Law and Morality: The regulation of private behavior
Professor of Philosophy at the University of Southern California, Christopher Tollefsen, joined the Foley Institute on February 11th for a lecture on Law and Morality: The Regulation of Private Behavior. Tollefsen centered the discussion around a key question: “Can the state take an interest in private activities simply for the interest in the morality of its citizens?”
The discussion led to definitions of the state as a tool, the sovereignty of citizens, and even the lack of self-sufficiency of individuals—in other words, the reliance of people on their communities. Tollefsen explained this dependency as the necessary for the advancement of the society. “The classical understanding [of the state] believed that part of the purpose was to lead all aroun d flourishing by way of being virtuous and so the political state takes a direct interest in the moral quality of its citizens.” The limitations of the state, however, would be that it lacks domain over the autonomy of a person’s choice; the disclaimer, however, being that the effects of that personal choice must only affect that individual. The state “can’t take sovereignty except by injustice, even if the act is morally wrong,” according to Tollefsen. In full support of John Stuart Mill’s Harm principle, Tollefsen asserted that the state can only interfere with an individual’s actions in order to protect another citizen or community. This purpose—protection from internal threats—would be one of Tollefsen’s concluding points on the four roles of the state as a tool: the coordination of groups, protection from within, protection from external threats, and the provision of welfare.
Cosponsored with the WSU School of Politics, Philosophy, and Public Affairs
Contributor: Shantara Pintak