From ab4c5534e100410e75e42514d70083461bfefde2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: wcerfgba Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 23:41:24 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Started 'Context sensitivity and policy failure'. --- wip/context-sensitivity-and-policy-failure.md | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+) create mode 100644 wip/context-sensitivity-and-policy-failure.md diff --git a/wip/context-sensitivity-and-policy-failure.md b/wip/context-sensitivity-and-policy-failure.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9fe1269 --- /dev/null +++ b/wip/context-sensitivity-and-policy-failure.md @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@ +Context sensitivity and policy failure +====================================== + +A hard policy can be considered as a set of prescriptions that govern some +social mechanism so as to achieve some desired outcome: + * Drug control laws specify how certain substances can be acquired -- if at + all -- so as to limit harm to people in society caused by the direct (e.g. + overdose) and indirect (e.g. anti-social behaviour) consequences of drug + use. + +Policy must define a context in order to be applicable: + * Drug control legislation typically operates within the context of the + possession, production, and distribution of drugs. + +Elements in the 'real life context' of some event to which a policy pertains +can affect the validity of the policy, either in its effectiveness or in the +moral correctness of its goal -- these may be considered as the externalities +of the policy: + * Some people use drugs in ways that are not harmful to themselves or people + around them. In this instance it would be immoral to restrict their + personal use. + +The context specified in a policy will always be a strict subset of the 'real +life context' in which the events to which the policy pertains take place: + * Drug cotrol legislation cannot cover the myriad reasons people use drugs + in the first place. + +Therefore it is almost certain that every policy will have externalities, +and thus hard policies are always open to failure: + * By defining hard rules that restrict access to drugs, there will always + be instances where lack of access prevents a morally correct use of those + drugs. + +A soft policy, in contrast to a hard policy, consists of guidelines, rather +than rules: + * We might consider "drugs can cause addiction, mental health issues, and as + results of these, anti-social behavior" as a primitive soft policy. + * Notice that this, instead of talking about _how_ drugs can be + controlled, instead talks about the _effects_ they can have. + +Soft policies are less vulnerable to failure, because they are more open to +incorporating elements of the wider 'real life context' than their hard +counterparts: + * Consider the case where someone is found in possession of a drug: under + the soft policy we are invited to consider the behaviour and state of mind + of the person in question, whereas under the hard policy we are 'told' + that possession in itself is morally wrong or must be dealt with in some + particular manner. + +-- + +Do soft policies necessitate different social mechanisms for their enactment? -- 2.11.4.GIT