The Nanny State ethical thing

[Rye]

This thread in simple terms is just a request for clarification for the moral concepts involved in stopping people doing things that are only harmful to themselves, and defining a sensible arbitration system of what constitutes harm and danger, and how much a person can administer to themselves. At the same time, I'd also like to have a well thought answer to the usual criticisms, like "who gets to judge what is the greater good?" and "So long as I am of sound judgment, and I will only endanger myself, I don't see how your opinion of what I should do should override mine."

I should point out that I'm pretty utilitarian, and consider most if not all rights waivable with severe enough things at stake.

Some examples:

Seatbelt laws. While they do undoubtedly save lives, many people would prefer it if the choice were up to them, saying that if they wanted to drive without putting their seat belt on they should be able to if only they are at risk. It's their body, they'd say, and they have ownership over it so long as they're not a threat to anyone else.

Russian roulette. Two consenting adults wish to play a game of russian roulette. They both appear to be sound, mentally, and there is no risk to anyone else. Are their lives theirs to waste? Or do our judgments on what they ought to do with their bodies overrule theirs, even though they're their bodies?

A person wants to punch a tree after hearing the girl he is in love with has slept with someone else behind his back. It will cause him pain, do we have the right to intervene to stop him hurting himself?

A person wants to get a tattoo, do we stop them?

Someone is truly sick of life and wishes to commit suicide, rather than a life of incinerating bio-refuse from a hospital, and dying old and alone in a rest home, do we have to force them to live?

[Keevan_Colton]

You've got to consider the slightly larger picture.

Take for example seatbelt laws...the person who goes through the windscreen now needs medical care, which in turn means someone else might need to wait or decisions about priority need to be made. The extra strain on the emergency services results in a drop in service across the board and thus harm to others that need emergency assitance.

Similar things can be said for most "nanny state" things...which is why getting a tattoo generally isnt prohibited by anyone with a functioning synapse to their name because it takes a very inventive mind to come up with some way in which it can truly impact others.

[Darth Wong]

Do the people who complain about the "nanny state" also feel that we should not stop people from committing suicide? If not, then why not?

As far as I'm concerned, most of the "nanny state" things that people are always complaining about are just extensions of the same reasoning we use to stop people from committing suicide. And of course, there's the irony in the fact that most people who use the term "nanny state" happen to support the Republican party, which doesn't want nannies in the smoking room but does want them in the bedroom.

[Keevan_Colton]

Do the people who complain about the "nanny state" also feel that we should not stop people from committing suicide? If not, then why not?

As far as I'm concerned, most of the "nanny state" things that people are always complaining about are just extensions of the same reasoning we use to stop people from committing suicide. And of course, there's the irony in the fact that most people who use the term "nanny state" happen to support the Republican party, which doesn't want nannies in the smoking room but does want them in the bedroom.

Hey, you've got to love fucking the au-pair while the wife is out...

...oh wait, you meant the republican supporters not the politicians.

[rhoenix]

Do the people who complain about the "nanny state" also feel that we should not stop people from committing suicide? If not, then why not?

I do feel that the U.S. government has become nanny-ish over the years. Though I'm not a Republican (and won't be in the foreseeable future), I don't think we should stop people from committing suicide. In a dark way, suicide is the ultimate expression of free will - having laws that call this "disturbing the peace (corrections welcomed to this) if you fail at it seems...too far.

[Rye]

One justification for not allowing people to kill themselves (or otherwise harm themselves by not buckling up, etc) is an extension of what Keevan_Colton said. Not only do you add strain to society in the form of medical attention, you also harm society at large by removing yourself from it.

Yes, but the society doesn't own that person's body or their mind. Other people benefiting from your continued existence is hardly justification for them denying you "ultimate ownership" of your own person, is it?

A more personal reason for not allowing people to kill themselves which is also an extension of utilitarian ethics, to which I obviously subscribe, is that your loss would bring sorrow to your family and friends. And for what? Just because you were too lazy or hard headed to buckle up before driving away? You might have a right to hurt yourself, but you don't have the right to hurt everyone else, and that outweighs your right to yourself.

Their attachment to you should not overrule the ownership of your own existence, should it? I wouldn't have thought this argument would be very compelling for not letting someone move out of a house or country, for instance.

