|
Mandy Thompson posted:Strictly speaking we're not suppose to sentence people at all unless they are thoroughly proven though, even if its for shoplifting or burglary. In a strongly deterministic universe it seems pointless to talk about ethics. By the same logic that determines they couldn't have acted any differently their suffering is inevitable and therefore morally neutral.
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 14:23 |
|
|
Somfin posted:You suggest that "of course" other people's lives are not valuable. I disagree. One cannot apply a single standard of right and wrong to one's own life and a second standard to everyone else's. Harm done to others does harm me. I'll answer your points in reverse order: What does "shown compassion" mean? Does it mean not punished? Do you mean do I want people to empathize with my attacker regardless of what actually happens to him? I think being charged with assault (and convicted) is fine, I guess. Obviously I don't want to be assaulted. However, this has little bearing on what society should do about assaults generally, because: Harm done to others does not necessarily harm you. You can apply a different standard of right and wrong to one's own life and a second standard to everyone else's; people do it all the time. However I'm not talking about right and wrong, I was talking about costs and social utility, which any utilitarian with intellectual worth would differentiate from concepts of absolute rightness and wrongness. It is natural and necessary that we apply different standards and criteria to our own lives and to the lives of others, and we should expect everyone to have this double standard. No matter how much you protest, the lethal car crash you bemoan in your example cost you much less than the people who actually died in it. In fact it probably cost you nothing beyond a fleeting bad-feeling of empathy. Finally, you've seriously misunderstood my point if you think I am arguing that human life necessarily has no value. I only challenge the idea that it a priori has value. The second point of my original post was that, even if "monsters" impose costs on society, are they significant? The car crash example is a good one: car crashes are a clear and present danger to most people, and directing the resources of society to reducing their impact on both the self and on people generally is probably an efficient use of resources. I question whether attempts aimed at reducing the damage done by "monsters" are socially efficient. This was all in my first post by the way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
Blue Raider posted:he caught him in the act and beat him to death While I wouldn't call it heroic, I can't really fault him for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:In a strongly deterministic universe it seems pointless to talk about ethics. Well, not so fast. No we don't really choose, but in having this conversation, which is the result of determinism, we could form a policy that reduces suffering. I certainly would prefer to live in a world with less suffering overall. If goodness forbid I went mad and committed a serious crime, or just made a mistake and committed a minor one, I would want to be treated with dignity at the very least. There but for the grace of God go all of us.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
[quote="Somfin" post="443061975"] I don't think there is a need for retribution, though. There is certainly a desire for it. Lord knows I've had terrible, visceral fantasies about harming the people who made my girlfriend's childhood a living hell. But what good would it do? What positive impact can there be from retribution? Once we burn off that initial rush of adrenaline, what is left but a void? Would it not be better to see someone who has done terrible things rehabilitated and restored to a place in the community? [/b]/quote] I think it's hopelessly naive to imagine that everyone who has done terrible things is merely sick (some are, and that's different) and wants to be, or even can be, rehabilitated. It can be argued that they were shaped by their circumstances but at the end of the day, shaped they were, and they became people who chose to do the things that they did. But beyond that - being restored to the community requires that a person atone for the wrong they've committed. How would you suggest that occur without a degree of suffering? Escalation doesn't seem necessary as a condition for retribution being one goal of a system of justice. It's one of the goals of our system right this moment and has been since we had such a system and we haven't descended into torturing prisoners to death, botched executions notwithstanding. But rehabilitation isn't enough. The victims and society need closure. To deny that is unnatural. One might convince oneself it's better to go without if one feels powerless to bring about that outcome, because few things feel worse than being powerless, but that's merely a coping mechanism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
Why does society need closure? I'm not directly harmed because a murder happened somewhere, what do I get out of the suffering of the criminal? Pleasure in watching suffering? And who determines how much suffering is enough to give closure for the relatives of a murder victim? Do we leave it up to them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
