|
the trump tutelage posted:I think it's important to uphold certain taboos, trespassing against which revokes your right to life. It's not about punishing an individual for their individual transgression, eye for an eye, victim restitution, etc; rather, it's about maintaining a sense of fixed, objective morality that isn't subject to negotiation with sentiment and context (ie. excuses and claimed exceptionalities).
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:54 |
|
|
In a very real sense, the idea of security is an illusion - they're is no point in your life where you are ever safe. But certain contexts make you feel safer than others. One example would be just knowing that you live in a society where evil is punished. If you don't live in that kind of society, you're not ever going to be comfortable, because who knows what could happen, right? It also helps to live in a society where you know people can't escape justice, that if caught they will be punished, and that that punishment will be meaningful. If punishment isn't meaningful, victims have no assurance crimes won't be recommited against them, and people on the edge of criminality have no 'barrier to entry' as it were. That breaks the illusion of safety, and that had real world consequences -people act differently in lawless areas than they do in areas under rule of law - they're less trusting, more paranoid and more aggressive when they feel like 'they are on their own'. That's the social benefit to a strict justice system.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Fyi, you could have dodged the moral relativism arguments from this post if you'd talked in terms of 'maintaining a social idea of justice', rather than 'objective justice'. Imagine I said that it's important to go to church to maintain a sense of the divine, and it was countered with "well prove God exists, then. Give me a scenario where God's existence is assumed by default, but can't by demonstrated, and explain why it is." It's absurd. So yes, act as though morality is objective, because the alternative is not more persuasive and its implications are horrifying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
Have any countries that abolished the death penality suffered significantly for it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
rudatron posted:In a very real sense, the idea of security is an illusion - they're is no point in your life where you are ever safe. But certain contexts make you feel safer than others. Okay but the death penalty doesn't have any greater deterrent effect on capital crimes than life in prison does, we know that empirically. Life in prison is a pretty fuckin meaningful punishment, so this can't be the reason we need the death penalty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Okay but the death penalty doesn't have any greater deterrent effect on capital crimes than life in prison does, we know that empirically. Life in prison is a pretty fuckin meaningful punishment, so this can't be the reason we need the death penalty. Exactly, it's strictly irrational thinking disguising itself as rationality. It no different than the thought processes that alt-right "dark enlightenment" types use to justify why profiling against black and Muslim people is actually for the Greater Good because obviously those people commit more crime. Just substitute "black person" with "has a record" and it's literally the exact same argument. It's shameful, really. Edit: I missed this, so; the trump tutelage posted:So yes, act as though morality is objective, because the alternative is not more persuasive and its implications are horrifying. This is a classic argument from ignorance. You can't think of a more compelling argument, ergo you posit that no better argument exists. But this is fallacious thinking, and the fact that there are many, many people that would argue against it proves it's not convincing. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 07:08 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
Motto posted:Have any countries that abolished the death penality suffered significantly for it? The complicating factor in all of this politics, and the intersection of criminal justice. Maybe if you're interested in the limitation of state power, you might have grounds. After all, we don't want countries just killing political dissidents, and a blanket ban on the death penalty kinds achieves that. But I'm not sure anyone really buys the argument that there aren't some people who it's just not worth keeping alive. Kill them and just end it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 08:41
|
|
|
rudatron posted:No, but not every country that has abolished it actually has the majority of the population favoring that abolition. A majority of the UK still favor it, but they're hasn't been a death sentence there for 50 years. Now doesn't that say something? That's one out of a hundred plus, can you cite your claim and cite public opinion for all the other states that have abolished it, tia? Also, are we really getting to the point where you're going to argue that because something is popular means it should happen? In 1964, 73% of Americans thought "blacks should stop their demonstrations now that they have made their point even though some of their demands have not been met." In 1942, a 46% plurality of Americans thought it would be a good idea to merge the U.S. and Canada to form one country. In 1992, 55% of Americans said they would support sending American troops back to the Persian Gulf to remove Saddam Hussein from power. In February of '01 prior to the September 11 52% of Americans favored an invasion of Iraq and 64% said that the U.S. should have removed Saddam at the end of the Gulf War. Post-9/11, 60% supported, if necessary, the use of military action to remove Saddam from power. Just because things are the most popular doesn't make them good, friend.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 08:54
