...gambling, prostitution, homosexuality, drug use, etc. One may easily argue that these inflict emotional or mental damage on those not consenting to them (or directly involved in them), but I don't think that's justification enough to make them illegal.
These things can indirectly inflict physical damage upon those not consenting to them. Example: prostitution. John has sex with Whore, who has hepatitis; John goes home and later has sex with Wife; Wife gets hepatitis and dies. Obviously both John and Whore are morally culpable for Wife's death, though in different ways.
But what, if any, part of this chain of events is criminal? Some plausible answers: 1. None of it. Both sexual acts were consensual. In neither case was the transmission of hep intended. It's a tragic accident. (pretty much pure individualism) 2. Whore is culpably negligent with respect to the hep, but not the sex. 3. John is culpably negligent with respect to the hep, but not the sex. 4. Whore is objectively criminal for offering illicit sex, which was the occasion for the hep transmission. 5. John is objectively criminal for having illict sex, which was the occasion for the hep transmission. (pretty much "legislating morality" at this stage)
Naturally, this reflects a continuum. And I -- though I tend toward the libertarian answer -- don't think it's so obvious in every case where along the spectrum justice lies.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2003-01-17 12:58 pm (UTC)These things can indirectly inflict physical damage upon those not consenting to them. Example: prostitution. John has sex with Whore, who has hepatitis; John goes home and later has sex with Wife; Wife gets hepatitis and dies. Obviously both John and Whore are morally culpable for Wife's death, though in different ways.
But what, if any, part of this chain of events is criminal? Some plausible answers:
1. None of it. Both sexual acts were consensual. In neither case was the transmission of hep intended. It's a tragic accident. (pretty much pure individualism)
2. Whore is culpably negligent with respect to the hep, but not the sex.
3. John is culpably negligent with respect to the hep, but not the sex.
4. Whore is objectively criminal for offering illicit sex, which was the occasion for the hep transmission.
5. John is objectively criminal for having illict sex, which was the occasion for the hep transmission. (pretty much "legislating morality" at this stage)
Naturally, this reflects a continuum. And I -- though I tend toward the libertarian answer -- don't think it's so obvious in every case where along the spectrum justice lies.