(December 8, 2014 at 3:31 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: No, you're making the problem of assuming that any given negative and any given positive are the same in weight, which they obviously are not unless you're so relativistic that you think getting your toes stepped on is just as negative as being murdered (or equating the father getting some silver to the woman's control of her own body).I was keeping it simple as weighting is also subjective, but I agree that ideally well-being would be weighted.
Quote:Secondly, one can look at that situation and extrapolate a few questions and answers. To list some of them..And again, society does not need to be the unit of measure regarding well-being. The unit of measure could be the entire universe, or all life, or all humans, or the nation, or a tribe, or a gang, or the self.
1) Would society (and the humans living in it) increase in wellbeing if rapists were not jailed for their crimes? Obviously not.
Quote:Even just looking at it impersonally and selfishly, one would want to create a system in which (using the same example) if one's own daughter was raped, one would be at least somewhat okay with the rammifications for the rapist, and for one's daughter. And I don't know about you, but getting some silver from my daughter's rapist and simply refusing to give your daughter to him does not seem like a moral system in any sense.And yet, unless you think the law actually was given by God, then it was created by men who did indeed think this was a moral system. You shot yourself in the foot with that argument.