3 ms·

If this were merely a philosophical debate then yeah, we could have a lively discussion to come up with some answers that would satisfy us individually. We prob

If this were merely a philosophical debate then yeah, we could have a lively discussion to come up with some answers that would satisfy us individually. We probably wouldn't all agree and that'd be OK. But IMO the debate is not really about that -- it's about what we do based on the answer to those questions. It's about what governments can force upon people. Should they be allowed to imprison you if those that write laws believe in something without hard evidence and for which harm is likely unprovable?

musicale 2y ago
> Should they be allowed to imprison you if those that write laws believe in something without hard evidence and for which harm is likely unprovable? Should they? Maybe not - penalties that are disproportionate to provable harm seem unjust and opposed to personal liberty. Do they? Absolutely, because for certain things we've decided (rightly or wrongly) that we should lock people up. For example, a case of attempted murder can result in a life sentence, even if the attempted victim is provably very alive and physically unharmed.
giantg2 2y ago
"Should they be allowed to imprison you if those that write laws believe in something without hard evidence and for which harm is likely unprovable?" They do all the time, on a variety of issues. That's part of the social contract of living in a society.