At what stage in human history did laws against indirect harm start to become enforced? WIth the Romans… the Greeks?
I’m calling direct harm harm to other individuals … actions like battery and robbery.
I’m calling things like littering indirect harm (to society).
Well, would you accept laws against idolatry, blasphemy, and sexual immorality to be indirect crimes? If so, those are prohibited by the Seven Laws of Noah.
For this talk, I’d like to consider secular laws only… free from religious considerations.
The Code of Hammurabi (1700 BC):
If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then the builder shall be put to death.
If anyone opens his ditches to water his crop, but is careless, and the water floods his neighbor’s field, he shall pay his neighbor corn for his loss.
If anyone brings an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if a capital offense is charged, be put to death.
If a man gives his child to a nurse and the child dies in her hands, but the nurse, unbeknown to the father and mother, nurses another child, then they shall convict her of having nursed another child without the knowledge of the father and mother and her breasts shall be cut off.
Code of Urukagina (2360BC):
“It limited the power of the priesthood and large property owners and took measures against usury, burdensome controls, hunger, theft, murder, and seizure (of people’s property and persons)”
I’m looking more for actions that would affect a multitude of people in very small ways, not one or even ten people. You could argue that someone could continue to create a structure (like the house above) that could house the entire population (of 10 million+) in question, but I’d like to target laws that are more realistic (i.e. that target actions that actually might typically occur at least a few times each year in a society). So, an example might be violation of a hunting permit law, where thousands could potentially be affected in tiny ways because someone didn’t purchase a hunting permit, the funds of which support the maintenance of the hunting grounds.
Also, in addition to the above type of laws - and without starting a new thread - I’d like to know the date laws targeting the potential to harm but not laws actually having harmed a large amount of members in a society in numerous tiny ways came into effect. An example would be the right to own firearms in England. They are restricted (stop me if I’m incorrect on this) because of the potential harm the owner could do, not because the owner has actually harmed anyone. It’s sort of like being guilty of a crime before actually committing it, right? … a potential crime in this case being careless murder.
The Romans had a problem with people drinking, stealing, and diverting water from the aqueducts. The water would get contaminated or depleted, so they passed a law against it. Does that count?
yes, thanks for the straightforward answer. That’s the 3rd or 4th century BC im guessing.
Surely there were some people in England who had harmed others with firearms, whether or not they were specifically named when firearms restrictions were put in place. So I can’t say I understand your example.
For the firs case it sounds like you are are talking about consumer protection laws. Are you thinking about things like sanitation laws in the food industry, building codes, etc?
action: owning firearm. never using it. never harming anyone.
crime: owning firearm. never harming anyone directly.
This makes no more sense than the first time. Surely there were some people who owned firearms and caused harm, resulting in laws restricting gun ownership for all.
But what counts as a secular law? That’s a modern distinction - I’m not sure that the Romans or Greeks would have accepted it.