Laws against shoplifting can be justified using the harm principles. The principle highlights that the actions that cause harm should be prevented. In this case, an individual can do anything he or she likes provided they do not cause damage to others. The shoplifter causes harm to the store owner because he steals from the shop. The owner loses revenue which causes harm to his or her livelihood.
Laws against forgery also fit into the harm principle. Forgers involve themselves in counterfeit actions, offering forged products and services. They negatively affect the individual’s legal rights through cheating and in some cases, the individuals end up violating the law, in possession of counterfeit products or documents. Hence, the forgers harm the individuals who seek their services since they lose credibility even in the eyes of the law.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The law against suicide fits in the harm principle as well as legal paternalism. In this light, by committing suicide, the individual inflicts self-harm which should not be allowed. Legal paternalism also applies due to the infliction of self-harm. In this case, legal paternalism gives the state the rights to protect individuals from self-harm.
Spitting on the sidewalk can be justified using the offense principle and the harm principle. When people spit, they may cause the spread of bacteria, germs and other organisms that cause diseases. Also, spitting on the sidewalk is offensive to some people and in some cases disgusting.
The laws against driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol can be justified through the principle of self-harm and legal paternalism. Drunken driving may cause accidents which may cause extensive injuries and even death. The policy of self-harm dictates that actions that harm others should be prevented. Hence the law against drunken driving is an attempt to avoid accidents. Also, legal paternalism aims at preventing self-harm. By forbidding drunk driving, the law ensures that people drive safely.
The laws against adultery are in line with legal moralism, legal paternalism, and the self-harm principle. In this light, religious people find adultery immoral since it is against the Ten Commandments. This justifies legal moralism. Through adultery, people transmit sexually transmitted diseases which justify the principle of self-harm and legal paternalism. The laws against adultery protect the people from harming their relationships and from contracting sexually transmitted infections.
The laws against marriage between two people of the same sex can be justified using legal moralism. In this case, religious people are against the norm because it is against God’s wishes. God punished Sodom and Gomorrah due to marriage between same sexes, and according to the Bible, God created man and woman for a purpose. Also, in most culture, a marriage between the same sexes is unacceptable. The law protracts the moral standing of culture and religion.
The laws that require people to have licenses before they practice medicine can be justified using legal paternalism and the harm principle. Medical practitioners have to be tested, and they have to meet certain standards to practice medicine. The rules asses their qualifications and their skills in medicine. The licenses protect the patient since they can sue in case of anything, and the licenses also assure the patient that they are in the right hands. When a doctor does not have a permit, their skills in medicine and their standards are in questions, and it is difficult to tell whether they are qualified or not. Such doctors may not have the necessary knowledge or skills, and they may end up making the wrong diagnosis, or the wrong prescription causing more harm to the patient. Hence, the licenses protect the patients from harm.
