Government incentives revisited
The perfectionism-neutrality debate
Last week I wrote about government’s use of taxes, tax credits, fees and regulations, and legal punishment to incentivize and disincentivize personal behavior, such as the homebuyers tax credit, taxes on alcohol, parking meter fees and speeding tickets. As I noted, one of the key public philosophical questions that arises is “to what ends may government incentivize/disincentivize behavior?”. This question gets at the core of a philosophical debate over whether the state should promote certain conceptions of the good life (“goods”). One side of the debate – perfectionism – claims that the state can and should promote goods. Neutrality, on the other hand, argues that the state can and must refrain from promoting the good and instead promote only “the right.”
NYU Law Professor and sometimes public philosopher, Ronald Dworkin, posits that this debate ultimately sets liberalism, which Dworkin believes is grounded in neutrality, apart from other political theories. Other liberal theorists, such as Rice University philosopher George Sher, believe perfectionism can be compatible with liberalism. In this post I want to elaborate on this debate, though within the space limitations of a blog I will just get to skim the surface. Read more
Is the homebuyers tax credit immoral?
Should government incentivize/disincentivize behavior?
My girlfriend dragged 
me to a bunch of open houses on Sunday. At each, the real estate agent eagerly advertised the federal government’s homebuyer tax credit, which gives up to $8000 in tax credits to first-time homebuyers and long-time homeowners buying a replacement principal residence before April 30, 2010.
The tax credit is an example of the government incentivizing certain behavior – in this case purchasing a home in order to stimulate the economy. And it got me thinking: what other kinds of behavior does the government incentivize…and should it? Read more
Douthat on religious dialogue
Ross Douthat, that New York Times’s new conservative editorial writer, has a solid take on the demands of a functional, secular, and religiously diverse state. He’s responding, for the most part, to Brit Hume’s statement about Tiger Woods’s religious beliefs and the subsequent response, which we addressed here. Hume may have been imprudent and/or inaccurate, but the overwhelming “religion is a private matter!” response, Douthat argues, needs some examination. Many believers have balked at the use of major media outlets to express religious opinions,
But these believers are colluding in their own marginalization. If you treat your faith like a hothouse flower, too vulnerable to survive in the crass world of public disputation, then you ensure that nobody will take it seriously. The idea that religion is too mysterious, too complicated or too personal to be debated on cable television just ensures that it never gets debated at all.
He outlines a preferable vision in his opening:
Liberal democracy offers religious believers a bargain. Accept, as a price of citizenship, that you may never impose your convictions on your neighbor, or use state power to compel belief. In return, you will be free to practice your own faith as you see fit — and free, as well, to compete with other believers (and nonbelievers) in the marketplace of ideas.
The idea that believers must compete in the “marketplace of ideas” is a controversial one. Many would rather that religious communities maintain a level of protected autonomy (including the right to educate children in religious schools and perhaps protection from state interference or even public criticism) and that in matters so central to their identity, others should simply stay out of it. But our moral faculties and the well-being of our religiously diverse democracy rely on open discussion of important questions. And as Douthat suggests, these are indeed important questions.
-Colin
Faith in the Supreme Court
Does a justice’s religion matter?
Under Slate‘s “jurisprudence” section, Dahlia Lithwick addresses a taboo subject – the religious beliefs of Supreme Court justices. Interestingly enough, we now have six Catholics on the court, two Jews, and only one Protestant. For reference, about 50% of Americans are Protestant, 24% are Catholic, and only 1% are Jewish.
Ok, so what? Does the religious identity of judges actually influence their decisions? Geoffrey Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, has come under fire for suggesting that it might. In Gonzales v. Carhart (which was settled when Justice Souter, an Episcopalian, was still on the court), the five Catholic justices overturned settled precedent on partial birth abortions, while the Jewish and Protestant justices dissented. Stone is uncomfortable with the implications:
By making this judgment, these justices have failed to respect the fundamental difference between religious belief and morality. To be sure, this can be an elusive distinction, but in a society that values the separation of church and state, it is fundamental. The moral status of a fetus is a profoundly difficult and rationally unresolvable question. As the Supreme Court has recognized for more than thirty years, when the fundamental right of a woman “to determine her life’s course” is at stake, it is not for the state — or for the justices of the Supreme Court — to resolve that question, and it is certainly not appropriate for the state or the justices to resolve it on the basis of one’s personal religious faith.
Lithwick shares Stone’s concerns about religious belief seeping into jurisprudence, but posits that a justice’s stance toward strict or evolving precedent is probably more central to controversial moral decisions than personal faith.
State Dinner crashers
Not a feature film starring Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn. A reality
Last week the White House hosted its first state dinner and the biggest story wasn’t the pomp or the circumstance. It was the DC socialites who crashed the party.
In addition to the other twists and turns of the story, the event has been especially sobering for the Secret Service, which failed to flag them as uninvited. The embarrassment only grew when it was learned that they actually met the president.
Although the couple proudly posted pictures of their expedition, some have speculated that the event will haunt them as a historic faux pas.
Ethically speaking, who was more in the wrong? The crashers or the Secret Service?
