| |
|
Leanne has prepared the following notes:
“[T]he sole end for which mankind is warranted,
individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any
of their number is …. to prevent harm to others.”
J.S. Mill On Liberty
We were asked to contemplate the above statement and consider it throughout our discussion on paternalism, but first let’s establish what our topic is about.
Paternalism is ‘the attitude or policy of a government or other authority that manages the affairs of a country, company etc.’ (Collins Dict. Definition) So, in theory, paternalism could affect every aspect of our life. But the real question to be asked is; is it right to interfere in such a way? In our discussion, we touched on several areas restricted by paternalism and we assessed these in order to decide whether paternalism, in general, is acceptable.
Drug Use/ Addiction
• Does society have a right to interfere? If so, in what circumstances?
• Does age need to be considered?
• Should we only be allowed to intervene verbally, through guidance and advice?
• Is advice adequate? Many people are in denial and so advice would be useless.
• Intervention takes away a person freedom
• Like Mill says, if it is harming no-one should we interfere?
• Is there ever a circumstance where no-one else is harmed? Pregnant drug users harm the baby, recklessness i.e. abandoned syringes cause harm, desperation causes theft and deception, the desperation of worried family members?
• If such a circumstance could exist, would it then be acceptable to leave the person to their own devices? Regardless of what harm it caused them?
Possession of Guns
• Should anyone be allowed to own a gun?
• Are guns used for sport acceptable? If the gun is being used for clay pigeon shooting, it is causing no harm to anyone.
• However, if you believe guns should be banned, can you allow guns for sport? They would still be easily accessible.
• Does anyone really need a gun? The police could use the non-lethal ‘guns’ which have been developed.
• What is it that makes a gun wrong? Is it its lethal potential? Maybe the fact that it was designed to kill?
• As legislation, would it be acceptable to ban all things that had a primary design/use to cause harm?
• Is it a case of balancing the good and bad aspects? The joy of your sport vs. the pain of gun crime?
We tried to think of some examples of illegal activities which caused no obvious
harm to anyone. The only idea that we came up with was under-age clubbing. However,
we soon decided that this to caused harm to the person themselves. If they are
under 18, they are still classed as minors in many aspects of life, such as
voting, drinking, watching adult films, so this law is used to protect these
‘youngsters’. Although the age limit varies throughout the world,
we could see no major reasons for raising or lowering the age.
Next we tried, as a group to establish what is involved in being mature.
What is ‘mature’?
• Is it after leaving education, when you begin making decisions and taking on responsibilities?
• This cannot be an indicator, if we consider university students who still live at home. Is it fair to say they are less mature than there peers that leave school at 16?
• Could we assess someone’s maturity as a time when they can be left independently and you do not have to fear them harming themselves?
• If someone is liable to act in a way that may cause harm, they are not really acting maturely. (Excluding suicide and self-harm due to medical/psychological problems which may cause the person not to be of sound mind when they make a decision.)
• Could there be such a thing as ‘moral maturity’, involving being aware of the world, morality and ethics?
• What makes us feel the need to make an immature persons decisions for them? Do we fear they are incapable of making the decision we feel is correct?
• Mental disabilities which cause the sufferer to have the mental capacity of a child show that it cannot simply be based on an age.
• Also, if we imagine a coma victim that was only ‘awake’ for 1 day, then in a coma for 25 yrs, they would wake up aged 25 yrs old with no life experiences.
• This possible definition of maturity was put forward in the discussion and I found it particularly strong: Maturity should be based upon x years of experience. After these experiences, the person will be capable of preservation, positive personal growth and development.
Where Does Morality Come From?
• Do we, as humans, contain a moral compass?
• If so, who put it there and is it controlled?
• Is it possible that God controls it? Surely a good God would not allow evil actions? Is it possible that we can override God’s advice? We overcome family and peer pressure so it’s possible that God gives us advice and it is up to us to act upon it.
• Is it possible to be ‘born good’? Can you turn bad by losing your morals?
• Does our life experience create our morality? This would account for differences in beliefs across the world.
• Experiences, religion, culture, education, family beliefs, even the media all play a part in defining our morals.
• Is it just that our aim as humans is for overall happiness and we create laws to reach this place?
Other areas which are/could be controlled:
• Smoking
• Various sexual activities
• Censorship
• Obesity
• The list has a possibility of being endless, due to the fact that if a ‘thing’ is deemed harmful, the government could enforce ways of controlling it. This could happen to any aspect of our life unfortunately.
To end, I would like to include a quote which is I feel is fitting to end this discussion:
“There is no place on this earth where a man might
be totally free. Nor can I imagine a force that would be capable of permanently
depriving people of all freedom. Contemporary society cannot exist in complete
freedom, nor can it exist in complete unfreedom.”
Ivan Klíma, 1981
The A-Z of free expression
Index
Leanne
Created 03:03:04