4210597

You argument assumes the "bad cop" is also a "bad person".

Which part of my argument assumes it? Firstly, you're confusing my argument for something it isn't. It's a re-construction of a part of Higgs' argument that he doesn't make clear (with a corresponding explanation why: the jump from evaluative properties of laws to evaluative properties of cops). That's the opposite of an assumption, which is something asserted without support. Secondly, the "assumption" is made for a specific suppressed premise of his argument in the final paragraph of my post. So it is neither holding for my entire response nor am I saying that is my assumption. I'm saying he needs something like that moral principle ("if someone enforces something bad, then that person is bad") to make the inference from (3) to (4) to work.

The reason he needs something stronger in the form of "person" is because moral principles are generalizations and standards of behavior. They hold over all moral beings as well as being standards for human actions and judgment. Cops are a subset of the category "person" and the argument made in the OP is about high level moral generalizations like good and bad. The terms "someone," "something," and "person" in the suppressed moral principle are also acting like variables that generate his conclusion. To replace "person" with "cop" in the moral principle ("if a cop enforces something bad, then that cop is bad") would be to:

(i) weaken the scope of what the principle applies to (thus not making it a principle at all, since it is non-universal and contextualized to cops and certain laws. This means the argument is still unsupported),

(ii) weaken the evaluative force for judgment (goodness and badness is more universal than the law. Even by his own standards he deems the norms of law are outweighed by moral norms),

(iii) jettison cops from being morally responsible beings (as that is a major way a "person" is conceived of in moral literature), and;

(iv) be a vacuous argument since it is just re-asserts what his entire argument is already saying (cops are enforcing something bad; therefore, they are bad. Which again is an unwarranted leap without a generalized principle behind it).

If you don't think this is the case, then feel free to come up with a better support for the inference from (3) to (4) that doesn't lead into the problems of (i) to (iv).

He didn't say anything about the character of the individual.

What you interpret as a claim about the "character of the individual" is a counter-example to the suppressed moral principle ("if someone enforces something bad, then that person is bad"). It's set up as a conditional. Making the conditional's antecedent true (a person that enforces something bad) and the consequent false (a non-bad person) gives a possible counterexample, since it makes the overall conditional false. Generating a counter-example to this principle is fair game, since something like this principle underpins his entire argument. If you have a problem with the principle, feel free to come up with something better that turns Higgs' argument into a well-justified one.

Do you dispute the idea that the existing system coerces any well-intentioned people into performing amoral acts?

You're confusing the issue of counter-arguments with the issue of counter-considerations and refutations. The former attacks the arguments present, while the latter takes a counter-view on the issue itself. I'm disputing the mechanism by which Higgs' explains the state of affairs and pointing out his lack of support for both key premises (1) and (2), which you ignored, and the inference from (3) to (4). Are you saying I can't criticize his argument without staking out a position on the issue?

As to your question, please breakdown -- in your own words -- the properties within the "existing system" that enable the activity of "coercing" that further generates "any well-intentioned people into performing amoral acts." I want a full account of this causal chain from a vague "existing system" to the performance of amoral acts. I want to know all about the parts in the "system" and their organization that generate coercion. Then I want a causal and psychological account of how this coercion generates amoral acts in well-intentioned people. Should be simple for you to explain, since you seem to see it as self-evident.