Phil75231
08-16-2012, 01:58 AM
All societies consider certain acts outside the bounds of civilized behavior precisely because they somehow inflict hurt and grief onto either others or to society as a whole. This includes equally the most heinous wrongdoings (murder, rape, child molestation, etc) as well as lesser offenses. Laws against these acts exist in large part because of the consequent emotional trauma and suffering for the victim, with the rest of the reasons based in the potential well-being of society as a whole. Were murder, rape, child molestation not hurtful or harmful acts in any way, then it would be difficult to see any point behind forbidding them - and hence even why society would bother forbidding these acts in the first place. Furthermore, were harms and hurts themselves not prone to cause pain and suffering in others, then it would be likewise difficult to see how they could be considered a bad thing by anyone - even the "victims" (quotes appropriate in this case, for if one cannot be hurt by the action then it is impossible to be a "victim" of it). The same framework also applies to deeper questions of justice in general. We seek to prevent injustice precisely because injustice hurts individuals and/or society in some manner and to some extent.
In reality, many harms and hurts - and by characteristic all injustices - can cause great and grievous pain and suffering. Thus, all these acts are bad, whether to the individual or to society as a whole (often both). Because certain bad things can cause egregious suffering in others, we have laws, rules, and other social admonishments against acts that cause such pointless (i.e., nonproductive and avoidable) pain or suffering to and for others. This is especially true regarding acts that generate no sufficiently compensatory good desired by the victim, family, social group, or greater society. Murder, rape, and child molestation certainly are such acts in all the described respects, and hence we consider them outside the bounds of permissible actions (in these cases, far outside). Therefore, society does establish laws, rules, and moral values against such actions precisely because they cause pain, suffering, grief and anguish for other people.
The same essential reason for banning the most harmful and/or hurtful crimes also applies to crimes with less harmful and/or hurtful consequences (battery not resulting in bodily harm or injury, pickpocketing, “white collar crime”, etc.). Again, it’s difficult to see how these acts can legitimately be considered immoral if they did not cause pain and suffering for others. In fact, how could we say these activities were immoral at all if these actions did not impose hurtful consequences onto others in a very fundamental way - all of which boil down to hurting to grievous extents others' peace of mind and/or significantly disrupt the smooth functioning of society as a whole?
So it is that justifications for any law will ultimately find their source in the desire to prevent suffering, pain, and other deprivations of others' peace of mind. Hence, the goal of preventing or mitigating against suffering, pain, etc (i.e. bad things) is a well-established moral value. Thus, prevention of suffering, pain, and other deprivations of other's peace of mind is a sound basis for legally forbidding any action.
Which Hurtful Acts Deserve Formal Legal Sanction?
In a sentence, any act that, if performed against someone outside one’s social circle (loved ones, friends, acquaintances), that create at least the potential for substantial negative impacts on those others (i.e. “out-groups”, strangers, etc). Hence, while spousal cheating and suicide, f.ex. indeed can leave deeply hurtful, negative impacts on loved ones, probably on many friends, and perhaps in some cases even close acquaintances, these acts do not threaten the larger society as a whole. So while it is sound enough to advocate discouragement of these acts on moral grounds (in most cases, at least) to codifying them as criminal behavior seems to go beyond the proper role of government, and hence legislation.
So it is that pickpocketing is legitimately considered a criminal activity (for it can equally affect strangers), suicide ought not be – for theft of money and credit cards in and of itself can threaten the security of the larger society, spousal cheating and even suicide (both more traumatic for the aggrieved than pickpocketing) are not. Any wrongdoing that affects only individuals and not society as a whole ought not be considered criminal. At most it should be made a tort, and even then if only highly hurtful to the victim’s physical and/or psychological health. Informal social morals and admonitions against hurtful and/or harmful non-public activities should suffice in cases against individuals that do not cause serious physical or psychological health.
In reality, many harms and hurts - and by characteristic all injustices - can cause great and grievous pain and suffering. Thus, all these acts are bad, whether to the individual or to society as a whole (often both). Because certain bad things can cause egregious suffering in others, we have laws, rules, and other social admonishments against acts that cause such pointless (i.e., nonproductive and avoidable) pain or suffering to and for others. This is especially true regarding acts that generate no sufficiently compensatory good desired by the victim, family, social group, or greater society. Murder, rape, and child molestation certainly are such acts in all the described respects, and hence we consider them outside the bounds of permissible actions (in these cases, far outside). Therefore, society does establish laws, rules, and moral values against such actions precisely because they cause pain, suffering, grief and anguish for other people.
The same essential reason for banning the most harmful and/or hurtful crimes also applies to crimes with less harmful and/or hurtful consequences (battery not resulting in bodily harm or injury, pickpocketing, “white collar crime”, etc.). Again, it’s difficult to see how these acts can legitimately be considered immoral if they did not cause pain and suffering for others. In fact, how could we say these activities were immoral at all if these actions did not impose hurtful consequences onto others in a very fundamental way - all of which boil down to hurting to grievous extents others' peace of mind and/or significantly disrupt the smooth functioning of society as a whole?
So it is that justifications for any law will ultimately find their source in the desire to prevent suffering, pain, and other deprivations of others' peace of mind. Hence, the goal of preventing or mitigating against suffering, pain, etc (i.e. bad things) is a well-established moral value. Thus, prevention of suffering, pain, and other deprivations of other's peace of mind is a sound basis for legally forbidding any action.
Which Hurtful Acts Deserve Formal Legal Sanction?
In a sentence, any act that, if performed against someone outside one’s social circle (loved ones, friends, acquaintances), that create at least the potential for substantial negative impacts on those others (i.e. “out-groups”, strangers, etc). Hence, while spousal cheating and suicide, f.ex. indeed can leave deeply hurtful, negative impacts on loved ones, probably on many friends, and perhaps in some cases even close acquaintances, these acts do not threaten the larger society as a whole. So while it is sound enough to advocate discouragement of these acts on moral grounds (in most cases, at least) to codifying them as criminal behavior seems to go beyond the proper role of government, and hence legislation.
So it is that pickpocketing is legitimately considered a criminal activity (for it can equally affect strangers), suicide ought not be – for theft of money and credit cards in and of itself can threaten the security of the larger society, spousal cheating and even suicide (both more traumatic for the aggrieved than pickpocketing) are not. Any wrongdoing that affects only individuals and not society as a whole ought not be considered criminal. At most it should be made a tort, and even then if only highly hurtful to the victim’s physical and/or psychological health. Informal social morals and admonitions against hurtful and/or harmful non-public activities should suffice in cases against individuals that do not cause serious physical or psychological health.