LNAT Sample Essay - 'Laws Should Be Enacted Only to Prevent Harm to Others'. Do You Agree?

The tenet 'Laws should only be enacted to prevent harm to others' is embodied by the Harm Principle in philosophy. This predicates that in the legal system, one has autonomy to exercise his or her rights largely indiscriminately, unless in the act of exercising right, one is putting another individual in harm's way. However, some factions may argue that this system undermines the value for one's own life, and assumes that the government is not concerned with self-inflicted harm. It is important to note that rights are a freedom and not a burden, and so enforcing laws to prevent harm to oneself imposes the right to life onto a person, rather than conferring it onto them. People should assume responsibility, and profess actions with complete discretion. This essay will argue for the tenet, concluding that laws should be framed to prevent harm to others.

The prevention of harm to others in exercising one's right follows from the Libertarian ideology. This entails that one has absolute authority over oneself, unless they pose a risk to other members of society. For example, one is allowed the unfettered right to consumption of alcohol and drugs. However, if a person drives under the influence, or displays violent tendencies that may be fatal to a bystander, laws must be enforced to safeguard the existence of the other parties who become collateral damage. Enforcing legal limits to one's actions, borders on oppression of one's bodily autonomy and infringes their rights to freedom. This may lead to an increasing number of people harbouring negative sentiments to the legislative body in their country, and lead to an increase in the defiance of their authority in other matters. If a person puts themselves in harm's way as a consequence of their own actions, then that is the active decision taken by that person and no governmental organization is entitled to control one's faculties in that sphere. Thus, enacting laws only to prevent harm to others from one's actions is the right way to instill accountability for human life, while also respecting their personal choices.

Conversely, concerns may arise regarding the government's apathy towards the impact of self harm in such situations. Laws that ensure personal safety in the conduction of rights create a spirit of value for human life. This is an essential part of society, as by enabling people to abuse their health, there is collateral damage caused to loved ones of the person, as well as to society as a whole due to the loss of the precious human resources. These laws may include prohibition, or limiting the use of addictive substance to ensure the overall wellbeing of a person.

Opponents must note, however, that in any democratic society, autonomy and freedom is the foremost principle that must be upheld. If one is using the example of prohibition to assume that if such laws are enforced, society will be better off, one must also consider that during the Prohibition era, the existence of bootleg industries and parallel markets for alcohol boomed, causing alcohol consumption to increase manifold. Of course, this is only an example but does it not foretell the imminence of violation of laws led by the disapproving public if such laws are enacted? This stems from the argument that forbidding a particular action breeds a desire to take risks and engage in said actions. If people are explicitly given the responsibility for themselves, rather than being sheltered from their own actions by the provisions of the law, it is more likely that people will be more weary of the outcome of their actions and minimize risk for not only themselves but also society as a whole. Human learn from experience, and should be given the right to expose themselves to any such experience that they desire, rather than artificially stimulating them to not perform self harming actions. Rights are freedoms not impositions, and so although people do have the right to life, there is no underlying expectation for them to keep living in a particular manner.

Overall, stripping someone of their right to live their lives on their own terms is detrimental to society as well as the development of a person as whole. The Harm Principle in enacting law is correct in that it limits the rights of a person but only to the extent that it must, i.e. shielding another person from the consequences of other's actions. The libertarian philosophy underlines how the legal system should ideally function as it protects people, while also ensuring their rights are upheld.

Word Count: 750

#LNAT #Essay #UCAS

This sample LNAT essay is an original piece written by our lead writer, Anoushka Ichpanani