Search

The outbreak of COVID-19 in early 2020 provided cover for some states to take strict and hostile measures against refugees and asylum seekers, thereby privileging self-regarding policies. However, this article shows that the international refugee regime continues to be supported by many states and international actors seeking to emphasise cosmopolitan and ‘other’-regarding policies. The article has important implications for study and policy around refugees, and for human rights and security practitioners., The outbreak of COVID-19 in early 2020 provided cover for some states to take strict and hostile measures against refugees and asylum seekers, thereby privileging self-regarding over other-regarding or cosmopolitan-oriented policies. The hostile measures, which have included detentions, pushbacks and other refugee deterrence actions not only appeared to shake the refugee system, but they increased the vulnerability of asylum seekers and refugees who continued to be exposed to torture, drownings at sea, trafficking and sexual violence. This development, which included a fine-tuning of some measures that had been hatched before the emergence of COVID-19, appeared to set back efforts to nurture the bonds of global human solidarity and expand moral and ethical boundaries beyond state borders. However, the international refugee regime continues and is supported by many states and other international actors that seek to emphasise cosmopolitan and other-regarding policies. The resilience of the refugee system underlines the fact that international society has a practical and moral basis to challenge exclusionist policies towards asylum seekers and refugees, prevent future harm that might result from asylum deterrence policies and develop more humane forms of international refugee governance.

This thesis is an attempt to constructively interpret and critically evaluate the liberal doctrine that we may not limit a person’s liberty for her own good, and to discuss its implications and alternatives in some concrete areas of public health policy. The thesis starts theoretical and goes ever more practical. The first paper is devoted to positive interpretation of anti-paternalism with special focus on the reason component – personal good. A novel generic definition of paternalism is proposed, intended to capture, in a generous fashion, the object of traditional liberal resistance to paternalism – the invocation of personal good reasons for limiting of or interfering with a person’s liberty. In the second paper, the normative aspect of this resistance is given a somewhat technical interpretation in terms of invalidation of reasons – the blocking of reasons from influencing the moral status of actions according to their strength. It is then argued that normative anti-paternalism so understood is unreasonable, on three grounds: 1) Since the doctrine only applies to sufficiently voluntary action, voluntariness determines validity of reasons, which is unwarranted and leads to wrong answers to moral questions. 2) Since voluntariness comes in degrees, a threshold must be set where personal good reasons are invalidated, leading to peculiar jumps in the justifiability of actions. 3) Anti-paternalism imposes an untenable and unhelpful distinction between the value of respecting choices that are sufficiently voluntary and choices that are not. The third paper adds to this critique the fourth argument that none of the action types typically proposed to specify the action component of paternalism is such that performing an action of that type out of benevolence is essentially morally problematic. The fourth paper ignores the critique in the second and third papers and proposes, in an anti-paternalistic spirit, a series of rules for the justification of option-restricting policies aimed at groups where some members consent to the policy and some do not. Such policies present the liberal with a dilemma where the value of not restricting people’s options without their consent conflicts with the value of allowing people to shape their lives according to their own wishes. The fifth paper applies the understanding of anti-paternalism developed in the earlier papers to product safety regulation, as an example of a public health policy area. The sixth paper explores in more detail a specific public health policy, namely that of mandatory alcohol interlocks in all cars, proposed by the former Swedish government and supported by the Swedish National Road Administration. The policy is evaluated for cost-effectiveness, for possible diffusion of individual responsibility, and for paternalistic treatment of drivers. The seventh paper argues for a liberal policy in the area of dissemination of information about uncertain threats to public health. The argument against paternalism is based on common sense consequentialist considerations, avoiding any appeal to the normative anti-paternalism rejected earlier in the thesis. QC 20100714

