a reply to: Thetan
I agree. The ability to regulate those doing harm to others is logical for any society which wishes to have some semblance of order. In almost all
cases doing physical harm to others is criminal. Only in extraordinary circumstances do I see it being viewed as acceptable, and this only occurs in
times of self-defense.
This is quite the opposite of the Harm Principle in terms of what should be considered a criminal act. To make it evident though, only in objectively
offensive situations that can very easily spiral into violence should this principle be applied. Such offenses include remarks of murder, or
Weak Paternalism Principle
Someone harming themselves should be seen as a rectifiable situation, rather than an imprisonable crime. Still, it's a restriction of liberty if the
government chooses to interfere with your suicidal attempt. If, after apprehending you, they feel your mental state is causing you to lean much
towards harming yourself than if you were mentally sound, they should aide in your healing process. Sadly, this situation doesn't come into play
often. If someone is intent on ending their life, they'll usually be successful.
Strong Paternalism Principle
The definition of this is rather subjective, making it very difficult to tell if the associated restriction is better or worse. The government may
see something as "right" the citizenry could see as "wrong", or vice versa. In most cases, I'd say this principle is inherently flawed. The
government should usually not interfere with perceived m negative issues starting and affecting only you when you make it clear to them that you
believe it's right(one of the exceptions being "Weak Paternalism"). Yet, if there's an issue that started with you and will likely affect
in a negative way, then the chances the government will listen to your claim of not wanting to cause any harm will likely be ignored.
Legal Moralism Principle
This is also very subjective, because what the government believes to be "wrong" could be viewed as "right" by the majority of it's citizenry or vice
versa (as I stated before). In most cases, this is the same as what should be done within the "Offense Principle". Only in extreme or extraordinary
cases should action by the government be taken.
Social Welfare Principle
The rights of the few should only be intruded upon if the majority sees fit. Democratic systems live by this standard, and it's almost second-nature
for anyone living in such a system to put things "to a vote". The exception may be if the majority wish physical or financial harm against the few
(and I mean "harm" as in the majority are doing this for the main purpose of bringing the few down a peg, and not for the betterment of society).
So those are my views on these principles. Agree or disagree, this is my perspective. Until the day we invent direct mind-control, my perspective
will likely remain unchanged, but my beliefs I'm willing to concede if given enough reason to doubt.
edit on 1-12-2015 by Passerby1996 because:
no reason given