Value Speech....Jurgens
I talked crap @ 2:27 a.m. on 11.14.04
Value Speech…Jurgens
Harvard College Professor and Professor of Government Michael Sandel states, “the state should not impose on its citizens a preferred way of life, even for their own good, because doing so will reduce the sum of human happiness; better if people choose for themselves." It is in agreement with this quote that I say that laws protecting citizens from themselves are unnecessary and unjustified.
Firstly, these laws are unjust because they violate the intention and ideals of the constitution. The government’s sole purpose is to regulate interaction between members of society. The government does not have the right or power to prohibit actions which do not harm or conflict with the rights of others. English philosopher John Stuart Mill concurs in saying that "The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is of right absolute." Ergo, paternalistic laws are outside the realm of government influence, because individuals do not consent to those limits, and the government must not be allowed to overstep its bounds. Furthermore, the government has neither the power, nor the right to enforce morals on its citizens, as long as the actions of those citizens do not infringe the rights of others. Consistent with paternalistic laws, the government would, in effect, be enforcing a code of morality on its citizens by denying them their different and private values, and forcing them to conform to societal standards. Robert Risely agrees that, "Self-determination is the most basic of freedoms. Each of us has the right to our own goals and values, so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others." Due to its fallibility and its potential for uninformed or irrational decisions, the government cannot enforce such prospectively flawed moral standards on its citizens.
Secondly, Paternalistic laws are unjustified because they deny to citizens their right to individual choice and rationality. We must realize that each individual knows what is best for him- or herself. Given that all individuals have different values and priorities, each citizen can make the best decision for him- or herself through risk/benefit analysis. The government cannot possibly comprehend the needs of every individual citizen, and therefore cannot make informed decisions concerning what is best for that citizen. The government may perceive its intervention as beneficial, yet according to university of California professor Richard J. Arneson, "One cannot improve another's life by coercing or manipulating that person to live according to a conception that person does not accept." The government can warn its citizens of possible risks of certain actions, however, in the end, the individuals should make their own decisions. Moreover, all people should be given the opportunity to develop their own sense of judiciousness, which can only come about if they are allowed to make their own autonomous decisions. Joel Feinberg agrees that "If adults are treated as children, they will come in time to be like children. Deprived of the right to choose for themselves, they will soon lose the power of rational judgment and decision." In their denial of individual autonomous choice, the government would harm the development of the rationality and judiciousness of its citizens, because individuals would not be given the opportunity to learn from their mistakes and make better choices in the future. Consequently, paternalistic laws are unjustified because they pose a threat to individual choice and rationality.
some quotes were taken from debate resource pages, however much of the information came as a result of my own thinking, and some online research
