Few things are as essential to human life as the question of what is "good" and what is "wrong". This essay makes a modest contribution to this millenium-old discussion.
Legal Notions This chapter defines the basic notions needed in the following chapters.
Direct Damage This chapter enumerates the damages that shall be avoided.
Indirect Damage This chapter enumerates the damages that inflict direct damages.
Resolutions This chapter tells what to do in case a damage occurred.
Unsolved Issues This chapter lists the issues that are not covered by the present essay.
Technical Issues
This essay tries to rely on notions that it defines explicitly. If a word is shown in blue, a click on it will lead to its definition. For example, a sentence may be about contract. You will also find green #-characters sprinkled in this text. These signs mean that you can explicitly refer to such a position in the text by a hyperlink. To do that, right click the #-character and click on "Copy link location". Then paste the link into an email or a document. Try it here: #.
I have no education in law or philosophy. Hence the following thoughts are purely personal attitudes. Since I grew up in Western Europe, the values proposed here are likely to be influenced by a Western model of moral, basing on the ideas of the Enlightment. This essay is secular.
It is well known that ethical norms are highly disputable and by no means universal. Behaviors respected by one society may be rejected as amoral by another. Even people within the same society may have different attitudes concerning the moral acceptability of a certain behavior. This entails that the ideas presented here can only be understood as suggestions, which are open to debate. Even the subject of ethics changes with the time. New inventions (such as the Internet or medical abortion) create circumstances that cannot be foreseen by the creators of law. This entails that any law, including this essay, can only provide a snapshot of the ethical norms that are valid today.
The ideas of this essay are presented in natural language. It is well known that natural language leaves much room for ambiguity and interpretation. Although this essay tries to define its notions in an exact way, it cannot avoid depending on a good-natured and thoughtful reader. Even though all thoughts in this essay apply to both men and women, this essay will use the male form of pronouns for simplicity. Female readers might excuse this since this essay is mostly about perpetrators and victims anyway.
This essay defines notions that may already have a slightly different meaning in everyday language or jurisdiction. Hence all notions defined here are to be considered local to this document. Assume the suffix "... in the sense of this essay" attached to all notions defined here.
One important thing to understand is that ethic behavior is only a baseline for human behavior. If you behave ethically, you will not be subject to penalties or claims from fellow humans. However, ethical behavior alone does not make you a friendly person, a respectable member of society, a good parent or a good friend. Ethic behavior is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition for higher human qualities. Ethic behavior is the minimum that you can expect from other people. But from yourself, your friends and your children, you will expect more — and rightly so. In other words: This essay will define what bad behavior is — but it will not define what good behavior is.
The study of "good" and "bad" is called "Ethics". There are numerous approaches to define the concept of ethical behavior. One common approach is to declare something "good" if it is somehow "natural" — and "bad" if it is not. It is difficult to define "natural" here. If "natural" means what the speaker considers reasonable, then morality would be purely subjective. Since different people consider different things natural, the result would be anarchy. By "natural", one can also mean "something that appears in nature". Unfortunately, nature is a difficult guide. Humans do many things that do not happen in nature (such as, e.g., riding a bicycle or brushing their teeth). Still, these things are morally acceptable. Worse, animals do many things that humans would not consider moral. Cats torture their prey apparently for fun, some spider species eat their mates and lions routinely kill the baby lions when they take over a harem. Thus, a behavior is not necessarily morally acceptable if it appears in nature. This shows that ethics is a purely human phenomenon and nature cannot be taken as a guide.
It has been tried to formulate the whole ethics in one single phrase. For example, the principle of reciprocal ethics is "What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man.". It is mirrored by the biblical instruction to "love your neighbor as yourself". Unfortunately, this principle places the assessment of a deed entirely in the hands of the perpetrator. For example, someone who favors communism will be allowed to take your bike — simply because in his eyes the concept of individual property does not exist and he would have no problem if you took his bike. You might beg to differ. Thus, we cannot leave the moral judgement of a deed to the perpetrator. This would entail a world of "perpetrator's justice".
The same applies to Kant's Categorical Imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.". Someone who is a supporter of communism will happily start to redistribute people's property, because this is his vision of the universal law. Proponents of the death penalty will start executing convicted murderers, because in their universal law, the death penalty is the punishment for capital crimes. Opponents of the death penalty will start imprisoning the proponents, because they are murderers in their view. It becomes clear that for every law that someone considers universal there will be someone else who thinks it is not. In summary, the Categorical Imperative tells us to behave reasonably, but it does not tell us what "reasonable" is.
An alternative is to judge a behavior as "bad" if it makes somebody suffer. For example, if Alonso calls Bertram an idiot, Bertram feels insulted and suffers. Hence Alonso's behavior was bad. However, taking the victim's suffering as a proof of wrong conduct leads to the problem of "victim's justice":
Suppose Bertram tells Alonso that his car is the fastest in the world. In reality, Bertram's car achieves a mediocre 70 km/h maximum. Alonso questions Bertram's claim, the two friends litigate and Alonso eventually says that Bertram is lying. Bertram is upset and feels betrayed by his friend. But even though Bertram feels insulted, Alonso was right. He is innocent.
Another idea is to call something "bad" if it brings a disadvantage to somebody. However, this will also not work:
Assume that we own a butcher's shop. Now assume that someone else opens a butcher's shop right next door. This brings us adisadvantage. However, we do not have the right to expect that nobody else opens a butcher's shop next door.
This shows that the victim's suffering cannot be taken as a proof of wrong conduct.
In order to avoid perpetrator's justice and victim's justice, we have to define bad behavior objectively — independently of the opinions of the people involved. Such a definition of bad behavior is called a "norm". A well-known example for norms are for instance the 10 Commandments. One might argue that they already provide a reasonable guidance and that no further discussion of norms is necessary. However, this is difficult. First, the 10 Commandments prescribe monotheism, which we may not impose on everybody. Second, they fail to prohibit such essential things as the deprivation of personal freedom. That is, they do not prohibit kidnapping somebody. (See "Thoughts on Atheism" on Morality and the Bible). Thus, the 10 Commandments allow something we want to prohibit (kidnapping) and prohibit something we want to allow (polytheism or atheism).
The national law of different countries may be a valuable alternative. However, these systems are seldom applicable in everyday life, because they do not coincide with our intuition of "good" and "bad". Here are some examples:
Breaking a speed limit is not morally bad, but punished by law.
Stealing is bad, but not necessarily punished. For stealing a car, you go to jail, for stealing a pencil, you merely get into trouble with the owner.
From an idealist point of view, it is not understandable why stealing a car should be treated differently from stealing a pencil. After all, the difference between the two is not principal but gradual. This shows that some more thoughts on norms are appropriate.
The principle of norms means that a behavior is never "bad" by itself — it can only be "bad" with respect to a given norm. It is impossible to judge a behavior as bad without naming the norm. Hence, in order to reach a common judgement, one first needs to agree on a common norm. Unfortunately, in everyday disputes, the norms are often not clear, let alone agreed on.
Since something is never good or bad by itself, a norm can never be good or bad by itself either. Hence, it cannot be said whether one norm is better than another norm. Unless they are compared to a reference norm, no norm can be "better" than another norm. This is a frustrating insight. The only (vague) point of reference we have to assess the morality of a norm is our own conscience. This essay will present a norm that aims to be "good" with respect to the consciences of people in the Western world.
There is no justification for norms. It cannot be explained why people should obey a norm. Common argumentations point out that violating norms causes harm to the victim. However, it is not clear why harm should necessarily be avoided — as long as it is harm to somebody else. Some people even like harm. It is sometimes argued that norms are the only means to guarantee maximal welfare to all people. However, it is not clear why maximal welfare for all people should be desirable. A society with slaves, for example, will guarantee even greater welfare for the people (except for the slaves). Other argumentations point out that violating a norm will cause harm to the perpetrator, e.g. in form of punishment, revenge, the danger of becoming a victim himself, or in form of burning in hell. However, in principle, nothing prevents a perpetrator from breaking a norm, if he does not fear the consequences. This shows that norms are at most conventions, which have no compulsory foundation in logic or nature. We will simply have to postulate as an axiom that people have to behave morally.
Still, basic ethic behavior might have a foundation in evolution (as hypothesized in "Thoughts on Atheism" on the question of morality): At first glance, norms are just a restriction of personal liberty. Throughout the evolution of mankind, however, it turned out that societies that did not have norms were much less successful than societies that did. The restriction of personal liberty is outweighted quickly by the gains in security and trust, which in turn facilitate commitments, co-operation and task sharing. These benefits, to be sure, do not come immediately to the individual who decides to behave morally. But if all members of a group obey certain norms, they create a stable social environment, which ultimately benefits everybody. A stable social environment promotes the survival of the group and ensures procreation. Hence, groups that had a concept of ethics had an evolutionary advantage. This might be the reason why humans today seem to have some built-in sense of ethics. This sense of ethics is surely not evenly distributed. But most people abhor violence and most people feel compassion if they see somebody suffering.
