 So, hynny'n gweithio, mae'r rhai amsrach yn Fandun. Rwyf ni'n ddim o'n dweud o'r profesor Hopeth ac'r hynny'n dci o'r ddweud, sy'n gweithio'n ddiweddol. Rwyf wedi'u ddweud pan fyddwn ni'n dweud yw'r galw yn yr ysgolfynol. Rydyn ni'n ddigon nhw i'w rai o'r ddechrau'n ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Ond rwy'n ddweud o'i rai'n ddweud. Yn ymwneud, o'r amser yma, y profesor Hopchos yn ymwneud, ond rydyn ni'n angen i'r ddifrif i'r clywed o'r gweithio'r ysgolion gyda'r ysgolion gyda'r ysgolion gyda'r ysgolion. Yn y byddai'n gweithio'r ddifrif o'r llyfr, mae'n amser yn ymwneud o'r Lathen, ac yn ymwneud o'r llyfr yma, Mae'r ddau'r llwys yn Lathen yw'n ddifft o'r llwys yma ar gyfer y cyfnodd, sy'n gyfnodd, y pryd yn llwysau'r llwys, sy'n gyfnodd, mae'n ddau'r llwys o'r ddau'r llwys o'r llwys. Felly, mae'n ddau'r llwys yn dda'r llwys yn ddau'r llwys, Mae'r ddysgwysig yn y ddysgrifennu, ac yn y ddysgrifennu, mae'n ddysgrifennu, yn y ddysgrifennu, oes yn ddysgwyddiadau, i'r allan o hanesio y cantelau gan gwasanaethau weldio amlirio i sicrhau'r bwneud o'r ddodod ar yr hyn. Mae'r ddechrau'n gweddillidio arno'n modd, neu yn gweithio'r gweithio, i'r ffog ac yn gweithio'r ffog. A oes gweithio hwn yn gweithio cael ei gweithio'r gweithio. Y cyfnod Cremian yn ychydig yw'r dysgu y ffordd yn y tyfnodau cymaint sydd gyda'r ymgyrch gyda'r yma sydd yn y cymru, ac yn oed yn ymddiadau cyfaint gyda'r ymgyrch, yr ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch gyda'r ymgyrch gyda'r ymgyrch cymaint. I then the question is what law are we talking about? Or it carries the notion of punishment within itself and the crime is defined as a punishable offence and that raises the question of punishment. Punishment is in fact usually thought of as an act that would be a crime if it were not in response to a crime. So if a crime is a negation of law then punishment merely compounds the negation but does not solve it. So in that sense crime and punishment are on the same side, the negative side of things so to speak. But let's return to this notion of crimen, something that awaits or requires a decision or a resolution. In other words a state of confusion or disorder. And we have in this sense a concept that covers all interpersonal conflicts. And it was interpersonal conflict that Professor Hopper was talking about in the previous lecture. Now if you look at the causes he gave, I will just shortly repeat them using a slightly different terminology. You will find that every interpersonal conflict involves four elements. One is there have to be several persons, so a plurality of persons. These persons have to have differences in their intentions, their values, their preferences, their beliefs, what not. So there is an element of diversity involved. And third, there must be something which makes the conflict a hard one rather than just an intellectual difference of opinion. And these are these scarce resources, scarce means of action which are moreover accessible to the parties in the conflict or the potential conflict. They can all have access to the same resources which they intend to use for different purposes and for different things. The one element that needs to be stressed that is that consider from any persons point of view every other person may be considered a scarce resource. Just as you yourself consider in your intrapersonal choices you consider yourself a scarce resource. Am I going to stay home and work? These are things that involve your own scarce resource, your time and your body, your physical energy and so on. Now I consider these four causes plurality, diversity, scarcity and access as necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for a world of conflict or at least potential conflict. There has of course to be a triggering event but we are talking about the potentiality, the possibility of conflict here. Now if you remove a necessary cause and of course the consequence in this case the potentiality for conflict disappears. So there are in theory four pure solutions to interpersonal conflict and one is the institution of unity which removes plurality and which involves usually the elimination of one or more, except one of the parties as an independent decision making centre therefore forcing the others into the position of precisely a resource at the discretion of the one remaining decision making authority. This unity solution is of course very popular both in politics and in other organizational affairs. People like to set up organizations in which they command the other people in it. Now whether they are voluntary members or not that is not the question here. The fact is unity is a type of solution to interpersonal conflict and it's a very popular, very widely used and in some cases highly respected type of solution. Now the second type of solution of interpersonal conflict emerges when you attack as it were the factor of diversity. You do that or you can do that in many ways but there are traditional concepts for example like consensus or conformism which express this disappearance of diversity very well. So you have a situation where all the participants share enough presuppositions about values and things to do and preferences and beliefs and how the world is put together that they can always in the fairly short term come to an agreement about what is the right way to act. For example in political philosophy the classical notion of the police left by Aristotle was precisely that the police was viable because it was a community based on the consensus of families that had intermarried over long periods and long generations and raised their children in the same tradition so that everybody in fact