Take an act that is fairly common, generally legal, and is considered by many people to be wrong. Those people argue that the act should be banned or highly restricted. Others contend that the right to engage in the act is a fundamental individual right.
Those who advocate a ban (or strong limitations) concede that many people determined to engage in the act will violate a prohibition with adverse collateral consequences. Nevertheless, they say that we will be better off if the act is illegal, in part because fewer people will do it and because invoking the law will change the culture by expressing our collective view that the act is wrong. Those who reject the legal remedy concede that the act is a second-best solution in many cases, but that making the act unlawful will cause more harm than good by driving it underground. Besides, they say, a ban will not change how people feel about its morality (or, for the most part, how many people do it).
Another school of thought argues that if people think that something is morally wrong and harmful to society, the answer rests not with law (except in extreme or narrow circumstances) but with persuasion to convince people that they should choose alternatives to the act. This could, in time, lead to a better nation if fewer people do what you think is terrible.
Now what I am talking about? Abortion or gun ownership?
A good post but I would make a couple of minor changes. 1. Remove the "generally legal" qualifier and 2. change the last sentence to "Abortion, gun ownership or drug prohibition?"
'via Blog this'
No comments:
Post a Comment