Sex, Lies, and Shooting at the Cat
Oscillon asks: (quoting me)
“Event A does not in each case lead to consequent B, but it is illogical and imprudent for me to bank on A not leading to B when B is the natural consequence of A. Worse, it is immoral for me to will A and will not-B when B is the natural end or point of behind event A. ” Narrow clarification, I do not see how “B” a dead horse is a natural consequence of “A” shooting into a house. This is not say I disagree that you would not be liable, but the dead horse outcome was not foreseeable. The foreseeable harm that made it a reckless act was the likelyhood of (c) killing a person. My interpretation of the logic of the legal priciple was that (a)-(c) was intended and reckless. Anything that occurs as a result of the now tainted (a) is now your responsibility whether it was foreseeable or not.
My apologies again: I am referring to something I should have explained. You are correct that one can be liable for harms that are not foreseeable. That is indeed the point I was trying to make. The dead horse is your responsibility even if you are surprised.
There is a principle in the Anglo-American Common Law which I humbly suggest should be adopted more generally as a way to speak about moral law.
This legal principle is to prevent (for example) men who shoot into a crowded house, hoping to hit the owner, from being found not-guilty if they happen to hit his wife, or her cat. If you shoot into a house, you mean to harm those inside. If the bullet flies through the house and out the other side and hits Fluffy the cat, you still have to pay for the cat. It matters not whether you meant to hit the cat or no. The action was negligence on your part.
A better example might be car insurance. Driving a car is an innately “dangerous” operation: it involves a foreseeable risk of accident. Hence, taking out an insurance policy before you drive is so reasonable and so obviously a reasonable thing to do, that the law requires it. In this way, the driver is in a position to pay for any harm he might be responsible for, EVEN IF he did not intend to get in an accident, nor, being a safe driver, EVEN IF he did not think he would ever be in an accident. Because accidents are a natural consequence of driving, our laws and customs require drivers to prepare for the eventuality and get car insurance. Hence any questions of partial and specific cases are not to the point.
Likewise here. Having sex is an innately “sexual” operation: it involves a foreseeable risk of pregnancy. Hence, taking out the insurance policy of making it clear your mate is ready willing and able to be a father is so reasonable and so obviously a reasonable thing to do, that the law requires it. No sex unless you are married, i.e., vowed to love, honor and support. In this way, the sex-partner is in a position to take care of any outcomes he might be responsible for, EVEN IF he did not intend to father a child, nor, being a safe sex-partner, EVEN IF he was using birth control and only seducing women after menopause, he did not think pregnancy would ever be an issue. But because sexual reproduction is a natural and foreseeable consequence of engaging in the act of sexual reproduction (no duh!), our laws and customs require our young women not to yield to those suitors who are not prepared for the eventualities of sexual reproduction. Hence any questions of partial and specific cases are not to the point.
In addition to the risk of pregnancy, sex has psychological dangers. Sex also involves a risk of falling in love with one’s sex partner, or, equally, the risk that one might have to become the kind of person who cannot fall in love in order to avoid this risk. Heartbreak or callousness are the two choices: you cannot both be a romantic at heart and be a harlot or the patron of harlots.
In addition to the risk of pregnancy and the psychological dangers, it also involves the social dangers: sexual anarchy increases the risk of bastardy, of wife-beating, of child-murder, of rivals fighting over mating rights.
It is perfectly true that not every sex act results in a pregnancy. It is perfectly true that the psychological dangers and the social dangers do not crop up each and every time. It is also true that you do not get into a wreck each and every time you get behind the wheel; it is also true that you do not spook a horse to its destruction each and every time you fire a fire-arm negligently. But the law should hold you liable for all these outcomes, because to do anything else is to reward negligent behavior.
That is the point I am driving at. One should be held liable for the class of harms that issue from one’s actions even if the specific case was a surprise. You might be surprised that your birth control failed this time. You might be REALLY surprised that Sarah got pregnant after menopause. But no one can say he is surprised that sex makes babies; no one can say honestly that he is surprised that there is more to sex than mere pleasure.
The ones who say sex is merely pleasure, and who react with umbrage AS IF restrictions on free love were no more than zany and arbitrary restrictions on pleasure (Ayn Rand, Bob Heinlein), are not being honest: their world-view is leaving out the one most obvious central fact of the world. A is A. Sex is sex.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