|
|
|
Hell 60% of Alabama thinks schools should be segregated by race. I think that says something, let's not be so hasty about dismissing something so popular.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 09:50
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Well I phrased it as I did for a reason -- "maintaining a sense of", ie. it's performative. It's purely a leap of faith that morality is objective. If morality was demonstrably objective then there would be no necessity of "maintaining" a "sense" of it any more than there is in maintaining a sense of oxygen or gravity. Specifically, you're acting as though your moral opinions are objectively correct. That's a lot more horrifying to anyone who doesn't hold them. For example, I'm guessing you disapprove of executing people for being gay or apostasy or whatever, even though those in favour of it are completely convinced their moral views are the objectively correct one? Why not leave out the moral aspect from the justice system?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 11:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Okay but the death penalty doesn't have any greater deterrent effect on capital crimes than life in prison does, we know that empirically. It does cut recidivism by 100% percent, though! edit: Life without parole is just a really, really drawn out execution if you think about it. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 13:00 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
BRJohnson posted:I said the concept of deserve is silly because the universe doesn't work that way. It doesn't matter if it's deserving something 'good' or 'bad', it's a construction. I think the death penalty (state executions) are unnecessary and unjust (and the reasoning for that line of thought has been well documented in this thread), so it has no place in the world we have a part in cultivating. I don't know that presenting Kantian ideas is philosophical dressing... it's Emmanuel Kant. It is what it is, it's not something I made up myself. I'm arguing that it's not morally wrong for people who are guilty of murder to be executed. I think Kant's ideas are compelling. Anyway a lot of people disagree with Kant, it isn't the end of the world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Life Murderers are angels of mercy QED VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 13:09 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
Motto posted:Have any countries that abolished the death penality suffered significantly for it? The people rotting in prison who would have otherwise been executed are suffering for it I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 13:07
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:Specifically, you're acting as though your moral opinions are objectively correct. That's a lot more horrifying to anyone who doesn't hold them. Justice is a word about morality. In a purely utilitarian 'justice system' you could have situations where wrongdoers are secretly rewarded for their crimes instead of being punished.This goes against many people's moral intuitions. hakimashou fucked around with this message at 13:17 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Murderers are angels of mercy QED Abolish life. It's the only moral choice, when you think about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 13:11
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Justice is a word about morality.  go on?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 13:18
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:
Apologies for the long post but it's kind of a complex thought experiment, I've tried to keep it as brief as possible, please bear that in mind if I've omitted anything. If the only aims of punishment are utilitarian- to deter crime and keep the public safe from dangerous people, then the aims can be fulfilled without actually punishing wrongdoers. lets say some hypothetical future utilitarians, in a time when technology has largely alleviated the conditions of resource scarcity we face today, as well as the difficulty in proving criminal accusations, impose a draconian punishment for sexual assault. Anyone proved guilty is carted off to Horror Island and tortured for many years, then executed. No one convicted of rape is ever seen again. Terror of this cruel fate deters people from committing the crime. And no one ever reoffends. It is not necessary for the deterrent effect that the guilty are actually tortured and executed, as long as people believe it has happened. Horror Island could in fact be a paradise where the criminals live out the rest of their lives in sumptuous luxury with their every need and hedonistic desire fulfilled- as long as it is kept secret. To committed utilitarians, this would be a better outcome than any form of punishment being levied against the guilty, since it would make life better for a greater number of people than would actually punishing them. To wit, the criminals themselves. The only utilitarian objections to this are about the resources required, but since it is a hypothetical meant to illustrate a point not connected to resources, any necessary modification can be made to meet them. Any objection based on the pragmatism of these secret rewards is irrelevant, because whether or not it is possible is no objection to whether or not it would be just, if it were. Some people, truly committed utilitarians, bite the bullet and admit that if possible, secret rewards would be better than punishments for some crimes. Some people refuse to take a position and try to mire the issue in irrelevencies. Others have moral intuitions or beliefs about justice that dispose them to believe it would be wrong. It's not a thought experiment meant to discredit utilitarianism or prop up moral theories, just to explore your own beliefs and moral intuitions. If you think secret rewards would be wrong, not just impractical, its worth pondering "why?" I think most people believe that a justice system should have some mix of both utilitarian and moral considerations, even if they can't describe exactly what a perfect mix would be. I know I do. hakimashou fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 13:47
