I was once rejected during jury selection for holding this view in a case of alleged assault against a police officer. I was the only person among the jury candidates that seemed to hold it at first, but a few others reconsidered their view when I made this view apparent. This makes me wonder about the effects of educating people about this view on jury cases. I could see it having a significant impact if the reach is broad enough. Edit: fixed typo (of -> if)
It's one of the main potential problems of jury-based legal systems. A jury members not only enact justice, they also set public policy. You need jury members that will only decide on matter of justice, and not based on the political power that was temporarily given to them. Otherwise you're just pulling random people from the populous and giving them unlimited political power over a yes-or-no question. The system requires that the chosen jury members are sufficiently ignorant. As you might expect, there's no easy way to solve this problem, without introducing new ones.
There is a substantive difference between *intending* to harm someone and *fantasizing* or *imagining* doing so. Agency, at least at the non-divine level, often requires intention precede action. For example, most people would agree that firing a gun *to (immorally) kill someone* is itself immoral *before* the bullet kills them, and even *regardless* of whether the bullet kills them, or their life is saved by a convenient bird passing by. Someone who intends to cause harm but later changes his mind is praiseworthy for changing their mind, but blameworthy for their ill intent nonetheless.
I think there are instances in which a given intent is so strongly implied that they should get punished preemptively. The fact is, most criminals today don't break the law. They infiltrate it, deliberately step right outside of what a given law encompasses, or they act consciously to preserve plausible deniability in their crimes. But to balance things out, there needs to be some form of consequences for the judge or jury who reach their verdict when they malpractise. Just like when splitting a cookie, let's say, the party that splits it does not get to choose which piece they get - this way there is an incentive to do justice in the splitting procedure. Likewise, well-calibrated incentives and disincentives should be firmly in place for juries and judges (each with their proportional allocation) to do right in the moral sense, and their peer-reviewed performance (by academic law professionals and ethicists) should define their professional reputation.
The important point not discussed is that criminalisation has little to do with social good, risk of harm, or freedom. It's about the maintenance of power. That's why it isn't a crime for a big company to pollute the river and poison a town, but it is a crime if one of the townsfolk takes some of that water and poisons the CEO.
I would like to add a counter example which breaks the principle: owning nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons of mass destruction. There are a few reasons why this example demonstrates the principle of "Malum in se" is not always absolute. 1) such an object has the primary purpose of mass ending of life 2) even its existence risks potential disaster, improper storage and containment could lead to the loss of life (low probability of catastrophic damage) This is not to say there is no validity to the principles illustrated in the video, we just need to consider other viewpoints as well. Probably you guys were going to do that in a follow-up video. :)
There's no such a thing as "primary purpose", "intrinsic objective". Every object has it's purpose assigned by some person, there's no innate property to any object, it only acquires purpose when someone assigns a purpose for that object, you can't assign a purpose for a concept. For me, a vegan, a knife has the "primary purpose" of cutting bread, for a hunter, it's primary purpose it's to cut/kill animals. If I consider animal suffering morally wrong we can ban knifes? There are many museums storing bombs that will never be used for "ending life" so it's the primary purpose for these museums ending life?
@@jadermcs are you familiar with Plato's forms? Is a bio-weapon a bio-weapon which cannot bio-weapon? To put it simply, this is what I was referring to. Your argument is solely semantic. So if we make the useful assumption that the nuke can nuke... we can move on. Your other questions were entirely off-topic.
@@TheKhoyi If an alien civilization for some reason find a bio-weapon it could use for another purpose, like fertilizing some alien-agriculture. By the object itself, is not clear it's purpose, only culture will tell you what a bio-weapon does.
@@jadermcs I understand your ;larger point, it does nothing to invalidate my initial point. A definitional property of the bio-chemical weapon would still be that it mass kills humans -regardless of alien agricultural practices. That is unchangeable. Owning the thing means there is a non-zero probability the weapon causes mass death. It is very different from other weapons in scale. Funny enough, if aliens were to use it for agriculture, we would likely want to establish in treaty how they would store the damn things and prevent human death. This points to the later part of the video about trading an absolute freedom for societal benefit.
