Philosophy In Action All the ideas and discussions
6 votes Vote

Are waivers to rights-violating laws good or bad?

There are many examples of immoral laws in which the government initiates force against individuals. There are also many examples of groups of people being carved out of the application of such laws via "waivers." Some waivers are based on rational motivations, such as business exemptions from Obamacare based on economic burdens. Some waivers are based on irrational motivations, such as religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws or requirements to provide insurance for birth control, because compliance would conflict with a "religious conscience." If we begin by agreeing that all initiation of force is immoral, how can we proceed with analyzing whether waivers to immoral laws are good or bad? Are the exceptions good if they're based on rational reasons and bad if based on irrational reasons? Or should we think of the exceptions as either universally good or bad? Philosophically, I'm confused. On one hand, how can I not support all waivers when, in fact, they would result in less initiation of force? On the other hand, I can think of a philosophical argument against all waivers on the following basis: unequal standards for the application of political force implies a variance in the ethical standards which implies a variance in the metaphysical nature of man. If we accept the implication that there are essential differences in our nature as human beings, then we have given up the objective basis for rights and open the door to widespread destruction of freedom. How should a person who wants to consistently support individual rights think about this issue of waivers, in principle?

Andrew , 01.04.2015, 15:33
Idea status: completed

Comments

MichaelMignogna, 05.04.2015, 21:06
To my understanding, waivers for some to rights violating laws—such as the religious freedom act in Indiana—are bad, not because they allow discrimination, but because they only allow it on the basis of religion. If we are to defend individual rights, shouldn't we oppose waivers on the grounds that they are only necessary because of the rights-violating laws in the first place?

Or, would it be more strategic to support waivers, because at least some get the liberty they deserve, while continuing to push for waivers to each individual (by abolishing the rights violating laws) across the board?

Leave a comment