[Darth Wong]

Yes, but the society doesn't own that person's body or their mind.

From birth, you are protected and fed by your parents, who are in turn protected by police and supported by various social services, as well as a network of private initiatives such as insurance and financial/job services which allow them to provide a standard of living for you that would have been impossible many thousands of years ago before the development of civilization. Then you go to school, where you are taught by teachers who are part of the social service network once again. You drive automobiles which were invented by other people, on roads which were built by other people, lit by electrical power networks that are built and maintained by other people, all of which is made possible by this thing that we call society. Take all of that away, and odds are you wouldn't have even survived your childhood. Thousands of years ago, the majority of children didn't.

So at what point in this process does someone gain the truly spectacular arrogance required to believe that he owes society nothing?

[Zero]

Their attachment to you should not overrule the ownership of your own existence, should it?

Why not? Maybe if you have some kind of deontological ethical association with free will, ownership of your own existance is important, but if you're following a utilitarian ethic, the ownership of your own existance is only important in that it brings you happiness. If killing yourself will bring more pain to others than the release of pain it brings to you, why should the notion of ownership of your own existance get in the way?

The ownership of your own existance bit could also be applied to anorexic women. Should we not help them, even if it will bring them greater happiness and ease tensions with everyone they know, simply because we ought to respect their ownership over their own existance?

I wouldn't have thought this argument would be very compelling for not letting someone move out of a house or country, for instance.

The emotional trauma done to someone by finding out that a good friend or a notable family member has killed themselves isn't even remotely comparable to the emotional troubles caused when someone moves away. It's a slight readjustment to know that someone has moved away and you won't see them as often. The kind of adjustment necessary to realize that someone's completely gone from your life by their own will is a bit more extreme. There's also the paranoia that comes if the person never said anything, never gave any sign that something was amiss, knowing that the same thing could be happening to others you know and love. It's even more extreme if you happen to be the one who found the body. The situations just aren't even in the same ballpark.

[K. A. Pital]

It's their body, they'd say, and they have ownership over it so long as they're not a threat to anyone else.

Well, the fuck it is. A body that's not seatbelted can fly around the car in a strong glancing hit and kill someone else.

Two consenting adults wish to play a game of russian roulette. They both appear to be sound, mentally

And into to the clinic. Appearing to be normal and being normal are different things.

It will cause him pain, do we have the right to intervene to stop him hurting himself?

So as long as he's not murdering himself in a way dangerous to others, I'd say he's pretty free. However, if he's been reported as violently smashing objects any time he's in a bad mood, to the clinic with him.

All.

[darthkommandant]

My views on the examplea in order.
Seat belts:Yes if done by the folowing methods. People shouldn't need a law to wear them. There are several darwin awards winners who died because they didn't wear seatbelts. However you should have to sign a waver that if you dont wear your seatbelts you don't get covered fully by your medical/life insurance company. You should also be responsable if you hit someone if you fly out of/ around the interior of the car.

Russian Roulette. Absolutly not. Anyone who even wants to play this game is completly out of his mind and therefore not competent to be owning a leathal weapon, especially a gun.

Punching a tree:Yes This should not even be worried about by any reasonable government. The worst that can possibly happen is the guy gets a broken hand.

Tatoo.Yes Same as above just even more so.

Suicde: No unless in self self defense. Suicide is self killing. So like killing someone else it should be done for a very good reason. Examples would include terminal illness and blindness. It might also be justified if one has become sick of being a burden on society. It should not be allowed because your girlfriend dumped you. Though if a person is really sick of life the law cant really detter you if you are sure it will work since you cant jail/institutionalize a corpse.

[Stark]

So the fact that a law requiring seatbelts to be worn reducing the severity of accidents isn't good enough? It's not worth mentioning that people who don't wear seltbelts encourage others to do so and train their kids the same: it's in societies interests as a whole to reduce the severity of car accidents.

The penalties in Australia for not wearing a seatbelt are reasonably severe (AU$180 fine, one quarter of your license points) and I can't imagine anybody thinking it's excessive.

[darthkommandant]

So the fact that a law requiring seatbelts to be worn reducing the severity of accidents isn't good enough? It's not worth mentioning that people who don't wear seltbelts encourage others to do so and train their kids the same: it's in societies interests as a whole to reduce the severity of car accidents.

