Suchergebnisse

AbstractScanlon's distinction between well-being and other personal values cannot be made out clearly if well-being is understood, as it commonly is, to consist in whatever is intrinsically good for a person. Two other accounts of well-being, however, might be able to explain this distinction. One is a version of the rational care view proposed by Stephen Darwall; another is a rational sympathy view suggested by some of Brad Hooker's work.

In this challenge to current debates on paternalism & paternalistic government policies, the author argues that the general presumption of paternalism distorts thinking, & a rethinking of the nonpaternalistice reasoning underlying many policies requires greater sensitivity to nonpaternalistic justifications. Reconciliation of paternalism & antipaternalism is a project that will require evaluating the nonpaternalistic rationale for a policy. Using Seana Shiffrins defense of unconscionability doctrine in contract law, the author explores the difficulties & odd consequences of interpretations exclusive of motive. Presuppositions of paternalism as an insult are related to actor motivation & personal liberty, the weaknesses of paternalism, & the violation of rights. The author concludes that if there is no compelling reason to accept a general presumption against paternalism, we must allow for the possibility of paternalistic reasons to justify policies. J. Harwell

In the United States today, the use or possession of many drugs is a criminal offense. Can these criminal laws be justified? What are the best reasons to punish or not to punish drug users? These are the fundamental issues debated in this book by two prominent philosophers of law. Douglas Husak argues in favor of drug decriminalization, by clarifying the meaning of crucial terms, such as legalize, decriminalize, and drugs; and by identifying the standards by which alternative drug policies should be assessed. He critically examines the reasons typically offered in favor of our current approach and explains why decriminalization is preferable. Peter de Marneffe argues against drug legalization, demonstrating why drug prohibition, especially the prohibition of heroin, is necessary to protect young people from self-destructive drug use. If the empirical assumptions of this argument are sound, he reasons, drug prohibition is perfectly compatible with our rights to liberty