Philosophical Questions: Harm

[ysabetwordsmith]

People have expressed interest in deep topics, so this list focuses on philosophical questions.

How far should governments go to prevent its citizens from causing harm to themselves?


A government ought to prevent people from harming others, but it is not the government's business if people choose to harm themselves. Humans have free will. They may choose to do things which other see as harmful, but they enjoy or find useful. It is particularly egregious when the government tries to take away a coping method without offering a better alternative or changing situations so that it is not needed. It adds insult to injury when the government rails about one thing being dangerous while forcing another dangerous thing on people.

Comments

[siliconshaman]

There should be a word added in there... "how far should governments go to prevent it's citizens from accidentally causing harm to themselves?"

Consensual deliberate 'harm' is none of their damn business. Granted, informed consent is key, and it should be the government's business to ensure everyone knows what they are doing, what the risks of smoking, alcohol and other recreational drugs are... but it's should not be their business to try and prevent people from indulging in them. Although, it is definitely a government's business to prevent other people from influencing that choice as well, e.g advertising, drug pushers etc...

As for BDSM antics, that is right off the table for government over-sight. You might as well lump in extreme sports with that. They're both broad categories of ways of causing an adrenaline high and just as much no-one else's business.

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> There should be a word added in there... "how far should governments go to prevent it's citizens from accidentally causing harm to themselves?" <<

Well reasoned. I heartily approve things like guardrails on mountain roads.

>> Consensual deliberate 'harm' is none of their damn business. Granted, informed consent is key, and it should be the government's business to ensure everyone knows what they are doing, what the risks of smoking, alcohol and other recreational drugs are... but it's should not be their business to try and prevent people from indulging in them.<<

Agreed.

>> Although, it is definitely a government's business to prevent other people from influencing that choice as well, e.g advertising, drug pushers etc... <<

I would classify that as harming others, which is not okay.

[acelightning2]

I neer understood why suicide should be a crime; how are they going to punish e perp? But many states now have "assisted suicide" laws, for someone who is already dying of a painful and eventually fatal disease, to be "put out of their suffering". But it's not the government's job to outlaw skydiving. There should be sensible regulations, like learning how to pack your chute and how to land without breaking your ankles. BUt that's like teaching people how to drive safely before they get a license.

And given how many states in the US have legalized cannabis, without there being epidemics of crime in those states, I think we've learned that there ARE sane, relatively harmless ways of giving your brain a bit of a vacation.

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> I neer understood why suicide should be a crime; how are they going to punish e perp? <<

So the livestock doesn't escape. They rely on intimidation, punishing relatives, or punishing people who made the attempt but did not succeed.

>> But many states now have "assisted suicide" laws, for someone who is already dying of a painful and eventually fatal disease, to be "put out of their suffering".<<

Better than nothing, but it still impedes the free passage of a soul into and out of incarnation. You don't have a right not to be in pain. People can put you through any amount of torture, and it's not legal to escape unless an illness will already kill you very soon. It doesn't cover dementia, a leading reason why people wish to abandon a body, nor nonfatal chronic diseases that make living an utter misery. So people do what they've always done when they run out of cope: they just break the law.

>>And given how many states in the US have legalized cannabis, without there being epidemics of crime in those states, I think we've learned that there ARE sane, relatively harmless ways of giving your brain a bit of a vacation.<<

No shit.

[acelightning2]

I like it when libraries compile lists of books that were once banned, and make those books easily available for patrons to read. Reading banned books is good for one's intellectual health.

Yes ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

Agreed.

My favorite display of banned books had, front and center, the Bible and a dictionary.

Re: Yes ...

[acelightning2]

THe Bible is full of things no child should read. Moses' daughters committing incest with him. THe murder of the innocents in order to eliminate the new Messiah. Judith seducing and then beheading the enemy general Holofernes.

And dictionaries contain anotomical information about the naughty bits no child should ever even name.

BUt I read James Joyce's Ulysses because it was banned. Except for the sexually explicit bits it was boring.

And then I read the Koran, just because I wasn't supposed to.

Re: Yes ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

Mom and I made the local bookstore order The Satanic Verses for us, just because it was banned. Lousy book, I don't think either of us got past the first chapter, but it's a fond family memory.

Re: Yes ...

[acelightning2]

TSV was banned because it mentioned something Mohammed did that he shoudn't have done, like when the French humor magazine printed a cartoon that was unflattering to Mohammed. Normal Muslims would riot in the streets and demand the immediate execution of the person who slandered the Prophet.