Case Studies

Chapter 2: Democracy

Why are politicians so distrusted?

Research by polling agency Ipsos in 2021 found that of a range of 18 professions, Americans had most trust in doctors (69%) and least trust in politicians (10%). Ipsos also asked a global sample for their views, and the results – the ranking of professions – was not dissimilar. Again, doctors were at the top and politicians at the bottom (a few notable differences between the two samples were that Americans ranked the armed forces, police, judges, priests, and bankers higher).

The research can be found here: https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/global-trustworthy-index-US-version

Why are politicians so distrusted? One  possibility is that politics as a profession seems to justify lying. After all, most citizens would think it right to mislead an enemy state. Another possibility is that when people vote they often are voting to get things, such as more spending on roads, education, health etc., but because they are not committing their own money (they want other people to pay through taxes), they have unrealistic expectations, and are bitter when things do not improve. Politicians then get the blame.

Questions for discussion:

1. Can you explain the ranking of the profession s in the linked survey?
2. Have politicians always been distrusted, or is it a recent trend?
3. Is it because lying is sometimes justified in politics that politicians are distrusted?
4. Do people have unrealistic expectations of politicians?
5. Are politicians more distrusted in democracies than in non-democracies?

Chapter 3: Punishment

Should the state execute people?

The United States is certainly not the only country to practise the death penalty, but it is the country with the most transparent appeal and review procedure, and a country in which there has been a long and complex debate over its continued use. Europe, on the other hand, has emphatically rejected the death penalty: Protocols 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) prohibit member states of the Council of Europe from reintroducing the death penalty under any circumstances. To an extent the European position reflects a desire to define Europe as different to – we might say more ‘civilised’ than – the United States. However, that the debate in the United States has been so complex and involved suggests that capital punishment cannot be dismissed as an atavistic activity incapable of any justification.

Questions for discussion:

1. What arguments can you think of in favour of the death penalty, and which against?
2. How much weight would you attach to each argument?
3. Is the death penalty absolutely wrong? (In other words, a person could be opposed to the death penalty on balance, without believing it is absolutely wrong).

Further reading

Death Penalty Information Center: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/. Formally, the DPIC does not take a position for or against the death penalty, although it is perceived to be hostile to it.

Chapter 4: Civil disobedience and conscientious objection

The 3.5% rule

It has been claimed that non-violent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts, and that those involving more than 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.

For more on this argument: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world

After reading the article, think about these questions:

1. How convincing is the 3.5% rule argument?
2. If it is correct, why?
3. Can violence be effective in bringing about change?

Chapter 5: Equality

Is affirmative action justified?

In 2003 the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favour of the University of Michigan’s Law School policy that favoured underrepresented minority groups, on the grounds that it served the end of a diverse student body rather being a racial quota system (which would have been illegal). The majority judgement did, however, state that in 25 years’ time the policy should be unnecessary.

In 2006 the voters of Michigan narrowly passed an amendment to the state constitution banning the use of racial preferences in university admissions policies. After being overturned by a lower court the issue eventually – in 2014 – went to the Supreme Court, which voted 6-2 in favour of the right of states to determine their policies on affirmative action, and thus the amendment was deemed constitutional.

While the judgements of the Supreme Court should not be interpreted straightforwardly as a rejection of ‘positive discrimination’ (as one element of ‘affirmative action’) they are part of a broader pushback against the policy in the United States.

Questions for discussion:

1. Are quotas, and similar policies, justified?
2. Are white – and Asian – students being treated unfairly?
3. Could affirmative action policies be interpreted as serving the end of equality – that is, are they a short term measure intended to overcome what are claimed to be deeply entrenched unequal treatment of other groups? (This is implied in the claim made in 2003 that the policy should be redundant by 2028).

Chapter 6: Freedom of Action

If boxing, then why not (consensual) sadomasochism?

