun thing doesn't work. Denying citizens access to guns simply means that criminals will get the guns and citizens will be defenseless against them, and when you call the police, there will be a delay in their arrival, so they can't protect you. So, it's not very useful to set it up like this.

The utilitarian argument against hejab holds that the use of hejab doesn't reduce the level of sin, it simply takes it underground. The temptation is still there, possibly even heightened. Thus, in addition to the sin, you've got a lot of people forced to dress in a way they don't agree with, and the economy is suffering because many people don't want to do business in what they see as a repressive climate.

For gun control, the arguments, pro and con, tend to be utilitarian. Each side produces statistics to prove that the policy works or doesn't work in safeguarding human life.

The rights based argument says that the utilitarian arguments (pro and con) miss the point. There are two main points:

1. People need to take responsibility for themselves and for the protection of their rights.

2. Government is supposed to derive its just powers from the consent of the governed, but consent is meaningless without the ability to object and enforce that objection. So, if government restricts their access to firearms, it is restricting their consent.

Concerning point 1, citizen responsibiltiy: The lethal use of force (access to guns) is outsourced to the state (police), who must be summoned to come and kill someone for you. This results in irresponsible citizens who assume the police are benevolent. E.g., we give the responsibility for protecting our lives to the police. If our lives are threatened, we don't kill the attacker, we wait for the police to show up, and they kill the attacker. For hejab, the responsibility to resist temptation is shifted from the individual to the environment. In other words, instead of allowing people to make their decisions and resist temptation, we try to shape the environment to reduce temptation. Ultimately, this weakens the individual, turns them all into children and the state/government into a parent. This is seen as condescending and disempowering.

Concerning the second point, well, Iran's government derives its powers not from the consent of the governed, but from God, so that point is moot : ). That second point is a very American assumption. Important to understand it, though. I highly recommend this book.

If you can't get a hold of the book, here is an interview with the author, Jeff Snyder, which is fascinating.

« Next Book Gardeners of Eden

Previous Book » Access Denied