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
(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.