Now you are being obtuse. Sure, the law is supposed to deter bad acts. It takes intentions into account insofar as it assumes that people would rayer not get caught, be punished, pay money, go to jail, or otherwise have bad things happen to them. It is not supposed to wash your soul in the Blood of the Lamb. You can commit adultery in your wicked heart to your heart's wicket content. The law only cares if your behavior violates its rules. I forgetw hy we got onto this. --jks
>
>
> > But not necessarily by giving them morally good intentions. I am not a
> > behaviorist. The view of the law I give here is entirely neutral on any
> > theory of the nature of mind. It is consistent with Cartesian dualism or
> > eliminative materialism. The point is that the law doesn't care about
>your
> > intentions as long as you behave. Deterrence means putting would-be bad
>guys
> > in fear of the consequences of getting caught. The law doesn't care if
>you
> > are a good person who obeys the rules because of inbred decency rather
>than
> > a bad person who chafes at the bit, so long as you obey them.
>
>I wasn't referring to the substitution of morally good intentions where bad
>ones had previously taken root, rather I was trying to point out that you
>have to prevent the "bad guys" from attempting bad acts. If you institute
>a
>law that fails to deter people from trying to do what the law forbids, it
>seems unlikely that the law will change what people will actually do,
>either.
>
>-- Luke
>
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp