Arguments for a duty to vote face the particularity problem—that is, they must show that voting in particular is the only way for citizens to achieve the relevant moral goal (e.g., promote the common good or avoid complicity in injustice), such that the goal cannot be achieved by activities other than voting. Kevin Elliott attempts to overcome the particularity problem by defending a universal duty to vote on the grounds that universal voter turnout is needed to ensure that democratic institutions (...) function properly. We argue that Elliott’s attempt is unsuccessful. It is unable to explain why citizens may not promote turnout without voting; moreover, it does not establish that democratic institutions are morally special, such that citizens are obligated to contribute to them but not to other valuable institutions. (shrink)

This paper presents a new version of the democratic argument for the freedom of expression that has the resources to give a plausible reply to the perennial objection—ordinarily considered fatal—that such accounts fail to deliver protections for abstract art, instrumental music, and lots of other deserving nonpolitical speech. The argument begins with the observation that there are different things that a free speech theory might aim to accomplish. It will hope to justify a right to free speech, of course, with (...) a particular scope and shape, but that right might be a moral right, an ordinary legal right, or a specifically constitutional right. The new version of the argument—the refined argument from democracy—aims to justify a specifically constitutional right to political speech, administered by strong-form judicial review. The democracy theorist can accommodate the intuition that abstract art deserves protection by agreeing that we have a moral right, and probably ought to have an ordinary legal right, to produce and view abstract art. She must only insist that abstract art should not be protected by a specifically constitutional right administered by strong-form judicial review. Not because abstract art does not deserve constitutional protection, but because, on this view, whether a particular right ought to be enshrined in the constitution and administered by judicial review is not solely a matter of the importance of the right or the value of the interests it protects. (shrink)

Most would agree that friends are permitted (and often expected) to offer advice when mere acquaintances may not, to support or encourage us in ways that might be unwelcome coming from strangers or to tell us hard truths that even a romantic partner may be reluctant to share. Though it seems obvious that friendship impacts the normativity of interpersonal influence, extant treatments of the nature and role of the relevant relationship-based considerations in the ethics of influence literature remain undertheorized and (...) largely suggestive. Drawing on social science research and philosophical treatments of special relationships, I identify a triad of features that are partly constitutive of friendship and can serve as a preliminary framework for illuminating the normative considerations at stake in influencing friends. (shrink)

It is well-established that those facing homelessness suffer severe harms and deprivations. Homeless persons are among the worst-off people in any given society. And yet homelessness is a relatively undertheorized issue in ethics and social and political philosophy, and it remains an enduring feature of many affluent, liberal democratic societies. This paper aims to provide an account of the underacknowledged moral harms of homelessness that can ground and motivate adequate durable solutions and public policy reform to alleviate homelessness. The paper (...) argues that the few existing philosophical accounts of the moral harms of homelessness—the freedom-based, privacy-based and care-based accounts—reveal important insights but suffer limitations. The paper then advances a novel status-based account that foregrounds the social and moral status poverty of homeless persons. This account reveals an underacknowledged but fundamental moral harm of homelessness, addresses the limitations of existing accounts, and grounds adequate durable solutions. This more complete account can then help challenge the unsettling tacit acceptance of homelessness in contemporary societies and provide a normative framework for urgent reform. (shrink)

To date, much of the speciesism debate has centered on an ethical question: Can speciesism be justified, or is it immoral, as the analogy with racism suggests? Another question has received less attention: How prevalent is speciesism? Animal ethicists have largely assumed that speciesism is pervasive in our societies. After all, almost everyone routinely treats animals in ways they would never treat fellow humans. This widespread assumption is now being challenged. Some philosophers are beginning to question whether speciesism is an (...) accurate diagnosis for our conduct. This paper defends the orthodox view against such critiques. It refutes three challenges to the existence of speciesism—one posed by Travis Timmerman, another by Shelly Kagan, and a third inspired by Stijn Bruers. Some of these arguments rely on a flawed understanding of speciesism; all generate implausible empirical predictions. (shrink)

Many philosophers believe there is no general, content-independent duty to obey the law. Yet at least some (and perhaps many) citizens and officials believe law makes a real difference—independently of its content and of prudential considerations—regarding what they should do. This paper offers an argument that vindicates the latter belief, even if skeptics are right in thinking that law cannot generate a general duty to obey. Under this argument, whether law makes a real practical difference, independently of its content and (...) of the sanctions threatened for its violation, can turn on whether individuals have adopted a commitment to law. The paper provides an account of such commitments and their impact on reasons for action. As I argue, the fact that a legal system complies with the demands of the rule of law is one important reason why individuals ought to, or at least might, adopt such a commitment. Compliance with the rule of law is thus not normatively irrelevant, even if it does not directly ground a moral duty to obey. (shrink)

The problem of political obligation may roughly be characterized as the philosophical challenge of establishing that there is a general obligation to obey the law as such. In this paper, I defend the recognitional account of political obligation, which consists of the following three claims: (i) citizens of a liberal polity have obligations to recognize one another as free and equal moral members of their own political community and communicate this recognition; (ii) under certain conditions, having respect for the law (...) of one’s own state is a crucially important way of affording and communicating such recognition, and so we are obliged as citizens to have such respect under those conditions; and (iii) being obligated to have respect for the law entails having a general obligation to obey it. Taken jointly, these claims show how the following three concepts—political recognition, respect for law, and political obligation—are united in a normative nexus that yields a demanding but deeply attractive interpersonal ideal for political life. I then characterize some forms of “meta-skepticism” about political obligation that question the concept’s importance for political philosophy. I conclude by arguing that one virtue of the recognitional account is that it justifies a philosophical interest in political obligation even if these meta-skeptical views are true. (shrink)