@@TheKhoyi “explodes and spreads some bio-chemical product” is the property, “mass human killing” is a cultural definition. Again, in the future even our civilization could use it for another purpose than killing. PS: These weapons have many security measures to not easily explode. PS2: They plan to use atomic bombs to create an atmosphere in Mars…
We shouldn't generalise. Owning nunchucks is not the same as planning a terrorist attack and being discovered and arrested before the attack. Incarceration or banishment is not just about punishment. It's about protecting society. When thinking about whether something should be illegal or not, I ask myself, does society need protecting from this individual? Individual 1 - Plans to swing nunchucks around his living room because he likes watching KungFu movies. Individual 2 - Plans on shooting up a school. Who do we need protection from?
i think things should be addressed in the minds of the people within said community, which therefore would speak to conditions of the society and how things are managed at a fundamental level. basically i think the courts are so corrupted they need more attention than the actual problems causing their corruption or discovery of reason for their corruption
I am confident in claiming that unregulated possession of plutonium is malim in se. It is not potentially dangerous, it is harmful. It radiates harmful energy regardless of the intent of the possessor. Only properly contained plutonium is potentially dangerous rather than harmful. This implies law is necessary to possess plutonium in any civilization. As for nunchucks, practically any legal weapon is more potentially more dangerous than nunchucks
I take a different view of law. Law exists to order society such as to bring about a more perfect Union. (I think this view is called world utilitarianism) A law is only just if it helps to being about this more perfect Union. I don't think a world without nunchucks is better than a world with them, so they should be legal.
I'm deeply disappointed. But first: I'm a former prosecutor (in the US), which should suggest that I do _not_ understand jurisprudence, the philosophy of law, that jurisprudence is not the same as the philosophy of law, or the fact that jurisprudential inquiry continues to refuse to join the school of philosophy. Nevertheless, I know the above things are true and that contemporary jurisprudence is inherently flawed because it continues to use logical fallacies. Furthermore, I know that morality and law are not the same, cannot be the same, and should not be the same. I've studied this in Anglo-American jurisprudence, international law including international criminal law, and Chinese law with I studied in Beijing. As a prosecutor, the most common thing I had to explain to victims was the disconnection between morality and criminal law. Therefore, I know that the general point of this video is completely valid. But, I'm deeply disappointed that Wireless Philosophy published this video in its current form. This video lacks the precision and rigor of previous videos. As a result, it includes statements that are objectively wrong. If the drafting had been more precise, for example, and differentiated battery from assault, then perhaps the video would not have made the patently incorrect claim that no harm occurs "right up to the point of swinging the" weapon at another person. 5:39. Despite the legal academy's flaws, jurists recognized that a harm can occur even if the weapon doesn't touch the victim. In Anglo-American jurisprudence, that was established by 1369 (650 years ago) in the case, "I. de S. and Wife v. W. de S." The discussions of possession and inchoate acts wasn't rigorous enough to change anyone's mind. It's pretty easy to attack this video's arguments: mere possession of a ticking time bomb that you don't know how to disarm should probably be a crime. The discussion of conspiracy jumped back and forth from an example of one person planning a crime. It's too confusing to clearly explain why most inchoate acts should not be criminalized. I suspect the hypothetical was constructed this way so it can also be the basis for vicarious liability, but it's too confusing to clearly explain that either. This lack of foundation is a problem. For example, this video all but said, "In the next video we will discuss prophylactic laws." But if the viewer wasn't persuaded that we should reject laws against possession or inchoate acts, then the viewer will not see why we need to justify the existence of prophylactic laws. The discussion of personal freedom is incomplete. At the very least, the video must say something such as: my personal freedom should extend until it limits your freedom. Whatever. I'm writing this on my phone, which is annoying and makes proofreading/revising cumbersome. Therefore, I'm posting this as is: error ridden and incomplete. Please consider unpublishing this version of the video and redrafting it. It is an adequate UA-cam video, but in its current form, it doesn't match the quality of this channel.
Wow that was an impressive comment! My only retort, and this is a small one compared to your well thought out writing, is that this: - "In Anglo-American jurisprudence, that was established by 1369 (650 years ago) in the case, "I. de S. and Wife v. W. de S." Doesn't apply to the epistemological discussion of it, as in - "jurists recognized that a harm can occur even if the weapon doesn't touch the victim" because the jurors' opinion doesn't matter because it will depend on the theory of harm being applied. I do agree the video is low quality and hasn't built on previous points and didn't make mention of causing harm while not making someone's life worse off than it otherwise would have been, from the non-identity problem series. Simply to play devil's advocate I would put forward that no harm was done, right up until the swinging of the weapon because in this case "harm" would seem to indicate physical harm, and without knowledge of the plot the premeditated victim would have no psychological distress caused. That is contrived of course because surely the premeditated victim would see something as off when invited into an empty warehouse with two friends who are armed. But we can wind the example all the way back to before the premeditated victim met the friends in the warehouse, then after that the discussion about harm can take place.
While I don't feel qualified to speak to the relative quality of the video I am not so sure about some of your points. "perhaps the video would not have made the patently incorrect claim that no harm occurs 'right up to the point of swinging the' [...]" The part you have in quotes isn't the part that needs quoting. Where do they say no harm occurs? I don't think they do. I think their claim is that it hasn't reached the level of malum in se until the violent act is performed. " It's pretty easy to attack this video's arguments: mere possession of a ticking time bomb that you don't know how to disarm should probably be a crime." I might not know a more technical definition for possession that you mean. Most of the situations I can think of where a person both has a bomb in their hands and doesn't know how to disarm it, are situations where I would assign no fault to the holder, moral or criminal. I would argue that this is a failed attempt to attack the video's argument and that invalidates the idea that it is, in fact, "easy to attack". "The discussion of conspiracy jumped back and forth from an example of one person planning a crime. It's too confusing to clearly explain [...]" I am willing to defer to you in regards to whether or not an idea is depicted with clarity. Interspersing an example doesn't immediately strike me as bad practice, though. "if the viewer wasn't persuaded that we should reject laws against possession or inchoate acts, then the viewer will not see why we need to justify the existence of prophylactic laws." I've not done a logical proof, but I don't know that this is true. Also, why does the viewer need to realize the reasons it is necessary to justify prophylactic laws? The video is about malum in se as one standard for criminalization. "The discussion of personal freedom is incomplete." That feels subject. "the video must say something such as: my personal freedom should extend until it limits your freedom." "must". I'll take a hard stance here. I don't think it should let alone "must". First, this is tangential. Second, if you use malum in se as the maximum for criminalization then many things will be legal that will also limit the freedom of others. Consider the possible consequences of no speed limits. Therefore the proposed statement would be self-defeating to the video's argued point. I am grateful for your efforts in trying to hold the discourse of philosophy to a high standard. Thank you. Salud.
2 роки тому+2
I think killing an innocent being is malum in se and farm animals are innocent beings.
2 роки тому
@@wingit7335 unfortunately that is a category error. Tomatoes aren't capable of being innocent. They aren't sentient beings. Good try though.
What about the notion that any imposition from the state should be the most minimally intrusive to their aims, and if the imposition is too great, the aim is unjust? Moral understanding is going to vary over time, so devil weed of yesterday is going to be grandma's glaucoma treatment of today. The bigger question is that the state isn't perpetrating its own crimes in what is likely to be a moving target of "moral".
The state is simply an extension of the collective will of its citizens. In the absence of absolute, universal morality, its laws will always have the potential to be regarded as unjust to future generations. I don't see any way around this dilemma.
@@GQ2593 trouble with humans is imperfection but many like to pretend there is yet something of perfections there over morals. Religion and politics sure but anarchy as well...all historically can become corrupt. The saying absolute power corrupts absolutely is possibly true. The police arrest police for laws and what some call sins.
@@GQ2593 Which is exactly why the bright-line test of minimally intrusive is paramount as well as recognizing the current state of affairs isn't the last word in moral authority. Imagine that, the state recognizing its fallibility and approaching law with restraint instead of righteousness.
@@GQ2593 Saying the state is a collective representation is an over reach, how is their "will" found out? Direct democracy? Representative democracy, if so who is to decide wills they should follow or even allowed to be heard? Are there a constitution or is anything acceptable as long as the majority .... agrees on it? There are many ways that the "collective will" get watered down to fit people's agenda.
@@ShermanistDruid I'd add "the collective will of its citizens" is simply a rephrasing of might makes right, in which case questions of morality don't matter at all. The will of the state is right and de facto the will of the people.
Where do we draw the line between immoral actions that should or should not be criminalized? For instance, cheating on your spouse is wrong but I think most people in western cultures would agree it should not be a criminal offense.
