Reply
Sun 23 Nov, 2003 04:17 pm
Can we ever make an all encompassing statement with which to define any idealistic principle?
For example, how about the statement:
The government should never forbid an act by a consenting, rational person executed on his/her own accord that can't demonstrably be shown to be harmful or likely harmful to another being. By being, I am including larger mammals so things like beastiality don't meet the criteria.
I personally believe that the above statement is perfectly valid. And in saying so, I do not believe the government should execute sodomy laws, ban gay marriages, ban light marijuana use by rational adults, or ban self euthanasia.
Suicide doesn't usually meet the criteria because it can be argued that a person in an extremely depressed state is not in a rational state of mind.
I agree with Phoenix. Who cares how much pot a person decides to smoke. It should be their choice if done in their own home and are harming no one.
I'd have to quibble with the word "likely." Any single instance of drunk driving is unlikely to kill anyone, but it is always a possibility. How much risk of harm does there have to be before the government is justified in banning something?
By likely I don't mean that it should cause harm in the majority of instances. I simply mean that there is a reasonable risk that it could harm someone. It can be demonstrated that a significant portion of automobile deaths are related to alcohol abuse. Thus it should stay illegal.
What is reasonable risk? Is it 2% of the time, 1% of the time? Simply, NO ONE can answer that question in terms of any specific percentage.
And it's certainly dependent on not only the likelihood of the risk but also the potential severity of the harm. It should be perfectly acceptable to attack someone's argument even if there is a 90% chance their feelings will be hurt? But it shouldn't be acceptable to drive drunk if there is a decent chance, even if it's only 1% that someone will be killed or severely injured in the process.
But I digress that's not the issue at debate here. And besides, figuring out what reasonable risk of harm is is what common sense is for.
Drunk driving needs to stay illegal for sure!!!!
Driving while impaired in any way (drunk, high on drugs, overmedicated) always presents a potential risk to another person. Thus, laws against operating a motor vehicle while so impaired are, in my opinion, quite in order, intended to protect the population at large. Laws against the use of marijuana (or any other drug, including alcohol), on the other hand, do not protect anyone except, supposedly, the person who is using these substances. The government has no right to interfere in my personal and private life. For this reason I am also uniquivocably opposed to seat-belt laws in most states. It's certainly a good idea to fasten your seat belt when driving, but I don't see how it can be made mandatory and still conform to the ideal ogf personal freedom. If I get killed in a crash because I wasn't wearing a seat-belt, that harmed no one but me.
Homosexual marriage is a slightly diferent matter, I think. If we are speaking only of morality, then I agree that there is no compelling reason why two persons of the same sex should not enjoy the same kind of companionship that two persons of opposite sexes may enjoy. But here we get into the tricky field of contract law, which is what marriage is all about in the final analysis. Frankly, I haven't thought this out to a logical end, but I have some misgivings.
But that's exactly what this topic is dealing with, law. If the standard I set above was applied to all laws, many more laws can be far more clearly defined and apparent.
If you tore your statement apart you'd find that it already is the general principle of law (at least in most western countries anyway..)
Quote:The government should never forbid an act by a consenting, rational person executed on his/her own accord that can't demonstrably be shown to be harmful or likely harmful to another being.
The problem with statements such as these is how words like "consenting", "rational", "of their own accord", "demonstrably" and "harmful" are defined.
If I can find a few cases where sodomy resulted in physical harm to people it's suddenly back in play for an item of government regulation? Does it even require "physcial harm"? What about moral harm to society as a whole? What about "emotional harm"? When can someone be considered to have "consented"? Who decides if the players are "rational" and what criteria do they use?
If you can't define the terms very specificly then what good is all encompassing principle statement? The overall principles are seldom where the problems come in. It's the definitions and limits within them that people argue over.
