To what extend should people be free to choose wrong?

Question

Obviously people cannot be forced to do everything right. They also cannot be allowed to do whatever they want.

This is a philosophical question. Please don't get sidetracked into defining right and wrong. That's not what the question is about.

The question is, as a society where do we draw the line. What amount of wrongdoing is too much to be permitted and what amount of restriction is too much?

Harm to others, does that mean direct or indirect, intended or unintentional, physical or emotional?

Everything we do affects others either in a positive way or a negetive way, whether we think it should or not.

Answer 1

A person's right to do wrong/evil should be limited by the collateral damage it causes. If a person chooses to do something wrong/evil and it will with certainty not harm another, that person may choose to do so. However, there are few on earth who will harm absolutely nobody since nearly everyone has someone who cares about them and that caring person will be harmed.

People are free to choose wrong/evil, but they must also be ready to accept the consequences.

Answer 2

I go with the old "Your right to swing your fist ends just short of the tip of my nose" demarcation. Or to be more precise, adults have the right to choose any private behaviors that are consensual and do not infringe (in a pretty direct way) on the rights of others. The rights of others include those defined in the Constitution (or whatever) as well as the basic right to be secure in ones person (not have our bodies physically harmed) and the basic right to be secure in ones property (not have our property stolen or damaged). That our government has not always respected this principle of "the right to private choice" does not negate the principle itself.

Along with this principle that "If my private actions aren't infringing on the rights of others, then the government should leave me alone" is a corollary. That government MUST act to protect if your basic rights are being infringed upon. Further, should government wrongly refuse to protect your rights, you have the right to take your own government to court to MAKE it do its job.

If someone expresses the same thing more concisely, my thanks to you and I'll be sure to plagiarize.

Answer 3

I would draw the line at decisions that involve/hurt innocent people. Or at the point where there is no going back for that person.

Most of the times people let wrong pass because it can always be taken back, but when it can't, then actions speak louder then words.

Answer 4

Thomas Aquinas postulated that a virtue must be freely chosen if it is to be considered truly virtuous. As far as the circumstances in which one might be co-erced to act in accord with virtue, these would likely be limited to those cases when one might do great harm to oneself or others. The specifics of such cases would be determined in relation to particular cases and be informed by custom, law, and prudential judgement.

Answer 5

To the extent that the only person whose life they will be ruining is their own. If they get others involved in any other way than by those other's free will then they have taken their wrong doing too far. You should be allowed to screw up your own life as much as you want to.

Answer 6

I want to protect innocent people from being offensively harmed by others. So, I support using defensive force to stop people from offensively hurting others.

Other than that, I want people to be free to do whatever they want. Each person does what he or she thinks is best. Let each person make their own choices. One person has no authority to tell another person what to do.

Answer 7

A limit should be given that whatever u do your activity should not make others disturb and never try things which make ur society down and which are harmfull not only to others but to your self .

Answer 8

To the extent that the end result of our choosing does not infringe on someone else's rights.

The right to choose to take one's own life is fine.... as long as the method of death doesn't result in taking someone else's life as well.

I did not say "harm". I said our rights should not infringe on another's rights. I stand by that.

Answer 9

There should be a line when they put other people's life in danger.. we can deal with the annoyance of someone doing wrong, but we can't deal that good with danger..

Answer 10

I think people need to be left alone unless they are posing a threat to someone elses life, limb, or property.
Whoever said "Warning signs are killing Darwinism." was a genius.