The penalties in Australia for not wearing a seatbelt are reasonably severe (AU$180 fine, one quarter of your license points) and I can't imagine anybody thinking it's excessive.

If that is the case (which it probably is) than a law is definitly justified. I personally dont mind the law I just think people should be intellegent enough to wear them anyway. Unfortunatly many people are idiots and decide to not wear them. With this in mind I dont see the problem in the law if it encourages people to buckle up at a young age so it forms a habit.

[Stark]

Sure, in a perfect world nobody would be stupid enough not to. But then nobody would need ot be forced to put their kids in baby capsules either, and even STILL people drive with babies on their laps, crawling round the back, etc etc. And when they get hurt, it's the taxpayers who put them back together, so it's worth trying to prevent it in my opinion.

[Talanth]

Rye: when you talk about the 'only endangering myself' attitude are you limiting this to physical endangerment or including emotional and phsychological endangerment? In answer to one of your examples I would say that suiside would be permitable if you have no dependents but not permitable if you had children or elderly relatives who rely on you.

[Vendetta]

Russian roulette. Two consenting adults wish to play a game of russian roulette. They both appear to be sound, mentally, and there is no risk to anyone else. Are their lives theirs to waste? Or do our judgments on what they ought to do with their bodies overrule theirs, even though they're their bodies?

You don't see how the concepts of desiring to play russian roulette and being mentally sound are mutually exclusive?

[Rye]

Russian roulette. Two consenting adults wish to play a game of russian roulette. They both appear to be sound, mentally, and there is no risk to anyone else. Are their lives theirs to waste? Or do our judgments on what they ought to do with their bodies overrule theirs, even though they're their bodies?

You don't see how the concepts of desiring to play russian roulette and being mentally sound are mutually exclusive?

That seems rather tautological. I wouldn't consider Derren Brown to be mentally unsound, would you?

Well, the fuck it is. A body that's not seatbelted can fly around the car in a strong glancing hit and kill someone else.

I guess people never drive on their own in your country. You think that if I'm specifically stating they're not endangering anyone else in their own car, that I actually mean they might be?

Why not? Maybe if you have some kind of deontological ethical association with free will, ownership of your own existance is important, but if you're following a utilitarian ethic, the ownership of your own existance is only important in that it brings you happiness. If killing yourself will bring more pain to others than the release of pain it brings to you, why should the notion of ownership of your own existance get in the way?

How would you quantify that pain? It seems to have a dangerous precident, too, Terri Schiavo, for instance. Why would her wishes matter in that state, compared to her parents who will suffer far more than she does if she's killed instead of continuing on living? Is the utilitarian imperative in that case overruling her right to die? If not, why not?

The ownership of your own existance bit could also be applied to anorexic women. Should we not help them, even if it will bring them greater happiness and ease tensions with everyone they know, simply because we ought to respect their ownership over their own existance?

Anorexia, Bulemia et al are considered mentally ill as far as I know. I would think that the "personal rightists" or whoever would argue that such people aren't competent enough to make those decisions because they've not got a good grip on reality. I'm not talking about people like that, just people that are of sound enough mind to make these decisions.

The emotional trauma done to someone by finding out that a good friend or a notable family member has killed themselves isn't even remotely comparable to the emotional troubles caused when someone moves away.

So, if the suicidal person's family and friends are severely autistic and are fairly apathetic towards the suicide, it's now okay? How do you quantify what emotional anguish overrules a person's right to death?

So at what point in this process does someone gain the truly spectacular arrogance required to believe that he owes society nothing?

What if they know they're not going to be anything more than a drain on society/parents etc? Wouldn't they, in effect, be saving society from an unworkable burden? They don't want sympathy, they don't want to leech off other hardworking people, they prefer oblivion.

[K. A. Pital]

I guess people never drive on their own in your country.

If he's on his own, just make sure his kids and wife don't end up striving economically because of his idiotic death. If the state helps that matter, he's free to kill himself in any way he wants - also, if he dies because of no safety belt, the state has to inform his kids and wife that he was an idiot who totally disregarded his life. That is most useful and refreshing news for the relatives, even if a bit harsh.

They don't want sympathy, they don't want to leech off other hardworking people, they prefer oblivion.

Just make sure other people don't suffer.
And essentially, it's better to put suicidal maniacs - ones that have no cause - into a clinic - because if someone is nutty enough to think of a suicide without no apparent reason (hardship or trauma), this person can also think about murdering with no apparent reason. He's an unpredictable psycho and dangerous if he goes without any treatment. He may not be satisfied with just killing himself.
Russian roulette players are nuts, so just isolate them.

How do you quantify what emotional anguish overrules a person's right to death?

Not like "emotional anguish" but if that anguish can actually cause harm. I.e. his old grandma can simply die - that's no good, his children and wife are left without money - also no good. If this larger stuff is not violated, or somebody, like the state, compensates this (at least financially), and no one cares for the guy too much so that it will cause them physical harm, he can just go and waste himself anytime he likes.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

How would you quantify that pain? It seems to have a dangerous precident, too, Terri Schiavo, for instance. Why would her wishes matter in that state, compared to her parents who will suffer far more than she does if she's killed instead of continuing on living? Is the utilitarian imperative in that case overruling her right to die? If not, why not?

The problem was, even if we accept it as the moral thing to do, I don't think our laws are set up like that. If they really wanted to have their brainless object to feel better, I would say that would be the ethical thing to do, given they could pay for it.

However, that's not how the law works. Ethically, maybe if you consider that point. Legally, no, since they had no power of guardian. The right to die when you are already a non-person doesn't seem too powerful, but that's how the US is set up. It's not a largely Utilitarian government.

I would also think that a sufficient quantity of objective physical pain would overrule merely subjective emotions. IF a person is suffering from actual physical pain, I would rank that higher than emotional discontentment. If they were both subjective emotions, then I guess it would be a matter of quantity, no?

[Broomstick]

My views on the examplea in order.
Seat belts:Yes if done by the folowing methods. People shouldn't need a law to wear them. There are several darwin awards winners who died because they didn't wear seatbelts. However you should have to sign a waver that if you dont wear your seatbelts you don't get covered fully by your medical/life insurance company.

Great. Bankrupt the person's family, leaving his/her dependants in poverty. Great idea.

Really, society as a whole loses - not to mention individuals in the family - whether the non-seatbelt-wearing idiot dies (deprieving family of income and labor) or survives (requiring expensive medical care).

Which is why there are now mandatory seatbelt laws - the notion that "only I get hurt" just doesn't apply. Getting yourself killed or maimed affects individuals beyond you.

Not that I'm eager to adopt extreme measures to protect people, or to deny all risk taking. However, the lifetime odds of getting into a car accident of some severity is greater than, say, getting kicked in head by a horse these days. The occurance is frequent enough that there is some justification for society imposing this rule.

Suicde: No unless in self self defense. Suicide is self killing. So like killing someone else it should be done for a very good reason. Examples would include terminal illness and blindness.

You know, I really have to take offense at the attitude that life as a blind person isn't worth living. Serious offense.

I understand some people feel that way - but almost all of them I've encountered have never known a blind person. It's all based on fear. Ditto for deafness, paralysis, and the like. It's why I absolutely can NOT support a newly disabled person wanting to commit suicide. AFTER a genuine attempt at rehabilitation, maybe, but until a couple years have gone by -- nope, can't agree. At all.

MOST people can make the adjustment to being less than perfect and go on to live meaningful lives.

It might also be justified if one has become sick of being a burden on society.

Perhaps if society was less inclined to marginalize and ghettoize the crippled there would be fewer people feeling the need to kill themselves for being "useless".

[Spoonist]

[Warning: longwinded and probably boring post]
Simple answer to the OP:
The sole purpose of a society is to protect the interests of the society and its members. That's it.

What those interests are we will never be able to arbitrarily set, instead it is a continuos evolutionary process. Humans are pack animals, we benefit from our pack and our pack benefits from cooperation with other packs. To facilitate cooperation between individuals and packs we evolve social cultures. One extremely competetive social culture is the organization of a society which sets definite rules and punish those individuals and packs that do not follow the rules. Each society will draw the line of what is punishable differently depending on the internal evolution of its cultures. Those different cultures will then compete it out and effect the society as a whole just like the societies will compete with other societies on a grander scale. Then it is just simple "survival of the fittest" to determine which societies and which cultures will prosper and to in the end influence and set the current rules of the society. Also evolution dictates that a society that allows cultures with traits different then the mainstream will be more adaptable to change.

