Is there a legal term or argument against behavioral modification through laws?For example, the criminalization of marijuana was justified in part because its use correlated with that of other, harder drugs, and maybe some other behavior that was consi

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

File: 1455963654423.jpg (1.32 MB, 2144x1424, 134:89, switchblade.jpg)

Anonymous 02/20/16 (Sat) 10:20:54 No.17689

Is there a legal term or argument against behavioral modification through laws?

For example, the criminalization of marijuana was justified in part because its use correlated with that of other, harder drugs, and maybe some other behavior that was considered undesirable.

Another example is switchblades, which were mostly made illegal because they were associated with street gangs, not because they themselves are something particularly wicked. If they were simply a gimmick knife that had no more historical or mental association with crime than any other knife, nobody would have cared.

This seems really inappropriate and unethical to the point where they should be some type of legal theory against it, but I've never seen anything like that.

Anonymous 02/20/16 (Sat) 12:17:03 No.17691

I know some theoretical legal safeguards against this kind of stuff, but those are vague and very unspecific. As for specific arguments against it, you can only make those on the grounds that paternalism is wrong. That's an easy case to make, and I'd argue that even the guys in the government begrudgingly accept that paternalism sucks; they are just very good at rationalizing it away.

Anonymous 02/20/16 (Sat) 12:28:28 No.17692

I think most problems humanity faces these days are due to (moral) relativism. Thinking in absolute terms isn't fancy anymore, it seems. You are supposed to weigh the benefits and the costs of any decision, yet being cold and calculating like the hedonistic calculus actually requires is seen as unthinkable. Or at least that's my general impression of the contemporary Zeitgeist.

Anonymous 02/21/16 (Sun) 04:45:09 No.17827

>>17691

> As for specific arguments against it, you can only make those on the grounds that paternalism is wrong.

That really only works though if people from the outset are disposed towards a libertarian mindset. Otherwise, their immediate response would be to go hardline

>that is what the studies show, a connection between marijuana and hard drugs. Do you want even more people to do hard drugs?

And yes, it's stupid and cringeworthy, but that is the mindset you have to deal with.

>>17692

>You are supposed to weigh the benefits and the costs of any decision, yet being cold and calculating like the hedonistic calculus actually requires is seen as unthinkable.

Interesting observation.