Norms cannot enforce themselves. Norms can only declare certain behaviors as bad, they can define that certain things "have to be done" or they can request people to do something. However, norms are only words. They cannot prevent a person from behaving in a certain way if the person does not care about the norm. This entails that a norm, however thoughtful, is useless if nobody observes it.
Furthermore, norms, however perfect, cannot do away with the need for interpretation. We still need people to judge whether a certain circumstance of the real world falls under a definition of a norm. The essay tries to make its definitions precise, but still has to rely on a benevolent, human mapping of the real world to its technical terms.
All of these considerations show us that the study of ethics — much more than the study of mathematics, for example — is a highly contingent enterprise. Ideas established today may vanish tomorrow. In spite of this inherent fault, it is widely accepted that mankind profits from ethic behavior, however imperfect its foundations may be.
The leading norm throughout this essay is what I would like to call the Maxim of Moral:
Possible damage has to be prevented and actual damage has to be repaired
This maxim consists of two parts: A "prospective" part aimed at avoiding possible damage and a "retrospective" part aimed at making up for actual damages. The following chapters will define the notion of damage and show how the maxim can be implemented in reality.
This essay builds its terms on the notion of damage. I.e. the ground terms of this essay will be negative notions like "Theft" and "Injury". Alternatively, it is possible to build law on the notion of "legal goods" ("Rechtsgüter" in German Law). Legal goods are positive values like "Property" and "Health". Damage would then be defined as a reduction of these values. Some offenses can be described easily in terms of legal goods (e.g. a theft is a reduction of property), whereas others cannot (e.g. lying). Hence this essay bases on the notion of damage instead of on the notion of legal goods.
In the following, we will use the notion "offense" to refer to a damage caused by a person. This person will be called the "perpetrator". The person suffering the damage will be the "victim".
There are a number of common misconceptions about offenses:
#An offense can be resolved by retaliation Obviously, this is wrong. About the only effect of retaliation is that the amount of damage in this world increases.
#If you don't get punished, it's OK Again, this is wrong. A deed is bad if it causes damage to a victim, no matter whether it is punished or not. In fact, it is deplorable that some bad deeds do not get punished.
#If somebody is just doing his job, it's OK The fact that somebody gets paid for something does not mean that what he is doing would be morally justified. A Mafia gang member also just does his job.
#If it brings me a disadvantage, it must be bad As we have seen in the discussion about victim's justice, this is not true: If we own a butcher's shop and someone opens another butcher's shop next door, then this is a disadvantage to us, but still morally perfectly OK.
#If I have the means, I have the right
This is wrong. We have the means to scratch a car with a key, yet that doesn't make it right.
#If they let me do it, I can do it
Again, this is wrong. We cannot prevent everybody from doing bad things. People are responsible for their own behavior.
#I am poor, so I have to steal and lie.
Not necessarily. Many societies provide honest means for poor people to survive. It is better to work to establish these means than to work against other people, because this ultimately erodes trust (see the discussion on society).
#People are bad to me, so I can be bad to them Such thinking only reinforces the wickedness in this world. Nothing entitles people to commit an offense.
#There are so many bad things in this world that we should not try to resolve each of them It is actually vice versa: There are so many bad things in this world because we not try to resolve each of them. Every single bad thing that gets resolved is a step ahead — no matter how many more there are.
#An offense that has happened in the past belongs to the past and hence we should not talk about it This is wrong. Talking about an offense can warn other people — both those who are tempted to commit it and those who are likely to fall prey to it. Hence, talking is useful.
#We should not deal with internal matters of a family/relationship/nation etc. An offense that happens inside a social structure is not any better than an offense that happens outside the structure or across its boundaries. Calling it an "internal matter" is just a weak excuse for not dealing with it.
#A thief may not accuse somebody else of theft This essay is of the opinion that every single contribution to justice is valuable — including the contribution of somebody who has stolen something.
#If he did something bad to me, then I may do something bad to him Since this principle can be iterated, it is a recipe for conflict. If he did something bad to you, that bad deed shall be repaired and not repeated.
#Only the victim may blame the perpetrator If justice is the goal, then everybody should be allowed to work towards it. There is no reason why third parties should be forbidden to contribute to the solution of a conflict.
#Moral rules are useful, but have to be broken from time to time If the rules are well-designed, they also regulate exceptions to themselves. For example, most legal systems allow for self-defense. Self-defense is not outside the rules, but part of it.
#Principle of Personal Reponsibility Everybody is responsible for his own actions and its consequences. This is the basic assumption of law. It is commonly agreed that mentally ill people and children shall be exceptions to this rule.
#Principle of Universal Responsibility In the spirit of the #Maxim of Moral, everybody is obliged to prevent damage whenever this can be reasonably imposed. This holds regardless of whether one is directly involved in the damage or not.
#Principle of Proximity The agent who could have avoided the damage most easily shares the largest part of the responsibility.
#Dixit-Principle People have to assume full responsibility for the truth of their statements. If somebody makes a false statement, he has to compensate those who believed in it (see lying). Thus, we have the right to act as if all statements were true. In particular, we have the right to take any permission and any waiver as well as any promise or any declaration of knowledge, of desire or of threat for true. Not only does this principle simplify life considerably, it also forms the basis of social trust.
Liberalism
#Liberal laws are easier to enforce If one defines very high moral standards, people will disagree on them. Hence, it will be difficult to convice them to uphold the standards. Consequently, some of the standards will erode over time. This undercuts the overall authority of the standards. Furthermore, very high moral standards will entail that people cannot uphold all of them — even if they want to. This would induce a permanent state of bad conscience even for the good-natured. It may also lead to a state of cherry picking, where people choose to obey some standards and ignore others. For these reasons, this essay will define only the kernel of moral behavior, i.e. the hardest and clearest types of offenses. It will leave all more subtle or debatable damages unrespected. This may seem injust, but it ensures that the moral standards of this essay are robust and applicable in everyday life.
#Harm Principle Damage is the central notion of this essay. Anything that does not cause damage is allowed. Following this logic, this essay will for example allow homosexual couples — simply because there is no damage done. (See also "Thoughts on Atheism" on the question of Moral)
#Intentions are secondary In criminal law, the intention of the perpetrator is crucial to distinguish negligence from malevolence. In everyday life, however, it is difficult to prove whether somebody did something with the intent to harm or not. This is why this essay is based mostly on people's observable behavior. There is, however, a way to take into account the perpetrator's intention in the penalty.
Protecting the Victim
#The rights of the victim override the rights of the perpetrator This essay concentrates on the victims of offenses. This entails that when the rights of the victim and the rights of the perpetrator conflict, preference is mostly given to the rights of the victim. One consequence is that an offense may be prevented by force even if the perpetrator suffers more from the prevention than the victim would have suffered from the offense.
#Principle of Self-Ownership This essay considers it a personal right to do whatever pleases, as long as no damage to outsiders is done. This includes doing damage to yourself. Thus, everybody has the right to inflict damage to himself. In any case, it would be an impossible task to prevent people from doing something that might harm them on the long run (like for instance smoking).
Protecting the Perpetrator
#Volenti non fit iniuria That is, we will not care about an offense if the victim agrees with it. The goal of this essay is preventing undesired harm. If the harm is desired, there is no need to intervene.
#No Sulking The principle of "Volenti non fit iniuria" also extends to cases where the victim does not show interest in resolving an offense. If the victim does not co-operate in finding the perpetrator or in clarifying the circumstances, it may be assumed that the victim agrees with the offense. Hence no further action is required.
#No Silent Suffering If a victim is currently suffering from a damage and he knows that the perpetrator is unaware of the damage he is causing, the victim has to report the damage to the perpetrator. Otherwise, the victim would be suffering needlessly.
#If you cannot do something, you don't have to Moral duties cannot impose something that cannot be done. For example, if you do not know about an offense, you cannot be obliged to provide assistance. Thus, when you always do your best, you can be sure you are unassailable.
#There must always be a way to apologize People err and people make mistakes. Hence there must be a way for a perpetrator to clear his guilt. If the perpetrator shows serious regret and makes up for the damage, he will be free of guilt. This does not cleanse his history and maybe it does not restore confidence in him, but it erases all further claims against him.
Handling Offenses
#Audiatur et altera pars Reality is non-monotonous: A discovery of a new fact may challenge previous believes. This is why a dispute may not be decided by hearing only one party, but requires hearing all involved parties.
#Principle of Modularity The Principle of Modularity says that the victim of an offense can always demand compensation from the direct originator of that offense — no matter whether the originator can blame somebody else for his behavior. For instance, assume that Alonso lends his bicycle to Bertram. Unfortunately, Bertram has it stolen by Cedrick. Then, by the principle of modularity, Alonso can claim direct compensation Bertram. In a separate case, Bertram can demand compensation from Cedrick. This compensation will cover both the bicycle itself and all additional efforts Bertram had to make to compensate Alonso. This two-step process establishes a certain modularity: It ensures that the victim of an offense can always turn to the direct perpetrator for compensation. The victim does not need to care for the perpetrator's reasons or for the legality of these reasons.
