In order to preserve the autonomy of individuals and the freedom to think for oneself, the government should embrace something like the harm principle. Mill and others have written about the harm principle. I understand it as saying that the only reason for the infringement of liberty is to prevent harm to others. This infringement takes place in the creating of laws and the punishment of those who break these laws.
If the government criminalizes anything but acts of positive harm, i.e., inflicting harm on others, (or perhaps believing things which promote the positive harm of others, e.g., believing that all race car drivers are evil and it is the responsibility of good people to assassinate them), it is showing disregard for equality because it limits the autonomy and freedom of thought among its citizens. This goes against equality before the law.
When I first read the title of this post, I thought I was going to disagree with you, but I don't. I think the harm principle is a legitimate way to justify the legality of an act. I was wondering if you felt this should also cover self-harm? An obvious example would be the question of the legality of suicide.
ReplyDeleteCool. I don't think any act should be illegal due to the harm caused to *self*. Criminalizing suicide is wrong-headed, because a law which criminalizes an act it cannot prosecute and convict is a mockery of law. However, self-harm which has ramifications for others ought to be criminalized (attempted suicide would be included here). For example, if a husband and father legally has the responsibility to provide for his family, his cutting off of his legs in normal circumstances should be legal in regards to his control of his own body, but it should be illegal if it disables him from doing the work he needs to do to provide for his family--he harms them by harming himself.
ReplyDeleteThanks for reading and commenting!
How do you feel about assisted suicide in terminally ill patients?
ReplyDeleteThis is Ashley, by the way.
I could tell by the picture. haha
ReplyDeleteI have to think about it. Obviously, if the victim has the kind of responsibilities to others, then I think assisted suicide should be illegal for the reason. I think assisted suicide is very wrong, but I have not really thought about assisted suicide in relation to the moral/legal distinction. Even given the responsibilities issue, I think it would be hard to find someone who qualifies as lacking all those responsibilities.
I think the argument that a person who has responsibilities towards others is not legally allowed to get out of those responsibilities through any means including death, is a very hard sell. Especially in the case of a terminally ill person who is going to die anyway, and whose hastening of death is something that can alleviate suffering without ultimately changing the outcome.
ReplyDeleteHey, I'm just about to write another post, I think, and I was looking over this string of comments. I think you're right that it's a hard sell. I don't even buy it.
ReplyDelete