I'm not so sure it shouldn't be a criminal offense. It is socially destructive. Where I'm not sure is how it could practically be implemented. Hell, to some extent I would say it is already prohibited - you do get punished if it turns out you promised your exclusivity in marriage, and then it turns out you married someone else, right? Not an authority on that topic but it would fall in line with my expectations.
Cheating on your wife is effectively a breach of contract (that's what makes it wrong). It only concerns the parties involved, not the rest of the society. The act itself is therefore not a legal issue. However, the aftermath may be a legal issue, because it may require some arbitration by third party (ie. the legal system).
Adultery is a crime under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice of the United States. It is still actively enforced. The reasons why "western" cultures have criminalized adultery (or permitted lawsuits) in the past or present vary, but the most common reason is simple: if the aggrieved party is likely to use violence as a result of the adultery, then the state should probably create and enforce a law against adultery so the dispute is settled without violence.
3:10 I have no idea why a computer and drugs are in equated to a gun here. I don't even understand the thought process. Everything can be a weapon to make harm but you should make a gray scale to measure how good are they to make that job and ban them if we consider that people with them have a great risk of making harm. You could kill people with a pillow with enough momentum but I don't think it has ever been used for that purpose ever and would be stupid to try it. You also have to measure the capacity from the victim to respond to an aggression with side object. You don't need to decriminalize everything because everything "could be used as a tool for violence", you need to make pragmatic choices even if they seem to have arbitrary lines, just because it's a gray scale doesn't means that you cannot/shouldn't draw lines to make clear rules for everyone.
I was once rejected during jury selection for holding this view in a case of alleged assault against a police officer. I was the only person among the jury candidates that seemed to hold it at first, but a few others reconsidered their view when I made this view apparent. This makes me wonder about the effects of educating people about this view on jury cases. I could see it having a significant impact if the reach is broad enough.
Edit: fixed typo (of -> if)
Lawyers don't want jury members that have any ideas of their own about what should or should not be legal.
It's one of the main potential problems of jury-based legal systems. A jury members not only enact justice, they also set public policy. You need jury members that will only decide on matter of justice, and not based on the political power that was temporarily given to them. Otherwise you're just pulling random people from the populous and giving them unlimited political power over a yes-or-no question. The system requires that the chosen jury members are sufficiently ignorant.
As you might expect, there's no easy way to solve this problem, without introducing new ones.
There is a substantive difference between *intending* to harm someone and *fantasizing* or *imagining* doing so. Agency, at least at the non-divine level, often requires intention precede action. For example, most people would agree that firing a gun *to (immorally) kill someone* is itself immoral *before* the bullet kills them, and even *regardless* of whether the bullet kills them, or their life is saved by a convenient bird passing by.
Someone who intends to cause harm but later changes his mind is praiseworthy for changing their mind, but blameworthy for their ill intent nonetheless.
🤡 this is the worst argument I have read lmao
Seems criminalistic to me
I think there are instances in which a given intent is so strongly implied that they should get punished preemptively. The fact is, most criminals today don't break the law. They infiltrate it, deliberately step right outside of what a given law encompasses, or they act consciously to preserve plausible deniability in their crimes.
But to balance things out, there needs to be some form of consequences for the judge or jury who reach their verdict when they malpractise. Just like when splitting a cookie, let's say, the party that splits it does not get to choose which piece they get - this way there is an incentive to do justice in the splitting procedure. Likewise, well-calibrated incentives and disincentives should be firmly in place for juries and judges (each with their proportional allocation) to do right in the moral sense, and their peer-reviewed performance (by academic law professionals and ethicists) should define their professional reputation.
How does the Franklin quote go?
Those that give up freedom in hope of security looses both and deserves neither...
The important point not discussed is that criminalisation has little to do with social good, risk of harm, or freedom. It's about the maintenance of power.
That's why it isn't a crime for a big company to pollute the river and poison a town, but it is a crime if one of the townsfolk takes some of that water and poisons the CEO.
I would like to add a counter example which breaks the principle: owning nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons of mass destruction. There are a few reasons why this example demonstrates the principle of "Malum in se" is not always absolute.