#Material Principle The Material Principle says that guilt can be expressed in terms of money. Although this is certainly close to impossible for some offenses (such as murder), it seems to be the only way towards an objective judgement. Thus, we have to assume that guilt can be quantified. This essay binds the conventional, inter-personal notion of "guilt" to its own, technical, quantified notion of guilt. That is, if this essay declares a person free of guilt, the person shall also be free of guilt in the conventional sense: He shall have a clear conscience and people shall not blame him.
The goal of applicability in everyday life entails that this essay does not rely on a central institution (like a government). The procedures described here can be (and should be) carried out by any individual.
The perpetrator has to apologize. According to the Material Principle this apology will be a financial amount paid to the victim. The apology is tailored to the victim. The idea is that the very fact of being a victim to an offense shall also be compensated by the perpetrator. Imagine someone steals a bicycle. It is not sufficient if he gives back the bicycle after one year. Rather, he has to compensate the very fact of stealing the bicycle.
The perpetrator has to make an effort for the community (the "penalty"). The penalty shall prevent him from committing the offense again. This effort is related to the penalty in criminal law. We need the penalty to avoid the problem of the "rich slave":
Suppose a millionaire misuses another person as a slave. As the millionaire is so rich, he simply pays a huge amount of compensation to the slave. But the slave can never make use of this money, because he is locked up in the millionaire's house to work until he dies.
This problem can only be avoided by a penalty tailored to the perpetrator — such as for instance imposing a very high fee on him or even imprisioning him. The penalty has to include all benefits that the offense yielded to the perpetrator. We have to include these benefits in order to avoid the problem of the "rich cab driver":
Suppose a guy steals somebody's car and uses it as a cab. He would later give the car back to the owner. The net loss for the car owner is a few days of using public transport instead of his car. The cab driver made so much money driving the cab that he can easily compensate the car owner. If we do not take away this money from the cab driver, we will encourage him to steal the car again.
In summary, the basic formula is: Compensation for the damage, apology for the victim, penalty for the perpetrator. This formula also applies to minor offenses: It is important that the perpetrator makes up for the damage, he shall apologize and he shall make sure that the offense will not happen again. An apology that does not make up for the damage or that does not ensure that the offense will not happen again is worthless. Likewise, a compensation without an apology and without the guarantee that the damage will not happen again is only half of the cake.
After the general principles of this essay have been discussed, the notion of damage still has to be defined more precisely. The following sections will do this in all rigorosity, defining entities, a model of the world, a number of legal notions and finally the concepts of direct damage and indirect damage, together with the idea of resolutions. Since these sections are very technical, the present section already gives an informal overview of these things. The definitions in the present section are not normative. For more precise definitions, including discussions of alternative definitions, click on the links.
Even though all of these things are damages, this does not mean that they are offenses. In many cases, damage may occur with consent of the victim. For example, if Alonso invites Bertram to his place, Bertram causes a trespass damage to Alonso — but this is perfectly fine because Alonso agrees with it. Furthermore, damages do not always have a perpetrator. Damages can also be caused by natural disasters or illness.
The above damages do not include things like adultery or walking out of a restaurant without paying the bill. These things are not regulated by this essay. Instead, they are regulated by agreements between the people (husband and wife or landlord and customer). This essay lets them agree on whatever they think is reasonable and then ensures that this agreement is upheld (see contract and breach of contract).
Indirect damages are cases where the responsibility shifts from the person who caused the damage to somebody else. These are
Provocation of assistance If someone provides emergency assistance, he is not liable for the damages he causes while doing so.
Bad surprise If someone does something normal and reasonable, he is not liable for damages that he could not foresee.
Complicity If two people are jointly responsible for a damage, they share the liability.
Lying If someone causes damage because he relied on some statement by somone else he is not liable for the damage.
A person can only free himself from the liability if there is someone else who can take over the liability. Furthermore, the liability might be transferred only partially. The indirect damages correspond to defenses in criminal law. They are called indirect damages in this essay because, according to the Principle of Modularity, a person will be made fully liable for the damage he caused (i.e. somone who provides emergency assistance is fully liable for the damage he causes while doing so). In a second lawsuit, he can try to have his costs refunded by the person who he thinks should be liable (i.e. in our case the person who caused the emergency).
Once a damage has occurred, we have to find the perpetrator. Then, we have to identify the person who is responsible for the perpetrator (in case the perpetrator is a child or an animal). Then, arguments have to be brought for and against the responsible. Last, a compensation, an apology and a penalty have to be determined. This process is called a resolution. Even though this essay defines resolutions in a very technical way, resolutions can also be quite informal, see here. To read about a list of limitations of this essay, go here.
This concludes the philosophical part of the essay. If you are mainly interested in the big picture, it is recommended to stick to the present section and to click on the links for further details.
An entity capable of acting, namely animals and corporate bodies.
We define "actors" both by intension (i.e. by giving their properties) and by extension (i.e. by enumerating the beings that are actors). Unfortunately, the definition of "corporate bodies" depends recursively on "actor", so that none of them can be defined without the other.
An entity worth of protection, namely plants and actors.
Note that dead people are no moral objects. They do not have any rights. The reason is that dead people cannot suffer. However, dead people are protected under some circumstances, including the following:
A dead person's property is transferred to the heir as stated in the will.
A dead person (or rather: his heirs) will be compensated for any offense against that person, if the offense was commited before the death and has not yet been resolved.
A person owns his body, so a person may state what shall happen to his body after his death.
A dead person cannot be insulted. However, if something insulting is said about the dead person, and if this statement is provably wrong, the perpetrator may be charged with lying.
We have to define the timepoint at which a set of cells starts being a moral object, because this timepoint will tell whether abortion is legal. There are many things that make the life of an undesired child very hard:
A child requires considerable emotional and also financial efforts by the parents. Of course, this is welcome if the child is desired. If it is not, however, the financial and emotional capabilities of the parents may be trespassed.
A child that is not desired by his parents will feel so.
A child that is not desired may suffer from the unpreparedness of his parents. He has often lesser chances of getting a good education, proper care and a loving environment.
The main reason against abortion is the protection of unborn life. As the definition of "life" is at least disputable and the previous arguments provide strong pragmatic reasons for abortion, this essay does not necessarily count a set of cells as an animal.
A human whose level of education is below a certain group- and nation-dependent standard.
Once a certain educational level has been reached, the person does no longer count as child. This shall be approximately at the age of 14. This definition shall encourage both parents and child to engage in the child's education.
when an action by one of the members shall be considered an action of the corporate body
when a property of one of its members shall be considered the property of the body
how charges against the corporate body shall be distributed to its property or its members.
This interface contract ensures that the law can treat corporate bodies and humans alike. The law can find a corporate body to be the perpetrator of an offense and it can charge the corporate body. Note that if a member of the body claims wrongly that he acts in the name of the corporate body, the blame will not fall on the corporate body. Instead, the person will be held responsible for his actions and in addition, he will be charged with lying (i.e. claiming something that is false). The notion of contract will be defined later on.
Note that there is an easy default form of the interface contract : No action is performed by the body and the body does not have any property. Since moreover contracts can have quite an informal character, any group of persons with a common goal can form a corporate body. This corresponds to the "civil law association" in the Civil Codes ("Gesellschaft Bürgerlichen Rechts", "GbR" in German) .
A fictional moral object that represents the ensemble of animals and plants.
This essay is based on the Harm principle, i.e., something is an offense only if there is a victim. The victim is not obvious in the case of littering. Therefore, we need the concept of Mother Nature to punish littering as trespassing.
Some people have disadvantages that are not their own fault. This includes, e.g., handicaps or illnesses. We need charities to take care for these people. The laws of this essay will produce values that do not belong to anybody (namely penalties and ownerless heritage). These values will be given to charities to support their work.
The fact that the choice of representation has no effect under the following circumstances:
the representation of one item is used only to establish a difference to the representation of another item
the same type of representation is used for both items
the type of representation is fine-grained enough.
Example: It does not matter whether the value of a thing is measured in dollars, in cents or in euros.
We will encounter representations that seem completely ill-defined. Fortunately, these representations will work fine in spite of their arbitrariness thanks to the principle of difference.
This essay assumes that definite propositions can be made. It will not deal with the well-known problems of this assumption, such as vagueness, undefinedness or missing knowledge. For most common applications, binary logic is fully sufficient.
The notions of "events" and "states" build up our model of the course of time. We see the course of time as a (linear) graph, in which the events lead from one state to the following. Obviously, this model is a rough simplification, which is far to coarse to express everything that happens. Its granularity has to be chosen depending on the application. The model allows different formalizations for the same course of time. Fortunately, courses of time will be used only to make comparisons with other courses of time, so that the Principle of Difference applies.
An event entailed by the laws of nature. We assume a restricted fine-grainedness and hence some indeterministism in physical laws.
Example: State1: A cup is placed 3 m above ground, there is no obstacle in the way to the ground and no other force is involved State2: The cup is crashed on the ground
Non-Example: State1: A dice is thrown State2: The dice shows the number 4.
