The justification for state laws?
Hello and Happy Holidays!
A somewhat strange question has arisen for me, and I would love to hear the Rabbi’s opinion on this.
What is the justification for traffic safety laws? For example, the obligation to wear seat belts in the back. It seems clear that the law is intended to prevent harm to the occupants of the vehicle, and if so, what is the justification for imposing this on them?
If a person wants to enjoy the journey more and take the risk – who will stop them? How is this different from the fact that there is no law prohibiting smoking cigarettes?
In principle, a state allows itself to prohibit a person from causing harm to themselves. This is also true for cigarettes, except that there the harm is probably not as great and direct and the demand is perhaps too strong. One can argue about where the line is drawn, of course.
The justification I can see for this is that if a person causes harm to themselves, they and their family become a burden on society (medical and social care, etc.). That’s why society says it’s not willing to allow it. And of course there’s also the fear of harming other people (if you don’t wear a seatbelt and get hurt, you’ll lose control of the car and maybe others will get hurt).
This is the justification. As for the right to do so (and this is a different question), it is about using the resources that society puts at our disposal (roads, streets, and even cars, and of course other social services – security, education, welfare, etc.). Therefore, society can condition the use of its resources on various conditions.
And above all, if you accept the perception that the person is also a member of the public collective and not just an individual, then the collective can make decisions for him (just as he makes decisions for himself).
I enjoyed the answer about the justification that the person will become a burden on society if he gets hurt. I didn't think about that. Because it's interesting. And yet, does that satisfy the rabbi? I don't know, but my intuition says that it's a bit exaggerated. The concern is far-fetched. Sweets, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs and other harmful things - everything is allowed. And suddenly there's this taboo about seat belts that they're forbidden. And there wasn't even a discussion about it. I haven't heard a single voice claiming that it's an infringement of freedom. Doesn't that sound a bit strange?
There are certainly voices that it violates freedom, but indeed there are few voices. The majority in society thinks it is legitimate.
The difference from cigarettes and candy (what brought drugs here? They also prohibit that) is the directness of the harm. When there is indirect harm that will only hasten the death that awaits us all anyway, there is no justification for violating individual freedom.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
