Should Everything Wrong Be Illegal?

[_Res Ipsa]

Honor, I think Lemmie's statement is a good starting place, but only if we really unpack what we mean by "illegal", "wrong" and "hurt." (And Lemmie acknowledges that what we need to do isn't as simple as the sentence sounds.) My comments are really focussed on the term "illegal," because it encompasses both the goal of compensation, which is primarily focussed on harm, and punishment/deterrence, which is primarily focussed on acts. In your examples, I think it's important to focus on whether the point is to prevent the act from occurring or to remedy the harm it causes.

[_honorentheos]

In your examples, I think it's important to focus on whether the point is to prevent the act from occurring or to remedy the harm it causes.

What made this of interest to me was it seems there is at least a third point to the discussion: What vehicle is the correct one for preventing or remedying a particular wrong or harm? That's what led me to frame the OP title as asking if all wrongs should also be illegal. In the case of civil and criminal law, we're essentially accepting whatever falls under those categories needs government or the state to be the authority that enforces prevention/remedy.

Going back to the example of hate speech. Is prevention the ideal outcome, even at the expense of curtailing free speech? Is the idea that it should be worth losing some aspect of freedom of speech something that itself should be prevented by the government if it is collectively seen to be wrong?

- If person A believes someone speaking at the invitation of a group at a university who engages in inflammatory speech should have been prevented from doing so, and criminally charged if they do it anyway.

- And person B believes that someone speaking at the invitation of a group at a university who engages in inflammatory speech deserves any number of responses in protest or opposition of their speech, but views the idea the remedy should involve law of either kind preventing the speech from occurring is itself a harm to society due to the damage it does to constitutionally protected acts of speech,

...would person B be a hypocrite for then arguing the remedy is to outlaw attempts to outlaw inflammatory speech? If so, where do they go to effect prevention if not making the act a matter of law? Or, more specifically a matter of retributive law beyond the language of the 1st Amendment?

[_Res Ipsa]

I don’t see any hypocrisy there. Maybe a little silliness. Government restricting itself from taking future action is quite a bit different than government restricting speech.

We impose restrictions and penalties on all kinds of speech. If I call the White House switchboard and threaten to kill the president, the government can throw my ass in jail. If I’ve whipped up my followers into a frenzy and order them to attack you, the government can also throw my ass in jail. If I speak disrespectfully to a judge, the judge can throw my ass in jail. In war time, if I say the wrong thing to an enemy, the government can kill my ass.

The government punishes false speech in all kinds of ways. Some examples: giving false testimony under oath, lying to the FBI, awarding damages for defamation, lying in a product advertisement.

But it also restricts completely true speech as well: false light, invasion of privacy, National security, copyright, time, place, and manner restrictions.

So. when we talk about free speech, we’re not starting from some pristine world where anyone can say whatever they want under any conditions they want. We’re starting from a world that recognizes that some speech is harmful in a way that justifies the state in taking property, restricting liberty, or even taking life as a consequence of speech.

So, I see hate speech as just one of many line drawing exercises. I’m not a fan of hate speech laws, but I don’t it as a big stretch from other categories of regulated speech.

[_subgenius]

"should we make laws criminalizing and punishing anything that society deems to be wrong?"
- yes, we already do that. When society deems it wrong, it's unlawful. Most times is done via a proxy system.

(maybe the bigger question is "who is society?")

In your opinion is it wrong to say, "God damn it!" ?

Supposing as a Mormon you think it is, is the fact it isn't criminally punishable only due to society not sharing your view? But in a perfect society it would be punished by the state?

It was a prettty clear statement...its not measured by what "I" consider, but rather what "society" considers.
And to that end, your odd premise here is irrelevant to the OP and to my post.
Only people like yourself would consider a "perfect" society to be that which echoed their own personal views....history has lots of people that were just like that.

[Guest]

So. when we talk about free speech, we’re not starting from some pristine world where anyone can say whatever they want under any conditions they want. We’re starting from a world that recognizes that some speech is harmful in a way that justifies the state in taking property, restricting liberty, or even taking life as a consequence of speech.

So, I see hate speech as just one of many line drawing exercises. I’m not a fan of hate speech laws, but I don’t it as a big stretch from other categories of regulated speech.

Fair points with which I agree. To be fair, the OP explicitly acknowledges being a line drawing exercise, though.

