philosophy..personal liberty argument
One of the many debates that continue to rage on amongst people in the United States, as well as various other countries around the world, deals with under what circumstances, if any, should the government interfere with a person's liberty. This issue has struck great debate amongst many people and has led to opinions varying from one extreme to the other with many in between. There are many different aspects to consider when determining if thiskind of restriction of one's liberty is ever completely justified. The main issue in question is when can the government infringe on personal freedom. One of the answers to this question that has been debated is to prevent harm to one's self. I will attempt to show that this is not a legitimate reason for governmental interference with the right of human liberty. This principle states that "the state is justified in prohibiting actions that hurt or endangerThe belief that the government has the right to prevent someone from doing harm to the agent himself; the state can interfere for the person's own good". This principle allows the government to pass laws to ensure the safety of an individual from himself and to prevent causing harm to oneself. Some of the areas this covers includ
person's freedom to do the same, the action now becomes illegal. So as long as our own actions don't intrude on another person's freedoms, the actions should be legal and the government should not place any restrictions on them. If a certain action causes harm to another then that person's rights have been infringed and we should be held accountable for the action. Some acts seem to fall under the category of causing personal harm to one's self such as contracting to be a slave/mutilated, over-the-counter sale of heroin and valium, and not wearing seat belts. Upon closer inspection, it can be seen that these acts can cause harm to others and impinge on others' rights. It is for this reason that these acts should be illegal, his rights away to that person. The slave has virtually given away some of his rights, including liberty, to the slavemaster, who now has more rights than he is entitled. This harms society in general because now one of its members has more rights than the rest. Our society is based on equal rights and contracting to be a slave goes against that principle. Some might try to argue that this line of reasoning can be applied to getting a job. As an While the state is never justified in interfering with a person's liberty to prevent harm to the person himself, it can be shown that such things as contracting to be a slave, over-the-counter sale of heroin and valium, and not wearing seat belts can still be illegal e suicide and mercy killing. The government is trying to place restrictions on what it thinks is harmful to the people by making certain As for keeping the act of contracting to be a slave illegal, this justification is fairly simple. Under the premises given by the government of the United States, all men are created equal and are given equal rights under the law. That is, all men have the same number of rights as his neighbor and no man is entitled to any more rights than any other person. If a person contracts to be a slave of another person, in essence, he has given some of
Some common words found in the essay are:
, wearing seat, seat belts, contracting slave, wearing seat belts, over-the-counter sale heroin, sale heroin valium, seat belt, insurance rates, heroin valium, over-the-counter sale, sale heroin, valium wearing, valium wearing seat, heroin valium wearing, rights person,
Approximate Word count = 1444
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
