Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Protective legislation v. individual freedom
Section A. Philosophy/political theory

This topic clearly underlies numerous other debates, and essentially focuses on the point at which the state should step in to prevent individuals from harming themselves. No one thinks that the state should protect us from all harmful choices; every activity includes a certain level of risk, which individuals must be able to assume to live a meaningful, enjoyable life. But there are many activities that the state does regulate on the grounds that they are ’irrational’, such as smoking (by punitive taxation) or drug taking, which many think that the state should not interfere with.

Pros

[1] We all accept that, in essence, the state should be able to prevent harm to others arising from individual action; but so few dangerous actions are genuinely not at all harmful to others that this principle extends to allowing the state to prevent individuals from harming themselves. For instance, when individuals become addicted to alcohol or gambling, they do great damage to their families, both financially and psychologically. Because no one can extract themselves from the web of social relations that expose us to damage by those around us, the state must instead step in to make us safe from their behaviour.

[2] The state must also legislate to protect its citizens from self-imposed damage. It is the responsibility of an elected government to research the dangers of certain practices or substances and constrain the freedoms of its members for their own safety. In particular, the state is right to step in where individuals are imperfectly equipped to make choices, or risk destroying their capacity to make good choices later. For instance, where people will become addicted, or harm themselves in an irreparable way, the state should stop them so doing.

[3] A further role of the state is to provide children with certain basic opportunities and protection. We allow the state to take it upon itself to make certain of these compulsory, in order to protect children from ill-informed decisions they may make themselves, or from irresponsible parents. In the past, parents would curtail children’s schooling to utilise them as labour to bring in family income. In preventing this, the state curtails freedoms for the good of the individual children and for the long-term benefits to society of an educated and healthy population.

Cons

[1] Legislation is required to constrain and punish those who act to reduce our individual freedoms; for example, those violent criminals who threaten our freedom from fear and attack. Its role is to protect our freedoms, not to curtail them. Of course, many dangerous actions also have an impact to some extent on other people, but this misses the point; the question is whether the government should take any legislative action designed to prevent such actions.

[2] The libertarian principle is that people can do whatever they wish, as long as it does not harm others — and this must mean that they are allowed to hurt themselves. If consenting adults wish to indulge in sadomasochism, bare-knuckle boxing, or driving without a seat belt (which endangers no one other than themselves), then there is no reason for the state to prevent them. The role of the state is, at most, to provide information about the risks of such activities. Nothing about those choices needs to be irrational; indeed, even becoming addicted to smoking might be seen as a rational choice which individuals make, fully apprised of the risks.

[3] The case is not the same with children, who do need to be protected and guided prior to full intellectual and moral maturity. However, the principle still applies that the freedom of independent morally mature individuals is paramount. The state has gone too far in making educational and medical opportunities compulsory. The parent is naturally, biologically, responsible for the care of the child. If parents wish to educate their child at home or not at all, or have religious objections to medical interferences with their child, then as parents, their views must prevail — those of certain Christian beliefs object to blood transfusions, and however harsh it seems, it must be their right to prescribe the same for their family.

Possible motions

This House believes that the state should not protect individuals from themselves.

This House would allow people to make bad choices.

Related topics

Welfare state

Drugs, legalisation of

Alcohol, prohibition of

Boxing, banning of

Smoking, banning of

Euthanasia, legalisation of

Polygamy, legalisation of