Of course, the laws of nature entail that a dice falls in such a way that it shows a specific number. However, this strict notion of natural predestination proves unhandy for this essay, since events of this kind cannot be predicted. A very strict notion of natural predestination, together with a physical view of the human brain, could even entail that the behavior of humans can be predicted by the laws of nature. To circumvent this question, this essay adopts a less strict notion of natural predestination. Hence random events and human behavior are considered non-necessary events. The relation of necessary events between states is transitive.
The number of times where a state comparable to S2 happened after states comparable to S1, divided by the number of previous distinct states comparable to S1.
Unfortunately, the definition of probability is very vague. Assume for example that Alonso's car is red and Alonso paints his car green. What is the probability of this event? Depending on how the question is phrased, different values result:
The probability of S2="Alonso paints his car green on this very day" in the state S1="Alonso's car is red on this day" is 1.0
The probability of S2="Alonso paints his car green" in the state S1="Alonso's car is red" is 0, because this is the first time that Alonso changes the car's color from red to green.
The probability of S2="Alonso paints his car" in the state S1="Alonso's car has some color" may be quite high if Alonso often changes the color of his car.
The probability of S2="Somebody paints his car" is even higher.
Careful abstractionis necessary to determine the probability of a state, because the probability will be used to estimate how common a state is. If a state is common, it is expected that people take it into account when they plan their actions. The probability of a necessary event is 1.0.
The closest reasonable course of time is used to estimate the "usual" consequences of an action. In this course of time, everything happens as it happens in the real course of time, but humans act in a "reasonable" way. This means that they try to minimize damage and in particular that they do not cause injust damage .
The real course of time#, where E is left out and subsequent impossible events are left out as well.
Example: The hypothetical course of time without an the event of Alonso shooting Bertram in the head will not contain a state where Bertram has a hole in the head.
In contrast to the possible and reasonable courses of time, the hypothetical course of time mirrors reality as closely as possible. It is a formal variant of the "ceteris paribus" argumentation.
An actor, such that the hypothetical course of time without an action by that actor does not lead to X at the time of X. If there are two actions that can be left away alternatively, but not cumulatively, both actors are agents ("double causality").
This is a formalized version of the "conditio sine qua non" principle. We are trying to determine whether a certain action caused a certain state. For this purpose, we imagine that the action did not take place and we see if the state would still appear. If the state would not appear, the action caused the state. Note that by this definition, the grandma is an agent of her grandson stealing a car, because she gave birth to the person who gave birth to the grandson. So, without her, the theft could not have happened and she is an agent. This problem is solved in different ways:
in the German Civil Code, a person is the cause of a state if the action "leads to the state according to common life experience" (adequacy-theory). So grandma is safe — unless she lives in a criminal society in which the majority of people steals.
in the German Criminal Law, one distinguishes between "causing" and "being responsible for" (equivalence-theory). Although someone may be the cause of a damage, he is only responsible for it if his action caused the danger of damage, as defined by the law. In the example, the grandma is the cause of her grandson stealing a car. However, she is not responsible for it, because having a grandson is not seen as a danger of damage in the law. The problem is that someone might find a way to cause a damage without producing a danger of damage as defined in the law.
This essay will try another solution, although this solution is also imperfect.
The notion of double causality is necessary to avoid the problem of cumulative actions: Imagine that Alonso and Bertram each give a deadly portion of poison to Cedrick (2 actions). Cedrick dies. Each of the two actions can be left away without helping Cedrick. But if both actions are left away, Cedrick survives. Hence, both Alonso and Bertram are the agents of Cedrick's death. Double causality includes the case in which it cannot be determined which action exactly caused the damage. The standard example is the car accident, in which a car hits a biker and causes deadly injuries. Some seconds later, a lorry passes by and also causes deadly injuries. The biker is brought to a hospital, but dies. It cannot be determined which injuries exactly caused the death. So both the lorry driver and the car driver count as agents.
The agent of the state, whose action is the latest among the agents of the state. If both actions took place at the same time, both agents are direct agents. They are taken together as a natural corporate body, with the responsibility distributed among them according to the ease with which they could have avoided the damage.
This essay will take the direct agent of a damage as responsible for the damage. That means: the last agent in a chain of agents is the direct agent. The problem is that, according to this definition, someone who steps on a land mine is himself responsible. As a way out, this essay provides the offense of "bad surprise" (sb.). Different cases of direct agents can be imagined:
There is no direct agent at all (like for instance for natural disasters)
There may be multiple agents if the agents acted simultaneously or if double causality applies. This is, e.g., the case when two cars bump into each other. In this case, the agent that could have avoided the damage most easily receives a bigger share of the responsibility. There are two special sub-cases of this scenario:
If one person wilfully causes harm to another person (e.g., Alonso wilfully bumps his car into Bertram's), then obviously the harming person receives all resposibility, because he could have avoided the damage very easily by refraining from the action.
If someone creates a dangerous situation, where the other party is forced to react (e.g., if Alonso blindfolds himself and then rides his car), then the reacting party becomes the direct agent, but can still shift the burden by invoking bad surprise.
Since multiple agents are taken together as a natural corporate body, this essay talks of "the direct agent".
A declaration that implies that the utterer will accept damage is only valid if uttered with appropriate seriousness.
It is non-trivial to determine when a declaration has actually been completed: Consider a mail that is lost or not read, a letter that is written without the intention of sending it and which is then found and sent by somebody else, a sign that is put up but not read, a declaration in a language that the addressee does not understand, a declaration made to or by a machine, or a gesture that has different meanings for different people. This essay accepts a flow of data as a declaration only if it fulfills certain standard criteria. These criteria are highly contingent. They depend on the nation of the addressee (for the choice of language), the cultural enviroment (to determine whether a statement is serious or just a joke), the technical state of development (to estimate the period of time needed to find and read an e-mail) and time (to comply with new ways of communication) and the general environment (to determine the meaning of gestures). Hence this essay cannot name the criteria. Usually, the national Civil Code contains useful criteria.
The question of what humans actually mean when they speak is enormeously complicated, especially because a declaration shall comprise all of its implications (the so-called implicatures). The study of pragmatics is dedicated to this issue. To determine the meaning of a statement, this essay proposes the following simplistic procedure as a rough guideline: Collect the set of all meanings that could be intended. Delete from this set all meanings that are tautological. If the set contains more than one meaning, delete from the set all meanings that could easily be expressed more explicitly. If the set is singleton, chances are that you found the intended meaning. Otherwise, you should clarify the utterer's intention by asking him. Consider some examples:
"Do you like dancing?" Reasonable meanings:
"I would like to go dancing with you"
"I would just like to know whether you like dancing"
None of these meanings is tautological. It is easy to express the first meaning more explicitly, namely by the phrase "I would like to go dancing with you". By contrast, it is clumsy to express the second meaning more explicitly. Hence it is reasonable to assume the second meaning.
"I will be at the party tomorrow" Reasonable meanings:
"I will definitively be at the party tomorrow"
"I am planning to be at the party tomorrow, but I'm not yet sure"
None of these meanings is tautological. It is easy to express the second meaning more explicitly — simply by saying "I plan to be at the party tomorrow". By contrast, it is not trivial to express the first meaning in a simpler way than by the above statement. Hence this statement is to be considered a promise . This interpretation urges people to be careful what they say. But after all, statements are made for other people to rely on them.
Finally, add the logical implications of the meaning and its presuppositions (i.e. the facts that have to be true to make the statement a reasonable statement). Note that this procedure may result in no meaning at all.
Creating damage can count as an agreement to a declaration , if it is known to do so. This mechanism, the "service agreement", allows service providers to bind certain obligations to certain customer actions. Examples include:
Entering a train The damage is trespassing the service provider's territory. The declaration accepted by the customer are the terms of service.
Entering an auction hall Again, the damage is trespassing. By trespassing, the customer accepts that by raising his hand he buys the item that is being auctioned.
Taking a newspaper out of a sell box The damage is theft. The customer agrees to pay the price noted on the sell box.
The customer shall know that he agrees to some declaration and he shall have easy access to that declaration . Note that a declaration cannot be made by refraining from doing something. The latin phrase "Quis tacit consentire videtur" ("Who does not speak seems to agree") does not apply.
Declarations can also be made by gestures. Nodding, for example, counts as an acceptance in Western European countries. Thanks to the abstract definition of a declaration, also clicking on some button in the Internet counts as a declaration.
This essay treats altering data and creating data in the same way in order to treat data sabotage similarly to lying.
Declarations may be nested and combined. E.g. by entering an auction hall, you agree that raising your hand counts as a declaration that you will buy the item. Through nesting, a declaration can me made to mean what its sender and receiver agree it to mean. If two people agree that between them, a gesture or an utterance shall have a different meaning, then this is the meaning that counts. It is irrelevant what other people think about the utterance, because a declaration happens only between a sender and a receiver — and not with a third observer. Take as an example the gesture of shaking the head. In Europe, shaking the head means "no". In India, a similar gesture means "yes". Thus, when two Indians talk, shaking the head means "yes". If they travel to Europe and talk to each other, then shaking the head still means "yes" to them — no matter what the Europeans think.
