Another complication is having the freedom to do something that is known to indirectly cause harm to others. For instance, one might want to give a dog the opportunity to run in the yard. But if we know that the dog will jump the fence and then bite someone else, then should that freedom be limited? The answer to almost all societies is that if an action is known to cause harm to others, then that freedom should be limited.
But what if it is different in different cases? Some people, when they get drunk, they get abusive. Others, most, do not. Some people, when they use drugs, steal. Others do not. Should everyone be limited from these activities because of the harm of a few? Or should each case be taken separately? Most societies make general principles—i.e. drinking is okay, drunk driving is not—that limit one’s harm, but allows freedom.
This means that we must make more limitations ourselves. If we know we can cause harm to others indirectly, then we must avoid that harm ahead of time. We cannot depend upon the law to determine all of our ethical choices. Freedom means doing what is right ourselves because it is right, not because someone is telling us to.
No comments:
Post a Comment