Several philosophers have proposed that key instances of moral progress in the past, as well as perhaps some present or future progressive changes, rely on people overcoming the notion that their current institutions and social practices are “natural, necessary, and inevitable feature[s] of the social world” (Pleasants, “Moral Argument is Not Enough,” 166). I call this account of how moral progress happens denaturalization. In this paper, I provide a more rigorous account of denaturalization than has thus far been provided in (...) the literature, so that its plausibility and its promise as a mechanism of progressive change can be better assessed. I develop an account according to which denaturalization occurs when people come to have more accurate judgments about the costs of abandoning status quo institutions in favor of alternative institutions. I draw on the philosophy of conventionality to develop an account of costs and provide a limited defense of the psychological realism of the costs account of denaturalization. With this more detailed and explicit account in hand, I explore under what kinds of conditions denaturalization is likely to lead to moral progress. (shrink)

This paper investigates the claim that immigrants have a moral duty to integrate. I argue that socially excluded immigrant minorities have a moral permission to form enclaves, which means that they have at most only limited duties to integrate. Positively, I argue that enclaves can play an important role in supporting the self-respect of socially excluded immigrants. Negatively, I argue social exclusion makes the putative duty to integrate—when it conflicts with enclave formation—unreasonably burdensome. I also argue that even if integration (...) is a genuine duty, it cannot be permissibly enforced as a social expectation vis-à-vis socially excluded immigrants because members of dominant social groups lack standing to blame socially excluded immigrants for failing to integrate. My argument is pessimistic because it recognizes that integration may nonetheless play an important role in tackling relational inequality. Social exclusion thus means that immigrant minorities have only limited duties to integrate, but it also makes integration particularly valuable. (shrink)

The suggestion that crime be treated as a public health problem instead of being treated retributively provokes unease for two reasons. Firstly, it is thought to foster impersonal treatment, which is “objectifying” or “dehumanizing.” I argue that practices are problematically impersonal when they bypass or undermine an agent’s ability to take responsibility. However, there is a difference between taken responsibility and retributive responsibility. Skepticism about the latter does not entail skepticism about the former. Skeptics about retributive desert still have strong (...) moral reasons to condemn practices that undermine taken responsibility, so it need not have these dehumanizing implications. Secondly, the association of medicine and crime has a dark history. While this is true, this is largely because medicine has a dark history. Instead of striving to limit things that fall within the boundaries of public health, I argue that the solution is to take a more ethical approach to public health. (shrink)

Most states in the United States have conscience laws protecting conscientious refusal to perform some medical service. Yet many state conscience laws protect providers from being even indirectly involved with some procedure they find objectionable, which can include not only referrals but also simply informing patients of medically indicated but morally contentious options. I argue that such policies are unjust, offering too much protection for integrity in the face of competing values and patient interests. In other words, these policies grant (...) too much weight to integrity. One promising response to this concern is that in addition to integrity, the state should protect professionals so that they avoid complicity that could undermine their moral right to hold others accountable. I argue that this response fails, since it is implausible that these professionals actually lose that right in such contexts. I conclude that these policies should be restricted to better protect patient interests. (shrink)

How do adults acquire the right to parent a child? In Parenting and the Goods of Childhood, Luara Ferracioli proposes a moral commitment account of parenthood: “The parental role is best undertaken by those who morally commit to pursuing a parent-child relationship with a particular child.” In Ferracioli’s defense of the moral commitment account, she claims it can accommodate worries about whether ambivalent gestating parents count as moral parents (they should) and whether it licenses parental proliferation (it should not). Here, (...) I argue these worries are more worrisome than Ferracioli lets on. (shrink)

Kevin J. Elliott has recently defended an institutional duty to vote. This duty is based on (i) the role obligation of citizens to do what is necessary for well-functioning representative institutions and (ii) the claim that universal voting is ordinarily necessary for fair representation. This critical response takes issue with the second of these claims. I argue that neither the informational nor motivational problems that Elliott identifies require universal voting. Representatives have other ways of identifying citizens’ wants and interests and (...) other incentives to respond to them. Indeed, some of Elliott’s own suggestions, for instance that representatives will respond to uncertain threats, seem to presuppose that these difficulties can be overcome. Thus, I argue that universal voting is not necessary for effective representation. (shrink)

Many philosophers hold that we never owe others gratitude in return for their treating us in ways that we are owed. Instead, we owe others gratitude only for treating us in ways that go above and beyond the demands of morality. In this paper, I argue that this view is mistaken: we sometimes owe others gratitude for treating us in ways that we are owed. In particular, I argue that some moral duties require us to act in ways that express (...) good will to one another, and when we act in accordance with these duties, we trigger duties of gratitude on the part of others. (shrink)

This article explores the intricate relationship between evil and the mind through the lens of Middle Eastern philosophy, particularly focusing on the myth of Zahhak from Persian literature. It examines how Zahhak's transformation from a noble figure to a tyrant illustrates the interplay between internal desires and external influences in the manifestation of evil. By analyzing the philosophical implications of free will, moral responsibility, and the societal factors that shape ethical decision-making, the article highlights the complexities of human behavior and (...) the moral dilemmas faced by individuals. Ultimately, it serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of unchecked ambition and the importance of self-awareness in navigating the moral landscape of contemporary society. (shrink)