Set phrases shall not be taken literally if they imply damage to the utterer. For instance, imagine that Alonso proposes to Bertram to go on a 4-week hike through the inner Congolese jungle. Bertram answers politely "What a cute idea". Bertram's reaction cannot be understood as an agreement, because
participating in the tour is "damage" to Bertram in the sense that it prevents him from doing something else (obstruction)
There are different forms of a contract. The most common form of a contract is a declaration on a sheet of paper that both parties sign. This is to be understood as a promise by each party to fulfill its respective requirements. The contract is not to be understood as the declaration of one party that the other party will fulfill its respective requirements!
A contract can also be established without writing. Since declarations can be quite informal, a simple verbal agreement already constitutes a contract. Since a declaration can also be made implicitly (e.g. by entering a restaurant), contracts may even spring to life without a single spoken word (see the definition of declaration).
The technically cleanest form of a contract is the following:
Alonso says: "If you promise to do Y then I will do X" Bertram says: "I will do Y" where X is supposed to be beneficial to Bertram and Y is supposed to be beneficial to Alonso
In this dialogue, Alonso offers a contract to Bertram by making a conditional promise . Up to this point, neither Alonso nor Bertram are obliged to do anything. Bertram can trigger Alonso's promise to come into effect by making a promise as well. Now Alonso is bound to do X and Bertram is bound to do Y. Usually, the national Civil Code deals with a number of special cases concerning contract s. For example, it has to be clarified what shall happen if one party makes the other party's promise impossible to fulfill. This essay leaves these decisions to the parties. However, the parties are invited to use the definitions of the national Civil Code (or of any other common set of definitions) for their contract . For example, they can agree to engage in a purchase in the sense of the national Civil Code.
The above definition of a contract differs from the definition in the German Civil Code, where a contract consists of "two coinciding declarations of will". With this definition, though, lying, breaking a promise and breaking a contract have to be treated separately.
If a thing is composed of multiple things belonging to the same proprietor, the composed thing is owned by that proprietor. Analogously, all parts of a thing owned by a proprietor belong to that proprietor. The body of an animal belongs to that animal.
"Property" in itself is nothing else than an arbitrary relation. It cannot be determined from the nature of a thing or from a person's dealing with the thing. Note that you cannot get rid of property except by contract .
A promise by X conditioned by the death of X. The will may only affect immediate property transferrals. It may only affect the property left after other legal claims have been satisfied. By default, the will says that the property shall belong to a charity that agrees to take it.
By the will, a person may bequeath his property to a heir. The heir needs to declare that he accepts the property, so that a contract results and the property gets transferred. If the will does not exist, if the actor is incapable of making promises (if he is an animal, e.g.), if the heir does not accept the property, if the property transfer is not immediate or if the will does not specify a heir for a property, the will automatically counts as a declaration that gives the property to a charity. If a charity agrees, a contract results and the property is transferred. By this mechanism, X can bind the heirs to a certain behavior if they accept the heritage. For example, a heir may own the house if he agrees not to sell it etc..
The concept of heritage poses the question whether a death duty is reasonable. Without a death duty, the heir of a millionaire does not have to work, because he could simply have his father's money work for him. Although this does not cause damage to anybody (on the contrary), it might be a fair assumption that everybody should work to earn his livings. Under this assumption, we may give part of the heritage to a charity. This would greatly benefit the community, but it would not cause damage, because, under the assumption, earning his livings is not a damage to the heir.
The notion of knowledge is a mental notion. Philosophers are of the opinion that mental notions cannot be defined convincingly on principle. Therefore, this essay simply assumes that in certain situations, a person does know something. If the person does not know about a state although one of the above criteria applies, the person should at least know about the state. This assumption shall encourage people to walk through their life with at least a minumum amount of attention. Furthermore, a state counts as known if the person says that the state is known (by the the Dixit-Principle, see lying).
The notion of knowledge is central to define denial of assistance: A person can only help somebody in an emergency if he knows about the emergency.
It is important to know whether a state is desired or not. If a state is damaging and it is not desired, we need to prevent it (see imparative assitance). Promised states are always desired. Thus, if Alonso sells his car, the damage that results (namely the loss of his car) is desired. Hence the damage is no injust damage and we do not need to prevent it (see imparative assistance). Likewise, an action by a moral subject implies that all its highly probably consequences are desired. For example, if Alonso enjoys shooting at his own car, then the consequence that the car is damaged is extremely likely. Hence we may assume that Alonso desired to destroy his car. Hence the damage does not constitute injust damage and we do not need to prevent it (see again imparative assistance). Furthermore, a state counts as desired if the person says that the state is desired (by the the Dixit-Principle, see lying).
As the notion of knowledge, the notion of desire is a mental notion. It is hard to define it convincingly. Therefore, this essay simply assumes that a person desires a state if certain conditions are given. Naturally, a person may also desire a state if these conditions are not given. For this essay, though, it is only important to define when we can be sure that a person desires something. It does not matter if the conditions do not catch all cases where people desire something.
A pattern (such as of music, of text, of manufacture, of motion or of colour) that is not obvious and that has not been known before. Intellectual property must be marked as intellectual property, so that the mark can be perceived without perceiving the intellectual property. The author of the intellectual property must be alive.
This essay assumes intellectual property to become public domain after the death of the author. This is a compromise between the author's right of remuneration and mankind's right of profiting from new inventions.
Moving the intellectual property into someone's sphere of influence (relative to the inertial system).
Watching pictures in shop windows, e.g., is not using intellectual property, because the picture is not moved into the personal sphere, but the personal sphere moves to the intellectual property. On the other hand, clicking on a link counts as using the intellectual property, because the document is moved into the personal sphere. For the document to be accepted as intellectual property, the user must be informed about the terms of usage before he clicks on the link.
The value of the effort that is necessary to pass from the states given by the closest reasonable course of time with D to the states given by the closest reasonable course of time without D, as far as the former is injust damage to the victim compared to the latter. By default, the compensation shall be restoring the current state to the state without the damage plus the value that would need to be paid to a third person to undergo the damage from its beginning to its end. Subsequent more specific definitions of compensation override this definition.
The compensation aims at making up for suffered damage. This includes all disadvantages entailed by the damage, be they before or after the resolution. The default definition suggests the following: First, the state without the damage has to be restored (e.g. for an injury, the injury has to be healed). Then, the victim has to be compensated for the duration of the damage. This value is estimated by the amount that would be necessary to have a third person undergo that damage (e.g. for an injury, one asks for how much money someone else would be willing to undergo the injury, provided that the healing costs are already paid). The compensation concerns all states following the original damage that are injust damage (consequential losses). Note that these losses may well continue beyond the timepoint of the resolution. These losses are computed as the difference of two closest reasonable courses of times, without involving the real course of time. This is because the compensation shall only comprise the "usual", predictable consequences of D. Consider some special cases:
Compensation covers consequential losses. Example: A machine in Alonso's factory is destroyed. Hence Alonso cannot use the machine for production. In contrast, he is assumed to use the machine in the closest reasonable course of time without the destruction. Hence the loss in productivity is covered by the compensation.
Compensation does not cover unreasonable behavior. Example: A machine in Alonso's factory is destroyed. Alonso decides to cease production completely, although the remaining machines could continue production. In contrast, he is assumed to continue production with the remaining machines in the closest reasonable course of time despite the destruction. Hence this additional loss is not covered by compensation.
Compensation covers contingent events. Example: A fire-extinguisher in Alonso's house is stolen. A fire breaks out and the house burns down. In the closest reasonable course of time without the theft, the fire would have broken out as well. However, in this course of time, Alonso would have extinguished the fire with the fire-extinguisher. Hence the compensation for the theft covers the house. That means: Whoever stole the fire extinguisher is liable for the destruction of the house. Example: Alonso's lotto coupon is stolen. In the lottey, it turns out that the lotto coupon would have won. Hence the compensation covers the lotto win. This may seem unfair. On the other hand, winning the lottery is the very purpose of the lotto coupon — exactly like extinguishing fires is the purpose of the fire-extinguisher. The value of a thing comprises the value of its use.
detested, i.e. the person desires the contrary of the state
neutral or unknown, i.e. we do not know whether the person desires or detests the state
This essay merges the last two cases to "undesired". If something is not explicitly desired, it counts as undesired. Hence by default, all damages are undesired. Furthermore, all damages to (non-human) animals are undesired, because animals are not capable of declaring. By the principle "You cannot commit an offence against yourself", any desired damage will be ignored by this moral framework.
A damage may be expected although the victim is undetermined. Imagine for instance that our rascal Alonso covers an open drain with cardboard. It is highly probable that someone will step on the cardboard and fall into the drain. Although it is unknown who will fall into the drain, the damage is expected. Its value boils down to the probability of anybody falling into the drain multiplied by the value of the injury.
We need the notion of expected damage to quantify how dangerous a behavior is.
Severe damages are the ones that have to be prevented at all cost. Nobody can be expected to undergo severe damage, even if that could serve a higher purpose.
The value of refundable assistance is the compensation for the damage caused to the helper.
Refundable assistance defines the circumstances in which someone who helps in an emergency case may expect to be compensated for his efforts. Usually, this applies to the case where a helper prevents a perpetrator from committing an offense. Since this essay focuses on the rights of the victim, it is legal to prevent an offense even though the perpetrator of that offense suffers more through the prevention than the victim would have suffered through the offense. This view is shared by the German Criminal Law, which distinguishes "Notwehr" (actions against the perpetrator) from "Notstand" (actions against other people).
The assistance should not cause more damage than the expected damage, i.e. the effort of the helper is bound from above by the reduction of the expected damage — unless the damage affects the perpetrator of the expected damage directly. This direct effect means that the perpetrator must be the immediate victim of the damage, if the damage caused by the assistance exceeds the expected damage. This definition is necessary because any damage caused by the assistance affects the perpetrator on the long run, since he has to refund the assistance. Severe damages count more than other types of damage. Severe damages among themselves are compared as usual. As a result, any assistance that prevents severe damage is adequate, as long as it does not cause more severe damage. If severe damage is used, its benefit must be immediate. It is not allowed to use severe damage to coerce somebody into doing something (torture is prohibited). The reason is that it may be impossible to determine whether the person can fulfill the demand or not. Torturing thus always bears the danger of injustly causing severe harm in vain.
Imparative assistance defines the conditions under which assistance is not only refundable, but also mandatory (see the Principle of Universal Responsibility). Whoever sees a moral object in danger shall rush to help. However, we know that millions of people live in danger (they starve, they are persecuted or they suffer from illness). We cannot be morally obliged to help all of them. This is why there are so many restrictions to imparative assistance, in particular:
Nobody can be forced to accept severe damage to help somebody.
You have to help only if the victim can't do it for himself.
You may expect your efforts to be refunded.
Perpetrators are not obliged to help in their own offenses, since this would result in a double penalty (first for the offense and then for denial of assistance). In certain cases the victim of an offense can be obliged to help himself, namely if he knows that the perpetrator is unaware of the damage he is causing (silent suffering). It is sufficient for the victim to tell the perpetrator about the damage he is causing. If the victim continues suffering and does not inform the perpetrator, the victim becomes partly responsible himself, committing a denial of assistance. The assistance is an "obligatory purchase": The helping person is obliged to help and the victim is obliged to "buy" this assistance, i.e. to compensate the effort. If an offense is prevented, the wannabe-perpetrator will have to pay for the prevention.
The following chapter defines states that count as direct damage. If a damage requires a compensation other than the default value, the definition of the damage will mention this explicitly.
that withholds the thing from actions by the proprietor OR
that constitutes a transferral of property away from the proprietor
The perpetrator in the second case is the one who withholds the thing. The perpetrator in the third case is the one who receives the property.
This definition comprises a wide range of property damages. For example, any transferral of property counts as damage. Thus, the compensations and penalties are damages (albeit not injust damages). Withholding property is also a property violation, because a moral object may become proprietor of a thing, but be denied access to the thing. Note that even each change of a thing is a damage to the proprietor. For example, using the Internet is a damage, because it changes the state of the servers of the Internet provider. However, using the Internt is usually not an injust damage , as it bases on a contract. The compensation for a property violation is, as the default definition suggests, giving back the thing and making up for the period of loss.
the touching, manipulation or exposing of the sex organs, the buttocks or the female breasts
the kissing of the lips
increased physical contact without other reason
with a human victim. Reciprocation or explicit unambiguous invitation counts as a declaration of consent. The damage is larger if the victim is a child.
This definition includes rape. Sexual assault is a highly culture-dependent offense. This essay takes a Western view, counting only the crudest sexual assaults as offenses. In order not to hinder consensual sexual activity, we have to count reciprocation and invitation as consent.
A damage where the victim depends on the perpetrator
because of a contract that implies longer lasting interaction between victim and perpetrator
or because the perpetrator is responsible for the victim
if the damage is repeated or expected to be repeated.
This definition has no other purpose than amplifying an offense against a dependant victim. The abuse of a dependant is worse than a simple abuse, because the victim has to fear a repetition of the offense. An abuse of a dependant will entail two resolutions: One for the original damage and one for the abuse of the dependant.
A state in which an entity that does not belong to an actor is located on the area owned by that actor. The area owner has to declare where his area begins.
A trespass is also committed by leaving objects on public ground, with the victim being Mother Nature.
By defining trespassing in this general way, both walking on somebody else's territory and placing garbage on his territory count as damage. The compensation for a trespass is, as the default definition suggests, the removal of the entity.
Littering is an offense against Mother Nature, i.e., the ensemble of plants and animals in that area. Because mother Nature is non-human, it will be represented by a lawyer and the penalty will go to a charity, see resolutions.
It is strange that a reciprocal insult makes the victim feel "healed" from the first insult. This is an "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth"-behavior. But since it works and since no consequences result, this essay subscribes to this solution. It is a convenient way to avoid the legal claim mechanism. The German Criminal Law shares a similar view. Note that this retaliating solution does not apply to other offenses such as theft or injury. If the victim of an insult does not reply by a reciprocal insult, the insult counts as an offense.
Note that pejorative statements count as insults only if they are not provably true. This essay follows the widely accepted opinion that in case of a resolution, the perpetrator has to prove the truth of the statement.
Note furthermore that the declaration does not need to be made to the victim to be an insult.
The compensation for an insult is revoking it in the presence of the listeners.
Example: "Kill everybody who dares to insult the king!" There is a possible course of time, in which somebody insults the king. Killing this person is an injust damage .
Non-Example: "If he steals again, sue him!" There is a possible course of time in which the person steals again, but bringing him to court is in that case not an injustdamage.
Non-Example: "When the dragon appears, all of you shall commit suicide!" Killing oneself (without wanting it) is injust damage . But since there is no possible course of time in which a dragon appears, the statement is not an incitement.
Kind requests (i.e. incitements that start with "please" and that entail damage only to the addressee) shall not count as incitements. This is because the word "please" shall imply voluntariness (as the French "s'il vous plait"). If the damage is done voluntarily and if it affects the actor only, then the damage is not injust.
Note that the victim of an incitement is not the listener, but the suggested victim of the damage. Thus, an incitement is very similar to an insult. If the listener follows the incitement, he will be fully responsible for his actions, as the incitement does not free him from the obligation to think about the moral value of his actions.
This essay restricts the case of incitement to possible courses of time. Otherwise, most religious books would commit incitements, when they promise hell to non-believers.
As for insults, the compensation for an incitement consists of revoking the incitement in the presence of the listeners.
A state in which an actor cannot do something that is possible and that is not injust damage. This includes moving to some free place on common area or on his own area.
obstruction includes imprisonment as well as locking up a person by owning areas surrounding that person's area. Also, participating in a resolution counts as obstruction. The compensation for obstruction means freeing the actor and giving him the possibility to do again what he could not do. This includes e.g. the refunding of missed concert tickets etc.. The definition of compensation# makes sure that the victim cannot claim compensation for several simultaneous activities.
Obstruction raises the question of whether livestock may be kept, because keeping the animals means locking them up. Admittedly, it is disputable whether mankind shall keep livestock at all, given that one could in principle live without animal products. For pragmatic reasons, however, this essay allows keeping and eating livestock (see Food Killing). The essay limits itself to asking farmers to keep their livestock in a reasonable environment and asking customers to buy products that have been produced without harming animals. The idea is that if the livestock is kept in a nearly natural environment, the damage to them should be minimal. Furthermore, the damage should be weighted against the use for mankind.
Example: "I will kill you!" This is a classical threat.
Example: "If you don't do X, I'll kill you" This is a conditional threat, i.e. extortion.
Non-Example: "If you insult me again, I'll sue you!" There is a possible course of time in which the person insults you again, but bringing him to court is not an injust damage .
The threat itself is damage, because it causes considerable emotional stress to the victim. Often, threats are bound to certain requests, like for instance in extortion. In this case, the threat itself counts as damage, independent of whether the victim obeys the perpetrator's conditions or not. Furthermore, the threat counts as a declaration , i.e. the victim may assume that the perpetrator fulfills the threat (by the Dixit-Principle, see lying). Hence, if the victim obeys the perpetrator and does as he requests, the victim performs refundable assistance to rescue himself. Thus, the victim will get a compensation for all damage he suffered while following the perpetrator's request. This may be direct damage (like giving money to the blackmailer) as well as indirect damage (like committing an offense and having to pay the compensation). However, while following the perpetrator's request, the victim shall not cause damage that is greater than the damage he is threatened with. In this case, the victim is expected to disobey and to suffer the damage he is threatened with. The definition of refundable assistance makes sure that this does not apply for severe damage.
If the victim does not obey the perpetrator and the perpetrator makes his threat come true, the perpetrator will be held responsible for both the threat itself and the actual damage caused to the victim (as covered by the other definitions).