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:Specifically, you're acting as though your moral opinions are objectively correct. That's a lot more horrifying to anyone who doesn't hold them. "Justice" as a concept doesn't make any sense without a moral code that describes what is just. Choosing to execute murderers vs jailing them vs fining them vs counseling them vs I don't know...forcing them to pay weregild... all involve moral judgements about the value of life, the moral status of murder, accountability, etc. You can't really have a justice system that escapes from morality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Apologies for the long post but it's kind of a complex thought experiment, I've tried to keep it as brief as possible, please bear that in mind if I've omitted anything. If we have no resource scarcity why not make the world like that for everyone? Back in the real, non-star trek world, can you conceive of anything remotely like this occurring?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:"Justice" as a concept doesn't make any sense without a moral code that describes what is just. Choosing to execute murderers vs jailing them vs fining them vs counseling them vs I don't know...forcing them to pay weregild... all involve moral judgements about the value of life, the moral status of murder, accountability, etc. You can't really have a justice system that escapes from morality. You can evaluate punishments on how well they do at protecting the public, deterring others and rehabilitating the offender. Objective standards that can be measured, not a feeling about what someone deserves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:You can evaluate punishments on how well they do at protecting the public, deterring others and rehabilitating the offender. Objective standards that can be measured, not a feeling about what someone deserves. I'll go ahead and point out that this is a kind of morality but one that insists it isn't moral to pursue vengeance. It is a morality that asserts all people get to access society on the condition they follow a set of rules. Violation of those rules results in fees and/or separation from the population BUT does not revoke their basic human rights. The feeling is that violation of our laws does not necessitate the death of the offender and that we live in such wonderful times that we don't have to kill murderers or our young in order for us to have enough food for the long winter. Perhaps conditions will change to where it will be pragmatic to terminate the lives of those who violate our rules. But we don't live in those times and we can afford to keep those offenders alive and offer them chances to re-enter society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
I guess more tersely, punishment isn't meted out to satisfy individuals but rather to preserve and protect the public. And of course this is all me just 'should'ing because the actual criminal justice and penal systems in America are real loving bleak.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:This is a classic argument from ignorance. You can't think of a more compelling argument, ergo you posit that no better argument exists. But this is fallacious thinking, and the fact that there are many, many people that would argue against it proves it's not convincing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:I'd have to be claiming the truth of objective morality for it to be an argument from ignorance. You're claiming that acting as if morality is objective is the most convincing argument. You're claiming that because you can't conceive of a better one. Come on, if you aren't even going to pretend to understand what you yourself have said then yeah, don't bother continuing this conversation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
N. Senada posted:I guess more tersely, punishment isn't meted out to satisfy individuals but rather to preserve and protect the public. stone cold posted:Also, are we really getting to the point where you're going to argue that because something is popular means it should happen? But my point about bringing up the popular support was to simply suggest that there is an advantage to capital punishment over life imprisonment. The idea of a 'final' punishment for certain crimes, does seems to fit in with a lot of what people consider real 'justice'. Practically speaking, the justice system also requires public legitimacy in order to function at all. If most people think that some crimes deserve capital punishment, and anything less is unjust, then that's what you do, because you need people to trust the justice system in general. rudatron fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You're claiming that acting as if morality is objective is the most convincing argument. You're claiming that because you can't conceive of a better one. Come on, if you aren't even going to pretend to understand what you yourself have said then yeah, don't bother continuing this conversation. Otherwise, you're still just repeating "you'd agree with me if you weren't so dim."
