Philosophical Foundations of Criminalization: Analysis of Moral Vices from the Perspective of the Theory of Self-Government and the Principle of Harm

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. Student in Criminal Law and Criminology, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, Theology and Political Science, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

2 Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

3 Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

As a normative ethics theory, virtue ethics theory can present a criterion for criminalization. The revival of this theory brought about a great new change in new ethics philosophy in the second half of the 20th century. Its effects on criminalization are just like the two sides of a coin. On the one hand, it has the capacity of promoting ethics to reach its climax and even act as a permit for criminal intervention in the internal qualities of the individuals and on the other hand, it can decriminalize most of the vicious actions in order to make citizens virtuous.
In the field of the philosophy of the law of virtue, the theory of the ethics of virtue is used for the philosophical justification of criminalization. Therefore, in order to present a virtuous criminal theory, special attention is paid to moral vices. In the theory of virtuous criminalism, we are faced with two main axes: one, flourishing, and the second, vice. The presentation of a legislative theory in the philosophy of virtue-based law takes into account human flourishing. Proponents of liberalism, on the other hand, argue that criminalizing moral depravity violates privacy; while the problem is not simple. For this reason, the criminalization of vicious behavior faces challenges including the threat of self-ownership and the justification of these behaviors from the perspective of the principle of harm. The main question now is, to what extent is the criminalization of moral vices in the context of the theory of self-government? One might also ask how virtuous criminal theory can be justified by a reading of the principle of harm. The present paper has achieved the following approach with a descriptive-analytical method: The criminalization of some moral vices violates the right of citizens to self-government. Therefore, criminalizing these behaviors will not be justified. On the other hand, from the perspective of the theory of virtuous criminalism, moral vice is not a sufficient and even necessary condition for criminalization. For this reason, assuming that the criminalization of a vice is justified on the basis of a reading of the principle of harm, it can not necessarily be claimed that the application of criminal law against this behavior is effective. In addition, the purpose of this study is to explain the limits and challenges of the theory of virtuous criminalism in the context of the theory of self-government and the principle of harm. In addition, in this article, readers are introduced to the concerns of liberals. And they will realize that criminalization in the context of virtue-based philosophy of law does not necessarily violate privacy, that is, we will not face maximum criminalization. In addition to the analysis of the nature of virtue ethics, the present thesis dissertation reviews argumentative methods of virtuous criminalization in the context of virtue-oriented criminal law jurisprudence and criticizes hurdles and methods of creating a liberal approach.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Aghababaie, H. & Zadfar, B. R. (2015). The criminalization of drug addiction in the light of
the principle of legal paternalism. Criminal Law and Criminology Studies, 1(1), 1-21. doi: 10.22059/jqclcs.2014.54918 [In Persian].
Bergelson, V. (2013). Vice is nice but incest is best: The problem of a moral taboo. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 7(1), 43-59. doi: 10/1007/s9-9158-012-11572
Borhani, M. (1395 SH). Akhlaq va huquq-i keyfari. Pazhuheshgah-i Farhang va Andishe-yi Islami Publication Institute. [In Persian].
Borhani, M., & Mohammadi Fard, B. (2017). Criminal perfectionism. Criminal Law and Criminology Studies, 3(2), 173-194. [In Persian].
Cohen, G. A. (1995). Self-ownership, freedom, and equality. Cambridge University Press.
Conway, D. & Munson, R. (1391 SH). Mabani-yi estedlal (Qanuni, T., Trans.). Quqnus.
[In Persian].
Cook, P. & Philip J. (1988). “An introduction to vice.” Law and Contemporary Problems, 51(1).
De Marneffe, P. (2010). Liberalism and prostitution. Oxford University Press.
Devlin, P. (2006). The enforcement of morals. Oxford University Press.
Duff, R. A. (1993). Choice, character, and criminal liability. Law and Philosophy, 12.
Duff, R. A. (1998). Crime and punishment. In Craig, E. (Ed.), Routledge encycloipedia of philosophy. Taylor & Francis.
