posted
Today In one of my classes (European History), we started talking about the French Revolution. This was a very strange and remarkable event and many new ideas made their way to the open during it. The one that my teacher asked me about was a simple and yet difficult one to debate. "We should have the liberty to do whatever we wish, as long as we don't harm anyone." The main problem with this statement is it's simple use of words. What does it mean to "harm someone"? Harm personally? Harm physically? Or maybe emotionally?
Now I would like to present this statement to the people of this forum. Is this a good and necessary right? I know in America we have things called "Victimless Crimes" that could interfere with this statement. What is right or wrong about this statement?
Posts: 26 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
What about loved ones that watch you destroying yourself? Or any inability you have to hold jobs because you are addicted (talking about drugs).
What about promiscuity. Someone will get hurt at some point with that kind of behavior.
What about individual actions that appear to hurt no one, but if they became the norm, would harm society, because of the collective instance of potential harm actually occuring (casual sex resulting in STDs and pregnancies).
What about potential for harm, and endangerment? I mean, DUI is usually victimless, but can be tragically fatal or disabling to some unlucky person.
That particular phrase has the potential to be far more narrow than many people would like to admit.
posted
I think the basic principle your teacher was talking about was a condensed version of conflict of rights.
Rights theorists propose that rights only exist to the extent they do not interfere with other people's rights. I.e I have the right of the freedom of speech to the extent that it does not interfere with your right to be protected from villification, defamation or hate speech. In this way, no right is absolute.
So I would then construct 'harm' as 'harm to another person's rights'.
The term 'victimless crime' is often misleading. It's often used to talk about crimes that have no immediate or indentifiable victim. That doesn't mean that no-one gets hurt from these crimes.
(hey, I hope this isn't your homework....Getting Hatrack to do it for you, sneaky. )
posted
How do you inforce these laws? If someone steals, thus hurting someone, how do you punish them, without hurting them?
Does the law end as soon as someone defis it. If I hurt someone, does the law no longer apply to me? This could create an interesting concept.
Suppose we put everyone alive inside an imaginary no-hurt law abiding bubble, and someone pokes someone else inside the bubble. The person is expelled from the bubble, and is therefore alone, outside the bubble. Until another person steps outside the bubble, no justice can be served. Once the justice has been served, that judge cannot reenter the bubble, because he has broken the law.
Does this mean a group of people will permenantly live outside this bubble. Outside the law, as it were, or will their be a second bubble for the judges who break the law? Does this mean we end up with an endless number of bubbles?
Having this kind of all inclusive law seems highly impracticle. I think the best we can do is the law we have now, where the lines good and bad and hurt and heal are blurred and crossable.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amka- Very well said. You put to words exactly what I thought and tryed to say in class (though did not succeed). There is no such thing as a victimless crime. There will always been some effect to an action. Gambling is another one. No one is being hurt at first but when a man comes in and loses his house in a poker game, not only will he be hurt, but his family and his freinds will be effected as well.
This however brings up the subject of what is right and wrong in a democtratic country. The simple answer is, what the majority of the people say and agree to is right. Well we have laws that are very old, what they say conflict with what the majority might beleive now. The laws that were once "right" are they now "wrong" because the majority of the country think they are? Its a very confussing debate that could go on in another thread.
But to the subject at hand. I beleive the French still use this saying, "as long as it does not harm anyone else, at the moment it happens..."
They live in a country full of rights. Every morning, many french people go out on the streets of Paris with their dogs and let them "relieve" themselves on the sidewalk and then they walk on, leaving it there. It is there RIGHT to do this! And for this they also pay higher taxes to have a truck come by every morning and wash down the sidewalks. If you walk into a restaurante in France, the first thing you will notice is the air is a little smokey. It is their RIGHT! to smoke those cancer-sticks! They are not harming anyone right at that moment! Why shouldn't they have the right to drag one? (This isn't my opinion, im just presenting the question)
I don't mean to just point out and pick on the French, but they are the country I've been studying for a while and well they are on my mind. And it isn't just them of corse who hold true to this statement.
Posts: 26 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The term 'anyone else' means other people besides yourself.
Obviously, as Amka mentioned, you get into what harm really is.
However, I submit that harm does not automatically equal a crime. If you accidently hit yourself in the thumb with a hammer, should you call the cops on yourself for assault? If a diabetic eats chocolate bars, should she be arrested? If a morbidly obese person who is confined to a bed because she can't stand order a large pizza, extra meat, is it a crime?
If harming yourself is wrong, is the corollary that you must do what is healthful for yourself then true?
Who decides what is right for you? Shouldn't the person who knows you best decide--in other words,you?
Isn't there such a thing as something being harmful for one person but healthy, or good, for another?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of corse and thats where the real problem comes in. Who decides what is right and wrong? You do, but what do you do when what you think is right, interferes with what someone else does?
Posts: 26 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: That particular phrase has the potential to be far more narrow than many people would like to admit.
Amka Not sure what you mean by this.
