PHIL 410A: PAPER TOPIC #1 (5-7 pages): Is There A Natural Right Against Coercion?

Consider the following hypothetical situation: I have launched a satellite that tracks your location and your actions. If you ever go anywhere other than where I tell you to go or do anything other than what I tell you to do, the satellite will vaporize you. I told you about the satellite and gave you a demonstration of how it works. Ever since my demonstration, you have been my slave, though unwillingly. You have given up your education to sell flowers for me on street corners. You have not complained to anyone, because you know what will happen to you if you do. (NOTE: I am not asking whether my satellite violates your legal rights. I am asking whether it violates your natural moral rights, as Thomson explains them. For the purposes of this paper, consider whether my satellite would violate your rights in a State of Nature, where there was no government and no law. )

(a) On Thomson's account, does my use of the satellite to motivate you to do what I want you to do violate any of your natural rights? To answer this question, you must summarize Thomson's account of natural rights (you do not need to discuss social rights). Then you must consider whether the kind of coercion involved in this example violates any of your rights, on her account. You should consider whether my satellite has harmed you in any way, on Thomson's account of harm. Suppose that you do feel distress knowing that you will be vaporized if you don't do what I tell you to do, but that the distress is not disabling. A complete answer to this question will require you to consider whether you have a right that I not cause you a risk of harm, a right that I not cause you emotional distress, or a right that I not threaten you with harm, or a right that I not use threats of harm to coerce you to do what I want you to do.

(b) Make the strongest argument you can against the answer that Thomson's account gives on this example. [Hint: To argue that the satellite does violate your rights, you must argue for more than a simple ought. Rights are moral molecules.]

(c) How would Thomson reply to your argument in (b)?

(d) What would be the most plausible way of modifying Thomson's account so that it gives a different answer on this example? Explain.

(e) Does my satellite violate your natural rights? (I am asking for your opinion.) Explain. (Your grade for this part will be based on your explanation.) In answering this question and the next, you should consider the moral judgments that would be true in a state of nature. If you believe no moral judgments would be true (or that Hobbesian libertarianism holds), you should consider the moral judgments of most people in the class. For example, most people in the class would hold that it would be wrong for me to kill you. I want you to build up your position out of moral atoms of this kind.

(f) Suppose you are a stoic person who does not feel distressed by my satellite. You do what I tell you to do because you do not want to be vaporized, but the thought of being vaporized or of having to do my will is not distressing to you. In this case, would my satellite violate any of your natural rights? (I am asking for your opinion.) Explain (Your grade for this part will be based on your explanation.) If your answer is no, you should explain why stoical people would not have a natural right not to be enslaved in this way. Also, see part (e) for instructions on how to answer this question if you believe that no moral judgments would be true in a state of nature.

BEFORE CLASS ON MONDAY, APRIL 14: If you have not used the Catalyst Peer Review tool before, I recommend that you practice uploading a test document to the Paper #1 Assignment on the PHIL 410 Peer Review (URL: http://catalyst.washington.edu/webtools/pr/slogin.cgi?owner=wtalbott&id=4414). Save your test document as a Web page (HTML format) and upload it as a Web page (HTML format). If your word processor does not have the option of saving a document as a Web page, use Word on one of the U.W. computers. If you have any difficulties, we can discuss them in class on that day. After you have confirmed that the test worked, you can use the Edit Menu to delete the test assignment.

BY MIDNIGHT ON TUESDAY, APRIL 15 (10 POINTS): Draft of part (a) of Paper #1 should be uploaded to the PHIL 410 Peer Review site as Paper #1, Part (a). Use the peer review checklist on the PHIL 410 Web site. Make sure you save your draft as a Web page (HTML format) and that you upload it as a Web page (HTML format). If you upload it and it doesn't look right, the problem is almost surely that either you did not save it as a Web page or you did not upload it as a Web page. If so, you can delete it (from the Edit menu) and try again.

BY MIDNIGHT ON THURSDAY, APRIL 17 (10 POINTS): Comment on two drafts. Use the peer review checklist posted on the PHIL 410 Web site in making your comments. Do not comment on a draft unless you have some suggestions for improving it. Do not be the second to comment on a posting, unless all postings have at least one comment; do not be the third to comment on a posting unless all postings have at least two comments. No more than three comments per posting.

DUE BY MIDNIGHT ON MONDAY, APRIL 21 (100 POINTS): Final version of Paper #1 submitted to the PHIL 410 electronic drop box (URL: https://catalysttools.washington.edu/collectit/dropbox/wtalbott/2017) in Word DOC format or in HTML format. The filename should begin with your last name. Although your paper should contain answers to parts (a)-(f), it will not really be a paper if it reads like an exam answer to those questions. Those questions simply provide the framework for a paper that is truly your own. Be creative.