Should governmental laws be restricted to those simply pertaining to harming another human being?

Question

Or even restricted to disallowing those actions that could cause POSSIBLE harm to another human being? Notice that I am not talking about harming one's self (e.g. illegal drugs, not wearing a seatbelt, etc.), but harming others or causing harm to others indirectly through our actions (e.g. promiscuous sex, driving drunk, etc.).

I am asking this in the context of no religious intervention. This is not about what God says is proper behavior but what humans deem proper behavior. As it was stated to me: "Right and wrong are another matter. Those of us who don't believe in God and sin, usually view right and wrong in terms of benefit and harm to our fellow human beings. This can be figured out by ourselves, without some cosmic figure telling us what it is."

Madelin- I assume you are joking, but if not my apologies.

Billy S- What about laws against hurting animals, hunting/fishing restrictions, and age limits on certain activities.

There is no such thing as "safe sex" you are only foolng yourself.

Nora said "You're a little too cut-and-dried there, buddy." Thank You! Shouldnt we all either be white or black with no grey? Or better yet, just not wishy-washy?

Answer 1

John Stuart Mill talked a lot about this in depth. Check out his "On Liberty" when you can. It's an amazing piece of thinking.

One of his basic contentions is what amounts to: Your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins. But he recognizes that it's not that simple. What about people who love to push the envelope? What about a fist-swinger who loves to see just how close he can swing that fist before it actually punches you?

He clearly does not have the right to punch your nose, but does he have the right to harrass you with the imminent possibility that he will punch your nose? Does he have the right to terrorize you with swings that continually graze the end of your nose, but don't really and technically make contact?

This is an area where right wing and left wing divide. One camp (republicans) wanting to allow people swinging rights no matter how much their "non-contact" swings harrass you, and the other camp (democrats) wanting to keep fist-swingers not only from hitting you, but also from harrassing you.

Then you have to decide what a "non-contact harrassment" swing is. How close do you get to my nose before I can say you're really harrassing me and not just exercising your God-giving rights to swing fists around?

You can see it gets real complicated after a short while. That's why I suggest JS Mill. He treats this problem a lot more clearly and precisely than I ever could.

Answer 2

You're a little too cut-and-dried there, buddy.

Morality is not defined solely in terms of people. Humans are on the planet, but we are not the only things on this planet, nor are we the most important. Only in the context of Judeo-Christian belief is it stated that humans are more important than the animals, rocks, water and plants we live among.

So, no. It is immoral to think only in terms of simply avoiding harm to other humans. Wasting the planet's resources, cruelty to animals, etc. are wrong whether you subscribe to a religious code or not.

Specifically, illegal drugs and not wearing a seatbelt lead to uselessness, which causes you to waste resources. It takes a lot more to care for a drug addict or crashed-up person than it does to meet the needs of a contributing society member.

No religion means no mumbo-jumbo, not no responsibility.

Answer 3

In a sense yes, but more generally government laws should deal only with things that help or hinder a society from functioning i.e. taxes, harm or potential harm to self or others, traffic and trade etc. Government laws should not deal with moral issues such as prostitution, gay or multiple marriages, etc. The laws about personal safety i.e. seat belts, drug usage need to be considered from a social point of view, not a moral one.

Promiscuous sex is not necessarily harmful to the individuals that "practice" it, and while minors should be protected especially from exploitation, there should little if any laws about sex.

Answer 4

Even if I answered yes, I have a hard time thinking of illegal acts that do not harm others.

Oh, wait, I have one. I break one law that does not harm anyone. I put money in other people's parking meters. I don't think that harms anyone (except keeping someone from having that place.)

Oh, another I do and I keep waiting for the FBI to come breaking down my door to arrest me. I have transferred some of my VHS tapes to DVDs. I guess I should stop, because I hate to take their time away from more important matters.

What are some other things you are talking about? Maybe I will discover I am a lot worse person than I thought.

Answer 5

The problem with this kind of thought, which is fundamental to shall we say Libertarian philosophy, is that it seems to discount certain kinds of general harm.

For instance, what about polluting a lake or water table.

Right now, no one is provably ill. Ten years from now, the leukemia rate goes up... ten years after that the people who got the leukemia start dying off.

But the polluter can rely on human shortness of attention, and claim that there was no immediate harm, and therefore the eventual harm is nothing they can be held accountable for.

In theory, the idea is right. In practice, given the human penchant for not connecting the dots, no.

Answer 6

I think it sounds good in practice, but putting that in principle is where things get tricky.

For example, legalising drugs. In many cases it is a "victimless crime". But what about a pregnant woman ? Should we have a different set of laws for pregnant women ? Should it be illegal for pregnant women to drink, smoke, or do drugs ? If they plan to carry the child to term, the child could be born with lifelong devastating birth defects ?

Promiscuous sex can harm others if precautions are not taken or if they fail, but then again, going out and about in public when one is ill can also spread disease. So how about a law that quaranitines anyone with a fever ?

In principle, I don't believe in laws against victimless crimes, but the trick is determining which actions are truly victimless.

Answer 7

Aside from drug use, and seat belt law ( the latter law I despise), what laws are there that are not in place to prevent people from either being physically harmed, emotionally harmed, or exploited in an unfair manner? I can't really think of any, except for taxation laws, which are used to indirectly help others anyway.

Answer 8

It sounds like a good idea to me too. But then comes the crusader who says that driving over 55 mph is polluting. The next one says that riding a bicycle without a helmet can cause head trauma and it would hurt the ambulance driver to see it.
Harm could be stretched and twisted to no end.
Would it be better then what we have now. You bet, but then millions of lawyers would be out of work.

Answer 9

What harms one person, doesn't harm another. Who decides?

Without God, we end up doing what is right in our own eyes.
Whether you like it or not, God was and is the Lawgiver. Basic law came from the God of the Bible.

Man can't figure out anything without God. When God says that we are nothing without Him - Believe It!

You can't crucify your fleshly lusts so you've chosen to forget God and follow the ways of lustful man.

Answer 10

The regulation desires to be actual and defined. in case you had this regulation, you will possibly choose different pages annexed to describe and define the words in contact. in any different case courtroom cases might pass on perpetually because of fact they may well be the only putting the precedents. interior the olden days it incredibly is the way it occurred case regulation became how they recorded each little thing. That progressed into statutes being written. They have been much less stressful to look up, than names of events in cases. Like yet another poster mentioned, what do you advise via injury, actual injury, psychological injury, does a broken finger nail count form or does blood could desire to be drawn. human beings are being pedantic because of fact the regulation is extremely significant and to in trouble-free terms have a slap sprint recommendations-set to it incredibly is inaccurate. interest to element is solid. Definitions of regulations is efficient to us all because of fact then all of us understand the place we stand. seem on the matters have been having with privateness rules and injunctions because of fact its no longer needless to say defined and as the government hasn't made any judgements related to it. additionally there are extra regulations than that which reason injury. some one rightly observed site visitors regulations. even nevertheless we'd in comparison to them, they're necessary to the working of the country. I advise what happens in case you have been only allowed to park everywhere. There may well be mayhem. it incredibly is just one occasion of a victimless crime.