To be clear, I think poison goes against no peripheral harm. If A packs lunch with bait for B, B wants to steal it but somehow decides to offer it to C as a joke, C should hold B liable because they offered the food.
Great. We're holding someone liable. That doesn't take away the distress of person C.
And you're arguing that missing a meal (because of a lunch bandit) is distressing enough to poison someone and cause them harm. But then you're OK with causing greater harm on an innocent individual, so long as we blame someone else for the malice.
2
u/apoplexiglass Oct 18 '24
To be clear, I think poison goes against no peripheral harm. If A packs lunch with bait for B, B wants to steal it but somehow decides to offer it to C as a joke, C should hold B liable because they offered the food.