Re: Justice is so revenge

Yak Wax (
Fri, 9 Jan 1998 12:52:40 -0800 (PST) wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Michael Lorrey wrote:
> > I would say that encouraging, and even enforcing respect for
> > and the concept of mutual consent to be a greater good for both
> > AND the individual. I define people who violate either concept to
> > done a 'bad' thing, that requires redress.
> I agree that it's a bad thing to violate a person or a contract (uh,
> but even someone who doesn't agree with that would surely have to
> that to undertake such a violation is to do *something*, and that this
> something can be recognized as such. If civil society is the sum of
> ongoing voluntaristic associations (for simplicity's sake, I'll let
it go
> at that), then to violate a person or a contract is to "communicate"
> separation from that civil society. Civil society properly responds
> this "communication" by listening to it -- either literally
separating the
> criminal from the society she or he has separated from by means of the
> violation (exile, imprisonment), or specifying the terms under which
> criminal can return (restitution, rehabilitation). I'll add that
since a
> *robust* civil society would recognize the extent to which it
thrives on
> diversity -- even such diversity as is represented by those who in
> of weakness or confusion or whatever temporarily fail to live up to
> stipulations -- the terms for re-entry into civil society should be
> generous. I don't see why revenge should enter into these
transactions at
> all particularly. Best, Dale

I'm not completely sure how you apply the term "violate" to a person.
If you mean "violate their rights" then I have to presume you're
refering their rights as seen by you, as it is a purely subjective
term. A contract should be enforce by all who would benefit from it,
and again I see no reason to think that all contracts *must* be
fufilled. I certainly wouldn't call it "bad" - even when I blieved in
the concept.

Get your free address at