I’ve come to see myself by what I call “pro-choice consequentialism”. Meaning that you should be allowed to do something so long as you accept the consequences of it. If you know that a crime you’re going to commit is going to get you arrested, and you do it anyway, you deserve what happens to you. Or if you know that something is legal but might make you feel terrible later and you do it, then you should be allowed to do it.
Not necessarily in a libertarian perspective since I’m not a believer in limited government in the way they often do. The government has a role to play in creating these problems and in the solutions.
Thanks for sharing. I always appreciate your unique perspective. One question, how would the pro-choice consequentialism work with something like murder or assault?
Jus to add a little extra on to that, I’m pro-choice when it comes to abortion, guns and euthanasia. In all three instances it involves the potential taking of a life. All three should be available to people should they choose to access them. If you’re okay with the taking of a life in one case, then I don’t see much in the way of distinction for the other two.
The degree to which there should be consequences for each is debatable and should be taken up by the laws of the place you live in. As a citizen though you have a responsibility to know what the consequences might be so if you are going to take one of the actions, you accept the consequences of it and you should be able to live with them.
Murder and assault are crimes. So if you choose to commit them, you suffer the consequences of having the police and judicial system potentially lock you up for years, possibly your whole life. People generally don’t get away with it in a personal sense either. They have to be able to live with it and most people can’t, which is why people don’t go around committing them.
Would a just society be obligated to try and prevent people from exercising the choice to kill another, via policing for example? Let's imagine a person is right now attempting to assault or murder a fully developed person. Do you believe the state should intervene to prevent their right to make a free choice to kill? Here we have two conflicting interests. By failing to act to stop one from acting upon their desired choice we are at the same time neglecting to attend to the interests of the other who may be less powerful and I'm imminent danger.
Actually, it would because the fact of their desire to make a free choice doesn’t necessarily mean that they are free from consequences. If you smash your own property that you paid for, you didn’t hurt anyone and you exercised your free choice but the consequence is that you don’t get to have that thing anymore since you destroyed it. Or at the very least you have to incur the cost of having to pay to replace it.
The same thing occurs when you make a choice that impacts someone else. You have to face consequences for your actions. Society has an obligation to make its own choices. What it is and isn’t willing to tolerate.
If you want to get a more well articulated version of the idea of a pro-choice consequentialist view, my section on Society kinda elaborates this in the examination of the show The 100. As I was going through writing up pieces about that series, it drove me to that way of thinking.
Great stuff as always.
I’ve come to see myself by what I call “pro-choice consequentialism”. Meaning that you should be allowed to do something so long as you accept the consequences of it. If you know that a crime you’re going to commit is going to get you arrested, and you do it anyway, you deserve what happens to you. Or if you know that something is legal but might make you feel terrible later and you do it, then you should be allowed to do it.
Not necessarily in a libertarian perspective since I’m not a believer in limited government in the way they often do. The government has a role to play in creating these problems and in the solutions.
Thanks for sharing. I always appreciate your unique perspective. One question, how would the pro-choice consequentialism work with something like murder or assault?
Jus to add a little extra on to that, I’m pro-choice when it comes to abortion, guns and euthanasia. In all three instances it involves the potential taking of a life. All three should be available to people should they choose to access them. If you’re okay with the taking of a life in one case, then I don’t see much in the way of distinction for the other two.
The degree to which there should be consequences for each is debatable and should be taken up by the laws of the place you live in. As a citizen though you have a responsibility to know what the consequences might be so if you are going to take one of the actions, you accept the consequences of it and you should be able to live with them.
Murder and assault are crimes. So if you choose to commit them, you suffer the consequences of having the police and judicial system potentially lock you up for years, possibly your whole life. People generally don’t get away with it in a personal sense either. They have to be able to live with it and most people can’t, which is why people don’t go around committing them.
Would a just society be obligated to try and prevent people from exercising the choice to kill another, via policing for example? Let's imagine a person is right now attempting to assault or murder a fully developed person. Do you believe the state should intervene to prevent their right to make a free choice to kill? Here we have two conflicting interests. By failing to act to stop one from acting upon their desired choice we are at the same time neglecting to attend to the interests of the other who may be less powerful and I'm imminent danger.
Actually, it would because the fact of their desire to make a free choice doesn’t necessarily mean that they are free from consequences. If you smash your own property that you paid for, you didn’t hurt anyone and you exercised your free choice but the consequence is that you don’t get to have that thing anymore since you destroyed it. Or at the very least you have to incur the cost of having to pay to replace it.
The same thing occurs when you make a choice that impacts someone else. You have to face consequences for your actions. Society has an obligation to make its own choices. What it is and isn’t willing to tolerate.
If you want to get a more well articulated version of the idea of a pro-choice consequentialist view, my section on Society kinda elaborates this in the examination of the show The 100. As I was going through writing up pieces about that series, it drove me to that way of thinking.