There is always contradiction on whether if people in the United States posses ro mich freedom or not. Although freedom is one of the most important rights citizens have, people continue to argue on this status. Moreover, people argue that our society should give the greatest amount of goods, even if it means less freedom, others argue that by restricting freedom human’s health can improve, however; when we allow individual behavior to endanger others, we’ve damaged both freedom and health. First of all, the greatest goods should be achieved for the greatest amount of people. For example, by people providing exemplary behavior, they can remain in liberty, and have a good life style. When, a person does not achieve such requirement they might be sent to prison taking away their liberty for a few months, or even years. When a person commits a crime, they’re freedom must be restricted to protect the freedom of every other innocent …show more content…
When people are able to control their actions and decisions, they are less pressured into committing an indecent act. Sometimes people do not achieve the greatest goods because they do not jave the proper resources. Also, others are forced to commit a crime leading them to prison or even death. As if it wasn’t bad enough already , when people don’t have enough freedom they are not able to decide whether to stand next to someone smoking or stand next to plants. People with less freedom can’t decide by themselves if they should eat a proper meal or a rotten one. The point is, that when people aren 't able to decide or have freedom they are less encourage of doing the proper thing. Finally, the three perspectives have something good to argue. However, perspective three, is what I feel that applies the most for our society since without the proper freedom people are persuaded into doing something they aren’t happy