Re: Humanism and Animal Rights (omitted link)


theBeaver wrote:
> 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.

Instinct and conscience are just another way of saying that people do
what they want.

The threat of retribution from others is just vigilante law.

Most of us soon learn that peaceful constructive dialog is a better way
to handle our problems than violence, but when we encounter strangers,
that knowledge gives way to fear and greed.

> 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".

That's the concept of freedom, it is better to punish those that harm
others or society, than to constantly supervise people's actions.

> 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.

So, if someone saw that you didn't go to church on Sunday, they would
be justified in killing you?

> 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.

So, the government should punish people for not going to church on
Sunday?

--
Ron

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Humanism and Animal Rights (omitted link)
    ... And the law doesn't restrict individual actions, it punishes ... people for performing deliberate actions considered to be crimes. ...
    (talk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Lovely Spam
    ... So there are limits and the law actually allows that retribution is ... but that's because the law itself offers retribution. ... But do I have bullying tendencies? ... Or sometimes a boy will respond when an insult ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: New Mexico trip a bust
    ... | it's a new law .... ...  We have been fining, jailing and pulling licenses for over ... 50 years that I know of yet we still have drunk drivers. ...  It also punishes the drunks' kids who depend on him/her. ...
    (rec.motorcycles)
  • Re: This cannot stand.
    ... Heavy sanctions, non-violent means of retribution... ... are killed, in which case an airstrike is appropriate, I think. ... They choose to go, and break the law, anyway. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: New Mexico trip a bust
    ... | it's a new law .... ...  We have been fining, jailing and pulling licenses for over ... 50 years that I know of yet we still have drunk drivers. ...  It also punishes the drunks' kids who depend on him/her. ...
    (rec.motorcycles)