Discussion 6
19
19 unread replies.
19
19 replies.
In a nation that is based on the sanctity of individual liberty and personal freedom, should the government have the right to outlaw (For consenting adults in private places):
Gambling?
Cursing?
Drug use?
Prostitution?
Motorcycle-riding without a helmet?
Selling or drinking alcohol on Sunday?
If a local community wants to keep this activity out of its county or city-limits, holds a vote, and democratically passes a referendum to outlaw any of these, should the will of the local majority be respected?
How would John Stuart Mill and the social contract theorists that we have studied answer these questions. Would Mill’s answers be different than the social contract theorists? Finally, who do you agree more with and why?
1st peer to respond to
Adam: I’m going to dispense with the notion that swearing or drinking/buying alcohol on Sunday should be outlawed for any reason, prohibition against either of those two activities is utterly ridiculous, in my opinion. As for the rest, I do not believe that the government should have the authority to outlaw gambling, drug use, prostitution, etc. What consenting adults choose to do with their own bodies should be outside the domain of governmental control if no one is being harmed in the process. However, it’s hard for me to describe where that line is, as “harm” comes in all shapes and sizes.
If the owner of a motorcycle chooses to drive it without wearing a helmet, risking almost certain death if they crash, and their children and spouse stand to suffer immensely because of it, does that fulfill the requirement that someone is being harmed or will be? What if they have no children or loved ones who would be harmed, does that then make it ok for them to risk their life? What of the burden on taxpayers whose tax dollars would potentially go towards paying for first responders to take care of the injured or dead motorcyclist, are they harmed by his decision to not wear a helmet? The same questions can be brought against any of the listed activities, and you can come up with a large list of what-ifs that would illustrate all manner of potential harm that could arise by those activities being allowed and unregulated.
It’s for this reason that I feel like I must add a caveat to my original opinion. If a consenting adult chooses to engage in gambling, drug use, prostitution, or riding a motorcycle without a helmet, then it’s my opinion that it should be allowed, but within a framework of regulation that attempts to prevent or reduce the potential for harm to arise. This would be no different than mandating the use of seatbelts while driving in a car, or regulations concerning food safety, or laws passed around public drunkenness and DUIs. All of which are laws and regulations that have been voted on and instituted by the majority over the minority of people who object to them.
After rereading my opinion on governmental interference in self-regarding actions, as Mill would describe them, I believe that my opinion keeps with his general leaning towards indirect utilitarianism as the basis for how “Liberty” should be exercised. If Mill were faced with the same questions, I believe that, absent the morality of his day, he would argue that if no actual harm was done to the interests of others, then individuals should be left to engage in those actions if they wished to. Also, I don’t think he would oppose a framework of regulation that worked to reduce the possibility of harm being done to others if that individual made the wrong choices, as such a framework would help to ensure the “most happiness” from an indirect utilitarian view.
2nd peer to respond to
David: Looking at this prompt through a libertarian lens, I would make the same delineation that Mill makes between self-regarding actions and other-regarding actions. However, some of these actions are more simple to categorize than others. For example: gambling is something that would have virtually zero collateral damage, but a very high potential risk rate for the individual. One could lose a lot a money gambeling and not have enough money to provide for themselves, but hopefully they have the discernment to know went to prevent their gambeling from becoming an addiction. Drugs are a bit more complicated. Drugs would need to be heavily safeguarded in order to be legalized fully in my opinion. For example, in the US currently, it is very easy for young underage adults to get access to vapes. This is due to a variety of reasons but any high school teacher would know, they’re sort of ubiquitous and it’s a problem. So, the only feasible way I could see the legalization of drugs being okay in this theoretical society, is if they were made virtually impossible to get into the hands of underaged adults in order to keep the harm reduction of others down. Drinking on Sunday is another example. Drinking is one’s choice as a responsible and free adult, fair enough. However, if the legalization of drinking on sundays led to an increase in auto fatalities due to intoxicated drivers, the local community has to make a tough moral decision on whether or not to prioritize the freedom of individuals, or the safety of others. John Staurt Mill would probably advocate for the legalization of most of the items on the list, with restrictions only being on those that could potentially harm others. In the real world, these issues are much more complicated and vast, and it’s difficult for me to describe where I stand on issues of this nature. I might be perhaps a bit more authoritarian than Mill, but I don’t have any major criticisms with his ideology in relation to the prompt.
