“Do prohibitions really work?”

Is freedom the capability to behave as one pleases without causing harm to others, the ability to live one's own life free from hindrances? It is important to look at what the prohibition opposes—that is, the idea of freedom—before talking about how the prohibition works. This blog will discuss the idea of freedom, the circumstances in which restrictions may be justified, and the significance of finding a middle point.

In order to understand the functionality of prohibitions, it is necessary to first know what freedom means in order to understand whether the ban imposed on something works or not. The concept of freedom arises when the thoughts of respect and rights are not used correctly. Before discussing everyone's freedom to say whatever they want, there should be sufficient awareness about respecting everyone's right to express their thoughts and the different perspectives this brings. However, due to human nature, a person has the illusion that he knows best in every matter, and every prohibition against his actions accordingly pushes him to do more. When a person reaches adulthood, for instance, he wants to be independent of his parents. As a result, he finds it uncomfortable when they meddle in his life, and his inclination to go against their advice only gets stronger. In such cases, putting limits on the child could have unfavourable effects. Therefore, limitations are meaningless if they are imposed merely because we disagree, but they have significance if a solution is eventually found. In fact, the child's desire to live the life he wants is more of a right than freedom. What needs to be done is to teach how to use this right and to be aware that others have the same rights and to respect them. Therefore, respect is the basic element that will determine the limits of behaviour and its prohibitions in this case. For example, the choice of smoking and the asthma patient who is disturbed by smoking should be respected equally, because it is not right to make a clear distinction in such matters and say that one side is right and the other side is completely wrong. What actually needs to be done for this is to try to find the middle point. In other words, smokers should not be pressured not to smoke, and they should not smoke in closed areas, respecting the right of people who are uncomfortable to get clean air. In this way, making small waivers from the truths we believe in does not diminish us; it is fulfilling the requirements of living together. When there is awareness of showing rights and respect in this way, prohibitions cease to be coercive and become more meaningful and effective.

The difficulty in the applicability of prohibitions arises from the difficulty in determining the harm. According to Mill for harm principle, “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” (Mill). However, it is difficult to universalize this principle because the definition of harm varies across ideologies, nations, and even people. Therefore, prohibitions can often conflict with the general welfare of society. For example, in the vaccination policy during the pandemic, it is a person's right to refuse to be vaccinated, but it is also unacceptable to endanger the lives of others because they choose not to be vaccinated. In these cases, the wisest move that the government that will make the decision can make is to find a middle point instead of directly imposing rules and prohibitions. For instance, they can do this by trying to create a social order in which those who do not want to be vaccinated will stay away from those who are vaccinated. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that the importance and perspective of the society has a great impact on imposing and determining restrictions. Mill holds society guilty of values that a person does not accept as he should (Mill). Although society and the individual are an inseparable whole, the basis for a person to accept and adopt a value is related to his own self, that is, his ability to respect others without worshipping his own feelings and thoughts. In addition, it cannot be said that the prohibitions imposed by the state are always unimportant. For example, according to Mill, a person who goes to extremes should be punished not because of this behaviour, but because of the result it brings, that is, because he cannot pay his debt (Mill). However, if someone's extremism is not stopped, the obstacles to extremism will disappear and this situation will normalize over time. More people do the same behaviour as it is not forbidden, going to extremes and causing things to get out of control. To give an instance, the state's restriction on purchases during the pandemic period, when everyone wants to stock food at home, is not an intervention in personal freedom; on the contrary, it is to protect everyone's right to access food. Therefore, in order to protect the general welfare, sometimes the application of some rules prevents greater injustices.

The power of prohibitions is not enough to eliminate evil, but this does not make them unnecessary. Prohibitions are needed to ensure the general welfare of society and not to normalize evil, but what makes restrictions valuable is that they bring solutions by taking into account respect. If a person is really determined to do something bad, the only thing that can stop him at this point is knowing that his rights are not unique to him and being aware of being respectful under all circumstances.

Works Cited

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty, Utilitarianism, and Other Essays. Ed. Mark Philp and Frederick Rosen. Oxford University Press, 2015.