I agree people need closure but disagree that the only way to achieve closure is through the suffering/execution of the perpetrator(s). I have a question for Somfin, mostly in regards to your first post in the thread: do you believe there are individuals beyond rehabilitation, in any meaningful sense? I'm asking this is good faith and not trying to pull any socratic bullshit here so I'll just lay out my point and position: I am pretty much on board with everything you've posted here w/r/t restorative justice and the damage a lust for revenge causes. I also especially agree with you that life imprisonment is at best about on par with execution, and probably worse overall. I sometimes see captial punishment opponents try to "sell" their positions along the lines of: "no, see, imprisonment is even better than execution! They have to sit there and think about it forever! No escape!", especially to conservatives. I've seen it almost everywhere, including here from self-styled progressives, and it always loving blows my mind because I tend to agree with the sentiment in most cases. Let me be clear, though: I am not a active proponent of long-term imprisonment or capital punishment. But, the reason I ask, what should happen to people for whom rehabilitation is impossible? There's no good answer, I know, but I tend to think that in (these specific!) cases that execution would be more humane. If we've decided that they can't be helped and also can't be allowed into society, the only two options I see are "kill them" and "lock them away forever" and execution at least seems to limit the extent of suffering. As policy, though, I believe imprisonment is always the better response (in cases where we have to choose) because if the legal system has made a mistake at least the wrongfully-incarcerated at least get a shot at a decent life with the time they've got left.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:The victims and society need closure. To deny that is unnatural. Arglebargle III posted:It is natural and necessary that we apply different standards and criteria to our own lives and to the lives of others Amazing. Two appeals to nature, like loving clockwork. "It's natural!" That does not make it beneficial. That does not make it socially efficient. That does not make it rational or logical. That does not help. wateroverfire: Your argument hinges on the idea of 'closure,' and for some reason you set that up as antithetical to compassion. Why do we need closure? Why is that a need and not a want? And could not "and then she turned her life around" not be better closure than "and then we threw her in a box for ten years of her life?" Arglebargle III: Reducing damage done by 'monsters' is not what this discussion is about. Their damage has been done. That is set. The question is whether or not we show them compassion. In this case, compassion means that the response to their actions should focus on repair and restoration rather than on punishment. Conviction is one thing. Punishment is another.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:I certainly would prefer to live in a world with less suffering overall. If goodness forbid I went mad and committed a serious crime, or just made a mistake and committed a minor one, I would want to be treated with dignity at the very least. There but for the grace of God go all of us. Perhaps. The idea of punishment isn't incompatible with dignity or compassion, so you could take your lumps without being devalued as a human being. Mandy Thompson posted:Well, not so fast. No we don't really choose, but in having this conversation, which is the result of determinism, we could form a policy that reduces suffering. We could! Or we couldn't! If we can't choose in any meaningful sense than it's about the same, isn't it? We're no morally better or worse, no more or less culpable for the outcomes of our policy, no matter which way we go. But if we can choose than so can the hypothetical transgressors and that presents a problem because it means they too have to be held to account for their actions, and not only us.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I think it's hopelessly naive to imagine that everyone who has done terrible things is merely sick (some are, and that's different) and wants to be, or even can be, rehabilitated. It can be argued that they were shaped by their circumstances but at the end of the day, shaped they were, and they became people who chose to do the things that they did. But beyond that - being restored to the community requires that a person atone for the wrong they've committed. How would you suggest that occur without a degree of suffering? Escalation doesn't seem necessary as a condition for retribution being one goal of a system of justice. It's one of the goals of our system right this moment and has been since we had such a system and we haven't descended into torturing prisoners to death, botched executions notwithstanding. But rehabilitation isn't enough. Alternatively, it may be considered healthier to recognize that for a great many wrongs, there is absolutely nothing one can do to atone for them, or to meaningfully give back what was taken. To demand a measure of misery from the one responsible is not going to give you back what you have lost, it is arbitrary, you don't need it and asking for it will do you no good. You aren't required to forgive, but whether or not