You don’t need to wait to see how something turns out to know whether doing it is ethical or wrong.
You don't need to wait to see what effect tariffs have. Imposing them is unethical because they are a tax, and taxation is theft.
You don't need to wait to see if the next anti-gun rule reduces murder or suicide, because disarming people is wrong.
You don't need to wait to see if banning food dyes- or mandating vaccinations- improves "public health", because such edicts remove personal options concerning personal health decisions. This indicates you are someone else's property- a slave. Slavery is unethical.
You don't need to wait to see how ending drug prohibition would turn out. No one has the right to control what someone else consumes; doing so anyway "for their own good" is wrong. As is criminalizing defending yourself and your property from those under the influence of drugs.
When doing something you have no right to do, the only reason to say you need to "wait to see how it turns out" is because you are addicted to controlling things that are not yours to control. You are rejecting ethics in favor of pragmatism.
Thank you for reading.
Many people would like to purchase foods without dyes, but that food tends to be more expensive. Banning it would produce more options for those who want to eat healthy.
ReplyDelete“…those who want to eat healthy”
DeleteThese people have no just authority to dictate what choices EVERYONE else has available to buy. If such choices are costlier, then those with that preference should pay it, not others. Also, I fail to see how leaving an unnecessary component out of a product can ‘tend to make that food more expensive’?
Banning an option has never resulted in more options.
DeleteI would prefer actual food over the processed stuff which is where the vast majority of the dyes are found. And no one has ever kept that option away from me- I don't eat right, but it's no one else's fault. I think it's only more expensive (maybe) if you count the processed stuff as food.