Should people have the right to make bad decisions?

joefromchicago

Quote:

Contrary to Locke and Hobbes, I think that people also sought the benefits of government in order to protect themselves against themselves. And if that's the case, then laws prohibiting people from making bad decisions are perfectly consistent with the nature and aims of government.

[/QUOTE]

But in this case, the main problem is: who decides what is a bad decision? And using what kind of criteria?
Because even if people wants to be protected from themselves, that protection can become opression very quickly. Governments easy consider they have the wisdom to define what a good or a bad decision are. And almost always "bad decisions" are considered those contrary to the values and interests of government.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Only up to that point at which the making of such bad decisions impinges upon others in society.

I know what you're pointing at, but I still don't agree. I think you beg the question a bit here, stating, in not so many words, that given perfection is the ideal, anything less is unacceptable.

I agree in theory, of course, but that's just not how things work. People have the right to make mistakes whether those mistakes involve other people or not.

Quote:

By the by, Nietzsche, i just wanted to say that Thus Spake Zarathustra was florid and badly written. Come on, you can do better than that!

I'm not a big Zarathustra fan. Wink

0 Replies

Nietzsche wrote:

I know what you're pointing at, but I still don't agree. I think you beg the question a bit here, stating, in not so many words, that given perfection is the ideal, anything less is unacceptable.

No, i was saying nothing of the kind. I abhor the thought of perfection, as it implies a "best" condition, and therefore glorifies the thought of conformity. I much prefer the chaos of a profusion of choices.

Quote:

I agree in theory, of course, but that's just not how things work. People have the right to make mistakes whether those mistakes involve other people or not.

Please note that i used the verb impinge. We all constantly make mistakes, and said mistakes can involve others, occurring on a daily basis. But if the mistake is a fender bender, you'll have to pay for the damage. If the mistake involves assault or manslaughter or murder, you'll likely have to do hard time. Society has the right to protect itself, in many cases, by ignoring the fact that an individual's actions were a mistake, and applying consequences without very much regard for the cause of one's actions.

0 Replies

Thank you. I did overlook your use of "impinge." In turn, we seem to be much on the same page.

0 Replies

val wrote:

But in this case, the main problem is: who decides what is a bad decision? And using what kind of criteria?
Because even if people wants to be protected from themselves, that protection can become opression very quickly. Governments easy consider they have the wisdom to define what a good or a bad decision are. And almost always "bad decisions" are considered those contrary to the values and interests of government.

Governments may be good at making these choices or bad at making these choices, but people have ceded certain rights to the government, one of which is the right to make those choices.

0 Replies

Joe: Which "choices" are you referring to here? The choices considered "bad" or something else?

Setana/Nietzsche: You've brought up another point that I touched on in my debate with my friend: bad choices often lead to lessons that need to be learned. If there are no bad choices, are there, then, no lessons learned? Perhaps we could qualify to allow for non-irrevocable(if that's a word) mistakes/bad choices. In other words, choices that are bad, but that will not really harm the person if allowed.
Permanently bad decisions, however, would still be punished.

0 Replies

"We" cannot either allow or disallow other peoples' choices. The entire issue of the social contract resulting in a government which legislates consequences is about the aftermath of choices, not their prevention. A law seeks to prohibit, not through prevention, but the deterent of negative consequences for a proscribed action. So, falling afoul of the law is one of the "classrooms" in which the improvident learn some of life's hard lessons.

0 Replies

Taliesin181 wrote:

Joe: Which "choices" are you referring to here? The choices considered "bad" or something else?

The choice regarding whether a particular decision is "good" or "bad." As I mentioned before, we typically refer to these governmental choices as "laws." Isn't that the kind of choice you were talking about when you asked "who decides what is a bad decision?"

0 Replies

Joe: Yes, it was; I was just a bit confused by the pronouns...so many...pronouns... Laughing

Back to the topic, if we trust the government to make some choices about good vs. bad, then why not all? Is it just a case of not trusting "The Man"? If we trust them to make some choices, we should be willing to trust them for making all.

My question is: Why aren't we? (Myself included)

I would say that I just don't trust the current government, and I think that if I could really choose who I named 'leader', then I could, and wouldn't have a problem letting them have more power. What about the rest of you?

