11 ms·
Disagree. The line is with intent. What you intend to do with the creation is what usually dictates the legal ramifications. This is of course hard (or impossib
by woleium 3y ago
Disagree. The line is with intent. What you intend to do with the creation is what usually dictates the legal ramifications. This is of course hard (or impossible) to prove, so demonstrating actions to distribute is a good proxy to intent.
- npteljes 3y agoIntent plays a part, but you can do no harm with a lot of intent, and also cause a lot of harm without any intent. >What you intend to do with the creation is what usually dictates the legal ramifications. Disagree. Legal stuff is first concerned with what happened, and just secondarily with the why. This separates murder and manslaughter for example in the US, but in either case, the main thing is that someone died because of another person. If it was only intent, and no harm done, not even an attempt, there wouldn't be a case in the first place. Now where the moral line is, that's another question, and intent indeed does play a huge part there. In Christianity for example, you can sin without even doing anything, as God is concerned not just with outside actions, but with a person's inner life too.
- woleium 3y agoValid points. > Legal stuff is first concerned with what happened, and just secondarily with the why. I guess it's more nuanced than we have space for here, lol. :) I was thinking of 'possession with intent to supply' for narcotics. The penalty is much greater for that than simple possession. I think you are correct though, I'm mixing up legal and moral concern.