you can let go is entirely a product of your own psyche. Cultivate a sanitary mind, which can deal with trauma independently, and without making up or indulging justifications for your animal desire to hurt things that make you angry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Amazing. Two appeals to nature, like loving clockwork. It does help, though, heart to heart! It is beneficial. It's only when we feel powerless that we convince ourselves it isn't. Somfin posted:wateroverfire: Your argument hinges on the idea of 'closure,' and for some reason you set that up as antithetical to compassion. Why do we need closure? Why is that a need and not a want? And could not "and then she turned her life around" not be better closure than "and then we threw her in a box for ten years of her life?" First, I don't think I set up closure as antithetical to compassion. We can have compassion even as we punish - the two things are not mutually exclusive. Somfin posted:And could not "and then she turned her life around" not be better closure than "and then we threw her in a box for ten years of her life?" "She paid the price for her actions, then turned her life around" would be better closure. The idea is that to be reintegrated into the community after a transgression requires atonement, which requires suffering. That suffering doesn't have to be jail, or execution, or etc. Ideally it would be genuine remorse. In feeling that, and in making restitution, the transgressor would essentially become a different person and could be accepted into the community free of their transgression.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:We could! Or we couldn't! If we can't choose in any meaningful sense than it's about the same, isn't it? We're no morally better or worse, no more or less culpable for the outcomes of our policy, no matter which way we go. But if we can choose than so can the hypothetical transgressors and that presents a problem because it means they too have to be held to account for their actions, and not only us. This doesn't follow. Whether determinism is true or not, we can still say things about what courses of actions lead to what outcomes. "Not touching a hot stove will prevent you from feeling pain." "Accepting/rejecting retributive justice will lead to less suffering." You don't necessarily need to make a moral judgment about people to talk about how to encourage or discourage certain behaviors. We don't generally say a toddler is moral or immoral for trying to stick a fork in an electrical outlet, but we still take steps to discourage them from doing it all the same. Even if we accept determinism and believe that people aren't morally culpable for their actions, it's still meaningful to talk about the external incentives that can discourage criminal actions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Alternatively, it may be considered healthier to recognize that for a great many wrongs, there is absolutely nothing one can do to atone for them, or to meaningfully give back what was taken. To demand a measure of misery from the one responsible is not going to give you back what you have lost, it is arbitrary, you don't need it and asking for it will do you no good. It's worth considering that your ancestors are mostly people who didn't think letting poo poo slide was the healthier way to go, when they could do something about it, and as a result of that they secured a world now guarded for you by other people who are most definitely not willing to let poo poo slide in which you can serenely philosophize about cultivating a sanitary mind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:It's worth considering that your ancestors are mostly people who didn't think letting poo poo slide was the healthier way to go, when they could do something about it, and as a result of that they secured a world now guarded for you by other people who are most definitely not willing to let poo poo slide in which you can serenely philosophize about cultivating a sanitary mind. My ancestors thought a lot of stupid things, and my peers continue to think many of them. Appealing to tradition is a very lax argument. wateroverfire posted:"She paid the price for her actions, then turned her life around" would be better closure. The idea is that to be reintegrated into the community after a transgression requires atonement, which requires suffering. That suffering doesn't have to be jail, or execution, or etc. Ideally it would be genuine remorse. In feeling that, and in making restitution, the transgressor would essentially become a different person and could be accepted into the community free of their transgression. You're talking as if suffering has a cause > effect relationship to acceptance, when it does not. Whether someone is accepted back into a community has nothing to do with whether they suffer or not and everything to do with whether the people in the community feel like accepting them. Suffering does not bring acceptance, and absence of suffering does not preclude it. Accept anyway, you have no physical need for suffering, and any mental need for it you may possess should be considered a character flaw. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Mar 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:It's worth considering that your ancestors are mostly people who didn't think letting poo poo slide was the healthier way to go, when they could do something about it, and as a result of that they secured a world now guarded for you by other people who are most definitely not willing to let poo poo slide in which you can serenely philosophize about cultivating a sanitary mind. This is an appeal to tradition and it's pretty bad reasoning, which I would have thought would be obvious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 08:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This doesn't follow. Whether determinism is true or not, we can still say things about what courses of actions lead to what outcomes. "Not touching a hot stove will prevent you from feeling pain." "Accepting/rejecting retributive justice will lead to less suffering." You don't necessarily need to make a moral judgment about people to talk about how to encourage or discourage certain behaviors. We don't generally say a toddler is moral or immoral for trying to stick a fork in an electrical outlet, but we still take steps to discourage them from doing it all the same. Even if we accept determinism and believe that people aren't morally culpable for their actions, it's still meaningful to talk about the external incentives that can discourage criminal actions. If people aren't morally culpable for their actions then that includes us, as architects of whatever hypothetical policy. It doesn't matter if we reduce suffering or not. It doesn't even make sense to talk about reducing suffering as a morally praiseworthy thing to do. If people are merely biological machines then we are also merely biological machines, it stands to reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:My ancestors thought a lot of stupid things, and my peers continue to think many of them. Appealing to tradition is a very lax argument. It's an appeal to widen your perspective. You have the privilege of honing your moral purity because other people are very specifically willing to be bloody minded on your behalf. We live in a state of nature you don't have to experience because others have done it for you, and are doing it for you right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
I don't know man, even if it were proven unambiguously that humans are biological machines with no meaningful agency, I expect I would continue to eat breakfast, wipe my rear end, and care about whether my loved ones were raped. Even with actual machines that we know are deterministic and have programmed, we can talk about how effective their program is at achieving the purpose for which it was written. If you and I already agree on the goal of minimizing suffering, then it absolutely makes sense to talk about the effectiveness of various strategies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 08:15
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:It's an appeal to widen your perspective. You have the privilege of honing your moral purity because other people are very specifically willing to be bloody minded on your behalf. We live in a state of nature you don't have to experience because others have done it for you, and are doing it for you right now. I oppose neither death nor incarceration as a means of crime prevention, but I will still argue that anyone who thinks that that they are good things, because they can't think of a better option, is a long way gone from a position of genuine care for human happiness. The way we deal with crime is not good, it is abhorrent, it is merely somewhat less abhorrent than not dealing with it. There is nothing laudable or commendable about it, and it is not just. And it is absolutely not an excuse to wallow in the idea that making people suffer is actually good and necessary. You are capable of better than that, and an unwillingness to pursue better than that is contemptible. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 08:27 on Mar 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:It's an appeal to widen your perspective. You have the privilege of honing your moral purity because other people are very specifically willing to be bloody minded on your behalf. We live in a state of nature you don't have to experience because others have done it for you, and are doing it for you right now. Well okay, but any current policy can be defended on those same grounds: you have the privilege of honing your moral purity because other people are willing to X on your behalf. You don't have to experience the consequences of not-X because others are doing X for you and are doing X right now. Not very sound logic if you can swap out your policy with anything that is happening and get the same results. Hell, a Stalinist could argue the same way: you have the privilege of honing your moral purity because you benefit from the benevolence of Very Serious People who already shot the bourgeois.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
I honestly don't care about whatever evidence that may indicate that we are "nothing but" biological machines. Even if the vast majority of the physical sciences all concurred that, yep, I'm just a meat robot with no agency or free will, I'd just shrug and dismiss it with an imperious wave of my hand. I frankly don't care. I know that I have innate value and that my feelings and emotions are real experiences and not just mechanical whatevers. You can bring in all the neuroscience and physics that you want, I'll just smirk and shrug as I say "Whatevs  ".
