(December 8, 2014 at 3:24 pm)alpha male Wrote: For sake of this particular argument, suppose we're dealing with a situation of rape, not seduction.
The father is better off with the payment than without.
The rapist is better off making a payment and possibly getting married than being killed or imprisoned.
The girl is worse off.
So, 2 out of 3 have greater well-being by application of this law.
Your morality seems to be based more on individual autonomy and the harm principle than on well-being.
And if the rapist gets punished, also two are better off. The only one suffering would be the rapist and not the innocent party as in your example.