After Making The Case For Philosophical Anarchism – That

1267 WordsMay 11, 20176 Pages
After making the case for philosophical anarchism – that is, that the government has no legitimate authority, Huemer addresses what it entails for policy, public employees, as well as private citizens in his chapter What if There is No Authority? Henceforth, Huemer has only argued for philosophical anarchism. As such, he hasn’t called for political anarchism or a complete obliteration of government. Huemer has only demonstrated that because the government has no legitimate authority, it is only justified in using coercion under the same circumstances a private citizen would be. Moreover, Huemer has shown that because the government has no legitimate authority, we are not obligated to obey certain laws. The question at hand in this chapter…show more content…
But because the juror is simply doing their job, “merely correctly reporting the fact that the defendant performed a certain action” (168) there is no need for them to feel responsible for the defendant’s punishment. This objection works by creating distance between the juror and the defendant’s fate – for, she can rationalize she was simply “reporting” the defendant’s actions. The second objection Huemer raises has to do with the duty to tell the truth. By this view, jury nullification is wrong because it involves lying. By acquitting a defendant despite evidence they are technically guilty of the act is tantamount to lying. As a counterexample to both of these objections, Huemer considers the following scenario. You are out walking with your gay friend and you’re approached by a “gang of hoodlums” (169) that ask if your friend is gay. There’s evidence to suggest that if you reply with the truth, they will beat him up. So, would it be wrong to lie to the hoodlums? Huemer replies no. Because there is reason to believe these hoodlums are gay-bashers, if you tell the truth you are in fact responsible for your friends’ suffering – all it would’ve took was a harmless lie to prevent it. Huemer points out that in this case and in jury nullification, it’s not simply a matter of “[reporting] on a factual matter” (169). As for any obligation to the law, Huemer doesn’t think an oath or promise makes any relative difference as to what your moral duty is. In

More about After Making The Case For Philosophical Anarchism – That

Open Document