Confession time: I ran into some
trouble with the law in high school. A part of that defiance of institutional
law that I expressed back then surely still exists within me, and probably in
many of us. Not only was it an impersonal and systematic structure of law that
I didn’t respect, but it was also this policeman. The funny thing was that my
disrespect for this cop was the main thing that got me into trouble, not just
breaking the law. I’m not sure if anyone has had a similar experience, but I’ve
seen this occur countless times, and by this I mean the antagonism between the
cops and the rebels. This antagonism, as I see it after reading Kant, is truly
between outside enforcement and autonomy. This antagonism concerns authority,
respect, and the will.
Kant’s emphasizes autonomy in his ethical
theory, and he claims that “although a will that stands under laws may still be
bound to this law by means of some interest, a will that is itself the supreme
lawgiver could not, by any means, possibly depend upon any interest.” Since public
law does in a way prescribe duty and moral codes to people (I don’t mean to
argue that this is unnecessary), the individual will cannot be the supreme lawgiver. Also, the legal justice
system is enforced in terms of an action’s consequences, that is, with punishments.
These punishments clearly create an aspect of self-interest in following the
law. I think it’s safe to say that Kant would not be satisfied with our legal
system.
But what remains is the significant
role of respect. Kant defines duty as the necessity of an action from respect
for the law. Today, some police officers penalize people more severely if they
feel this person has disrespected them. I’m not sure whether or not “contempt
of cop” is an actual crime or not, but failing to respect a cop certainly
increases one’s chances of being punished. There is a kind of absurdity in
demanding respect though, isn’t there? Is respect really earned by
acknowledging disrespect and then punishing it? Or does it just create more
contempt? This demand for respect is based on a model of operant conditioning,
such that negative consequences following a behavior will inhibit that behavior
in the future. If this system really does work through operant conditioning,
then this creates a problematic tension between the law and our autonomy.
This situation reminds me of Plato's structure of society, and in this example you would be in the working class, underneath the cops/auxiliary. With that philosophical structure in mind, the cop would be able to command your respect as he is above you in the society, enforcing the laws of the ruler. While public law doesn't enforce duty, I feel like Kant would still agree that you should respect the cop. For example, Kant believes that lying is always a wrong, so why would he argue that respect is not always a good. He didn't address respect directly, so I might be wrong here, but I think that it is more of a virtue than a vice, and that in the kingdom of ends people would always respect each other. So no matter if it was a cop you encountered, or a homeless person, or a parent, you should respect them on principle.
ReplyDeleteAs a psych major I really enjoy how you relate the legal system to a model of operant conditioning. I can only agree with the statement that we are taught to respect the law mainly for self-interested reasons, and as you say, this mirrors the model of negative punishment (or negative reinforcement) where we are punished for breaking the law and follow the law to avoid punishment. When I reflect on the way that I learned the laws, I cannot remember well wanting to follow them because it was the just thing to do, i.e. my duty; I instead remember following "the rules" because I was afraid of spankings or things being taken away. If we wanted to satisfy Kant's ethical theory we would have to find a way to emphasize cultivation of the good will instead of aversion to punishment.
ReplyDeleteI think that Kant would want one to be respectful to the cop even if they were rude or deserved your rudeness back. His emphasis on reverence for the law and following the law because it is one's duty would go along with showing respect for those who uphold the law. That cop is an extension of the law and is acting on behalf of the law so therefore Kant would want somebody to show the cop respect along with the law. So i think that the good will and duty of one person is to follow the law, and because of that they would have to respect the cop, not just because they are afraid of the punishment will be more severe if they don't. That would be consequential thinking and would be against Kant's teachings. He would want one's duty to uphold the law and therefore the cop that enforces it.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your questionabout respect being earned by acknowledging disrespect and then punishing it, I don't believe that this is how a police officer's respect is supposed to be "earned" by anyone. Since a police officer represents and enforces the law, and Kant's definition of duty includes that it must respect the law, Kant would argue that it is your duty to be respectful to the police officer, just as you must be respectful to the law, regardless of the way you may be punished for your unlawful actions by an officer. However, if the police officer is acting unlawfully, then he is no longer a representation of the law, and I would no longer believe that Kant would argue that you owe him your respect.
ReplyDeleteGreat post! Very interesting! Though, Kant does not intend a direct respect for police officers when he talks about respect for the law. This respect arises in a situation where a person acts based upon the right maxim (i.e. the categorical imperative). That is, the moral law which determines the person’s action is worthy of respect. So the maxim of the action, and nothing else in relation to that action, is worthy of respect. Kant talks more about this on page 13 of our text.
ReplyDeleteKant aside, I think you should consider what police officers have to go through before judging them as unworthy of respect. By wearing a uniform, you automatically become a target for rebels. If some random drunk dude is upset with the government, it is much more likely he will take it up in defiance to some police officer and not the government itself.
Police officers put their lives on the line in order to maintain order and protect society from general unruliness. They have to deal with aggressive, uneducated, often violent people on a fairly regular basis. If you mean a police officer no harm, you should never rebel or argue. They are in near constant fear for their lives, and messing around when someone’s life may be on the line is no mere disrespect. This is a serious disrespect.
For example, in regard to the officer’s life: an officer could pull over the “wrong” car for speeding and upon walking up to the car gets killed because the person inside was delivering a large amount of drugs. Things can so easily turn sour for officers.
I agree that Kant would not want officers to be opposed to an individual autonomy, but I don’t think this necessarily means that social contracts are out of the question. This, especially so, since Kant’s moral system supposes a utopian society in which to function properly, and this is closer to non-reality than to reality.
Given the police officers risk and the realization that social contracts are not necessarily against Kant, I think we can deal with a little bluntness and intolerance for disrespect from our police officers.