had the same deep consensus about everything. And this could be exploited whenever a specific problem arose so that there was agreement on the propriety of any course of action before there was action to be taken. Now these two types consensus and unity obviously operate on the persons involved in the original equations of the speak of conflict no mention was made of scarce resources apart from the persons themselves. So the other two types of solutions or pure solutions conceptually speaking to the problem of interpersonal conflict address precisely the question of the scarcity of resources. And the most popular let's call it the natural law solution which Professor Hope described consists of considering the world not as a domain of persons and be a domain of scarce resources with no connections between them. You look at the world as the human world in which every scarce resource is connected at present and was connected in the past to the actions of specific human beings. It would be possible at least in theory and if you kept your records straight to say whose resource this is and everything with us it were every scarce resource would be assigned to its proper owner. And this would avoid the problem of conflict in the sense that the access to scarce resources has at least conceptually a solution. Problems of enforcement I leave aside for the moment they exist in every type of solution of course not just in the natural law or property type solution. The last solution is the most radical one I'm not going to discuss it further it is simply to assume away a scarcity or to say well we can solve all problems if we have an abundance of everything. Now that solution you may think of for example the final stages of communism as promised by Marx so no problem of scarcity anymore not even a problem of scarcity in social affairs because there would be enough ways for everybody to fulfill his potential beyond present expectations no constraints whatsoever. Now these are four types of solutions or let's say three unity consensus and the property related solution correspond to familiar structures in sociological literature in common speech which I call on the one hand the society type which is the unity solution. Society is being organizations with sociate. Sociate does organizations that set themselves goals and organize activities among their members or their employees or maybe their slaves if they have slaves. Whatever their dogs social property things that belong to the society in order to achieve their goals. It's a very familiar structure in fact it's probably the structure that's most in the news in the media because being hierarchical structures societies have someone at the top whom you can talk to. And who will speak for the whole society. With communities it's a bit different communities are flat they have no hierarchy. There are positions persons of eminence greater eminence and lesser eminence or no eminence at all in communities but communities are generally devoid of any commanding structure. Now if you look at the natural law solution where do you find it? Well I call it by a special name because English unfortunately seems to have no commonly used word to indicate it. I call it the convivial order and that is just to honor my own language which has a word for the convivial order. Namely the salmon living the living together hence convivial order my suggestion for English. Now each of these orders is claimed by some people at least to be respectable. Societies at least the major figures in it the leaders claim the order of their society to be respectable. Members in the community regard their community as respectable otherwise they would not long stay in it because communities are fairly easy to exit from at least most of them. And the convivial order is also respectable although it has no spokesman and it has no cultural identity. So who are the eminent members in the convivial order that's very different. Yet it is that sort of order that is usually presupposed in libertarian or extreme radical liberal discourse. It's the field where you talk about people regardless of their social and their cultural identities. So you can there see the relationship of person to person unadorned by all sorts of titles which are common in communities and in societies. There are no rabbis in the convivial order is just a person who has interest in religion and there are no directors in the convivial order. There are just people mining their own business. So you have here this reality of interactions that is very vital because we are constantly interacting with strangers or people who are half strangers and with whom we have very little if anything cultural or social in common. So yet we deal with them according to general principles of human intercourse and these have to be justified or rather defended independently of all the cultural, religious, traditional customary assumptions, the legal documents, the statutes and the constitutions of on the one hand communities and on the other hand societies. So this is a typical philosophical problem. How do you identify this convivial order where everywhere you look the eye is drawn as it were to social constructs and to community identities. Now if a crime is a of the convivial order and another crime is a negation of the community order of this or that community order and still another crime of this or that social order then of course you are referring to very, very different things. You cannot hope to have a single set of arguments if you are discussing crime or punishment for that matter. Many other things also. If the people you are discussing with are presupposing a different