Should every human be free to make any decision they want about their own life that it effects them only?

Question

including but not limited to - drug use, sexual preferences, religion etc.

Curly - Assumption - I was saying in defense or explanation for my actions.
Reality - I was asking this question as a means to get feedback on something that interests me freedom of choice, and the interactions/actions of people which I get not only from the actual answers but also from what might be learned about people by how they answer. I was ready to pick your answer until you turned around and assumed something yourself. For future reference this isn't a literal statement or question about my life or experiences simply a question to start conversation intelligent or not.

Answer 1

Everyone IS free to make those decisions. However, those decisions all have consequences.

Answer 2

It cannot affect them only. Every action has consequences outside of the self, no matter how seemingly insignificant those actions are.

e.g. drug use: by purchasing illegal drugs, the user has supported the economy of criminals. Even if homemade drugs are used, the user is likely to: 1. negatively affect his family members; 2. wind up in health care, thus driving up insurance rates for everyone else.

I could go on, but what's the point? Before even asking your question, you have to prove that what you're proposing is absolutely guaranteed never to affect anyone else at any time by any amount.

You'll never do it.

The best you can hope to accomplish is to minimize harm to other people, not completely prevent it.

You may not be entirely successful there, either. People make mistakes. That's why nothing they do can ever be guaranteed not to affect someone else in some way.

Answer 3

I think "effects" is too broad a word. As many have said above almost everything you do effects others.

I prefer to think about others rights, rather than effected by, and would agree with the proposition that every human should be free to make (almost) any decision they want as long as they don't infringe anothers rights. For example my practising the Catholic faith may well offend many fundamentalist christians in the deep south. So, it would effect them, but do they have a right not to be offended? I would say no and there is no reason to step in and stop me.

Now some of the arguments for restricting drug use and sexual activity do focus on rights but, more often than not, this is just a case of muddying the waters. Another example: many would say that herion should be illegal because if I took herion I would neglect my kids. However this misses the point, my children have a right not to be neglected (so that should be and is illegal) - they do not have a direct right for me not to take herion. Providing I do not neglect my kids it should be perfectly legal to take heroin.

I say "almost" because I beleive their are public rights and shared property. When looking at liberty people tend to focus on individuals rights, usually quite rightly. But we all share the planet and I think that brings duties on us. EG
1 - I can't, specifically, say who is going to get wasted because of that Hummer in my garage - but someone is going to be effected by global warming and I shouldn't be allowed to have it.
2 - I can't dispose of my wealth entirely as I see fit, I've got to pay my taxes.

Answer 4

Not exactly. Only if they are educated about all of the choices and consequences. Also, they have to be mentally stable enough to make these decisions. Most 12 year olds can't make educated decisions about drug use because they really don't know what it can do to you. Some adults are the same way. Besides that, most decisions don't just affect one person. Drug use will affect all around them. It's like thinking that suicide will only affect the person killing themself, it really affects anyone who ever knew them.

Answer 5

Absolutely. As long as no one gets hurt, and you aren't infringing on anyone else's basic human rights, I don't see why it should be a problem. I know plenty of drug users (of the less hard drugs, I've also known heroin addicts who've destroyed their lives) and homosexuals who are good, responsible people, and in every way are just as upstanding (or more, in a couple cases) than most average people who don't fit into those categories. It's all about being responsible for your life and your actions - if you can do that, and no one gets hurt, I can't condemn your way of life.

Answer 6

Not necessarily. Even if they did make those decisions it will always effect people no matter how hard they try to keep it between themselves. Drug users effect their families, their loved ones and influence kids. Religion, effects how you view certain situations and morals in your life that my be against anothers and sexual preference could go against certain religions and such. So really their is no way to just have those effect them ONLY, it effects everyone around them to a certain level.

Answer 7

If there is no chance that it would affect anyone else.. only them. .. then I have no problem with the idea. Fairly impossible to do though, since most people have family .. and freinds of some nature.. so if they did drugs or hurt themselves.. it would affect other people emotionally. You would have to be born in a vacuum without anyone ever knowing who you are or meeting you. Then you might be able to pull it off.

Answer 8

Assumption: it affects their life only.

Human beings in isolation, like in single wind-powered boats sailing across the ocean, just jump overboard. We die.

Human beings cannot exist in isolation therefore the choices you make about "drug use" or "sexual preference" can never affect only you.

When you become a meth addict, you provide channels and incentive to the manufacturers and distributors. Through them you touch tens of thousands of lives for the worse. People who would never have become addicts do, because they are exposed to it, and they might never have done so if your personal choice didnt end up being a profit for a drug dealer. People who didnt have an opportunity to make a choice suffer from the massive theft including the life-long effects of identity theft, because meth is more expensive than osmium per gram and it takes hundreds of dollars per week to feed the addiction.

There are other drugs that arent meth, but they are connected. Your use cant affect only you.

Sexual preference. If you werent loved and didnt have a family, then your decision couldnt touch them. The people who love you, whether or not you like it, your decisions touch them.

Its not about whether your choices touch them. Its about how the people touch you back. You make a choice, it touches them, they touch you. You arent interested in it touching them, you are interested in them touching you.

So are you a consumer of love? You want it in a cookie-cutter predefined shape, but if it doesnt always only fit comfortably, you want a refund?

Are you asking me to congratulate you for asking for a refund? It really sounds like you are.

What that really means is that you dont love them. It does. You want them to love you, and take you any way they are, but you dont want to love them and take them any way they are, even if their way is the opposite of your way. If you really loved them, and could accept them, then you could accept them not accepting you, if that is who they are. You seem to have problems with that idea.

Answer 9

Every human has the gift of choice. And thank God, there is always a way out of a bad situation we put ourselves into by making the wrong choice.

Answer 10

There are VERY few decisions that affect only the person who makes his/her choices. RARELY does a decision affect only one person. That is the thing to remember when we decide which path we are going to take.

Answer 11

Good question but I don't know of a decision that I could make that wouldn't effect only me...