U ovome članku autor kritički razmatra ključne elemente etike vrlina. Odbacuje čest stav da je etika vrlina bolja, jer je u njoj djelatnik usmjeren na sebe, dok je u deontologiji ili konzekvencijalizu usmjeren na druge; u deontologiji postoje dužnosti prema sebi, konzekvencijalizam je simetričan u tom pogledu, jer je vlastito dobro jednako vrijedno kao i tuđe, štoviše, najvažnije vrline su upravo one koje su usmjerene na druge. Ipak, postoji vrsta situacije koja podržava ovaj stav, naime, u okviru konzekvencijalizma čovjek koji postigne da drugi proizvedu 5 jedinica sreće bolji je od čovjeka koji sam proizvede 3 jedinice sreće, dok je u okviru etike vrlina bolji ovaj drugi. Vrlo je zanimljivo pitanje koji je bolji naprosto. Nadalje, pitanje je može li etika vrlina doista bolje objasniti činjenicu da imamo moralne uzore; mi im se divimo zbog njihovih postupaka, a ta se činjenica daleko bolje uklapa u deontologiju ili konzekvencijalizam. Pored toga, budući da vrline ne možemo odrediti neovisno o postupcima do kojih tipično dovode, divljenje prema vrlinama svodi se na divljenje prema postupcima. Ovaj uvid podupire opću tezu članka da su vrline svodive na postupke, to jest, da etika vrlina ne može biti postojati samostalno već da je svodiva na deontologiju ili konzekvencijalizam., In this article author criticaly examines the key elements of the virtue ethics. He rejects common claim that that virtue ethics is better because it is self-regarding while deontology and consequentalism are other-regarding; within deontology there are duties toward oneself, consequentialism is symmetrical in this respect because my own good counts just as anybody’s else’s good, moreover, crucial virtues are other-regarding. Although, there is a kind of situation that supports this claim, namely, within consequentialist framework man who makes others produce 5 units of good is better than the man who himself produces 3 units, while within the framework of the virtue ethics the second one is better. It is very interesting question which one is better man period. Further, it is questionable whether virtue ethics can better accomodate the fact that we have moral raw models, namely, we admire them because of their actions and this fact much better fits into deontological or consequentialist framework. Also, since we can not specify a virtue independently of the actions it typically brings about, our admiration to virtues ammounts to our admiration to actions. This insight supports the general claim of the paper that virtues are reducible to actions, that is, that virtue ethics can not stand on its own because it is reducible to deontology or consequentialism.

This is a thesis about anti-paternalism – the liberal doctrine that we may not interfere with a person’s liberty for her own good. Empirical circumstances and moral values may certainly give us reason to avoid benevolent interference. Anti-paternalism as a normative doctrine should, however, be rejected. Essay I concerns the definitions of paternalism and anti-paternalism. It is argued that only a definition of paternalism in terms of compound reason-actions can accommodate its special moral properties. Definitions in terms of actions, common in the literature, cannot. It is argued, furthermore, that in specifying the reason-actions in further detail, the notion of what is self-regarding, as opposed to other-regarding, is irrelevant, contrary to received opinion. Essay II starts out with the definition of paternalism defended in essay I and claims that however this very general definition is specified, anti-paternalism is unreasonable and should be rejected. Anti-paternalism is the position that certain reasons – referring one way or the other to the good of a person, give no valid normative support to certain actions – some kind of interferences with the same person. Since the reasons in question are normally quite legitimate and important reasons for action, a convincing argument for anti-paternalism must explain why they are invalid in cases of interference. A closer look at the reasons and actions in question provides no basis for such an explanation. Essay III considers a concrete case of benevolent interference – the withholding of information concerning uncertain threats to public health in the public’s best interest. Such a policy has been suggested in relation to the European Commission’s proposed new system for the Registration, Evaluation, and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH). Information about uncertain threats to health from chemicals would allegedly spread anxiety and depression and thus do more harm than good. The avoidance of negative health effects is accepted as a legitimate and good reason for withholding of information, thus respecting the conclusion of essay II, that anti-paternalism should be rejected. Other reasons, however, tip the balance in favour of making the information available. These reasons include the net effects on knowledge, psychological effects, effects on private decisions and effects on political decisions. QC 20101115