Zack Bass wrote: > The question I posed involved this scenario: > > "I say that it would be Wrong for someone to Punish Kevin for that > act. As I understand it, you would agree, because any Punishment > after the fact cannot be considered Defensive." > > SO: > ONCE AGAIN: > Do you agree or do you not agree that it would be Immoral to punish > Kevin, after the fact, for what he just did? > What on earth are you going on about? I already said I did not condone 'punishment' or 'retaliation'. I'm about restitution and restraint.
Kevin, were I (or my protection agency) in charge of him, will be restrained -- at least until the community can decide how much (if any) of Kevin's remaining assets should go to compensate Jane's heirs. The balance of his assets, if any, will likely go toward Kevin's continued upkeep and restraint. Kevin may access the balance of his assets, while in restraint, and may live as comfortably and luxuriously as he can afford and for as long as he can afford it. He may invest his funds; he may create and run businesses, hire and fire employees; but should he prove imprudent and find himself financially embarrassed, no longer able to afford even his rent, food, and guard, he may turn to that very same hypothetical organ bank to which he stupidly offered Jane's heart. And he may solicit charity if he can find anyone feeling charitable toward him. G.
