Re: Humanism and Animal Rights (omitted link)

Ron Peterson wrote: 
theBeaver wrote:


In the absence of law, what would restrict individual actions? 


Nothing. And the law doesn't restrict individual actions, it punishes
people for performing deliberate actions considered to be crimes.


Not true. In the absence of law, an individual's actions are limited by his own instinct and conscience, the threat of retribution from others, and knowledge of the likely consequences of his actions.

Pardon me if I am confused here, but your answer suggests that you think "individual actions" cannot be "deliberate actions considered to be crimes", or that the threat of "punishment" does not constitute "restriction".


We ALL have the moral imperative to speak for animals, as for any who
are powerless, including children.  ...



Where does the moral imperative come from?


In this case, the moral imperative reveals itself by the fact that people feel compelled to intervene to prevent acts of cruelty to children and animals, even when such acts are not forbidden by law and are not in their self-interest. The source of a moral imperative is either instinct or upbringing, and is not necessarily "right".

My great grandfather, the story goes, saw a man beating his horse in a field with a 2 by 4. He beat the man and killed him. Why? He felt a "moral imperative", that it was inherently wrong to beat a horse like that. He did not intervene out of self-interest. He could not appeal for legal intervention because in those days there were no such laws. In my opinion, and the opinion of many other people who care about animals, his action was justified.

This story also illustrates the need for codified law that punishes retribution by individuals. A primary function of law and government must be to prosecute the retribution so that individuals will not have to, thus ensuring that the truth is ascertained and that the punishment is appropriate to the crime. If there were no law against murder or insufficient punishment for murder, then when your wife or child was murdered, you would seek and destroy the offender yourself. If legal punishment were unlikely to work or was not severe enough, you would likely act yourself without concern for the consequences. Thus, codified law derives from the real need to equitably balance all relevant interests, but is likely to end with the same result: executing the murderer.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: My Curse On Lee Kuan Yew and PAP
    ... the law and power tell you not to kill, you will be punished as they like. ... compulsory meditation session daily iii) solitary confinement iv) no ... punishment, f) after 1 month still no confession, prisoners to be ... has to be punished for allowing legal abortion in Singapore. ...
    (soc.culture.taiwan)
  • Re: OT Science versus religion: Is compromise impossible?
    ... but the law demands accountability. ... > me re-think my whole consideration about capital punishment. ... evidence" stuff that anti-death-penalty folks are harping on. ... government is well within its rights, and is executing its duty (no pun ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: A Member of the Slave Sex Revolts
    ... society has no use for them. ... Of course we should declare them as crimes and be on guard ... Law enforcement is prompt and ruthless in their prosecution. ... punishment, pour encourager les autres. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Why I oppose seatbelt and helmet laws
    ... You and I have already established that we view the law differently. ... not guilty of wrongdoing, if necessary. ... overriding excuse) after drinking enough to flunk the blood test. ... I do agree that the level of punishment out to be related to the ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots)
  • A Member of the Slave Sex Revolts
    ... Crime and Punishment ... society has no use for them. ... Of course we should declare them as crimes and be on guard ... Law enforcement is prompt and ruthless in their prosecution. ...
    (soc.men)