- 07 Aug 2022 21:09
#15242103
Well it doesn't matter. It's only a hypothetical to illustrate a point.
I already explained why there's no need for it to be realistic.
Once again, the reason trespassing is bad doesn't entirely have to do with consent.
I think you're just creating the same fallacy with that example too.
If it does mostly have to do with consent, it's just a legal convenience, a simplified rule. Not a theoretical ethical optimum.
The law can also guide the judge on punishment. Sometimes it is just guidelines and it does not constrain the judge's personal discretion in unusual cases.
MistyTiger wrote:This is an oddball example.
Well it doesn't matter. It's only a hypothetical to illustrate a point.
I already explained why there's no need for it to be realistic.
MistyTiger wrote:Trespassing is a good example since violation is like invasion of property. My body is my property.
Once again, the reason trespassing is bad doesn't entirely have to do with consent.
I think you're just creating the same fallacy with that example too.
If it does mostly have to do with consent, it's just a legal convenience, a simplified rule. Not a theoretical ethical optimum.
MistyTiger wrote:The judge decides on punishment.
The law can also guide the judge on punishment. Sometimes it is just guidelines and it does not constrain the judge's personal discretion in unusual cases.