Abstract
The justification for harm reduction as an approach to drug use and addiction is seen by many to be consequentialist in form and it has been claimed that as a deontologist Kant would reject harm reduction. I argue this is wrong on both counts. A more nuanced understanding of harm reduction and Kant shows them compatible. Kant’s own remarks about intoxication reinforce this. Moreover, there is a Kantian argument that harm reduction is not only morally permissible but more consistent with the Kantian duty of respect for autonomy than mandatory abstinence approaches.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
I mean by this all psychoactive substances, whether illicit and criminally controlled, uncontrolled, or prescription drugs. For the purposes of this paper I ignore the complicating question of what Kant would say about the morality of breaking the law by possessing or consuming illicit drugs and focus instead on the moral aspects of drug use itself and what it demands of us in relation to persons who take drugs whether illicit or not.
It is interesting that Kant in this section of the Doctrine of Virtue is discussing not just drinking but also overeating to the point of incapacitation which he asserts is actually a worse vice than drunknenness on the grounds that it fails to have the positive value of “exciting the imagination” as drinking does.
It is worth noting Kant’s own words about we owe to even individuals who are failing to use their reason well or who are engaging in vice: “On this is based a duty to respect a man even in the logical use of his reason, a duty not to censure his errors by calling them absurdities, poor judgment and so forth, but rather to suppose that his judgment must yet contain some truth and to seek this out…. The same thing applies to the censure of vice, which must never break out into complete contempt and denial of any moral worth to a vicious man; for on this supposition he could never be improved, and this is not consistent with the Idea of a man, who as such (as a moral being) can never lose entirely his predisposition to the good.” (p. 255–256) [3].
References
Christie, T., Groark, L., & Sweet, W. (2008). Virtue ethics as an alternative to deontological and consequential reasoning in the harm reduction debate. International Journal of Drug Policy, 19(1), 52–58.
Harm Reduction International. (2010). What is harm reduction? A position statement from the international harm reduction association. Retrieved January 2, 2020, from http://www.hri.global/files/2010/08/10/Briefing_What_is_HR_English.pdf.
Kant, I. (1996). The metaphysics of morals (M. Gregor, Trans.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, I. (2007). Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view. In G. Zöller & R. B. Louden (Eds.), Anthropology, history, and education (pp. 227–429). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mercer, T. (2013). Aristotle on Drugs. The New Bioethics, 19(2), 84–96.
VANDU. Mission statement. Retrieved September 15, 2020, from https://vandureplace.wordpress.com/about/.
Wodak, A. (2007). Ethics and drug policy. Psychiatry, 6(2), 59–62.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hoffman, S. Kantian Harm Reduction. Health Care Anal 28, 335–342 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-020-00408-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-020-00408-8