The definition of a threat covers only real possible courses of time. It does not cover threats in the afterlife. Otherwise, many religious books would become illegal, because they often threat people with punishment in the afterlife.
The compensation for a threat means revoking the threat and making up for the distress.
The state where the life of an animal ends. The compensation for death is the value that is necessary to raise another animal of the same kin. If it is impossible to raise another animal of the same kin, the compensation shall be bounded reasonably. If the victim was not a human, the compensation is payable to a charity engaged in raising animals of the victim's kin.
Killing seems to be one of the most obvious offenses, yet its justification is tricky: If somebody is killed without suffering, then the damage to the victim is not obvious. How does the value of the state of being dead compare to the value of life? If the person believed in paradise, his death may even improve his state. However, from its secular point of view, this essay assumes death to be a damage. If the victim was a human, the compensation and apology are paid to the victim (and get transferred to the heirs immediately by means of the will). If the victim was no human, these values go to a charity. The idea is to "make up" for the death of an animal by raising another one of the same kin. Thereby, the "damage" done to the environment by the loss of an animal shall be compensated. This valuation mirrors approximately our understanding of bad killings and tolerable killings: Killing a fly is not as bad as killing a cat, because it takes more effort to raise a cat than to raise a fly. Furthermore, killing animals of a rare species (like whales) is very bad, because it is very difficult to raise another one of their kin. It may even be impossible. In this case, the compensation would be infinitely large and has to be limited reasonably.
The German Criminal Law does not punish killings of animals unless it provokes public anger. Apart from the fact that it is a pity that killing animals usually does not provoke public anger, the killing itself should be punished regardless of the public reaction. Due to the distinction of humans and animals, special laws in the criminal law are needed to protect endangered species.
Note that killing oneself is a desired damage and hence not injust. People are allowed to commit suicide. This does not apply if they kill themselves to evade their duties. For example, if someone has children, he is expected to care for them (because he is responsible for them, s.b.). If he tried to kill himself and would thus leave the children to starve, the suicide would cause damage to outsiders and is hence to be prevented. [Thanks to Jennifer for pointing this out.]
See the next definitions, Food Killing and Mosquito Killing, for exceptions to the general prohibition of killing.
This definition targets humans, because animals are no moral subjects and cannot be held responsible for killing. It is well known that humans could survive without killing animals. This essay sympathises with the vegetarian cause. However, it would be unfeasable at the current point of human development to treat food killings as killings. In the future, the exceptional treatment of food killings may be removed. By being a special case of killing, food killing is still technically a damage. Note that food killing also covers plants. Food killing applies in two cases: Either the animal or plant has been farmed for the purpose of consumption. In this case, the animal or plant may be killed. If the animal or plant has not been farmed, the animal may only be killed if the compensation is small. This entails, e.g., that you may not kill members of a rare species. Food killing excuses the killing itself, but it does not excuse the detention of animals (see the remarks at obstruction).
This definition allows people to kill mice, mosquitoes, and other insects if they cause a risk to hygiene, health, property, or well-being of humans. This essay would prefer a more pacifistic solution to these problems, but acknowledges that currently the most realistic solution is killing the animal that causes the nuisance. Note that this does not allow erasing an entire species, as the compensation for such a killing would grow too large with each animal that dies. This is in order to keep the biological balance of our planet. Note also that the killing has to avoid any cruelty, because cruelty still remains immoral as an injury.
This law implies that the parents have to finance their child's education until the child can work. This right of education shows once again the high responsibility that results from having a child. It is necessary to state that the parents are the perpetrators, because the bad state itself is caused both by the child and the parents.
A state that affects an animal's sense organs in a repeated or extreme way, provided that
the animal is on its own area OR
the animal did not move towards the source of the sensation while perceiving the sensation (relative to the inertial system).
If the state is caused by a technical device designed for this class of sense affection and owned by the animal, the state is not a disturbance.
Disturbance is an offense that cannot be quantified easily. Strictly speaking, talking to somebody is already a disturbance. However, its compensation (the default value) is neglectable. More serious disturbances (such as making penetrant noise or stinking) do cause damage. If the victim moves consciously towards the source of the sensation, the sensation is not a disturbance. This includes e.g. someone going to a rock concert.
The German Criminal Law states that making penetrant noise is a crime — although, sadly, this does not apply to vehicles, which contribute most of the noise in our environment.
The compensation for disturbance means ending the disturbance and making up for the suffering.
by a means that has perceiving capabilities reaching beyond the capabilities of the human sense organs, unless the information is explicitly available for this use.
Information that is easily available without these means cannot be subject to a privacy violation. The victim of the privacy violation is the human or the corporate body to whom the injust damage happens or at whose property the extraction is targeted. People who transmit or use the information after having been informed about the privacy violation commit themselves a privacy violation.
Example: Introducing microphones into the room of the victim (Privacy violation by trespass)
Example: Stealing documents (Privacy violation by theft)
Example: Forcing the victim to reveal something (Privacy violation by threat)
Example: Using microphones to detect what is spoken inside the victim's room (forbidden technical means)
Example: Cracking the code of a website and accessing the information (not available for this use)
Non-Example: Looking into somebody's windows.
Non-Example: Taking a picture of somebody
This definition targets at de facto secrets, i.e. at information that is subject to the exclusive control of a human or a group of humans. The idea is that people shall protect whatever knowledge they want nobody to know. It is irrelevant what this knowledge is about. It is also irrelevant whether the person knows the secret himself or not (e.g. someone may not know whether he carries HIV or not, but he is entitled to prevent anybody from finding it out). It is not necessary that the perpetrator uses the information for himself to commit this offense. Information that is publicly availabe cannot be the subject of a privacy violation, because otherwise a thief, e.g., would commit a privacy violation by getting to know the victim's haircolor.
Sometimes people tell their secrets to other persons. These secrets are not protected by this law on privacy violation. If the person tells the listener afterwards not to disseminate the secret, this request has no legal value . Instead, the person should ask the listener to promise to keep silent. It is even better to ask the listener before telling the secret. A prototypical promise is "I promise that, shall I ever tell somebody your secrets, I will compensate this as if it was a privacy violation. I will be freed from this promise if you break your promise to keep silent about my secrets". This sounds like a retaliation law, but this mutual dependency is one of the strongest guaranties for keeping secrets.
Note that if a privacy violation is necessary to unveil an offense, the privacy violation may be commited. It will be compensated by the perpetrator of the offense as refundable assistance. This entails that perpetrators of offenses are not protected against privacy violations concerning their own offenses.
The compensation for a privacy violation means destroying the information and informing all people to whom the information has been transferred.
According to the Principle of Universal Responsibility, everybody has to prevent damage. If a victim suffers a damage and some other person does not help, then the victim can claim compensation from the bystander. On one hand, it seems strange that the victim shall receive compensation just because somebody watched the damage. There is not more damage just because someone watches. On the other hand, denial of assistance has to be punished and it seems best to have the victim profit from it. The compensation increases with the damage. It decreases with the effort that is required for the assistance. It also decreases if the helper did provide some kind of assistance, but not the full required assistance. By default, this essay suggests a compensation that is equal to 1/3 of the compensation of the damage. In general, a victim can never be obliged to provide imparative assistance to himself, because he cannot commit an offense against himself. However, if the victim knows that the perpetrator is unaware of the damage he causes, he has to notify him (see silent suffering). Note that, by the above definition, denial of assistance includes cognisance.
Damage that every human produces day by day without noticing it.
Everyday damage includes e.g. killing small animals by stepping on them or eating stuff for which animals suffered. It is proposed that everybody make a regular contribution to a charity to make up at least symbolically for everyday damage.
Suppose Alonso covers a drain with cardboard. Minutes later, poor Bertram comes, steps on the cardboard and falls into the drain. The usual criterion to shift the burden of damage from Bertram to the Alonso is the (bad) intention of Alonso. However, this bad intention may be hard to prove (Alonso may just have littered the cardboard around). This is why the offense of "bad surprise" does not rely on intentions, but on the probability instead. It protects ordinary people from unusual events that they do not have to take into account. In the above example, nobody has to take into account that someone covers a drain with cardboard. In contrast, the Alonso has to take into account that someone might walk on the cardboard. Hence Alonso is guilty.
This rule also proves quite useful for minor cases. Suppose, e.g., that Alonso eats some jam and does not close the top of the jar properly. Bertram comes and takes the jar by the top, the jar falls down and crashes. Here, the state that a jam-jar is not closed properly is less common than somebody taking it. Hence it was Alonso's fault.
Conveniently, conventions may be used to establish a high probability. For example, it is a convention in Germany to drive on the right-hand side of the road. Thus, anybody who uses the left hand side performs an uncommon action and can be held responsible for eventual damage.
Complicity applies if two agents commit offenses that combine to one great offense. For example, assume that Alonso gives a poison to Cedrick. Later, Bertrand also gives a poison to Cedrick. Although each of the poisons would cause only stomach-ache, the poisons combine and Cedrick dies. By the Principle of Modularity, Bertrand will be charged with killing. Afterwards, Bertrand will sue Alonso for complicity to make him pay his share.