In December 1990 16 men were given prison sentences of up to four-and-half years for engaging in sadomasochistic sexual activity – the specific offence being ‘assault occasioning actual bodily harm’. The case was brought about as a result of a 1987 operation in Manchester (England) – Operation Spanner – in which the police seized a videotape of men engaged in ‘heavy’ SM activities, which included beatings, genital abrasions, and lacerations. The police claimed they were convinced the men were being killed, although they eventually discovered this was not the case, and they had not even required hospitalisation. However, the state prosecutor (Crown Prosecution Service) decided to press ahead with the case. The men appealed the decision, first to the Appeal Court, then the Law Lords (England’s highest court) and ultimately to the European Court of Human Rights. All their appeals failed, although the Appeal Court did reduce the sentences, and the Law Lords voted only narrowly (3-2) to uphold the original convictions.

The basis of the men’s defence and of their appeals was that (a) they had all consented, and (b) parallels should be drawn between consensual sadomasochism and certain contact sports, such as boxing: if boxing is permitted, then why not sadomasochism? The judge at the original 1990 trial argued that consent could be a ground for ‘harm’ but it had to be backed up by a justification of the activity itself, and the following were legitimate: surgery; a ‘properly conducted game or sport’ (boxing and wrestling are ‘manly diversions, they intend to give strength, skill and activity, and may fit people for defence, public as well as personal, in time of need’, Foster, Crown Law (1792), p.259); tattooing and ear-piercing. Bodily harm applied or received during sexual activities in which pain was momentary or slight was discounted.

Questions for discussion:

1. Should the men have been convicted of assault?
2. Is there a parallel between (consensual) sadomasochism and boxing or are there important differences between them?
3. Should both be permitted?
4. Should neither be permitted?

Chapter 7: Freedom of Speech

Should a baker be required to bake any cake?

In 2014, Ashers Bakery in Belfast (Northern Ireland) refused to bake a cake for a customer Gareth Lee, which carried the message ‘Support Gay Marriage’. In 2018 he UK Supreme Court ruled in favour of Ashers. The Supreme Court argued people could not be forced to promote a message with which they fundamentally disagreed. Lee appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, who for technical reasons, dismissed the case.

A somewhat similar case arose in the United States. Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado refused to design a wedding cake for a gay couple. On a 7-2 ruling the US Supreme Court found in favour of Masterpiece Cakeshop, although on very narrow legal grounds: it was judged that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission – against whom Masterpiece Cakeshop brought the case – had been hostile to the religious beliefs of the owners of the bakery. The state should have a religious neutrality test.

The narrow basis on which the Masterpiece case was settled may have been due to another incident. William Jack visited Azucar Bakery in Denver in 2014, requesting two cakes be baked, each in the shape of an open Bible. On the first cake, he asked for two messages to be iced; on one side – ‘Homosexuality is a detestable sin – Leviticus 18:22’, and on the other, ‘God hates sin – Psalm 45:7’. As for the second cake, he asked the bakery to write ‘God loves sinners’ and ‘While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:8’ and to have an image of two men holding hands in front of a cross, covered with a ‘Ghostbusters symbol’, a red circle with a line through it.

Questions for discussion:

1. Should the three bakeries have been required to bake the cakes?
2. If the bakers are legally required to bake the cakes, are they being forced to express views with which they disagree?
3. Should a baker be required to bake a cake with a swastika on it?
4. Should a baker be required to bake a cake illustrating the Bristol Scale (google it)?

Chapter 8: Distributive Justice

Should there be both a minimum and a maximum level of wealth?

Many countries have minimum wage laws, and in effect a welfare net that nobody should fall below. While not uncontroversial, there is significant popular support for the idea that there should be a minimum income. These policies are often conditional: obviously you have to work to receive a wage, and many social welfare benefits are means-tested. Somewhat more contentious is the idea of a Universal Basic Income (UBI). With a UBI, everybody – or at least every adult – receives a no-strings-attached income. Critics argue that it is likely to be a be a disincentive to work.

More controversial still is the idea of a cap on a person’s wealth (where wealth includes all assets, and not just income).

The idea that there should be both a floor and a ceiling on income raises the question as to whether inequality is bad in itself. Epidemiologists Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson argued in their book The Spirit Level that inequality makes people ill – it isn’t simply that inequality reflects poverty, which causes ill-health, but that relativities matter.

Questions for discussion:

1. Should there be a minimum income guarantee?
2. Should there be a cap on wealth?
3. Is inequality bad in itself?

Further reading:

The Equality Trust: https://equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/the-spirit-level. Inspired by the book by Wilkinson and Picket, The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always do Better (first published 2009).