Duff, R. A. (2002). Virtue, vice, and criminal lliability: Do we want an Aristotelian criminal law?. Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 6(1). doi: 10.1525/nclr.2002.6.1.147
Duff, R. A. (2006). The Virtues and vices of virtue jurisprudence. In Chappell, T. (Ed.), Values and virtues: Aristotelianism in contemporary ethics. Oxford University Press.
Duff, R. A. (2008). Virtue, vice, and criminal liability. In Farrelly, C. & Solum, L. B. (Eds.), Virtue jurisprudence. Palgrave Macmillan.
Dworkin, R. (1994). Life’s dominion. Vintage Books.
Farahbaksh, M. (1392 SH). Jurm ingari-yi faide gerayane: Justari dar falasafe-yi huquq-i keyfari. Mizan. [In Persian].
Feinberg, J. (1980). Legal paternalism. (1980). In Feinberg, J. (Ed.), Rights, justice, and the bounds of liberty. Princeton University Press.
Fletcher, G. (2000). Rethinking criminal law. Oxford University Press.
Gorr, M. (1995). Justice, self-ownership, and natural assets. Social Philosophy and Policy, 12(2).
Gray, J. (2003). Mill on liberty: A defence. Routledge.
Green, S. P. (2013). Vice crimes and preventive justice. Criminal Law and Philosophy 9,
561-576. doi: 10.1007/s11572-013-9260-7
Helfgott, J. B. (2008). Criminal behavior: Theories, typologies and criminal justice. Sage.
Ingram, A. (1994). A political theory of rights. Oxford University Press.
Jacobs, J. A. (1396 SH). Farhang-i estelahat-i falsafe-yi akhlaq (Taqavi, M. A., & Alavirad, Z., Trans.). Markaz Publication. [In Persian].
Jacqueline, B. H. (2008). Criminal behavior: Theories, typologies and criminal justice. Sage.
Javadi, M., & Houseini Souraki, M. (2017). John Stuart Mill and the unique liberty-
limiting principle. Political Science, 20(78), 109-130. doi: 10.22081/PSQ.2017.64376 [In Persian].
Jones, P. (1392 SH). Falsafe-yi huquq: Haqq-ha (Zargoush, M., & Hemmati, M., Trans.). Mizan. [In Persian].
Jost, L. (1396 SH). Virtues and vices. In Edwards, P. & Burchert, D. M. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Ethics (Rahmati, I., Trans.). Sofia. [In Persian].
Kaplan, J. (1988). Law abortion as a vice crime: A "what if" story. Law and Contemporary Problems, 51(1), 151-179.
Khazaei, Z. (1387 SH). Akhlaq-i fazilat va akhlaq-i dini. Research Quarterly in Islamic Ethics, 1. [In Persian].
Khazaei, Z. (1389 SH). Akhlaq-i fazilat. Hekmat. [In Persian].
Kleiman, M. (1992). Against excess: Drug policy for results. Basic Books.
Koller. P. (2007). Law, morality, and virtue. In Walker, R. L. & Ivanhoe, P. J. (Eds.), Working virtue: Virtue ethics and contemporary moral problems. Oxford University Press.
Leitzel, J. (2008). Regulating vice: Misguided prohibitions and realistic controls. Cambridge University Press.
Lloyd Thomas, D. (1988). In defence of liberalism. Blackwell.
Mahmoudi Janaki, F. (1382 SH). Mabani, usul va shive-hayi jurm ingari [PhD thesis, University of Tehran, Faculty of Rights and Political Sciences]. [In Persian].
Mahmoudi Janaki, F., & Roustaie, M. (2013). Justification of criminal intervention; Principles and necessities. Journal of Criminal Law Research, 1(3), 35-66.   
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.22054/jclr.2021.53531.2144 [In Persian].
Mill, J. S. (2009). On liberty. Floating Press.
Musavi, A., & Haqiqat, S. (1389 SH). Mabani-yi huquq-i bashar az didgah-i Islam va diger makateb. Pazhuheshgah-i Farhang va Andishe. [In Persian].
Nobahar, R. (1387 SH). Himayat-i huquq-i keyfari az howzeha-yi umumi va khususi. Jangal.
[In Persian].
Pateman, C. (2002). Self‐ownership and property in the person: Democratization and a tale of two concepts. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(1), 20-53.          
doi: doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00141
Posner, R. A. (1994). Sex and reason. Harvard University Press.
Rasekh, M. (1393 SH). Haqq va maslehat: Maqalati dar falsafe-yi huquq, falsafe-I haqq va falsafe-yi arzesh. Ney Publication. [In Persian].
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
Rohami, M. (1389 SH). Jaraʼim bidun-i bezehdide. Mizan. [In Persian].
Rostami, H. (1399 SH). Huquq-i keyfari va liberalism: Barrasi-yi keyfar dar sunnat-i falsafe-yi liberal. Negah-i Muasir. [In Persian].
Rothbard, M. (2020). Introduction, in Spooner, L. (Author), Vices are not crimes: A vindication of moral liberty. Mises Institute.
Spooner, L. (2020). Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication of Moral Liberty. Mises Institute.
Stanton, J. (2020). The limits of law, In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
Taylor, R. S. (2005). Self-ownership and the limits of libertarianism. Social Theory and Practice, 31(4).
Wallace, J., & Ellis Wild, S. (2010). Webster’s new world law dictionary. Wily Publishing, Inc.
Warburton, N. (2013). Philosophy: The basics. Routledge.
Send comment about this article
CAPTCHA Image

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics