This is both a new blog post and a response to some of Adam’s comments from his blog post. I don’t think that the government has any right to require people to donate blood or to donate organs. I think that, yes, it would be great if everyone chose to donate their blood and/or organs but individuals have a right to be in control of their own bodies and, even if their contribution would do much more good than harm, they should be able to individually weight the benefits and losses and then decide for themselves. A government should never be allowed to coerce people into giving up certain rights to their own bodies. Think of the consequences: Roe v. Wade overturned, for one. Extending this argument into another realm, I think that the government should not be allowed to ban fast food from city restaurants. The LA Times reported the week of Sept 11, 2007 that “the Los Angeles city council will soon be considering an ordinance that bans new fast food restaurants in South LA.” If a government has the right to restrict things such as fast food because they are concerned with the health of the population, they are just a few steps away from spending government funds on making gyms, planning exercise routines, and starting running groups. Eventually, they could ban many common and potentially necessary (well, necessary for me) activities and services because they are unhealthy. Imagine if the government was concerned about the lack of sleep on college campuses and thus required Starbucks to shut down before 10pm every night. Not to mention the immense drop in grades and in student productivity, the government would be substantially overreaching its bounds and unnecessarily interfering. I think that the government should not be involved in public health decisions that are more about enhancement of lifestyle than about necessary public sanitation and health. As much as these concerns seem immensely far-fetched and it seems that the government would never institute such outlandish reforms, I believe that ten or fifteen years ago it seemed crazy that the government would outlaw McDonald’s in some places. Just because the government expands its capacity to ban certain companies, it doesn’t mean that anyone will become skinnier or healthier. Real change would come from more education about health instead of large bans on some aspects on unhealthy activity.
http://blog.bioethics.net/2007/09/fast-food-off-the-menu-1/ Post by Greg Dahlmann
I would have to agree with Kelley, but for different reasons. To begin, when one says "the government", it is a term that ought to be cleared up in discussions of theoretical ethics. The reason for this is that when the government is brought into the equation, the theoretical discussion turns into one about the practical application of theoretical ethics. The problem with this is that the word government means different things. Its meaning can be as broad as a ruling body that presides over a nation, or it can be as specific as a body of elected representatives meant to act within their respective roles through a system of a separation of powers to enact and enforce federal policy. Once this is taken into consideration, it can be concluded (albeit with some uncertainty) that the "government" being discussed in Adam's blogpost and Kelley's blogpost is the American government. And thus, the answer becomes easy - the government does not have any right to require people to donate blood or organs because that right would step beyond the boundaries of the federal government as dictated by the Constitution.
However, I do not agree that this applies to Roe v. Wade. This case does not revolve around the issue government intervention. As far as the debate around government involvement is concerned, it is whether or not the federal government should have a say in the matter, or whether the decision to allow abortion ought to be left to the states. However, because Roe v. Wade is a Supreme Court case, the United States government (specifically the judicial branch) has every right to have a say in the matter. Nota bene, this is not to say that the government should decided what each human being is required to do, abortion or no, but rather that that Supreme Court should have a direct say in how public policy should be constructed in regards to abortion within Constitutional boundaries. Because of this, the overturning of Roe v. Wade would be perfectly acceptable, and would not at all be an issue of the government coercing people to give up their right to their own bodies.
3 comments:
This is both a new blog post and a response to some of Adam’s comments from his blog post. I don’t think that the government has any right to require people to donate blood or to donate organs. I think that, yes, it would be great if everyone chose to donate their blood and/or organs but individuals have a right to be in control of their own bodies and, even if their contribution would do much more good than harm, they should be able to individually weight the benefits and losses and then decide for themselves. A government should never be allowed to coerce people into giving up certain rights to their own bodies. Think of the consequences: Roe v. Wade overturned, for one.
Extending this argument into another realm, I think that the government should not be allowed to ban fast food from city restaurants. The LA Times reported the week of Sept 11, 2007 that “the Los Angeles city council will soon be considering an ordinance that bans new fast food restaurants in South LA.” If a government has the right to restrict things such as fast food because they are concerned with the health of the population, they are just a few steps away from spending government funds on making gyms, planning exercise routines, and starting running groups. Eventually, they could ban many common and potentially necessary (well, necessary for me) activities and services because they are unhealthy. Imagine if the government was concerned about the lack of sleep on college campuses and thus required Starbucks to shut down before 10pm every night. Not to mention the immense drop in grades and in student productivity, the government would be substantially overreaching its bounds and unnecessarily interfering. I think that the government should not be involved in public health decisions that are more about enhancement of lifestyle than about necessary public sanitation and health.
As much as these concerns seem immensely far-fetched and it seems that the government would never institute such outlandish reforms, I believe that ten or fifteen years ago it seemed crazy that the government would outlaw McDonald’s in some places. Just because the government expands its capacity to ban certain companies, it doesn’t mean that anyone will become skinnier or healthier. Real change would come from more education about health instead of large bans on some aspects on unhealthy activity.
http://blog.bioethics.net/2007/09/fast-food-off-the-menu-1/
Post by Greg Dahlmann
Somehow I messed this up and only posted the title at first. Now my actual post is posted as a comment.
I would have to agree with Kelley, but for different reasons. To begin, when one says "the government", it is a term that ought to be cleared up in discussions of theoretical ethics. The reason for this is that when the government is brought into the equation, the theoretical discussion turns into one about the practical application of theoretical ethics. The problem with this is that the word government means different things. Its meaning can be as broad as a ruling body that presides over a nation, or it can be as specific as a body of elected representatives meant to act within their respective roles through a system of a separation of powers to enact and enforce federal policy. Once this is taken into consideration, it can be concluded (albeit with some uncertainty) that the "government" being discussed in Adam's blogpost and Kelley's blogpost is the American government. And thus, the answer becomes easy - the government does not have any right to require people to donate blood or organs because that right would step beyond the boundaries of the federal government as dictated by the Constitution.
However, I do not agree that this applies to Roe v. Wade. This case does not revolve around the issue government intervention. As far as the debate around government involvement is concerned, it is whether or not the federal government should have a say in the matter, or whether the decision to allow abortion ought to be left to the states. However, because Roe v. Wade is a Supreme Court case, the United States government (specifically the judicial branch) has every right to have a say in the matter. Nota bene, this is not to say that the government should decided what each human being is required to do, abortion or no, but rather that that Supreme Court should have a direct say in how public policy should be constructed in regards to abortion within Constitutional boundaries. Because of this, the overturning of Roe v. Wade would be perfectly acceptable, and would not at all be an issue of the government coercing people to give up their right to their own bodies.
Post a Comment