context of human interaction than you are. I noticed that Walter Block was not here but I once helped him publishing a series of lectures on economics and religion and many of the authors in his collection of papers wrote from within a particular perspective, a particular society or a particular community. For example he had many people writing on Jewish economics and they were of course presupposing everything that it means to be Jewish in the relevant sense committed to certain moral and religious principles for example. But if you then move in and with a purely free market discourse such as Walter Block would use then of course these people find that they are not being answered on the questions they were raising because they were raising their questions within a particular context and this context is simply denied. So that is the vexing problem really if we are confronting many types of order in this case the convivial order and the community order and the social orders how do we rank their prescriptions so to speak. Now one thing that sets the convivial order apart is that it's law which I call the natural law despite what Marco Bassami said about natural law. I think the concept can be defined. It is not just a fig leaf for ideologies. The concept can be defined. Natural law can be argued in any context. It makes apart from logic and the general truth about the physical world and the capacities of human persons hardly any contestable or controversial presupposition. So it is something that can be argued quite generally. But this is not the case when you are talking with people within a community or within a society because then they will bring in their own norms and rules and so on. And then the question is can these rules be justified outside the particular community because you can always agree with people you agree with and then there is very little need to have any argumentation or any discussion at all. So the notion of crime depends on the context and if you look at the different context in their hierarchy you see that they are not just three concepts of orders that can be put together in any arbitrary way. You find that the principles of natural law can be applied not in any community or society because there are communities and society that violate principles of natural law. But on the other hand, you can have communities that are in compliance with the natural law only adding their own cultural elements to it. Or societies are in compliance with natural law requirements only adding their own requirements to those of the natural law. And then the whole question is how do we determine what is compatible or not compatible. And the argument that I'd like to make is that the notion of crime in the sense of the natural and offence and violation of the natural law is in any case the primary consideration. It indicates what used to be called the mala in say things that are bad in themselves so in contrast with things that are merely mala prohibita things that are bad because they are forbidden by some rule or custom or tradition. Now when a rule exists and it forbids something but the rule is itself in compliance with natural law requirements then you can imagine that there are within communities or societies sanctions applied to these prohibited things. Even though in the context where you are not inside the community or inside the society you would have no argument for applying the sanction. Now the element of punishment I have not yet mentioned but let's talk just to restrict it because I have only a few minutes left to natural order situation, to the convivial order situation, natural law problem. If there is a crime that is a violation of law that does not necessarily trigger the idea that there must be punishment for the very simple reason that many violations of law occur without malicious intent, without the person wanting to commit a crime. It happens by accident unintentionally, carelessness, whatever and the harm done to the order of law is objectively done but to punish the person would introduce or would have to be justified with the principle saying in effect that it is all right to treat a person as a criminal. Even if he has not had the intention to be a criminal so against his own will but that is a very vague expression here. So the criminal act in the sense of a criminal could be a simple tort and it would have to be solved by the usual remedies in tort which are restitution, compensation and things like that. Now if that is the solution for tort where there is no malicious intent the question is what happens when there is malicious intent and here the answer would have to be what do you mean by proof that there was malicious intent? Because there may be an acting anger and then the person repents immediately. He breaks your door and then the next moment he says sorry, sorry, sorry, here is money, let's buy you a new door and just come with me to the shop and settle matters. Is there then still an occasion to punish? No because by the time the punishment would have to be inflicted the harm would have to be redressed. So in conclusion I would say that the question of punishment arises only at the moment where there is no longer a possibility that or not just a possibility where there is an indication that the offender does not intend to settle the matter to make things hold again. So the punishment would only apply to persons who put themselves and keep themselves outside the law. Now I know punishment rings different bells so I'm not discussing here questions of deterrence or the use of punishment to discipline and teach. But merely punishment has a response to crime and with this I thank you.