Merry Andrew wrote:Driving while impaired in any way (drunk, high on drugs, overmedicated) always presents a potential risk to another person. Thus, laws against operating a motor vehicle while so impaired are, in my opinion, quite in order, intended to protect the population at large. Laws against the use of marijuana (or any other drug, including alcohol), on the other hand, do not protect anyone except, supposedly, the person who is using these substances. The government has no right to interfere in my personal and private life. For this reason I am also uniquivocably opposed to seat-belt laws in most states. It's certainly a good idea to fasten your seat belt when driving, but I don't see how it can be made mandatory and still conform to the ideal ogf personal freedom. If I get killed in a crash because I wasn't wearing a seat-belt, that harmed no one but me.
Homosexual marriage is a slightly diferent matter, I think. If we are speaking only of morality, then I agree that there is no compelling reason why two persons of the same sex should not enjoy the same kind of companionship that two persons of opposite sexes may enjoy. But here we get into the tricky field of contract law, which is what marriage is all about in the final analysis. Frankly, I haven't thought this out to a logical end, but I have some misgivings.
Merry
I agree. I should have said "driving while impaired should not be legal"!
I also agree with everything else you said.
Re: Defining Morality, Justice, Law and other ideals.
Centroles wrote:Can we ever make an all encompassing statement with which to define any idealistic principle?
Sure. Why not?
Centroles wrote:The government should never forbid an act by a consenting, rational person executed on his/her own accord that can't demonstrably be shown to be harmful or likely harmful to another being. By being, I am including larger mammals so things like beastiality don't meet the criteria.
So, for instance, tax fraud is OK, because it doesn't harm another
being? What about forging a driver's license? Or violating immigration laws? Who are the beings harmed there?
How about stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family? If the benefit to the starving family outweighs the detriment to the owner of the bread, can the government forbid that act of theft?
Back to the pot smoking concept here, for a minute. What happens after someone smokes pot their whole life and develops emphasema(sp?). The society (the US society anyways) will have to support that person through either higher taxes or higher health insurance premiums, no? Does there have to be speculation that follows an action through to all possible results in order to establish what will and won't be a problem in 20 years. And, is there any reasonable way to take that into account? Or SHOULD we even take that into account?
Well, if they stop throwing people in jail for smoking pot, then the tax payers will save a bundle, not to mention the money that could be made in taxes if it were made legal ;-)
The world would be a much better place if the government didn't pay hospital bills and the prisoners had to pay for their stay in prison.
One can dream I suppose.
The world would be a much better place if the government did more of some things and less of others. Stop throwing people in jail for stupid stuff and put the money towards helping people who are in need. If your grandparents or parents are living on tiny SSI payment where they can barely make ends meet, how can they pay for their own medical expenses?
Merry Andrew, if you are seriously injured because you did not wear your seat belt, someone has to pay your hospital bills and perhaps support you for the rest of your life if you can no longer work. Your family suffers financially as well as emotionally if you are killed and can no longer support them.
Society may be harmed by drug users who neglect their children, steal to obtain drug money, and spread diseases.
Unless you are a hermit, virtually everything you do affects other people directly or indirectly. No laws would be necessary if everyone considered every possible consequence of their actions and chose never to harm another being. But in the real world people are not always rational so we need laws. IMO, we need considerably fewer, though.
Terry, I've heard that argument before. Your point is valid, of course. Everything,
everything I do will affect some other being in some way. The fact that I smoke cigarettes is potentially dangerous to my health in the same way that driving without a fastened seat-belt is dangerous. Shall we make laws to totally ban tobacco? (It's been suggested.) My prefernce for high-calorie, high-carbohydrate fried foods is another potential health hazard. Shopuld a person's dietary habits be therefore legislated? Should attempted suicide be classed as a felony? Or, at least, a serious misdemeanor?
I do heartily agree with your final statement, however. We DO need considerably fewer laws.
Better yet, Montana, how about the government doesn't throw people in jail for stupid things and stops stealing our income through taxes in the first place? Then people wouldn't need as much help...
Better yet, Montana, how about the government doesn't throw people in jail for stupid things and stops stealing our income through taxes in the first place? Then people wouldn't need as much help...
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace