Project Builder 1 Writing Project 2

                                This assignment asks of us to investigate two distinct topics that fall under a major here at UCSB. I chose to work with topics that fell under Philosophy because in philosophy it’s more about analyzing situations and coming to a conclusion of what you personally believe is the best possible solution or outcome to the situation presented. The first topic I read about was the Harm Principle, and in the article I read it is specifically about constitutionalizing the Harm Principle and bringing it into effect in our society. The second topic I read about was the decriminalization of drugs according to philosopher Douglas Husak. These two topics eventually correlate with each other since they both evolve around criminal actions and their consequences.

                        The first article I read is titled “Constitutionalizing the Harm Principle” written by Dennis J. Baker and he is fighting against criminal punishment for criminal actions that cause no harm to others. Both topics are ethical issues that fight for just and fair consequences for any given action. The Harm Principle calls for jail and prison time only for criminals that directly hurt or bring suffering to their victims. Baker gives the example of a woman getting raped to clearly illustrate what he means by a crime that brings harm. A woman does not asked to get raped, and being raped may bring physical and emotional pain to a victim for many years; therefore, a rape crime is a crime that does require jail time. Baker defines many terms throughout the article so that the reader knows exactly the point he is trying to get across, because it is a pretty tricky argument he is trying to convey and any sort of misinterpretation of the argument may cause confusion. He also refers back to other philosophers that he has researched in order to formulate his argument. Specifically, he refers back to Andrew von Hisch’s theory of punishment to present just punishments for different criminal acts that are committed. Baker is very good at presenting scenarios that may be asked about his argument such as what if the act is an accident, but it still brings harm. His answer to that is that bad consequences don’t necessarily imply wrongness. Baker is out to get people with bad intentions upon others. Not all criminals are breaking the law to bring pain and distress to other people, but those who do should in fact be locked up in jail.

                        The second article I read was titled “Four Points about Drug Decriminalization” by Douglas Husak. Husak is another philosopher who evolves his work and research around ethics and in this specific article he argues for the just punishments that should be handed out for crimes having to do with drug use. He doesn’t touch the topic of drug production or sale, but instead focuses on possession and use alone. Like Baker, he proclaims that people who are jailed for simply having or using drugs are given unfair treatment. He also believes that crimes, such as drug use, that don’t cause any harm to others should not be punished or criminalized at all. Husak also does a good job of introducing possible scenarios that may be thrown at him to falsify his argument and he states his responses to those claims. Husak uses a very structured layout when he wrote his article. He broke it up into four sections, and with this he was able to focus one point per section. His argument is a complex one because it has so many scenarios that may be thrown at him such as an increase in drug use if it is decriminalized and he has to give an argument for all these scenarios that he has worked on already beforehand. He is sticking by his argument that a crime has to deliberately bring harm to others for it to be labeled as a crime that deserves criminal punishment such as jail time. He argues that jail time is not the right way to punish any sort of drug use because it will not fix the problem at hand. In the entire article he never says that he promotes and accepts drug use as ok, but his stance is that if a person wants to consume drugs and is not hurting anyone along the way then he can do what he pleases. He brings up evidence that serves as proof that indicate that if drugs are indeed decriminalized it doesn’t mean that the number of drug usage will increase. The way he structures the article and each section serves a specific point that all add up together and flow in a formulated manner. They serve as a buildup towards his concluding point in which all the previous sections mash up and his conclusion and main argument are established.