12 Feb '16 22:18>1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLet's cut to the core. There are two positions: positivism and naturalism.
There are certain issues involved.
The positivist says that law is what is written and there is no morality or
amorality in rules, and they are the sole source of normative certainty.
Naturalists, on the other hand, say that something is right or wrong regardless
of what the law says, as there are atemporal and universal concepts. If I read
correctly, you embrace the former school of thought.
So, what you are saying, in summary, is that if the law does not mandate to take
action against a kiddie fiddler outside of a particular institution, then there are
issues, gray areas, and it is debatable, on a case by case basis, the substance
of culpability and, henceforth, how to proceed.
Correct?