1) such an object has the primary purpose of mass ending of life
2) even its existence risks potential disaster, improper storage and containment could lead to the loss of life (low probability of catastrophic damage)
This is not to say there is no validity to the principles illustrated in the video, we just need to consider other viewpoints as well. Probably you guys were going to do that in a follow-up video. :)
There's no such a thing as "primary purpose", "intrinsic objective". Every object has it's purpose assigned by some person, there's no innate property to any object, it only acquires purpose when someone assigns a purpose for that object, you can't assign a purpose for a concept. For me, a vegan, a knife has the "primary purpose" of cutting bread, for a hunter, it's primary purpose it's to cut/kill animals. If I consider animal suffering morally wrong we can ban knifes? There are many museums storing bombs that will never be used for "ending life" so it's the primary purpose for these museums ending life?
@@jadermcs are you familiar with Plato's forms?
Is a bio-weapon a bio-weapon which cannot bio-weapon? To put it simply, this is what I was referring to. Your argument is solely semantic. So if we make the useful assumption that the nuke can nuke... we can move on.
Your other questions were entirely off-topic.
@@TheKhoyi If an alien civilization for some reason find a bio-weapon it could use for another purpose, like fertilizing some alien-agriculture. By the object itself, is not clear it's purpose, only culture will tell you what a bio-weapon does.
@@jadermcs I understand your ;larger point, it does nothing to invalidate my initial point.
A definitional property of the bio-chemical weapon would still be that it mass kills humans -regardless of alien agricultural practices. That is unchangeable. Owning the thing means there is a non-zero probability the weapon causes mass death. It is very different from other weapons in scale.
Funny enough, if aliens were to use it for agriculture, we would likely want to establish in treaty how they would store the damn things and prevent human death.
This points to the later part of the video about trading an absolute freedom for societal benefit.
@@TheKhoyi “explodes and spreads some bio-chemical product” is the property, “mass human killing” is a cultural definition. Again, in the future even our civilization could use it for another purpose than killing.
PS: These weapons have many security measures to not easily explode.
PS2: They plan to use atomic bombs to create an atmosphere in Mars…
Awesome it's been a while, hope you upload every week ❤️
the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom
It is a giant revenge system meant to punish those who break the made up rules
We shouldn't generalise. Owning nunchucks is not the same as planning a terrorist attack and being discovered and arrested before the attack. Incarceration or banishment is not just about punishment. It's about protecting society. When thinking about whether something should be illegal or not, I ask myself, does society need protecting from this individual?
Individual 1 - Plans to swing nunchucks around his living room because he likes watching KungFu movies.
Individual 2 - Plans on shooting up a school.
Who do we need protection from?
@@Lamster66 a baseball bat was made to play baseball, its simply natural to assume someone is buying one for such purpose
Hi Barry, you’ve done a really good job at pretending that you do something for a living.
i think things should be addressed in the minds of the people within said community, which therefore would speak to conditions of the society and how things are managed at a fundamental level. basically i think the courts are so corrupted they need more attention than the actual problems causing their corruption or discovery of reason for their corruption
I am confident in claiming that unregulated possession of plutonium is malim in se. It is not potentially dangerous, it is harmful. It radiates harmful energy regardless of the intent of the possessor. Only properly contained plutonium is potentially dangerous rather than harmful. This implies law is necessary to possess plutonium in any civilization. As for nunchucks, practically any legal weapon is more potentially more dangerous than nunchucks
I take a different view of law. Law exists to order society such as to bring about a more perfect Union.
(I think this view is called world utilitarianism)
A law is only just if it helps to being about this more perfect Union.
I don't think a world without nunchucks is better than a world with them, so they should be legal.
I'm deeply disappointed. But first: I'm a former prosecutor (in the US), which should suggest that I do _not_ understand jurisprudence, the philosophy of law, that jurisprudence is not the same as the philosophy of law, or the fact that jurisprudential inquiry continues to refuse to join the school of philosophy. Nevertheless, I know the above things are true and that contemporary jurisprudence is inherently flawed because it continues to use logical fallacies.
Furthermore, I know that morality and law are not the same, cannot be the same, and should not be the same. I've studied this in Anglo-American jurisprudence, international law including international criminal law, and Chinese law with I studied in Beijing. As a prosecutor, the most common thing I had to explain to victims was the disconnection between morality and criminal law.