My problem with the phrase "We should have the liberty to do whatever we wish, as long as we don't harm anyone" is that it is far too general. It looks great at first glance, yet when you think about it and what it implies, it kind of falls apart. Witness all the qualifying and explanation it generated.
In math and physics, the more general a statement or theorem is, the more power and application it has. Problem is, specific true math statements or theorems are easy, generally true theorems are much, much harder. All it takes is one counterexample to disprove or weaken a theorem, robbing it of generality.
The same holds true for statements in language--specifically true statements are easy to make up, generally true statements that hold up in all or almost all situations are much, much harder, if not impossible to arrive at. The devil is in the details.
posted
This reminds me of the Wiccan Rede, a principle held by many witches - "An ye harm none, do as ye will." Same principle. It seems to be encouraging people to think about the consequences of their actions. This little rule is truly impossible to follow - every action harms someone or something. By taking up space and being alive, you are harming something else. Do you eat? Then you are killing something. Every day, your body kills pathogenic microorganisms to keep you healthy.
But if you consider your actions, you must live a more thoughtful and self-examined life. Hopefully that leads to a more "moral" and conscious existence.
People with other sorts of principles and rules may have a clearer view of what is right and wrong. Unfortunately, much "harm", as I perceive it, is often done by those very moral rules (think legalism).
The "doing no harm" phrase is very subjective. Adherents to this rule can only do their best and trust that, to the best of their knowledge and ability, they are doing little to no harm.
I cannot say whether one one code is better than another. I can see how both could be abused. I can see how both perspectives could be helpful. It reminds me that humanity is the only species (that I know of) that has this fierce desire to live morally. Somehow, we muddle through and try to be better people than we could be. Whatever that inspiration is, I salute it. Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jenny- I agree with several things you say, including the part about how too much laws can be worse than too little. But the thing about eating kills micro-organisms, I think the statment means another human, but then again I may be wrong.
Does all of humanity however, really want to live a moral life? In general I beleive you could say this but their are always the exceptions, yet even the exceptions think they were doing the right thing. When Hitler was murdering jew after jew, he saw it as a cleaning process, getting rid of the bad blood (as Clemenza would say). So even though what he did was horrible, he thought (or at least said) he was doing Germany and the world a favor. Strange how a mind can be so corrupt. One of the worst things I ever heard was a quote for a top notch leader of the Nazi party at those trials after the war. He said, when asked if he felt any pity when sending those people to their death, his responce was "Does the rat killer pity the rats?"
[ November 21, 2003, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: Dag ]
Posts: 26 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, the "answer" to your question is a purely subjective one. Obviously, some "victimless" crimes ultimately harm more than just the victim. However, the logic behind banning such crimes eventually leads to things like helmet laws, mandatory auto liability insurance, and so forth -- requirements that someone needs to do something, even if they don't feel it necessary, because it's ultimately for their own good and the good of society.
Are you comfortable letting society decide what's best for you?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Morbo, I think we are on the same page. By narrow, I meant it narrows down those actions we can engage in. By general, you mean it applies to a broader array of actions that the phrase would make taboo because they would harm people.
Jenny,
I've always loved the Wiccan creed, and the implications. LDS believe that the fall wasn't so much about sin, as about living at a lower existance where harm can come to things. Such an existance requires us to consider the consequences of our actions. Only in such an existance can we really learn right from wrong.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about sins of omission, like not rendering help (samaritan laws) or not reporting child abuse (for which one can be prosecuted).
Posts: 383 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
Lets go with the seatbelt issue a bit. As you said, it is not only to force people to protect themselves, but also to protect society.
With seatbelt laws, it protects us from having to pay more. More insurance, because a higher rate of injury over the population will result in a rate increase that will apply to everyone. More government money, because inevitably there will be those unable to pay for the medical bills resulting from injuries and will require government assistance. Requiring insurance is an even more obvious law not so much for your own good but for the good of the person you crashed into.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its fun to see how capitalistic and mercantile our societies have always been. From the earliest, contracts and trade agreements, have been held most sacred.
Why?
Because its the only way to band a group of people together, and a band of people has a much greater survival odds than an individual. In most cases the larger the band, the more likely survival.
So God made a contract with the Hebrews, which included his protection and promises of future prosperity in exchange for a bit of fore-skin and the following of a few laws.
(The first contract, a lease agreement between Adam and God, broken when Adam violated a clause about eating some fruit on premises.)
Society is a contract between its members to live together. There are a set of rules that each member must abide by. Once you break those rules, called "laws", you have broken with society and are "outlaw".
Being Outlaw is an ancient phrase that means all the rules of society no longer apply to you. Yes, this means you can rape and kill and steal all you wish. It also means people can rape and kill and steal from you, without breaking with society, so they do so without punishment.
(One aspect of our current legal system is the idea that outlaws are still removed from society, where they can do no more harm, but harm can be done to them and it doesn't matter. Hence rape in the penal system is not a high priority)
Another aspect of this contract that creates a society, any one not of that society can also be treated as an outlaw. Hence "Thou Shall Not Kill" does not mean "Thou Shall Not Fight A War."
