The Philosophy of Hate Crime

Yup, a brand new topic on this blog, connecting to the fact that I am currently involved in a European Commission sponsored project called When Law and Hate Collide. In late September, we'll be arranging a special symposium about the philosophical aspects of hate crime policy as part of this project at my university and, as a preparation, my Swedish co-worker in the project, David Brax, is exploring what philosophers of different leanings have had to say on the subject, while we both ponder various ways of motivating (or not) the sort of hate crime legislation that can be found in different countries, and what such rationales say about how such legislation a should look like in a European setting. All of this to deliver the main goods of the project to...

To provide the European Parliament and the Commission with a working definition of Hate Crime and consensus policy/best practice guidelines in order to ensure all Member States of the Union offer the same legal and legislative certainty across the Union.

Anyhow, this is mainly to tell you that David is currently posting quite a few snippets of thought about this at his blog, Brax on Philosophy. So, if you have any interest in this topic, it may be worth a visit. We're more than happy to receive whatever comments you might have.

In addition, you can follow the project on Twitter, as well as on Facebook.

My Book on the Ethical Basis of the Precautionary Principle is Out!

So, some shameless self-promotion:

My book on the ethical basis of the precautionary principle, The Price of Precaution and the Ethics of Risk, is now officially released by Springer. To view the table of contents, sample substantial portions of chapters and look up names or subjects in the index, click on the button below:

 Here's the content summary in all of its glory:

Since a couple of decades, the notion of a precautionary principle plays a central and increasingly influential role in international as well as national policy and regulation regarding the environment and the use of technology. Urging society to take action in the face of potential risks of human activities in these areas, the recent focus on climate change has further sharpened the importance of this idea. However, the idea of a precautionary principle has also been problematised and criticised by scientists, scholars and policy activists, and been accused of almost every intellectual sin imaginable: unclarity, impracticality, arbitrariness and moral as well as political unsoundness. In that light, the very idea of precaution as an ideal for policy making rather comes out as a dead end. On the basis of these contrasting starting points, Christian Munthe undertakes an innovative, in-depth philosophical analysis of what the idea of a precautionary principle is and should be about. A novel theory of the ethics of imposing risks is developed and used as a foundation for defending the idea of precaution in environmental and technological policy making against its critics, while at the same time avoiding a number of identified flaws. The theory is shown to have far-reaching consequences for areas such as bio-, information- and nuclear technology, and global environmental policy in areas such as climate change. The author argues that, while the price we pay for precaution must not be too high, we have to be prepared to pay it in order to act ethically defensible. A number of practical suggestions for precautionary regulation and policy making are made on the basis of this, and some challenges to basic ethical theory as well as consumerist societies, the global political order and liberal democracy are identified

Thank you for your kind attention!

New Vatican Guidelines on Sexual Abuse: A Step On the Way but Still A Disgrace

The Vatican, CNN reports, has released a new set of guidelines on how to handle sexual abuse allegations against clergy. In light of the virtual storm of criticism against the established practice of the Catholic Church (except in some local branches, such as Sweden) to shield accused priests or congregation members from police investigation, this was expected. The new guidelines also do state that when required by the law in the jurisdiction in question, allegations and suspicions should be reported to the police. However, the guidelines leave a loophole for those jurisdictions where reporting is not a legal obligation.

In other words, what the Vatican here does is to make the most minimal adjustment possible in order to adapt to the criticism. It is – as I have been arguing in another post – apparently still all about minding the integrity of the institution of the church, rather than caring for justice and the victims of abuse. That is, the institution that habitually holds itself out as the moral beacon of over a billion people has not found reason to ponder the ethical implications of continuing to provide room for the practice of shielding suspected grave criminals from legal investigation and denying justice for victims of grave crimes. What has been added to the old policy merely seems to be the analysis that the global public outrage caused by it threatens to become a greater threat to the integrity and popularity of the church than legally required police investigations into reportable criminal abuses would. That is, as to ethics, the Roman Catholic Church reasons just as any amoral business corporation, whose "ethics" consists merely of the dictum to follow any legal rules of any jurisdiction where it operates.

Fine case of a moral beacon that is. Given the background story, while the adjustment of church policy is a step on the way, it is also a complete disgrace. I mean, how hard can it be to state the obvious: if you receive allegations about or suspect the occurrence of a grave crime, this shall be reported to the legal authorities. This is what citizens of all jurisdictions are expected to do – regardless of if, in that jurisdiction, this also happens to be a legal obligation.