"So long as I am of sound judgment, and I will only endanger myself, I don't see how your opinion of what I should do should override mine."

Problem is that most of the things that people feel 'entitled' to do in these discussions will usually be negative to society and society is the one who sets the rules. And as long as you live in a society you implicitly agree to follow society's rules. A society which does not punish reckless behavior will simply put have a higher casaulty rate. In modern society the investment in every new individual is higher than ever before. Also the ability for society to monitor and punish individuals is also higher than ever before. This should dictate that societies not only benefits by enforcing stricter rules they also have the means to enforce them, and cultures within society who follow these rules will be more competetive. It also dictates that counter-cultures will arise and that the trend will continue until such a counter-culture will become influencial. Now since recklessness is usually combined with youth and influence usually comes with age it should dictate that more nanny rules/laws will be set on new technology and that the mainstream culture will accept this while youth culture will rebell as they are bound to.

Now to your examples

Not wearing seatbelts, speeding, dui, etc
Society will always set rules that will hinder reckless behavior with new technology, until the next change makes the rules obsolete. Society will do this to protect itself and its members.
The problem with mentioning darwin awards and removing the stupid from the population ignores the fact that numbers count. Even if a certain trait (like intelligence) is the competetive edge right now, the number of individuals who get it is in direct proportion to the current breeding population. So if one society has rules that protect the stupid it will have a larger population from which to draw the specific trait. While elitist societies will be less competetive through a lower population even though the specific trait is more common among them. Until you fill your habitat of course.

Russian roulette, duels, etc
See recklessness above.
Historically there has been many cultures that has allowed for duels to settle disputes, so that disputes wouldn't grow to include packs. Now since cultures being what they are this meant that eventually a youth culture that promoted duels as giving status gained enough popularity for it to become a problem for society. Which again meant that the influential in the society (parents) changed the rules to protect its members (children) from the new recklessness.
So in the face of history any rules that allowed duel like behavior is doomed to be banned as soon as it becomes too popular.

Aggresive behavior like punching a tree
Since this type of aggressive behavior has little effect on society it will not put up any specific rules against it. But since we don't want members of our pack injured this usually means that the pack will interfere. Like friends/family holding you back or trying to get you to punch something softer. Most likely the aggressive individual also culturally expects this to happen to the degree that you can often see big muscular individuals in a 'rage' being easily held back by smaller individuals of the same pack.

Tattoos, haircuts, dying skin or hair, etc
They are all a way to affirm ones culture. Historically as long as that culture has had no effect on society it has been ignored, when it has been contributing to society it has been encouraged and when it has been an anti-culture it has been discouraged or even punished. Same today. Since a society with high tolerance has become increasingly competetive after the industrial era we are allowing more and more of culturally different looks, but since most cultures compete some looks has become more extreme to stand out in the 'white noise'.
If society would try to enforce rules regarding looks it would have to accept a higher level of intolerance, something which right now is not competetive, but which usually is cyclic.
Compare photos of people in the 20's-50's with people in the 60's-90's.

Suicide
The historical truth is that most reasons to commit suicide are psychological and an individuals psyche will change over time, so it has been that enforcing enough cultural pressure on an individual not to commit suicide might help them over a rough spot and thus keep a productive member of the pack. Again a competetive advantage.
So culturally we are obligated to 'save' an individual who is suicidal. This is usually not a so called moral dilemma as long as the individual is or could become a contributing member of the pack, then usually everyone agrees that we should help them. Instead people consider it to be a so called moral dilemma when the suicidal no longer are contributing members of the pack. Add this to the fact that the rules are set by the influencial ie the older which know that they could soon be non-contributing themselves.
What probably will come as the result of higher medical technology is a compromise where the cultural stigma of old against suicide remains, but where society creates rules within which suicide will be allowed. So that the individual can 'apply' for suicide then be evaluated to sort out those who again could become contributing (like teenage angst), then if approved society will aid the individual and try to minimize the negative effect on its pack. This means that the selfish who commit suicide outside of society's rules will have stigma against them, while those who do it by society's rules will be more accepted. Culturally we are halfway there but Society is not ready to change its rules yet.
[/Boring answer]