Summary
One can define the no-harm principle - the principle that legislatures have the general authority to make their rules applicable when those rules aim to reduce the incidence of harms defined with reference only to secular standards - to rule out claims of institutional autonomy. Understood in another way, however, the no-harm principle leaves room for institutional autonomy or for exemptions of religious institutions from the application of rules aimed at reducing the incidence of harm. An argument for institutional autonomy presented here is basically empirical and agrees in making harm-reduction the overriding social goal. The argument proceeds in two steps: 1. It is suggested that autonomous institutions may be able to socialize their adherents more effectively than institutions that lack autonomy and that - if the institutions' values are compatible with the legislature's - their more effective socialization can produce a net reduction in the harms inflicted by the institutions' members. 2. Autonomy for all institutions can be defended if the gains from assuring autonomy for groups whose values are compatible with the legislature's values exceed the losses from doing so for groups with values the legislature rejects.
See the full content of this document
Extract
Defending a Rule of Institutional Autonomy On 'No-Harm' Grounds
My comments begin by focusing on Professor Hamilton's defense of the "no-harm" principle-that is, the principle that legislatures have the general authority to make their rules applicable when those rules aim to reduce the incidence of harms defined with reference only to secular standards.1 Professor Hamilton argues that the no-harm principle conflicts with legal rules that give religious institutions some sort of autonomy in their actions.2 And indeed it does in one sense: One can define the no-harm principle to rule out claims of institutional autonomy.
Understood in another way, however, the no-harm principle leaves room for institutional autonomy or for exemptions of religious institutions from the application of rules aimed at reducing the incidence of harm. The argument I sketch here for institutional autonomy is basically empirical and agrees with Professor Hamilton in making harm-reduction the overriding social goal. The argumen...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
