I suppose they can. They have, and they also require passengers to wear one as well. What is the argument that it can, and what is the argument that it cannot?
The argument that it can impose this law would be for the individuals that incur the costs for ambulance and emergency care (Mosser,2010). This is due to the fact that someone decided to not wear a seat belt and another person rear-ends them. It is automatically the rear-ender’s fault, so they will incur the costs at no choice of their own.
The argument that the government cannot impose this law goes with the notion that it is against our individual rights. If one chooses not to wear a seat belt it is not effecting anyone else but that person. That person should have the freedom to choose whether or not they want to risk their life in one way or another. No individual makes all of his or her decisions by determining the effect on the entire potential community affected (Mosser,2010).
How would such seat belt laws differ from the requirement that infants in cars be in car seats?
This one differs because infants do not have a choice in the matter, and someone has to protect their life by laws. How can the government leave it up to an individual to make the right decisions for their children? Since I have had my children, I have seen, too many times, people who are driving around holding their infants in their lap, in the front seat. I have seen toddlers moving about the vehicle while it is moving.
I believe there are certain laws, like this one that should be in place, due to the fact that it benefits the majority of people. This is a utilitarian perspective. Looking at the consequences of a given act and, given the option available, will endorse the act that produces the greatest good for the greatest number (Mosser,2010).
Mosser, Kurt 2010; Ethics and Social Responsibility, Bridgepoint Education San Diego, CA....