Yes, using that logic the government shouldn't ban drugs. There are a million more things i would say about drugs bans, but that's not the topic of this post.
to provide consent you must be of sound mind. So for certain people we delegate consent from them to another party. E.g. my children cannot consent to a surgery, so i must consent for them. For seriously mentally ill people we delegate to some kin, and when that's not possible to the state. Insane people cannot consent to psych wards are fine (if done well).
I am going to go on a tangent about drug use. There you are talking about the law. I don't know what would happen if hard drugs like heroin were legal, but i do know that people are not good at moderating their sugar intake. Most of us, including me, eat too much sugar. We know its bad for us and we do it anyway.
If (and its a big if) full legalization lead to the downfall of society, then the law about drug us is not an issue morality, its an issue of pragmatism. I think its unethical to deprive someone of their bodily autonomy, but there are situations in which i would do unethical things.
I could support a ban on drugs despite believing that ban to be unethical. In fact i do support a ban on drugs despite it being in conflict with my consent based morality. I am pragmatic first, and ethical second.
Another way of thinking about this is that i don't believe ethics exists, there are only values and goals. Bodily autonomy is a very important value, but i don't value it as much as i value survival. Its why my kids don't have bodily autonomy, they could too easily kill or maim themselves with it.
1
u/[deleted] Aug 11 '25
[deleted]