Seatbelt Laws

First, I will explain why seatbelt laws are justified and preferable according to Western legal norms, namely utilitarianism and paternalism. Then I will defend this standard against common objections regarding individual liberty. My hope is that my opponent is prepared to debate seatbelt laws, and not redirect the conversation into solely a challenge to utilitarianism. That argument would be beyond the scope of this debate as I intended it, as utilitarianism is one of the ethical foundations of a secular, liberal society. In short, I already disagree with her -- it is entirely reasonable to presume utilitarianism in this context. The basic premise in favor of seatbelt laws is that they improve seatbelt use, and it is an empirical fact that they do.[1][2][3] Seatbelt laws improve how frequently drivers and passengers use seatbelts primarily through fine-based deterrence and police enforcement, but also indirectly through promoting a culture of good habits. Improving seatbelt use provides two major benefits to society and individuals: 1) Saves lives and protects health.[2] Not wearing a seatbelt is extremely dangerous to a person's health and livelihood. An individual is not only less likely to die or be injured in a car crash if she is wearing a seatbelt, but also less likely to kill or injure other individuals involved in the car crash. To be clear, a person who chooses not to wear a seatbelt not only risks her own safety; she also risks the safety of other passengers in her car (if her body were to be tossed around inside the car and hit other bodies) and the safety of motorists and pedestrians (if her body were to be thrown from the car). 2) Saves money.[1] Individuals dying and being injured is expensive to the state and the people.[1] Insurance premiums go up, hospitals use their resources for ambulances and ER visits, the state pays for disability claims, and injured or disabled people can be less productive. Money is needlessly spent on these things when motorists don't wear a seatbelt and get into a crash. The cost of seatbelt laws is small: the state must spend money to enforce them, and individual citizens are required to give up the personal liberty of choosing whether or not to wear a seatbelt. I argue that this personal liberty should not be protected above the health, livelihoods, and money of other citizens. Typically individuals do not forfeit their seatbelt because of a thoughtful objection to authoritarianism -- rather, their decision is irrational and they merely need a nudge from the law to be more safe.[4] What's more, this is a decision that has serious consequences for other individuals -- they may be injured, die, lose a loved one, or have to pay for medical services that could have been easily avoided by wearing a seatbelt. Modifications to seatbelt laws could even be made to account for objections on behalf of liberty. For example, it would be possible to implement a conscientious objector provision that would allow individuals to pay a fee (similar in cost to that of other government issuances, so around $50-200) to have a sticker on their car that exempted them from this law. While providing for ethical objection, this provision would keep the beneficial nudge of the law intact because most people would rather buckle up than get the sticker. The liberal, democratic state has the authority--indeed, the obligation--to serve the people's interests in legitimate ways.[5] In this case, it is in the people's interest not to needlessly be injured, killed, or spend money. Protecting this interest via seat belt laws is legitimate because it improves well-being (utility) [5] and does not deny the people of a critical liberty.[6] In fact, it protects their capacity to exercise their liberties in the future because they won't have suffered irreversible self-injury.[6] In sum, the benefits of seatbelt laws far outweigh the small costs they potentially impose. Therefore, seatbelt laws are a justified application of paternalism under utilitarian ethics, and it is preferable to have them. 1. http://www.policyalmanac.org... 2. http://news.ontario.ca... 3. http://www.stnonline.com... 4. On Liberty and Utilitarianism. John Stuart Mill 5. http://commons.pacificu.edu... 6. Mill's Utilitarianism: Critical Essays. David Lyons