麻豆视频

Michael Huemer asks his students to imagine being a neighborhood vigilante. Suppose, he says, you live in a crime-ridden neighborhood, and nothing鈥檚 being done about it. So you hunt down criminals and lock them in your basement.

After awhile, you bill your neighbors for keeping the neighborhood safe. You tell neighbors who balk that not paying means they鈥檒l land in the basement brig with the criminals.

鈥淢ost people would recognize this as outrageous behavior,鈥� observes Huemer, associate professor of philosophy at the 麻豆视频.

Yet in Huemer鈥檚 thought experiment, the vigilante鈥檚 behavior is that of a rudimentary government, focused on preventing crime and collecting taxes.

This hypothetical scenario illustrates a question that Huemer argues is difficult to answer: namely, what gives a government the legitimate authority to act as it does?

鈥淭here is no satisfactory answer to this,鈥� Huemer says. 鈥淚n fact, I conclude it鈥檚 a moral illusion we鈥檙e suffering from.鈥�

Huemer is one of eight university faculty members who have been named CU Center for the Humanities and the Arts Fellows. Three external reviewers rated the applications from a pool of 41 applicants. (See full list听.)

鈥淲e are very excited about this first class of fellows,鈥� Helmut Muller-Sievers, director of CHA, said in a statement. 鈥淭he breadth and quality of these projects show how strong and inventive the humanities and arts are at CU-Boulder. The Center for Humanities and the Arts is proud to support such excellent faculty.鈥�

In a recent interview, Huemer expounded on his ideas, noting that humans seem to be hard-wired to accept authority even when it鈥檚 not legitimate.

For instance, Huemer recalled the famous experiments done at Yale University and published by psychologist Stanley Milgram in 1963. Milgram recruited people to administer quizzes to subjects in another room. The 鈥渢eachers鈥� were told to administer electrical shocks鈥攊ncreasing voltage each time a 鈥渓earner鈥� got a wrong answer鈥攗p to an apparently lethal shock.

The 鈥渓earners鈥� were not actually electrocuted. Milgram was striving to determine how obedient the experimental subjects would be to an authority figure. The results were shocking.

The 鈥渢eachers鈥� kept administering shocks even after 鈥渓earners鈥� protested, screamed in agony and eventually fell silent. 麻豆视频 two-thirds of the subjects kept administering faux electric shocks into the lethal zone.

As Huemer notes, the authority figure in this case was a scientist at Yale. 鈥淭he government has even more authority 鈥� to get people to do things up to and including murder.鈥�

This experiment illustrates a 鈥済eneral pro-authority bias people have,鈥� Huemer argues, adding that there鈥檚 a related bias toward the status quo. Because functioning governments are so pervasive worldwide, people might assume that a government is the only way to organize society.

Huemer does not make that assumption. Instead, he picks apart the arguments typically made for the legitimate authority of government. One is the social-contract theory, the idea that members of a society are bound by a social contract under which they abide by and enjoy the benefits and protection of the law.

Huemer notes that he likes some aspects of the social-contract theory.

鈥淭he only thing that鈥檚 wrong with it is that it鈥檚 false,鈥� he observes. 鈥淭here was no time at which somebody wrote up this contract and everybody signed it.鈥�

A common response is that citizens implicitly accept the social contract simply by using public services or residing in a nation鈥檚 territory.

The neighborhood-vigilante scenario illustrates the fallacy of that argument, Huemer says. 鈥淭his would work if everyone were living in my house,鈥� but if neighbors own their own land, the argument breaks down, Huemer notes.

Similarly, some contend that the social contract is implicitly accepted by people鈥檚 participation in the political system. One problem with that argument is that non-participation does not amount to an opt-out clause. 鈥淓verybody knows that the state is still going to impose its laws on you鈥� regardless of whether you vote.

Another argument for the legitimate authority of government is that, in the United States and elsewhere, the government is a republican form of democracy. Huemer conjures an analogy in which the majority imposes its will on the minority.

Suppose you go to a bar with colleagues, Huemer suggests. You鈥檙e all having drinks, and the question of who pays comes up. 鈥淎 colleague suggests you pay. You say 鈥榥o.鈥� They take a vote, and they all vote to force you to pay for their drinks. Is that right?鈥�

Huemer鈥檚 question is rhetorical. But, he adds, 鈥淚t鈥檚 unclear why that鈥檚 different from the democratic state.鈥�

In similar fashion, Huemer dissects the arguments for the 鈥渉ypothetical鈥� social contract (that people would consent to the social contract if they were rational) and the fairness argument (that citizens should obey government because disobedience would be unfair to others).

The bottom line, Huemer contends, is that one has an obligation to follow only those laws that are actually correct.

鈥淭he obligation to obey the law does depend on the content of the law.鈥�

鈥淢y view isn鈥檛 that you should feel free to disobey any and all laws,鈥� Huemer says. 鈥淢y view is that there are certain moral requirements that are independent of the state.鈥�

Huemer contends that our governmental system has two flaws: It is non-voluntary, and it is monopolistic. His alternative view is that government functions could be performed by competing interests.

鈥淚 caution people not to assume that the status quo is the best way to deal with every problem right now, until proven otherwise.鈥� At the same time, Huemer does not argue that his alternative vision is flawless. He does, however, argue that the status quo is worse.

鈥淚f you didn鈥檛 have a central authority structure, there would never come a time when we鈥檇 be sending people to war and putting people in concentration camps.鈥