Law, Evolution and The Weak

Earlier I touched on how the law judges the culpability of your conduct based on how "reasonable" it was compared to the ordinary person's conduct under the same circumstances. If your conduct was more reasonable, you're good; if your conduct was less reasonable i.e., negligent, you're in trouble. To further the point I'll hand it over to my homeboy Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.,

The law is full of instances where a man's fate depends on his estimating rightly. If his judgement is wrong, not only may he incur a fine or a short imprisonment, he may incur the penalty of death...the criterion in such cases is to examine whether common social duty would, under the circumstances, have suggested a more circumspect conduct.

Your criminal and tortuous liability may ultimately depend on how well you compare to everyone else. If your actions comport with the average, ordinary guy, which these days is just above retarded, a jury will most likely let you off. But if your reasonable standard is below society's standard, you lose. Doesn't that sound like natural selection? I guess it should not be a huge surprise that society is willing to kill the weak in order to protect itself.

"No society has ever admitted that it could not sacrifice individual welfare for its own existence"

With respect to the law, it pays to be smart. It pays to be reasonable. It pays to have good judgement i.e., a good lawyer :) It pays to have the mental capacity to foresee potential risks involved under certain conduct, and act accordingly.

Because if you don't, the people can kill you.