Discuss the ethical implications of regulating potentially harmful activities, such as extreme sports or certain sexual practices.

Stance: Against heavy regulation — autonomy and proportionality trump paternalistic bans.

Jurisdiction: UK/ECHR with comparative examples. Word target: 750.

Author's own note: similar to the "is our law a mess" essay question — read that more.

Definitions

• Regulating: State-imposed restrictions, ranging from outright bans to licensing and safety standards.
• Potentially harmful activities: Voluntary practices carrying risk to participants — e.g., BASE jumping, BDSM, boxing. Crucially, these involve consenting adults, not non-consensual harm.
• Ethical implications: Questions of autonomy, paternalism, dignity, fairness, harm to others, and societal values.

Assumptions Under Challenge

1. That the state is justified in restricting self-regarding harms (paternalism).
2. That all harm is ethically relevant in the same way, regardless of consent or scope.
3. That regulation is the most effective or proportionate way to reduce risk.

Point 1 — Autonomy and the Harm Principle

Distinctness: Focuses on liberty as self-determination, unlike later points which explore social harms and justice.