An Argument Against the Justification of Paternalistic Laws in the United States
An Argument Against the Justification of Paternalistic Laws in the United States
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2020-12-02
Authors
Locke, Jonathan
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
University Honors College Middle Tennessee State University
Abstract
In this thesis, I propose a framework through which laws may be analyzed to give a baselevel
judgment of the law’s justifiability. According to this framework, a law must be
outward-facing, motivated by something other than personal morality or religious
ideology, and have a punishment equal to the action it prohibits to be justifiable. I then
use this framework to analyze several laws classified as paternalistic in nature throughout
the United States. First analyzed is cannabis prohibition laws, which fail all three tenets
of the framework and is thus deemed unjustifiable. Next analyzed are seatbelt and
motorcycle helmet requirements, which are also marked unjustifiable. Finally, coercive
censorship is examined through the framework, also being rated unjustifiable. After using
the framework to argue against the justification of these laws, I then employ the
framework to show how mask mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic are justifiable.
Description
Keywords
College of Liberal Arts,
Philosophy,
Politics,
Political,
Libertarianism,
Paternalism,
Nozick,
Cannabis,
Censorship,
Justification,
Justifiable,
Justified