Reasoning and Government Control: a Wee Survey
Help me out on this. Suppose that there were some activity--suppose it was a form of meditation--which left one rather disoriented for an hour or so, but also allowed one to have ideas that one would not have had had one not engaged in the activity.
Now, it would be wrong to do anything requiring clear thought and good coordination during the disorientation period, but that could go without saying. Suppose also that many of the ideas that one had during this activity were crap, but that some few of them were worthwhile. The crap ones could be easily discarded, but you'd still be left with some good ideas that you would not otherwise have had.
Now suppose that the government outlawed the activity in question, even going so far as to throw people in jail for engaging in it.
Would the government be acting reasonably or not?
Help me out on this. Suppose that there were some activity--suppose it was a form of meditation--which left one rather disoriented for an hour or so, but also allowed one to have ideas that one would not have had had one not engaged in the activity.
Now, it would be wrong to do anything requiring clear thought and good coordination during the disorientation period, but that could go without saying. Suppose also that many of the ideas that one had during this activity were crap, but that some few of them were worthwhile. The crap ones could be easily discarded, but you'd still be left with some good ideas that you would not otherwise have had.
Now suppose that the government outlawed the activity in question, even going so far as to throw people in jail for engaging in it.
Would the government be acting reasonably or not?
posted by Winston Smith at
4:25 PM
8 Comments:
I think attending papers presented by academics ought to remain legal.
nyuck, nyuck
hokay, somewhat more seriouslier (although what I said above is true to the best of my knowledge -- "visiting philosophers can be boring"), it's hard to see why the state would have an interest in preventing the activity as the effects of the activity are described. Of course we're living in thought-experiment land, but one thing left unspecified is whether there are long-term side effects, or whether there is a significant likelihood of harms to others occcuring as the result of someone acting under the influence of this 'meditation.'
As TB notes, certainly "harm" is at the top of most of our moral lists.
I do think that if there were no such thing as children, many of our social issues would be decided differently. A child isn't capable of making the informed decision to ruin his life with drugs. By the time he can, it's too late.
The same could be said of religion, incidentally...and most kids get no say in THAT matter at all...
Once again, kids ruin everything. Retroactive abortion is the only way, I tell you.
Ah. Peter Singer again.
How do kids enter into this discussion negatively? It's easier for most kids in middle or high school to get pot than alcohol, and legalization would without any doubt REDUCE the number of kids getting their hands on it.
As for harm to myself, it's ridiculously comparable to cigs. As for harm to others, it's almost perfectly similar to alcohol. Why not follow those models?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home