Note that the joint damage D may well exceed the sum of the respective hypothetical damages! It is necessary to treat complicity apart from bad surprise, because bad surprise relies on the probabilities of the actions, which would not make sense for complicity. Furthermore, bad surprise cannot allow proportional sharing of the damage (potential division by zero), whereas complicity relies on proportional sharing on principle.
Protecting trust in declarations is one of the core issues of this essay. We have the right to take any declared statement for true (by the Dixit-Principle). By the Principle of Modularity, the person responsible for a false rumour is the person who first created it. Therefore, we should watch carefully what we say. If in doubt about the truth of a statement, we should rather say "I think that...".
A state in which a moral subject does not fulfill a contract in order to obtain advantages from a third moral subject.
Corruption is typically defined as giving money to a government official in order to obtain illegal advantages. This essay does not know the notion of a government. Furthermore, this essay considers it difficult to prove corruption, because corruption can take place with other means than money. Last, the two parties can always claim that the transfer of money and the illegal advantage are unrelated.
In this essay, corruption is a special case of breaking a contract, which is by itself a special case of lying. The government official has an employment contract with the government. If he gives an illegal advantage to someone, he breaks his employment contract. This makes him liable to prosecution under the laws of this essay. This holds regardless of whether the official obtains money for his actions or not.
The party who bribes the official is conscient of the misbehavior of the official, but does not prevent it. Therefore, this party commits a denial of assistance to the employer of the offical (which is the government). This way, both parties have to be punished.
Let's assume that, through provocation of assistance, lying, bad surprise or complicity, Alonso makes Bertram cause damage to Cedrick. By the Principle of Modularity, Cedrick will receive compensation and apology directly from BertramP,B,C,L. Bertram will not receive a penaltyP,B,L. In a second resolution, Alonso will pay as compensation to Bertram all costs that occurred to BertramP,B,L. In addition, Alonso will pay an apology to BertramB,L. Furthermore, Alonso will be subjected to a penaltyB,C,L. (Superscripts indicate to which indirect damages the sentences apply.)
His parents. Responsibility may be transferred to a charity by a contract between the charity and the parents and the disabled person, as far as the persons are capable of deciding.
His parents. If the current responsibles of a child are incapable of executing their responsibility, responsibility and the child himself have to be passed to other moral subjects. This is to be done (1) in the best interest of the child and (2) seeking agreement of the old responsibles, the new responsibles, and the child (as far as the persons are capable of deciding). This is to be treated as if the biological parents stole the cost of living from the new parents.
child raising is a complex issue, which bears an enormeous responsibility for the future of the child. This essay trusts in the following balance of powers between a child and his parents:
Powers of the parents: As children are moral objects, the parents may not cause damage to the child (in particular, they may not punish him physically). However, the parents usually have a high influence on the child — by their education, by their forming of the child's conscience, by "soft punishments" and by rewards. It is assumed that these factors of "soft influence" provide sufficient means for keeping the child on the track. Sadly, external factors may admittedly destroy the parents' influence. This highlights the risk and the high responsibility that parents assume.
Powers of the child: The parents are responsible for all damage caused by the child. Since in the sense of this essay, this includes any suffering by the child, the parents have a great responsibility here. This responsibility ensures that the parents will put much effort in forming the child's understanding of good and wrong.
This essay does allow homosexual couples — simply because no damage is done to outsiders. However, as soon as the couple has a child, the situation changes: This essay is of the opinion that the combination of a male and a female role-model is the best for the development of a child. If one of them misses, this is seen as damaging for the child's development. Hence this essay prohibits homosexual couples from adopting children away from their parents. This is ensured by treating a transferral of responsibility as an offense.
If both parents are absent or incapable of fulfilling their duties, we have find others who can take care of the child (e.g. step parents or charities). This includes again homosexual couples. This is because this essay is of the opinion that even though homosexual couples cannot provide role models for both genders, they may still provide better care for the child (in terms of the ratio of caretakers to children) than a charity. What counts is the interest of the child.
Of course, there are animals which nobody is responsible for. Note that it does not say "the one who owns the animal", because animals cannot be owned. Pets can be kept, but not locked up (or only under natural circumstances, see obstruction).
The natural corporate body of the moral subjects who are responsible for the perpetrator of the damage, as given by the previous definitions. Exceptions:
If the perpetrator is a child and the child is capable of understanding the range of the damage and that causing the damage was wrong, then the child is responsible.
If the damage is caused unavoidably by an illness to the ill animal itself, the ill animal is the responsible. An illness caused by a congenital defect counts as avoidable in parts.
Note that the above notion of responsibility penalizes incest: Incest tends to induce congenital defects, i.e. injuries, the victim of which is the child. If this happens, these defects are to be compensated by the child's parents. The penalization of incest is purely damage-dependent and not religiously motivated.
A group of people, who are willing to serve in a resolution to the best of their knowledge and capabilities and whom all people involved in the offense agree on.
By default, the jury can just consist of the responsible for the offense and the victim.
The apology shall make up for the suffering of the victim. Even if the compensation undoes the damage, the very fact of being a victim shall also be compensated, depending on the actual (psychological) impact on the victim.
The penalty shall include all fruits that the perpetrator harvested from the offense. These fruits do not go to the victim (because the victim is compensated by the compensation and shall not benefit from the perpetrator's diligence) and they cannot remain with the perpetrator (because this would encourage him to commit the offense again). Hence they go, with the remainder of the penalty, to a charity.
By this definition, perpetrators and victims shall be encouraged to solve the problem on their own. Note that "resolving the offense" is left undefined. If both the victim and the perpetrator agree, it its irrelevant what they agree on. Only if they do not find a solution, a resolution has to take place.
It is unfortunate that if the perpetrator and the victim agree on a compensation, the perpetrator evades the penalty. The penalty is an important source of income for the charities and it also prevents the perpetrator from repeating the deed. However, the liberal principles of this essay prohibit a resolution for a case that is already solved.
The jury determines and implements an appropriate penalty.
The responsible owes the involved people (except for the jury) all damages that were necessary to complete this resolution.
If one party proves consistently uncooperative, the case is decided against him.
As always, people involved in the resolution can be charged with lying if they make false or incomplete statements, which may trigger revisiting the resolution.
In general, all necessary efforts by investigators (including offenses) and all necessary efforts by the lawyer and the victim (including prior, failed searches for the responsible) are to be refunded by the responsible. In case of doubt, another resolution is necessary on this issue. Note that the jury does not get paid.
Since this essay relies on the Principle of Modularity, indirect damages entail two resolutions instead of a single one (e.g. bad surprise). This modularity ensures that the victim can turn to a single responsible for his claims (instead of having to resolve the problem of shifted responsibility). Furthermore, the principle ensures that the direct agent of the damage (e.g. the victim of a bad surprise) works together with the jury, even if he will not be made responsible in the end. Nevertheless, it may be reasonable to join two resolutions, if the offenses are related.
The lawyer will get the apology upon conviction, any person involved in the search for the responsible will be refunded, the jurypromised to act to the best of their capabilities and the suspect will want to proof his innocence. Hence, all people involved should have an interest in a speady resolution. If the victim proves uncooperative, the case is dismissed (see No sulking). If a suspected responsible proves consistently uncooperative, it may be assumed that he is the responsible.
Several issues are not solved by the present essay. These include:
Missing theoretical foundations
This essay, being secular, cannot explain why people should behave morally in the first place. See the discussion about the justification of norms.
This essay also cannot explain why it embraces certain moral principles and and ignores other principles — which are possibly important to certain people. See the discussion about norms.
Missing detail
This essay does not do away with the need for interpretation. See the discussion about the use of norms.
This essay leaves a number of issues open to conventions. For example, the question of what constitutes a declaration or who counts as a child are not answered by this essay.
This essay defines only the hardest types of offenses and ignores some more subtle damages. For example, it does not regulate "soft" issues like the public display of violence, psychological assault or mobbing — even though these arguably deserve the status of offenses. See the discussion about liberalism.
Missing generality
This essay does not provide a guide for good human behavior in general. Rather, it defines what is not good behavior. See the discussion on general thoughts on thoughts on Ethics.
This essay does not guard against self-inflicted harm. It does not protect people from drug-abuse, addictions to smoking, gambling or alcohol, or dangerous behavior in general. In fact, protecting people from such activities would, ironically, amount to an offense under the principles of this essay. See the discussion at self-ownership.
This essay shies away from regulating the more subtle aspects of human social life. For example, it does not say that it is morally bad to push to the front in a queue of people. See the discussion about liberalism.
Missing centrality
This essay does not know the notion of the "greater common good" that would force individuals to renounce their rights for the advantage of society.
This essay leaves contracts to the individual parties. Therefore, it does not guard against discrimination.
This essay does not regulate common goods that are usually provides by the state, such as infrastructure, emergency services or education. It also does not know the concept of taxes.
These limitations highlight the imperfectness of this essay. Still, also an imperfect thing may be useful.