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Public protection is just one aspect of criminal justice and the utility of punishment. Is capital punishment for blasphemy good if at least 50% support it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:Is capital punishment for blasphemy good if at least 50% support it? Define "good".
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Define "good". Good in the opinion of forums poster rudatron
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
You'll notice I didn't use the word 'good' because that's not a precise term. I feel like I've already laid my cards on the table here, so stop fishing and make your point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
rudatron posted:You'll notice I didn't use the word 'good' because that's not a precise term. I feel like I've already laid my cards on the table here, so stop fishing and make your point. Would you be in favour of it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
No. Now that I've satisfied what I'm sure was just honest curiosity, would you like to engage my point?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
rudatron posted:No. The idea of a 'final' punishment for blasphemy, does fit in with a lot of what people consider real 'justice'. If most people think that blasphemy deserves capital punishment, and anything less is unjust, then that's what you do, because you need people to trust the justice system in general.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
rudatron posted:That's the basis of a democratic society. If that's troubling, don't worry - undemocratic societies have a much worse record on oppression. At some point you have to trust in the ability of ordinary people to make the right decision, eventually. I notice you have no data on the other one hundred plus countries for public opinion on the death penalty, but I'm glad you assume that the UK speaks for most of the world, that's fantastic and not a stellar example of intellectual disingenuousness and cowardice. Make America Canada again?? Also, dumbass this is why you build in protections to prevent domination of the minority through the tyranny of the majority. You're pretending like all legislation in this country is passed through referendum by the people, you total loving dumbass, so I recommend you pick up a civics textbook. Speaking of tyranny by the majority, are you gonna pretend there's no such thing as the bill of rights in the US now? Are you gonna pretend the eighth amendment doesn't exist because you don't think it's "popular?" Are you gonna ignore the extremely ginormous race bias in the justice system and in the penal system (literally built to keep slavery alive in the US) and keep on executing? Idiot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
stone cold posted:I notice you have no data on the other one hundred plus countries for public opinion on the death penalty, but I'm glad you assume that the UK speaks for most of the world, that's fantastic and not a stellar example of intellectual disingenuousness and cowardice. The courts haven't held the 8th ammendment to prohibit capital punishment. stone cold posted:Idiot. Don't sign your posts. edit: And I mean...you would think that if the argument held water there would have been a successful equal protection clause challenge to the death penalty at some point. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:The courts haven't held the 8th ammendment to prohibit capital punishment. lol guess we're pretending that even though furman v georgia was overturned it didn't happen it's not like gregg v georgia put strict limits or anything you moron Color me shocked that an idiot doesn't understand the nuance in which the 8th amendment is applied in determining when precisely juries can use it and how it's carried out and gee I wonder if this rich history will eventually lead to its abolishment 🤔It certainly isn't like capital punishment was eliminated for ten years or anything in the US, nope that didn't happen 🤔 wateroverfire posted:Don't sign your posts. Keep on trucking whiningoverfire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
stone cold posted:lol guess we're pretending that even though furman v georgia was overturned it didn't happen it's not like gregg v georgia put strict limits or anything you moron Right...executions in the US are being carried out following guidelines consistent with the 8th. You moron.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:You moron. dont sign ur post!!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:54 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Right...executions in the US are being carried out following guidelines consistent with the 8th. You moron. .....did I stutter, or did you just repeat what I said? but also you're the moron because you asserted that the eighth amendment was never used to overturn capital punishment so lol at you, moron
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 19:23
|
|