0 Replies

You're applying a rather naive and simplistic definition of government here. The local bureau of weights and measures which regulates butcher's scales and gasoline pumps is making such decisions. The state bureau of workers' compensation is making such decisions. The interstate commerce commission is making such decisions.

The social contract requires government to make such decisions in cases in which the behavior of individuals impinges on society. You can go out in the backyard and suck on the barrel of a shotgun, pull the trigger, and the state doesn't give a rat's ass. Go out back and start firing that shotgun off indiscriminately, however, and the law dogs will show up because your behavior has a potentially deletrious affect on others.

0 Replies

Ooh, you used the "n" word, Setanta. When someone calls me naive, it usually turns out that I'm wrong. Dammit. What, specifically, is naive about my view? Dammit.

0 Replies

Taliesin181 wrote:

. . . topic, if we trust the government to make some choices about good vs. bad, then why not all?

I think you have been naive in not appreciating the extent to which government, by legislation, by jurisprudence, by reguatory action, make tens of thousands of decisions for us. I cited examples of this in my previous post.

Quote:

Is it just a case of not trusting "The Man"? If we trust them to make some choices, we should be willing to trust them for making all.

Governments were and are never trusted to make "all" the rulings on what are and what are not bad decisions. Their mandate runs only to decisions which impinge on others, they don't cover all of the bases there, and yet there are thousands upon thousands of laws, court rulings and regulatory policies and rulings.

Quote:

My question is: Why aren't we? (Myself included)

Actually, that is disingenuous. All of us rather casually leave most difficult social questions to government, and go upon our merry way.

Quote:

I would say that I just don't trust the current government, and I think that if I could really choose who I named 'leader', then I could, and wouldn't have a problem letting them have more power. What about the rest of you?

This is a disturbing paragraph. In the first place, you are subject to probably five or six specific "governments" on any given day--the Federal government, the government of the state in which you reside, the government of the county in which you reside, the government of the city in which you reside, and one or more regulatory agencies concerned with the area of society in which you happen to be employed. Additionally, you would be subject to the agencies which control workers' compensation, workplace safety, environmental safety, etc. You are also subject to regulations which govern banking, retirement funds, investments, etc. There is not, and there never will be, any "leader" in this country who covers all of the bases. They're not trying to, those who seek high office. They want you to believe that they can make things better, that they can create government in an image which will please and protect all of the people, but it ain't gonna happen. Looking to one man or one woman for such "leadership" is naive, and an abdication of one's own responsibility to make responsible choices when voting. Screw any of those clowns running for office. They should have just sufficient power to accomplish the ends which they claimed to seek, and which lead you to vote for them, and not an iota more. Azimov, i think it was, posited that anyone desiring to be President ought automatically to be disqualified for the office. Creates all sorts of bizzare problems for the issue of providing for governance, but it raises a good point. Those who seek high office, for whatever lip service they pay to principle, seek that office for personal, and very likely, for venal reasons.

0 Replies

Setanta: I realize the extent to which I am legislated, but I am also aware of what isn't legislated, and my question had to do with the philosophical reasons why we should or should not be allowed at all to make crappy decisions.

Quote:

Azimov, i think it was, posited that anyone desiring to be President ought automatically to be disqualified for the office.

I like that; I think I'll steal it for something. Putting aside the issue of government for a second(which was never my intent, much to my confusion), I am wondering whether, in a social context, other people should allow us to make bad decisions. It can be governmental, but can also be your next-door neighbor hitting you over the head to prevent you from killing yourself.

Where do you stand?

BTW, we can continue down the path of government, it just wasn't my original goal, and I'm wondering how I got started anyway. Ah well.

0 Replies

I'm rather against neighbor's interferring, if your actions don't have any appreciable affect on them. There are enough busybodies in the world as it is, who want to stick their noses in your personal business, who want to peek over the fence, peep through the windows--so see if maybe you're having homosexual relations, or worshipping Satan, eating meat or smoking dope . . . naw, we definitely don't need the neighbors involved.

0 Replies

I've had people come up to me in public, when i am outside in any kind of weather, to smoke a cigarette, and begin to castigate me for smoking. I tell them loudly to piss off before they have a chance to get their rant warmed up. Too many quidnuncs and prudes loose in the world as it is.

