Should protecting the public from harm be the Government's overriding priority? Watch

Iridocyclitis
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
No matter what means are used to protect the public from harm, i.e. deeply authoritarian measures to restrict known terror suspects, spending a lot of money on preventing homelessness and ensuring people have a enough money to live off through benefits, etc.

Views?
0
reply
Gautam95
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
For a second there I thought the title said "should protecting the public from haram be the Government's overriding priority?" :lolwut:
2
reply
jgjog3
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
Yes and No, they should protect their citizens obviously as they are *governing* those citizens.... But not turn into flippin' 1984 just because they need to protect people?! there should be a balance.
0
reply
JohanGRK
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
(Original post by Gautam95)
For a second there I thought the title said "should protecting the public from haram be the Government's overriding priority?" :lolwut:
islamophobia
reported
0
reply
sleepysnooze
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
"yes"
the role of the government is to defend the individual and the society from harm, be it internal or external (i.e. crime or war). that is the objective goal of the social contract - the trade of obedience to the law in return for defence.

but from that goal, the individual should have rights that the government defends itself, lest the individual cannot defend themselves
if the society is going to be destroyed, then to torture a citizen to extract information to divert that physical destruction ought not be legal but at least be encouraged in a situation of life or death. what is not moral is not always the necessary action.
but ultimately, the government ought to operate alongside morality. and morality protects every single individual.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
Yes, hence, Brexit should not happen
0
reply
TheNote
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
No, the government should represent their voters in the most classically-liberal way possible, it's the only way to keep the freedoms of the people s uninhibited as possible.

Allow me to add a "why" to this:

"protecting" the public can be used in all sorts of ways to harm the public and discriminate against minorities. For example: gays have a higher rate of HIV therefore we must ban being gay to help protect the public from HIV, or all terrorists are Muslims so to be safe we should lock away the Muslims. A real life example would be from WW2 in America, "our enemies are Japanese, therefore all Japanese people in America should be locked up, for public safety of course".

As we have seen with recent terrorism public scaremongering about terrorism has lead to fewer freedoms of the people with increased surveillance. I understand it's a half-slippery slope argument, but that doesn't mean it's incorrect. Protecting the public should be a priority but public freedom should be as or more important.
0
reply
skeptical_john
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
They should be doing their utmost to give people the freedom and responsibility to harm themselves. Be it through sport/work/drugs...
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Chemistry Paper 3 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (49)
28.99%
The paper was reasonable (86)
50.89%
Not feeling great about that exam... (17)
10.06%
It was TERRIBLE (17)
10.06%

Watched Threads

View All