Question

Let's suppose there is a preventative personal law, say that of consuming some drug , or practicing sexualities, then, a possible arguement set by those who are against it would be, the preventative personal laws should not exist as it directly does not effect anyone else, and infringes on their liberty.

Now, a counter argument could be constructed by some second order thinking. If the preventative personal law were to be removed, then people would consider practicing what the preventative personal law tried to prevent stop more, and hence have an effect on whole of society in someway. (typically negative)

For example, legalizing an illicit substance like Marjuna would lead to more people abusing this drug, and hence to a societal degradation as a total. Please don't answer using this specific example btw

What could be an abstract counter argument to the counter argument provided above?

Answer 1

An abstract counter-argument to the justification of preventative personal laws is based on the principles of personal autonomy, moral pluralism, and the idea that education and societal norms should guide behavior instead of enforced legislation.

Step-by-step explanation:

An abstract counter-argument to the idea that preventative personal laws should exist because their absence may lead to negative societal impacts could rely on the principles of personal autonomy and moral pluralism. Advocates for individual rights might argue that such laws unjustly infringe upon personal liberty and assume a paternalistic state role. They might also suggest that the legal system should not be the primary means for enforcing moral behavior, especially in cases where the actions in question do not directly harm others. Instead, education and societal norms should guide personal behavior rather than coercive laws.

This view is supported by the notion that there is often not a clear consensus on moral issues, and thus, laws may unduly reflect the moral convictions of the governing subset rather than the population as a whole.This position aligns with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's idea that one's personal freedoms end only where they impinge upon the rights of others. It also takes into consideration that societal notions of morality evolve over time and that the law should be adaptable to reflect changing moral landscapes, much like how Prohibition was repealed after societal views changed.