Showing up to an invitation-only event without one is certainly a classic faux pas. But is violating social protocol unethical? That’s harder to determine. A good case can be made that sometimes morality asks us to violate social protocol (say, refusing to give up one’s seat on a bus despite a racially structured social code).
What makes this case notably different is not merely that the crashers arrived uninvited at just any party, but a state dinner. There are strict regulations that govern contact with the president and entry into presidential quarters. Presumably, these rules are designed for the president’s protection, an objective are all bound to respect and uphold. Violating them was a definite no-no.
The Secret Service on the other hand suffered a serious breach of duty. While the details of how the couple made it into the dinner — and up to the president — are still emerging, the Secret Service clearly failed to uphold its own protocols. Presumably both Secret Service procedures and individual agent conduct are held to the highest level of scrutiny. Any violation or lapse is by implication ethically severe.
No one was a winner in this situation, but where the couple was reckless, the Secret Service failed.
-Sam
No visa for oil
Balancing values and interests
The New York Times has an article today on Teodoro Nguema Obiang, the forest and agriculture minister of Equatorial Guinea, who, despite being a corrupt foreign official, is regularly granted visas for travel to the United States. Internal government documents assert that “most if not all” of Obiang’s wealth comes from corruption. So why does the State Department fail to enforce the federal law prohibiting corrupt foreign officials from receiving American visas? The answer, claim a number of former U.S. officials: oil. Equatorial Guinea produces nearly 400,000 barrels of oil a day, mostly by American oil companies.
We’ve written on this blog about conflict among values (e.g. freedom and equality). Just as common is conflict between values and interests. In personal life, we face such conflicts all the time: when a grocery store clerk gives you too much change do you pocket the money or give it back? When you walk by a homeless person carrying a doggie bag of leftovers do you give it to them or save it for tomorrow’s lunch? Values and interests exert a constant tension on foreign policy – do we pursue our material interests in the world or promote the values we hold dear? Sometimes these two align (ex. foreign aid may help “drain the swamp” of violent extremism), but more often they come into conflict – call out human rights abuses in Russia or gain an ally in efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear program? Promote democracy in Pakistan or further counter-terrorism efforts?
In Obiang’s case, the conflict is between punishing corruption and ensuring U.S. access to Equatorial Guinean oil and wealth for American business. So how do you balance the two? Do values always trump interests? Read more
“Belief” in climate change
A judge in the U.K. has ruled that belief in global warming is protected under the 2003 “Religion and Belief Regulations,” which prohibit employment discrimination based on such beliefs. Tim Nicholson, a former “Head of Sustainability” at a British property firm, claimed that his termination resulted from disagreements about his environmental stances.
Lawyers for the firm argued that belief in climate change is “a scientific view rather than a philosophical one”, because “philosophy deals with matters that are not capable of scientific proof.” Nicholson calls his approach “a philosophical belief that reflects my moral and ethical values and is underlined by the overwhelming scientific evidence.”
Confused? You should be. Determining what qualifies a personal “philosophy” or “belief” for protection under freedom of conscience regulations – particularly when such regulations are framed with respect to religion – is a difficult, if not impossible task.
-Colin
Augusta rules
Does it matter who hits the links with the President?
In a town always in search of a news story, it should perhaps come as little surprise that newspapers have been eager to report that Melody Barnes, the President’s top domestic policy adviser, yesterday became the first woman to golf with Obama since the inauguration.
The now famous golf round did not come before some controversy. The President recently hosted a basketball game with male Cabinet members and Members of Congress–none female. The “boys club” speculation erupted almost immediately.
Is gender equality at stake in the composition of the President’s sporting crowd?
Blogging in pajamas
A metaphor for philosophy?
The White House came under fire Sunday when NBC White House correspondent John Harwood said the following about the administration’s view of increasing criticism from the left, particularly around the issue of gay rights:
For a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn’t take this opposition, one adviser told me today those bloggers need to take off their pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely-divided country is complicated and difficult.
Earlier in the day, thousands of gay rights activists marched on Washington this weekend to protest the Obama administration’s continued unwillingness to repeal “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, to support the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, or to endorse gay marriage. Much to their dismay, openly gay congressman Barney Frank called the protest “a waste of time, at best,” to which he added, “The only thing they’re going to be putting pressure on is the grass.”
In other words, people must recognize the gap between what they believe ought to be, and what is immediately possible or prudent. It’s easy to take shots at policymakers from a distance, but real world decisions are about more than abstract rights and principles.
What makes these barbs particularly interesting isn’t their relation to the gay rights movement, but rather their wider relevance to one of the central conundrums of political philosophy, and the very issue around which our own efforts are organized. That issue is relevance.
Obama follows the Public Philosopher
I’ve been writing a lot about political conduct lately. Apparently, it’s on Obama’s mind, too. In a 60 Minutes interview that aired last night:
I will also say that in the era of 24-hour cable news cycles, that the loudest, shrillest voices get the most attention. And so one of the things that I’m trying to figure out is: How can we make sure that civility is interesting?
–Sam
Share us