Therefore, I know that the general point of this video is completely valid. But, I'm deeply disappointed that Wireless Philosophy published this video in its current form. This video lacks the precision and rigor of previous videos. As a result, it includes statements that are objectively wrong.
If the drafting had been more precise, for example, and differentiated battery from assault, then perhaps the video would not have made the patently incorrect claim that no harm occurs "right up to the point of swinging the" weapon at another person. 5:39. Despite the legal academy's flaws, jurists recognized that a harm can occur even if the weapon doesn't touch the victim. In Anglo-American jurisprudence, that was established by 1369 (650 years ago) in the case, "I. de S. and Wife v. W. de S."
The discussions of possession and inchoate acts wasn't rigorous enough to change anyone's mind. It's pretty easy to attack this video's arguments: mere possession of a ticking time bomb that you don't know how to disarm should probably be a crime.
The discussion of conspiracy jumped back and forth from an example of one person planning a crime. It's too confusing to clearly explain why most inchoate acts should not be criminalized. I suspect the hypothetical was constructed this way so it can also be the basis for vicarious liability, but it's too confusing to clearly explain that either.
This lack of foundation is a problem. For example, this video all but said, "In the next video we will discuss prophylactic laws." But if the viewer wasn't persuaded that we should reject laws against possession or inchoate acts, then the viewer will not see why we need to justify the existence of prophylactic laws.
The discussion of personal freedom is incomplete. At the very least, the video must say something such as: my personal freedom should extend until it limits your freedom.
Whatever. I'm writing this on my phone, which is annoying and makes proofreading/revising cumbersome. Therefore, I'm posting this as is: error ridden and incomplete.
Please consider unpublishing this version of the video and redrafting it. It is an adequate UA-cam video, but in its current form, it doesn't match the quality of this channel.
Wow that was an impressive comment!
My only retort, and this is a small one compared to your well thought out writing, is that this:
- "In Anglo-American jurisprudence, that was established by 1369 (650 years ago) in the case, "I. de S. and Wife v. W. de S."
Doesn't apply to the epistemological discussion of it, as in
- "jurists recognized that a harm can occur even if the weapon doesn't touch the victim"
because the jurors' opinion doesn't matter because it will depend on the theory of harm being applied.
I do agree the video is low quality and hasn't built on previous points and didn't make mention of causing harm while not making someone's life worse off than it otherwise would have been, from the non-identity problem series.
Simply to play devil's advocate I would put forward that no harm was done, right up until the swinging of the weapon because in this case "harm" would seem to indicate physical harm, and without knowledge of the plot the premeditated victim would have no psychological distress caused. That is contrived of course because surely the premeditated victim would see something as off when invited into an empty warehouse with two friends who are armed. But we can wind the example all the way back to before the premeditated victim met the friends in the warehouse, then after that the discussion about harm can take place.
While I don't feel qualified to speak to the relative quality of the video I am not so sure about some of your points.
"perhaps the video would not have made the patently incorrect claim that no harm occurs 'right up to the point of swinging the' [...]"
The part you have in quotes isn't the part that needs quoting. Where do they say no harm occurs? I don't think they do. I think their claim is that it hasn't reached the level of malum in se until the violent act is performed.
" It's pretty easy to attack this video's arguments: mere possession of a ticking time bomb that you don't know how to disarm should probably be a crime."
I might not know a more technical definition for possession that you mean. Most of the situations I can think of where a person both has a bomb in their hands and doesn't know how to disarm it, are situations where I would assign no fault to the holder, moral or criminal. I would argue that this is a failed attempt to attack the video's argument and that invalidates the idea that it is, in fact, "easy to attack".
"The discussion of conspiracy jumped back and forth from an example of one person planning a crime. It's too confusing to clearly explain [...]"
I am willing to defer to you in regards to whether or not an idea is depicted with clarity. Interspersing an example doesn't immediately strike me as bad practice, though.
"if the viewer wasn't persuaded that we should reject laws against possession or inchoate acts, then the viewer will not see why we need to justify the existence of prophylactic laws."
I've not done a logical proof, but I don't know that this is true. Also, why does the viewer need to realize the reasons it is necessary to justify prophylactic laws? The video is about malum in se as one standard for criminalization.
"The discussion of personal freedom is incomplete."
That feels subject.
"the video must say something such as: my personal freedom should extend until it limits your freedom."
