This section missed the point (on there terms of the post up to this point). It has an ethos around loyalty. For all that the author is arguing for two forms:
character
consequences
This argument is of a third.
Here, the connection between the two previously has been broken.
A characterization in terms of evil acts would have said - ‘and ‘he’ is evil unto all—supporters and enemies alike’. This evil has no honor towards enemies or friends and is an enemy to all.
This is perhaps not entirely fair
The example fictional passage did not have such laws—but it did have those with power to exercise searching his house at their discretion. (This power could also be abused at their discretion to harass.)
but I have a hard time finding it in me to disagree with it.
The crimes contained within, while not elaborated, might be speculated. And thus, one might reason, that with more information, the same result could have been reached without searching his house (if some other info. was available).
The author also, it seems, decided to pit your consequentialist intuitions against your legal intuitions.
This is perhaps not entirely fair—as in the tattoo example above it is strange to want to impose legal punishment based on evidence of bad character
Or you can recognize that as a crime.
Abusing your pet dog is objectively not very harmful in terms of [amount of harm done] & [level of sapience of victim], much less harmful than e.g. factory farms.
And, consistently, the factory farm as well.*
the tattoo example
The author could have used such an example, though it might have been:
less effective (‘that’s not a good enough reason!’)
but also could illustrate the method: inquire. Acquire more information. For example, if a tattoo is associated with a particular gang, then an investigation may reveal an association with that gang.
*I’m not going to explain a way out of that one. I will also note that working in a slaughterhouse has consequences for the people who do it.
This section missed the point (on there terms of the post up to this point). It has an ethos around loyalty. For all that the author is arguing for two forms:
character
consequences
This argument is of a third.
Here, the connection between the two previously has been broken.
A characterization in terms of evil acts would have said - ‘and ‘he’ is evil unto all—supporters and enemies alike’. This evil has no honor towards enemies or friends and is an enemy to all.
The example fictional passage did not have such laws—but it did have those with power to exercise searching his house at their discretion. (This power could also be abused at their discretion to harass.)
The crimes contained within, while not elaborated, might be speculated. And thus, one might reason, that with more information, the same result could have been reached without searching his house (if some other info. was available).
The author also, it seems, decided to pit your consequentialist intuitions against your legal intuitions.
Or you can recognize that as a crime.
And, consistently, the factory farm as well.*
The author could have used such an example, though it might have been:
less effective (‘that’s not a good enough reason!’)
but also could illustrate the method: inquire. Acquire more information. For example, if a tattoo is associated with a particular gang, then an investigation may reveal an association with that gang.
*I’m not going to explain a way out of that one. I will also note that working in a slaughterhouse has consequences for the people who do it.