The safety of the people and the case against invasive health promotion
The safety of the people and the case against invasive health promotion
This chapter explores John Harris’s ‘safety of the people’ argument, which contends that there is a moral obligation on the modern state to protect its citizens against serious threats to security, safety and welfare. The potentially wide-ranging implications of this argument are examined in the context of current policy trends towards regulating and restricting individual health behaviour relating to, for example, smoking and unhealthy diet. It is concluded that although there may be a general obligation on the state to protect, this obligation can only apply to immediate threats. It is further argued that threats from within, such as lacking will power or risk seeking behaviour are not easily equated with threats from without, such as violent attack. The safety of the people argument therefore will not serve as an appropriate moral foundation for state interference in individual lifestyle choices.
Keywords: Security, Safety, Welfare, Health promotion, Moral obligation, Modern state
Manchester Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.