"must". I'll take a hard stance here. I don't think it should let alone "must". First, this is tangential. Second, if you use malum in se as the maximum for criminalization then many things will be legal that will also limit the freedom of others. Consider the possible consequences of no speed limits. Therefore the proposed statement would be self-defeating to the video's argued point.
I am grateful for your efforts in trying to hold the discourse of philosophy to a high standard. Thank you. Salud.
I think killing an innocent being is malum in se and farm animals are innocent beings.
@@wingit7335 unfortunately that is a category error. Tomatoes aren't capable of being innocent. They aren't sentient beings. Good try though.
@@wingit7335 try killing a pig or another animal and then kill a tomato. Let me know if you see a difference…
What about the notion that any imposition from the state should be the most minimally intrusive to their aims, and if the imposition is too great, the aim is unjust?
Moral understanding is going to vary over time, so devil weed of yesterday is going to be grandma's glaucoma treatment of today. The bigger question is that the state isn't perpetrating its own crimes in what is likely to be a moving target of "moral".
The state is simply an extension of the collective will of its citizens. In the absence of absolute, universal morality, its laws will always have the potential to be regarded as unjust to future generations. I don't see any way around this dilemma.
@@GQ2593 trouble with humans is imperfection but many like to pretend there is yet something of perfections there over morals. Religion and politics sure but anarchy as well...all historically can become corrupt. The saying absolute power corrupts absolutely is possibly true.
The police arrest police for laws and what some call sins.
@@GQ2593 Which is exactly why the bright-line test of minimally intrusive is paramount as well as recognizing the current state of affairs isn't the last word in moral authority.
Imagine that, the state recognizing its fallibility and approaching law with restraint instead of righteousness.
@@GQ2593 Saying the state is a collective representation is an over reach, how is their "will" found out?
Direct democracy?
Representative democracy, if so who is to decide wills they should follow or even allowed to be heard?
Are there a constitution or is anything acceptable as long as the majority .... agrees on it?
There are many ways that the "collective will" get watered down to fit people's agenda.
@@ShermanistDruid I'd add "the collective will of its citizens" is simply a rephrasing of might makes right, in which case questions of morality don't matter at all. The will of the state is right and de facto the will of the people.
Where do we draw the line between immoral actions that should or should not be criminalized? For instance, cheating on your spouse is wrong but I think most people in western cultures would agree it should not be a criminal offense.
Actually, western societies are teetering on the verge of normalizing infidelity. Especially, for women.
I'm not so sure it shouldn't be a criminal offense. It is socially destructive. Where I'm not sure is how it could practically be implemented. Hell, to some extent I would say it is already prohibited - you do get punished if it turns out you promised your exclusivity in marriage, and then it turns out you married someone else, right? Not an authority on that topic but it would fall in line with my expectations.
Cheating on your wife is effectively a breach of contract (that's what makes it wrong). It only concerns the parties involved, not the rest of the society. The act itself is therefore not a legal issue. However, the aftermath may be a legal issue, because it may require some arbitration by third party (ie. the legal system).
Adultery is a crime under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice of the United States. It is still actively enforced.
The reasons why "western" cultures have criminalized adultery (or permitted lawsuits) in the past or present vary, but the most common reason is simple: if the aggrieved party is likely to use violence as a result of the adultery, then the state should probably create and enforce a law against adultery so the dispute is settled without violence.
If one doesn't criminalize such as serial killer and serial rapists...or even give mental health help...what then?
Not everything in the world have to be approved by the state.
Look at all these long comments of brains thinking away. Good use of public funding.
Philosophy seems to be viewed as dangerous. Then again it always was..
3:10 I have no idea why a computer and drugs are in equated to a gun here. I don't even understand the thought process.
Everything can be a weapon to make harm but you should make a gray scale to measure how good are they to make that job and ban them if we consider that people with them have a great risk of making harm. You could kill people with a pillow with enough momentum but I don't think it has ever been used for that purpose ever and would be stupid to try it. You also have to measure the capacity from the victim to respond to an aggression with side object.
You don't need to decriminalize everything because everything "could be used as a tool for violence", you need to make pragmatic choices even if they seem to have arbitrary lines, just because it's a gray scale doesn't means that you cannot/shouldn't draw lines to make clear rules for everyone.