Amazon.com Widgets

Is there any justification for "Your own good" laws to protect people from themselves

Asked by: jtightlips24
  • Kinda there is

    In VERY specific instances, yes. The argument is non specific, so let me be specific. There are some laws created to protect a person or group of people from harming themselves and others. The law that allows us to lock a person up, here in the States, if they attempt suicide is extraordinarily beneficial to an individual who attempts suicide.
    According to the American Foundation for the Prevention of Suicide "In 2010 (the most recent year for which data are available), 38,364 suicide deaths were reported in the United States, making suicide the tenth leading cause of death for Americans. That year, someone in the U.S. died by suicide every 13.7 minutes"(http://www.Afsp.Org/research/frequently-asked-questions). The same website also states that if a suicide attempt is made, but thwarted by law enforcement or others, and a treatment program is established, the individual is up to "four times" less likely to make a second attempt.
    Another example are county wide or statewide truancy and curfew laws for underage children. It's for your own good that you are not allowed to blow off school every day and be held back or fail to graduate. It's for your own good that you as a sixteen year old girl are not allowed to be out and about at 2 am when the bars close and drunks are on the road or libidinous with impaired judgement.
    These are only two examples of very specific instances where the law forces a person to do something they do not want to do, but the benefit of the results outweighs the perceived cons of being forced into an undesirable situation.

    So, in VERY SPECIFIC instances, 'your own good' laws can be extremely beneficial. That is not to say they all are, but the title argument as written here does not allow for debate of each individual law. So I believe the reality is that you cannot sort this into black and white. Some are great, others are terrible. But since some are great, then there is "justification" for a 'your own good law

  • In VERY specific instances, yes.

    The argument is non specific, so let me be specific. There are some laws created to protect a person or group of people from harming themselves and others. The law that allows us to lock a person up, here in the States, if they attempt suicide is extraordinarily beneficial to an individual who attempts suicide.
    According to the American Foundation for the Prevention of Suicide "In 2010 (the most recent year for which data are available), 38,364 suicide deaths were reported in the United States, making suicide the tenth leading cause of death for Americans. That year, someone in the U.S. died by suicide every 13.7 minutes"(http://www.Afsp.Org/research/frequently-asked-questions). The same website also states that if a suicide attempt is made, but thwarted by law enforcement or others, and a treatment program is established, the individual is up to "four times" less likely to make a second attempt.
    Another example are county wide or statewide truancy and curfew laws for underage children. It's for your own good that you are not allowed to blow off school every day and be held back or fail to graduate. It's for your own good that you as a sixteen year old girl are not allowed to be out and about at 2 am when the bars close and drunks are on the road or libidinous with impaired judgement.
    These are only two examples of very specific instances where the law forces a person to do something they do not want to do, but the benefit of the results outweighs the perceived cons of being forced into an undesirable situation.

    So, in VERY SPECIFIC instances, 'your own good' laws can be extremely beneficial. That is not to say they all are, but the title argument as written here does not allow for debate of each individual law. So I believe the reality is that you cannot sort this into black and white. Some are great, others are terrible. But since some are great, then there is "justification" for a 'your own good law'.

  • (It's for your own good)

    We cannot exist as a society where everyone simply can do anything to anyone at will without regard. There are laws enacted to prevent people , groups, businesses or organizations from harming, taking advantage or overpowering others. This is what a free society is founded upon. When government, being it local, state or federal, acts to control the freedom of choice regarding actions that have no consequence to others other then the individual in question, we have become a society of near socialism where the "supreme rulers" have made all our decisions for us and we will be much better off in our lives to abide by their rules under penalty of law and just live within these restrictions ( It's for your own good because we know what's best for you.) and, of course (pay the bill ) (taxes) for all of it.

  • Get out of here.

    When the shrub invaded afghanistan, it was for our own good. When he started torturing everyone with brown skin, it was for our own good. When he invaded iraq, it was for our own good. Whenever they say "this is for your own good", its for their own good and nobody elses.

  • How is Government interference for the good of people

    In the case that you are making laws to protect people from Government or others, then you have a case. But when we start legislating what people can do to themselves, then we have to question what business Government has to legislate our own personal lives.
    1) For your own Good Laws are an attack on personal responsibility and an attack on freedom. As with any law, we seek to protect the freedom of others, not enforce good behavior or nanny an individual.
    2) Secondly, Government interference is not "For your own good". Not wearing a seatbelt, drugs, not wearing a helmet, have their own consequences. If you do drugs, you risk overdosing, or living a mediocre existence. If you dont wear a seatbelt, it only takes that one time to be sorry. However, there is no law of nature saying that you have to get killed by not wearing a seatbelt. But making a law that requires punishment is not for your own good. How is it for your own good to have non-violent drug users being put in prison?
    3) When we start on one thing, then whats to stop protecting people from themselves? In reality, nothing is certain. You could get attacked at a bus stop, you could get sick off of sharing drinks, you could get food poisoning off of sushi. But it comes down to is would you rather be safe or free? As Franklin stated, "The person who is willing to give up freedom for temporary security deserves neither and will lose both". And its true, any time we concern ourselves with safety at the expense of freedom, we lose the safety. Thats what happens, Government tries to protect us from ourselves, then we become unsafe from police


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.