0 Replies

Heh. Nice.
It's interesting: I started out wanting to control everything, but now that I've argued it out, I find myself coming down on the side of Darwin and self-education. There are some things in this world you have to learn yourself, and if you can't, then I guess it is a part of natural selection for you not to be as well off due to your mistakes.

Thanks for the debating, people; I always love what I find out about myself.

0 Replies

Taliesin181 wrote:

Joe: Yes, it was; I was just a bit confused by the pronouns...so many...pronouns...

Back to the topic, if we trust the government to make some choices about good vs. bad, then why not all? Is it just a case of not trusting "The Man"? If we trust them to make some choices, we should be willing to trust them for making all.

My question is: Why aren't we? (Myself included)

We trust the government to make the decisions that are entrusted to the government. If a society has, through the democratic process, taken the position that the government should be entrusted to make those kinds of decisions, then it can make those kinds of decisions. Conversely, we don't trust the government to make all decisions because we haven't entrusted the government with the right to make all decisions. I may have permitted (or, perhaps more accurately, acquiesced in permitting) the government to determine if I should or should not wear a seat belt when I drive. That doesn't mean that I have also permitted (or should permit) the government to decide what I'll eat for lunch today.

Now, I'm not saying that the choice to entrust the government with the right to make decisions regarding what is in a person's own best interest is morally justified. That's another question entirely. I'm merely pointing out that, in answer to the question "who gets to decide," we need to determine if the society has already established a decision-maker.

0 Replies

Joe said:

Quote:

Now, I'm not saying that the choice to entrust the government with the right to make decisions regarding what is in a person's own best interest is morally justified. That's another question entirely. I'm merely pointing out that, in answer to the question "who gets to decide," we need to determine if the society has already established a decision-maker.

Nice post, joe. I would say that we have, in fact, chosen an arbiter for society's morality. As to the morality of choosing that arbiter, I think it's a good idea for the choices that obviously affect other people, but after that, you're crippling your citizens.
The main point that caused me to reverse my opinion was that I imagined what my life would have been like if I had never been allowed to make a bad decision. Sure, I would be in the exact perfect spot for myself, but without the wisdom those mistakes would have given me, I would always be fundamentally unhappy, and that would invalidate my supposedly perfect existence.

0 Replies

joefromchicago

Quote:

We trust the government to make the decisions that are entrusted to the government. If a society has, through the democratic process, taken the position that the government should be entrusted to make those kinds of decisions, then it can make those kinds of decisions.

I have serious doubts about that choice. What is society? Not the functional body of Plato's Republic. Individuals in opposite interests, groups with opposite interests, in a dynamic of compensations or ruptures.
Government, as part of the state, is not the arbiter between those conflicts. It is, in part, a player. Reflecting the interests of dominant groups (and sometimes reflecting also, in a lower proportion, the interests of not dominant groups) and trying to keep the balance of social power.
In fact I think that laws are part of the social conflict.

But state is also an autonomous structure, that fights for it's own specific interests. There is a specific power in the state structure directed to the defense of itself.

People make choices about Mr. Clinton or Mr. Bush. But they don't make choices regarding the state. It is true that they made a choice regarding a specific way regarding the exercise of power: democracy, tyranny ... but that choice was it the choice of society, or the choice of dominant groups - not only economical - in order to protect their own interests?

0 Replies

Certainly people band together for their self-interest. Hobbes has a homily on the subject, and although his view of the rise of governance may be incomplete, that does not lessen the value of what he has to teach. Having banded together for their self-interest, it is: ". . . to secure these rights[i.e., life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .

Obviously, the fact of birth means that any such society quickly becomes peopled with those who did not give their express consent to the governance. So long as sufficient number believe that the government as it constituted in their lifetimes, does an adequate job of securing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness--there will be little likelihood of revolution. When it appears to a sufficient number of people that the government is not keeping up its side of the bargain, largely in simply providing security, the revolution is possible, usually probable.

Why would one consider it a bad thing that men and women associate for the furtherance of their self-interest? One of the basic purposes of government is to assure that such associations are unmolested, while protecting those not so associated from venality or criminality by those of the association.

0 Replies

Should people have the right to make bad decisions?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know