True or false: any personal freedom that brings harm to society in general should...

[Billy000]

...be outlawed.

True.

 

[Agit8r]

...be outlawed.

True.

The thing is, that what is thought to harm society is often subjective. When we see people injured, deprived of basic rights, etc, that is what should guide policy.

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him; every man is under the natural duty of contributing to the necessities of the society; and this is all the laws should enforce on him; and, no man having a natural right to be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial third."
-- Thomas Jefferson; from letter to Francis Gilmer (June 7, 1816)

 

[Skull Pilot]

...be outlawed.

True.

"Society" has no enumerated rights. People on the other hand do. There are already laws against harming other people or interfering with their rights.

 

[editec]

True or false: any personal freedom that brings harm to society in general should......be outlawed.

True.

Only in cases where the "harm" is obvious and significant.

Every time any of us drive our cars we're "harming" the commonweal.

Are we going to outlaw that kind of "harm" that is impossible to prevent without also doing greater harm to the commonweal?

Of course not.

 

[PredFan]

...be outlawed.

True.

Can't think of one myself but I'm sure a liberal can think of plenty so my answer is:

Absolutely False

 

[Billy000]

Sometimes it is difficult for people to admit/see that certain personal freedoms cause societal harm. Legalizing all drugs for instance, would be very detrimental to society.

 

[there4eyeM]

The general idea is consistent with modern society, but the specific phrasing is far too general and fails to identify who judges.

 

[there4eyeM]

Sometimes it is difficult for people to admit/see that certain personal freedoms cause societal harm. Legalizing all drugs for instance, would be very detrimental to society.

Treating adults as children, making their decisions for them and absolving them of responsibility, does vastly more harm, to society and the individuals.

 

[NYcarbineer]

...be outlawed.

True.

The thing is, that what is thought to harm society is often subjective. When we see people injured, deprived of basic rights, etc, that is what should guide policy.

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him; every man is under the natural duty of contributing to the necessities of the society; and this is all the laws should enforce on him; and, no man having a natural right to be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial third."
-- Thomas Jefferson; from letter to Francis Gilmer (June 7, 1816)

So Jefferson is saying that not only are there natural rights retained by the individual,

there are also natural duties to the collective owed by the individual?

lol, let the inmates chew on that for awhile.

 

[PredFan]

Sometimes it is difficult for people to admit/see that certain personal freedoms cause societal harm. Legalizing all drugs for instance, would be very detrimental to society.

Would it? It would reduce crime, keep many people out of jail, and save billions of dollars.

 

[midcan5]

Derek Parfit takes an interesting position on this question. "It is not enough to ask, Will my act harm other people? Even if the answer is No, my act may still be wrong, because of its effects on other people. I should ask, Will my act be one of a set of acts that will together harm other people? The answer may be Yes. And the harm to others may be great."

On What Matters by Derek Parfit | Issue 87 | Philosophy Now

 

[Mac1958]

.

This appears to be a serious thread, and that's worrisome, so I'll toss in my two cents.

Precisely who would decide what "brings harm" to society? We'd get people arguing that an order of large fries do that by increasing potential health care costs. We'd then have that product removed from availability.

Oh wait, something like that has already happened in New York.

Holy crap. What is this knee-jerk dependence on the government -- and worse, professional politicians -- to decide what is good for us, to "allow" us to do only certain things, to remove choices at a whim? Our problems, and there are plenty of them, are cultural. Is someone going to argue that we've made murder illegal, so we should do the same with Big Macs? Is that the way the thought process goes? Should we have Americans reporting other Americans to The Authorities if we see someone eating more than one cheeseburger?

Crap, I wish I hadn't seen this thread.

.

 

[dblack]

...be outlawed.

True.

Freedom doesn't harm society. Abusing freedom? Yeah. That should be against the law. And in most cases, it already is.

 

[Oddball]

...be outlawed.

True.

"Society" has no enumerated rights. People on the other hand do. There are already laws against harming other people or interfering with their rights.

"Society" doesn't even exist, in the corporeal sense...Ergo any "harm" that may or may not be said to befall it would be entirely subjective opinion.

Answer: False.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Answer obviously false.
1) Who decides when/if "harm" is being done?
2) America is a country based on individual rights. We are not a country based on collectivism and "the good of society" - thank God our forefathers were wise enough to know that there are no incorruptible angels flying around that can fairly judge what is right or wrong for everyone.

 

[Mac1958]

.

There are many people in the country who would clearly be more comfortable with an increasingly governmentally authoritarian environment. What I don't know is whether their numbers have been increasing or whether they're just becoming louder. Maybe it's both.

But I'll never understand the trust and faith these people have in authoritarians.

.

 

[jon_berzerk]

...be outlawed.

True.

nope

 

[NYcarbineer]

["Society" doesn't even exist, in the corporeal sense...Ergo any "harm" that may or may not be said to befall it would be entirely subjective opinion.

Answer: False.

Wrong. Human beings are social animals by nature, in the same manner as most other primates, canines, etc.

Human 'society' is the natural condition, so of course the good of the 'society' is a natural concern.

 

[Skull Pilot]

["Society" doesn't even exist, in the corporeal sense...Ergo any "harm" that may or may not be said to befall it would be entirely subjective opinion.

Answer: False.

Wrong. Human beings are social animals by nature, in the same manner as most other primates, canines, etc.

Human 'society' is the natural condition, so of course the good of the 'society' is a natural concern.

What's good for the individual is ultimately good for "society"

 

[hazlnut]

...be outlawed.

True.

Outlawed is a harsh word.

And I would say any personal freedom that potentially brings harm.... should be pragmatically regulated.


Like kiddie porn.... and assault weapons available to consumers. What the hell do they need to assault, some pumpkins and cans?

"He hates those cans!!"