Now, if you create a "societ" with the only law, "Do what thou will that does no harm to others", and someone in that society--Joe--pokes another member in the side, then no judge creates harm by removing Joe. Joe has done that himself by breaking the social contract.
There is also the question of greater/lesser harm.
Stabbing a person is doing harm to a person.
Yet surgeons need to slice open a person to heal them.
So to a psycopathic killer may best be stopped from killing large numbers of people by being harmed, even killed. If a man runs out into the middle of a sports arena and starts shooting into the stands, the local police need to stop that action as quickly as possible. Shooting the creep with the gun is doing harm to the creep, but it does less harm to society at large than letting him go unstopped.
If killing a rampaging mad man to save the lives of others is allowed, then other preventive laws, that cause less pain, also seem more understandable.
Mandatory auto insurance.
Why am I forced to get auto insurance? If I wreck my car, then I'll risk whatever damages to me and my vehicle.
But what happens when you wreck into someone else. My wife had her car totaled by a coworker that was without insurance. She did $500 worth of damage to my car, and has never paid me a cent for it, despite a small claims decision against her.
Imagine if my wife would have been in the car at the time. Imagine the tens of thousands in medical bills, plus unearned income, that could have easilly resulted from an accident. This woman could not have afforded to pay me the $500 she admits she owes. My insurance company would not pay because it was her fault. The result, as has been the case often, is that the state would have to pick up the cost of her recovery. Hence all of our taxes are increased to cover the cost of health care required by people who were injured by others too cheap to buy their own auto-insurance. Their right to not buy auto-insurance comes up against my right to be repaid for damages done to me.
Well, I've ventured far enough dancing around this subject. Back to your regularly scheduled thread.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What would be crazy is if everyone who didn't even drive had to pay for the costs associated with it. Driving a car is a sort of extravagance that our society has developed to be required (all businesses are located in zones away from housing)
The thing about laws of omission is that it is saying "This is clearly the right thing to do."
Posts: 383 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amka, thanks for the response, I am too tired to figure anything out. I'll respond Sat or Sun.
quote:"An ye harm none, do as ye will." Same principle. It seems to be encouraging people to think about the consequences of their actions. This little rule is truly impossible to follow - every action harms someone or something. By taking up space and being alive, you are harming something else. Do you eat? Then you are killing something. Every day, your body kills pathogenic microorganisms to keep you healthy.
Jenny G. There is a religious group in Asia and India that takes this principle so seriously that not only are they strict vegetarians, they even wear masks so they don't accidently breathe in a bug and kill it. I want to say the Jains but I am not sure.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm NOT Bob_the_Lawyer. Maybe he can correct my errors in what follows...
Our civil laws basically define this principle, aren't they? I mean, you have to prove ECONOMIC harm (or pain & suffering) in order to win an award. So, if someone does SOMETHING and no-one loses anything by it, there's no problem. And even if someone IS hurt, you also have to show some form of intent (or at least culpable negligence) before you can collect "hot coffee" money.
The problem is that people often act in ignorance of the consequences of their actions. So, the laws we have also define something like "a reasonable person" against which we judge culpability. For example, you may be a bone-headed idiot who didn't know that drinking and driving could lead to unsafe behaviors and possibly harming another human, BUT a "reason person" would have reached that conclusion, and therefore you should've also.
Unless you are certifiable as a mentally deficient person. In which case your guardians might be in trouble.
Oh well. Just my two scents.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actual harm (whether it's economic or physical) is usually required for a civil suit to be successful, howveer there are a few exceptions. (Defamation springs to mind).
In these cases the only damages available are nominal: however it's interesting to note that they are available because your 'hurt' is characterised by someone breaking the law against you: so even though you aren't economically or physically harmed, you are considered legally harmed.
(So in a way there is no exception, just a different construction of harm...)
It's also true that it most cases you have to show negligence, or at least extreme recklessness as to the consequences of your actions. This is different from intent: you can easily be liable in negligence without ever intending to hurt someone. It's enough if you just didn't realise (or didn't care) that what you were doing could reasonably forseeably hurt someone.
Of course there are exceptions (well, it is the law) - certain things are statutory negligence, and any recklessness or intent is irrelevant.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Imogen, there is such a thing as a lawsuit for intentional infliction of severe emotional distress. The famous case was the one where the dumped girlfriend was sent photos of the boyfriend with his new girlfriend with jeering phrases written on them, repetitively, and she sued, and won damages.
No physical or econcomic harm was done, but there was the psycological impact on the victim. So our legal system is not just about economics, if you think about it.
Posts: 468 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry Polemarch I should have qualified: physical harm includes not only bodily harm but psychological or psychiatric harm.
So you have two main categories that get damages: economic loss (ie loss of future earnings, medical expenses etc) and non-economicloss(ie pain, suffering, physical or pyschological trauma etc).
So we're both right. Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I want to say the Jains but I am not sure.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
