Comment by flir
2 years ago
Why the limit on physical violence? Why's that the universal line in the sand that society should enforce?
2 years ago
Why the limit on physical violence? Why's that the universal line in the sand that society should enforce?
Because it's unambiguous, already a core liberal value, and because the enforcement mechanisms for violating the law are invariably physical (arrest, imprisonment). "Free" means "Free from the threat of illegitimate violence", not "Free from the possibility of having your feelings hurt". It would be unjust to impose physical consequences for non-physically-infringing actions.
Why all these appeals to "core liberal values"? You can't justify a bad idea by saying "but it's part of liberalism." If that's true, it just means that liberalism is a bad ideology.
Who says that's what "free" means? Why should we be free only from physical harm and not emotional harm? You can't claim an ideology is self-evident when it rests on arbitrary definitions of terms.
Besides, your definition is flawed. Does sexual assault count as a physical or an emotional harm, if it causes no physical injuries? There are many forms of sexual assault which cause exclusively emotional trauma. Are we not entitled to be "free" from these?
I think I'm going to leave it there.