My question is this:
Should the government be allowed to make laws outlawing things that morally corrupt a society or do moral damage to its peoples if it means infringing on their freedom?
It seems like from a law standpoint, this is overstepping boundaries. What, then, could keep people away from things that are morally corrupting (it does seem important to try to preserve morality.)? The problem with that is often things that corrupt our morality are addictive or pleasureful, so it seems as if an association or organization would be too weak and not hold enough authority to effectively keep us from them; people would ignore them. So, law? If not, then what?
From a purely theoretical standpoint, I don't see any logical inconsistencies. Of course, you'd have to define a moral system first, and the value of freedom in it. But don't we already outlaw many things we deem immoral even though they infringe upon our freedoms?
ReplyDeleteAs to what can keep us away from designated immoral things, that is a huge topic and more about feasibility than theory.
I suppose I am asking for clarification as to what specifically you mean with regards to immorality or freedom :)
Well sure, but that's exactly what I'm questioning. Is it RIGHT, and should we KEEP laws that outlaw things that are immoral but infringe on our freedom?
DeleteIt's not about logical inconsistencies, it's more focused on which should be weighed as a higher priority? Morality, or freedom?
Well, from my experience from beliefs, it's not so black and white and is case specific, which is what often happens in the real world. That's the reason I asked for clarification, because in my opinion, it would depend a lot on what the immoral act is. For example, most of us deem murder to be immoral, so our laws restrict that freedom, etc,
ReplyDeleteActually, may I ask what kind of moral theory/theories you believe in? It would help bring context to the discussion.
ReplyDeleteSure. To note: I established a lot of my philosophies before ever studying philosophy, so my beliefs are slightly different. That being said, in my studies I've found that my beliefs largely align with consequentialism/utiliarianism. Largely, we should all do what is is best for the most people in a wide perspective of time (so, even if something is largely bad for the people in the world right now and will harm the people in the world for the next 5 years, but will ultimately make a better quality of life for humankind, then that is the right thing to do).
DeleteIn reply to your last comment, I will put down another one of my beliefs: that the purpose of government is largely just to ensure people's actions don't interfere with or harm the life of others. So, I would say that murder is illegal because it (obviously) interferes with the life others.
Morally, however, it has ground for being illegal as well. I think there are easily something that are unquestionably immoral- rape, murder are two examples.
This question was aimed at more controversial things, such as drug use, alcohol, and other things that are morally destructive (or at least have a high potential and are more likely than not to be morally destructive), and whether the government can outlaw those actions in order to preserve morality.
I'll also address how this seems to be contradictory to what I said about my belief in government. First, I do currently believe that some of these things should be legal because we should have the right to live how we want, even if I don't support their use personally. I am however challenging that idea in light of the seeming lack of responsibility we have with such things. The argument goes something like this: These things are morally destructive. Moral destruction leads to low or bad morality. Bad morality leads to a lack of care for human life and other things important to a healthy society. Sub conclusion: these things lead to a lack of care for human life and other things important to a healthy society. The purpose of government is to make sure people to not interfere with or harm other people's lives. Lack of care for human life and other things important to a healthy society interfere with or harm lives. Sub-conclusion: these morally destructive things interfere with or harm other people's lives. Therefore, these morally destructive things should be outlawed by the government.
However, I am still thinking all of this through, which is why I'm seeking thoughts on it.
Okay, now we have some grounds to work on, excellent :)
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I think one ultimately has to choose either utilitarianism or rights-based ethics (deontology). It's true that many rights can be derived from utility (net harm vs happiness), but those rights are grounded in net utility. What I mean is, you can't have both net utility and other categorical rights at the same time, because when they conflict, you'll have to decide which one is the *ultimate* motivator. But my understanding is that your beliefs are largely utilitarian-driven, so that's all good.
My concern with alcohol and drugs is that systematic, governmental "wars" against them have largely done more harm than good. And utilitarianism is very "pragmatic" in that it must factor in feasibility.
I keep thinking about Prohibition and the War on Drugs, both of which were limited in success and were largely counter-productive, so I'm not sure if an outright ban by the government would do the trick. There are alternatives, however, such as using the government to provide care, reform, and rehabilitation instead of dishing out punishment, which has helped significantly in several European countries.
So from where I'm standing, one's job as a utilitarian would be to:
a) Weigh carefully the consequences of allowing such freedoms (drugs and alcohol) vs. the consequences of outlawing them (practicalities included).
b) Weight the consequences of alternative forms of action.
More precisely, central to your investigation seems to be this assertion:
1) We have a general lack of responsibility in the use of drugs and alcohol.
2) This lack of responsibility is pervasive enough to lead to a net negative utility, i.e. leading to a disregard for human life, public life, and the needs and rights of others.
3) The negative utility in (2) cannot be mitigated by any utility in the allowing of freedoms in their use by the government.
4) The optimal way to negate the negative utility in (2) is for the government to outlaw the use of alcohol and drugs.
In my view, you will also have to justify each of these premises. Not an easy task...
the Harm Principle is rather weak, that is to say that the Harm Principle details a necessary but not sufficient condition. The Harm Principle states that the only case in which someone’s liberty may be restricted is to prevent harm to others, not to prevent that person from harming others. It is very implausible to view the Harm Principle as a necessary and sufficient condition. The reason is that among ourselves we harm each other in many ways. For some harms (e.g. rape, murder, theft, etc.) , we justify the restriction of liberty. For other harms (e.g. name calling, telling someone a hurtful truth, rudeness, gossip, etc. ), we do not justify the restriction of liberty. Not all harms “deserve” or are such to restrict someone’s liberty.
ReplyDeleteThe Harm Principle describes harm to others, but not really harm to oneself. Although, it actually might. The Harm Principle was designed to rule out paternalism or legal moralism, which justify restricting an individual’s liberty for that individual’s own good. Thus if someone harms themselves but does not harm others, would this satisfy or would not satisfy the Harm Principle? It seems it would not justify the harm principle. Although, one could argue that if someone harms themselves, then they would also harm those who are dependent on that person in any way (financially, mentally, psychologically, or emotionally). I guess the main question in drug legalization, similar to the suicide case, is how much should the government intervene to prevent people from harming themselves or emotionally harming others? Do drugs directly or indirectly harm others? I guess it depends on the type of drug. Say a person dies due to a drug overdose. This person will in fact have harmed others, namely those who depended in this person in some way.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if this person died from a natural cause or a car accident or some other bad decision that led to the death, he/she would still harm others indirectly. Drugs are illegal, but it would seem ridiculous to illegalize death or car accidents. It seems plausible, though, to say that each individual has a right to do as they wish with their own life and body, even if it harms their self and ultimately results in their death, as long as they do not harm anyone else. Although, this raises issues of whether one can have a right to death also. A right to end one’s life if one desires to do so. The issue here would be if the person is rational and completely understands what ending one’s life signifies.
ReplyDeleteDoes criminalizing drugs satisfy the Harm Principle? In other words,can drugs be criminalized, can there be government intervention because drugs harm others and by intervening the government would be preventing harm to others. Presumably, the drugs would only harm the person who consumes them. However, we can imagine scenarios in which drugs can incapacitate or provoke someone to act out in ways that may harm others (e.g. impaired cognition that leads to car accidents thus harming others, violent behavior, etc. ). However, not all drugs are recorded to cause violent behavior or impaired cognition so it seems that generalizing against all drugs is not a justified intervention. A more justified intervention seems to be one that intervenes or criminalizes those drugs that cause violent behavior or impaired cognition that may pose harm to others. However, there are also prescription drugs that may cause impaired cognition and those are not criminalized. Then, again, they do have some kind of intervention due to the fact that they are not over the counter but have to be prescribed by a physician.
ReplyDeleteI guess the main question in drug legalization, similar to the suicide case, is how much should the government intervene to prevent people from harming themselves or emotionally harming others? It seems that only those drugs that cause cognitive impairment (e.g. distorted vision, difficulty completing basic tasks, difficulty with motor functions etc.) or that cause violent behavior should be made illegal.Drugs that do not cause either of the two, seem to cause no harm to anyone else other than the person consuming them. Then, it seems the government should not intervene.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the main problem I see with the argument for legalization of drugs, is the fact a person consuming drugs may not actually be fully informed or rational about their decisions. This actually may not be a problem, though, because this reasoning can easily be used to justifying intervention by simply stating that people are not well informed or do not know what is best. The real problem for this argument lies in the premise that drugs do not harm others. There are drugs recorded to cause violent behavior in which case they do pose harm to others and in these cases there should be interference. This is a very complicated case, because we see that alcohol (distorts cognition,motor functions, produces violent behavior) classifies as causing harm to others but it is legal. There are certain restrictions such as age limits and laws that prohibit drunk driving. According to the author’s argument in the paper, drugs should be legalized. However, alcohol is a drug that is legal but considering the Harm Principle, one would think it should be illegal.
ReplyDelete