So it comes back to the question of if there are wrongs that should not fall under civil or criminal law yet society has some interest in them being recognized as morally wrong? Hopefully my turning to examples served the purpose I intended of illustration and not necessarily where I view the subject of the discussion.

Does the argument have merit that the government should be the means of last resort rather than first when it comes to enforcing right and wrong?

[_honorentheos]

In your opinion is it wrong to say, "God damn it!" ?

Supposing as a Mormon you think it is, is the fact it isn't criminally punishable only due to society not sharing your view? But in a perfect society it would be punished by the state?

It was a prettty clear statement...its not measured by what "I" consider, but rather what "society" considers.
And to that end, your odd premise here is irrelevant to the OP and to my post.
Only people like yourself would consider a "perfect" society to be that which echoed their own personal views....history has lots of people that were just like that.

Answering the question carries an implied, "I think" so regardless of how you frame it, it was your opinion being presented. If you can't grasp that, you have a serious issue with understanding your own boundaries.

So, is saying, "God damn it!" wrong? The IYO is assumed.

[_Res Ipsa]

Does the argument have merit that the government should be the means of last resort rather than first when it comes to enforcing right and wrong?

It depends. I think that it’s fine to go straight to government if we’re talking about premeditated murder. I don’t think there’s a simple heuristic that works.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Is it morally wrong to enter another country illegally and refuse to leave? Your statement just caught me off guard because I'm pretty sure your answer to my question would be no.

Only idiots want undocumented immigrants to leave the country. Illegal immigration is good for the US economy.

[_Res Ipsa]

Ajax, you’re answering the question exactly backwards. What’s immoral about people changing the location of their residence? If it’s not immoral? Why should it be illegal?

Let's ask it this way. Were the pilgrims acting immorally by entering Indian lands and turning their sacred hunting grounds into farms? Did the Indians have a right to kill them or drive them off their land?

Sorry to leave you hanging, Ajax. I'm obviously in more conversations than I can keep track of.

I'm having trouble with the shift from "acting immorally" to "having a right." Can we we stick with moral/immoral?

Let's assume the pilgrims have harmed the indians by depriving them of their food source and defiling their holy place, and that there were other non-sacred hunting ground lands sufficient for the pilgrims to farm and feed themselves. I would say the Pilgrims acted immorally if any of the following were true:

1. The pilgrims intended to cause the harm.
2. The pilgrims knew their actions would cause harm.
3. Any reasonable pilgrim would have understood that their actions would cause harm.

On the other hand, let's assume the Pilgrims need one farm to feed themselves or they will die and that the crops they need will only grow on sacred hunting grounds and that the Indians have plenty of sacred hunting grounds to feed their people. If the pilgrims had tried and failed to reach an agreement with the Indians that would allow them to have their one farm, I think it would be moral for the Pilgrims to take the land for their farm. In my view, the harm represented by death of the pilgrims justifies the harm caused by intrusion onto sacred grounds.

So, it depends. If you're in the mountains freezing to death and you stumble upon my locked cabin, I do not think it would be immoral for you to save your life by breaking into my cabin. And if I were in my cabin, knew you would die if you couldn't come in, and shot you because you were trespassing, I would say that I acted immorally.

As far as I'm concerned, its all about harm, the nature of the harm, and the degree of harm.

[_honorentheos]

Does the argument have merit that the government should be the means of last resort rather than first when it comes to enforcing right and wrong?

It depends. I think that it’s fine to go straight to government if we’re talking about premeditated murder. I don’t think there’s a simple heuristic that works.

Hi Res,

Sorry, it's been busy getting ready for the holiday weekend.

Taking the example of premeditated murder, I don't think we as a society have jumped straight to government on that one. As a species, we've dealt with it tribally and as mobs, individually through vendetta killings in retaliation, and certainly through appeals to authority to exert their strength were perhaps it needed strength of a sovereign to be able to enact justice as a response.

But the act of righting the wrong of premeditated murder is itself morally problematic and often has, and does, include the premeditated taking of life of the accused murderer. It seems that our current acceptance that government is the proper vehicle for addressing the harms of murder is based on a perspective and the experience of humanity reflected in what makes for a better society. Enacting justice requires doing harm as retribution, and in this case the potential harm to be done as retribution is the ultimate harm of killing. It's a rather extreme case.

If murder seems like a no-brainer as an act that should be illegal given we as a society would descend to anarchy if murder were legal OR the retaliation for murder were left to individuals and communities to resolve as they may, we aren't really examining the question if we jump to it as an example.