Certain Action Causes Harm example essay topic

Argument For The Right To Personal Liberty Argument For The Right To Personal Liberty 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 this kind 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.

The belief that the government has the right to prevent someone from doing harm to himself is known as the Principle of Legal Paternalism. This principle states that the state is justified in prohibiting actions that hurt or endanger 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 include suicide and mercy killing. The government is trying to place restrictions on what it thinks is harmful to the people by making certain acts illegal. In placing these restrictions on personal liberty, the government is in fact undermining exactly what this country was founded on.

The United States was founded on the idea that humans possess certain freedoms and liberties that cannot be taken away under any circumstances. People were given the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, once this freedom begins to impinge on another 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, not because they cause harm to the self. The over-the-counter sale of heroin and valium can lead to the serious harm of other human beings by those that are using the drugs. These two drugs have extreme consequences when used and can lead to the grave danger of others.

Those that take these drugs can become enraged, lose control of their senses, or even hallucinate. These side effects have serious consequences to those surrounding the drug user, not only the drug user himself. The drugs could cause the person to act in such a manner that he would normally not be accustomed to acting. This could impact those around him if he decides to do something under the influence of the drugs which may cause harm to others, such as drive or even go to the mall. The drug user could become so enraged by such a minor thing that he takes his anger out on another person. This infringes on that other person's rights.

Some might argue that all drugs and even alcohol could cause this to happen as well. I am not denying this totally. I am saying that the use of valium and heroin are dramatically more likely to cause this to occur and therefore are more severe in nature. To make these drugs legal would be to drastically put more people in harm's way. The act of justifying the illegality of not wearing seat belts is a little more complicated. When a person decides not to wear a seat belt, not only can he harm himself physically, but he can also harm others in another way.

We classify harm as a violation of one's interests. So not only physical harm counts as harm. It can be statistically shown that the severity of injury from a car accident increases greatly when a person does not wear a seat belt. Because of this increase in the severity of the injury to a person, insurance companies are forced to pay off more money to cover the expenses incurred from the injury. Therefore the cost of insurance premiums go up across the board to compensate for the increased amount of money used to cover those people who have been injured. Therefore, by not wearing a seat belt, a person is causing insurance rates to increase.

This is not in the best interest of people and can be classified as a harm. Some might object to this reasoning by stating that one person not wearing a seat belt cannot have that much impact on insurance rates. While this is true, I am looking at the situation as a whole. If most people don t wear seat belts then insurance rates will go up undoubtedly across the board. For this reason, seat belts must be mandatory of all people riding in a car.

Insurance rates won t increase because of people not wearing seat belts which is in everyone's best interest. 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 his rights away to that person. The slave has virtually given away some of his rights, including liberty, to the slave master, 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 employee, you take orders from a superior and basically have to listen to what you are told to do. You cannot just do as you please or you will most likely get fired. My argument doesn t apply to this for the reason that once you are a slave, you cannot get out of it. A person can quit his job if he doesn t like what he is being commanded to do. A slave must listen to his master whether he likes it or not and cannot get out of the contract unless his master permits it.

A slave loses all his liberty and gives it to his master when the contract is signed. An employee keeps all of his rights as a human being even though he has authority to answer to. His employer is not given any personal rights of his employee. Thus, contracting to be a slave is illegal because it shifts the balance of rights from one person in society to another. 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 based on other reasons. It can be justified that these three actions are illegal because of their harm to other people in society as well as society in general.

While there are many objections to the reasoning used to support my justifications, they seem not to hold much ground at all and have all been answered. It has been clearly stated how the three actions harm society, not just the person. It is for this reason, and this reason alone, that contracting to be a slave, over-the-counter sale of heroin and valium, and not wearing seat belts must be regulated and considered illegal by the government.