You are, of course, correct in the general principle that not everything immoral should be illegal. That is a foundational concept of a free and tolerant society. We don’t want the state legislating against being a jerk, being uncharitable, or holding odious opinions.
But you are making a grave category error by placing the scenario I described in that same bucket. This isn't just about a "scumbag" being mean. The question isn't whether to draw a line between immoral and illegal, but where. You draw it in a way that legally protects predators at the expense of their vulnerable victims
Let’s dissect your defense.
1. You Misunderstand the Nature of the Threat
Your entire argument rests on the claim: "The man didn't cause her to be stranded, he’s just exploiting it."
While he did not create the snowstorm, he absolutely created the specific, depraved choice she faced. Her initial predicament was "find help or freeze." When he arrived, he single-handedly transformed her predicament into: "submit to a depraved sexual act or freeze."
He introduced a new, directed, and malicious element of human cruelty into a random act of nature. He chose to become the monstrous gatekeeper between her and survival. To absolve him of responsibility for the choice he authored is to abdicate the very concept of situational ethics. The moral and legal analysis cannot simply stop at "he didn't make he car break down, or make it cold".
2. Your Distinction Between Coercion and Exploitation Collapses into Extortion
You are correct that I conflated coercion and exploitation. I’m happy to accept your stricter definitions, because doing so makes your position even
more indefensible. You admit he is exploiting her.
What you call "mere exploitation," civilized societies have long identified as the crime of
extortion.
Extortion is the practice of obtaining something of value (money, property, or in this case, a sexual act) by threatening harm. You seem to believe the "harm" must be a direct act of violence from the extortionist. This is false. Threatening to withhold a rescue from imminent, certain harm is a distinction without a difference.
The man's proposition is structured as extortion, as he leverages the threat of her death to extract a service. Your defense of this amounts to legalizing any extortion where the deadly threat is conveniently found, not made.
3. A System That Protects an immoral Predator is Not a "Good" System
Here we arrive at the contradiction I pointed out. You admit the act is "vile," yet you defend the libertarian legal framework that would permit it. You believe the system is good even if the outcomes are monstrous.
What does your preferred system incentivize in this scenario? It tells the man that his predatory impulse is legally protected. It signals that leveraging desperation for depraved ends is a valid, if perhaps distasteful, market transaction. It tells the woman that in her moment of ultimate vulnerability, the law will view her predator as a rational actor and her plea for survival as one side of a negotiation.
A system that produces this outcome is not "good." It is a system with a catastrophic bug in its operating code. It is a framework that prioritizes a rigid, academic definition of "rights" over the tangible safety and dignity of its citizens. A society where the strong are legally protected in their exploitation of the weak is not a free society;
it is a feudal society with better branding.
4. This Isn't About Punishing "Immoral People," It's About Prohibiting Destructive Acts
You frame my position as wanting a "dangerous" state that can "punish immoral people as if they were criminals." This is a straw man and, even if true, your critique does nothing to bolster the veracity of your own argument.
This isn't about the man's "immoral" thoughts.
It's about his actions. I am not arguing for the existence of "thought police." I am arguing that a just society must have laws against extortion and predatory, life-threatening exploitation.
A state that is incapable of distinguishing between a rude comment (immoral but legal) and leveraging a life-or-death situation for sexual exploitation (a profound harm that must be illegal) is not a "limited" state. It is an incompetent and morally bankrupt state that has failed in its most basic function: to protect its citizens from predators.
You fear the slippery slope of state power. I contend that your philosophy embraces a different, and far more terrifying, slippery slope: the slide into a society where human dignity is a commodity and survival is a luxury item to be negotiated with the powerful. A system where the answer to the girl's plea for help can legally be, "First, you must submit to cruelty," is not a system worth defending.