Chapter 18: Human Rights

Should there be freedom of religion?

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that ‘everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance’. The development of conceptions of religious toleration were crucial to the development of liberalism and religious freedom, and along with certain prohibitions, on, for example, slavery and torture, are taken to be among the most fundamental human rights. But even in Europe – arguably, the ‘homeland’ of human rights – the right is restricted: some European countries do not, for example, permit the building of mosques with minarets. And opposition is not based on planning grounds, but on hostility to a visible Islamic presence.

African scholar Makau Mutua, in a critique of human rights (Mutua 2002), argues that the right to practice one’s religion is sometimes in tension with the right to proselytise, and as the former is based on the more fundamental value of self-determination, it should take priority. This means it is legitimate to restrict the ‘missionary, messianic’ religions of Christianity and Islam from, in effect, continuing their colonialist projects. Religions do not compete on a level playing field, and the human rights regime ‘not only forcibly imposes on African religions the obligation to compete – a task for which as nonproselytizing, noncompetitive creeds they are not historically fashioned – but also protects the evangelising religions in their march towards universalisation’ (Mutua, 2002: 94).

Questions for discussion

1. Should there be a universal right to practice your religion?
2. Should there be a universal right to proselytise – that is, seek converts to your religion?
3. Should there be a universal right to apostasy – that is, leave your religion?
4. Is Mutua right that the big, monotheistic religions, such as Christianity and Islam, are ‘colonialist’?

Further reading

Mutua, M.(2002) Human Rights: A Political and Cultural Critique Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press

Chapter 19: Global Justice

Should all countries be set the same carbon dioxide CO2 emission reduction targets?

Under the auspices of the United Nations (UN), starting in 1992 there have been a series of Conference of the Parties (COPs) on how to tackle climate change. The most important was COP21, which met in Paris, leading to the Paris Accord. Significant elements of the Accord are:

1. A commitment to limit temperature rise this century to 2°C, but aim for 1.5°C.
2. No distinction between developed and developing countries.
3. Mandatory measures for monitoring and reporting on carbon emissions.
4. No sanctions for non-compliance.
5. Mitigation and adaptation measures to help developing countries.

195 countries participated in COP 21. It came into effect in 2016, when 55% of the countries ratified it. 186 countries (representing 90% of emissions) submitted reduction targets (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, INDCs). The tactic of the Paris Accord – and other COP agreements – was to get nation-states to limit their carbon emissions through their own domestic laws, in the knowledge that it is impossible to impose sanctions at a global level.

The question is whether it is fair to expect the Global South (‘developing countries’) to contribute to limiting the temperature rise to 2°C, given that the developed world had a head-start and, viewed over centuries, has emitted more than the Global South is likely to do. Although estimates vary, the broad conclusion is that cumulatively the biggest emitters are the United States (by a considerable margin), China, Russia, Germany, and the UK.

Questions for discussion:

1. Should the Global South be required to restrain their emissions?
2. If the answer to the first question is ‘yes’, then should developed countries help them financially to achieve that goal?

Further reading

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-historically-responsible-for-climate-change/

Chapter 20: Migration

Are countries justified in limiting immigration to those who are highly skilled?

The Statue of Liberty was gifted to the United States by France and dedicated in 1886. In 1903 Emma Lazarus’s sonnet ‘The New Colossus’ was attached to the monument. The famous work includes the lines:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.

The implication is that unskilled people can enter the United States, and if Lazarus’s sentiment applied to other developed countries, then to those as well.

But many developed countries have skills-based immigration policies. Applicants get points for skills and education.

Questions for discussion:

1. Should immigration policies be skills-based?
2. Is it fair to the ‘sending’ country to deplete them of their human resources?
3. Are there problems if some people in the ‘receiving’ countries cannot compete with the new immigrants?
4. Should migration be based on need – the poor get priority – rather than skill?

References:

On the background to Lazarus’s sonnet: https://www.jewishboston.com/read/emma-lazarus-statue-of-liberty-poem-a-beacon-for-all-immigrants/

On the UK policy: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/primers/policy-primer-the-uks-2021-points-based-immigration-system/