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 08:37
|
|
|
Onion Knight posted:I have a question for Somfin, mostly in regards to your first post in the thread: do you believe there are individuals beyond rehabilitation, in any meaningful sense? Definitely. There are certainly a large number of people who will simply never get better. They may be broken at a more fundamental level than we can repair, or their beliefs may be unshakeable. That does not mean we get to stop trying. We can know that there are people who will never be changed for the better. But we cannot afford to make that decision in any single case. The problem becomes, at what point do we dust off our hands and say "gently caress it, we tried, this one's busted forever?" Because that is what is happening right now in states with Three Strikes laws. As soon as we can see the absolute future and know for an absolute, unshakeable fact that no amount of treatment and therapy and rehabilitation will help this person, then we can make the decision that it's not worth the effort. Until that point, we must keep trying. I agree with you that imprisonment is better than execution, but I feel that both of them are simply more socially acceptable than trying to treat people who have been convicted of unconscionable acts as human beings. People do things for reasons. Those reasons are always valid to them at the time- they must have been, or they wouldn't have made the choices that they did. I think that people know when they have made mistakes and when they have failed. wateroverfire posted:It's only when we feel powerless that we convince ourselves it isn't. I'm gonna confess something to you, right here and now. I have no loving idea what you mean by this. Could you explain it, in terms of overall social benefit, without using the words 'powerless' or 'natural?' wateroverfire posted:"She paid the price for her actions, then turned her life around" would be better closure. The idea is that to be reintegrated into the community after a transgression requires atonement, which requires suffering. That suffering doesn't have to be jail, or execution, or etc. Ideally it would be genuine remorse. In feeling that, and in making restitution, the transgressor would essentially become a different person and could be accepted into the community free of their transgression. "Ideally it would be genuine remorse." That's a very compelling concept. I agree with this- I agree that grief and remorse can cause far more non-physical suffering to a person than can be physically inflicted on them. "She paid the price", however, is a problem. Who determines "the price"? Is "the price" different if she admits guilt? To whom does she pay "the price"? The main problem that I have with the current system is it takes suffering as an acceptable currency for the price. You can buy off transgressions simply by being in state-regulated pain for a while. Restitution, making amends to wronged parties, public service and public labour, taking measures to improve one's situation so that desperation does not lead to another transgression- these are wildly preferable to the current system of simple suffering-as-payment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 09:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well okay, but any current policy can be defended on those same grounds: you have the privilege of honing your moral purity because other people are willing to X on your behalf. You don't have to experience the consequences of not-X because others are doing X for you and are doing X right now. I wouldn't say "any policy" (or thing, I guess, since we're not talking about a policy here) but yeah it does apply to quite a few things people get self righteous about. It's a call to check your privilege, if you will. Somfin posted:I'm gonna confess something to you, right here and now. I have no loving idea what you mean by this. Could you explain it, in terms of overall social benefit, without using the words 'powerless' or 'natural?' I don't know what you mean by "overall social benefit". The idea is simply that when a person is faced with a situation where they desire a thing but think they can't achieve it, or are unwilling to do what it takes to achieve it, one way that person can cope is by convincing herself she didn't want it to begin with. Or that it wouldn't help in the end. Or that they're a bigger person for not achieving that thing. Etc. Somfin posted:"Ideally it would be genuine remorse." That's a very compelling concept. I agree with this- I agree that grief and remorse can cause far more non-physical suffering to a person than can be physically inflicted on them. "She paid the price", however, is a problem. Who determines "the price"? Is "the price" different if she admits guilt? To whom does she pay "the price"? Different cultures come up with different answers but in general we collectively figure out the rules. In U.S. culture there is a legal code that sets out the parameters. It's not perfect but it works better than a lot of alternatives. Somfin posted:The main problem that I have with the current system is it takes suffering as an acceptable currency for the price. You can buy off transgressions simply by being in state-regulated pain for a while. You generally don't have much choice in the matter. You're can't buy your way out by volunteering some time. That time is exacted from you for the wrong you committed in a process that is both punative and retributory. Somfin posted:Restitution, making amends to wronged parties, public service and public labour, taking measures to improve one's situation so that desperation does not lead to another transgression- these are wildly preferable to the current system of simple suffering-as-payment. These are also components of the justice system, though? Like, already.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I oppose neither death nor incarceration as a means of crime prevention, but I will still argue that anyone who thinks that that they are good things, because they can't think of a better option, is a long way gone from a position of genuine care for human happiness. Congrats on feeling morally superior from your naive perspective of extreme privilege, I guess? It's great that you are safe and secure enough to take a poo poo on society without any consciousness of how, yes, things you're not comfortable with are actually required in order to preserve that for you and not vestigal barbarism we've somehow outgrown. edit: Or to engage in a different way - what are you arguing, exactly? In your world where society is not making poor victimized criminals suffer what is checking their desire to do whatever to whoever? How are the wrongs done to their victims addressed? Are we to do more or less what we do now just, somehow, more humanely? wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Mar 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Are you required to believe that what you are doing is good in order to do it? Can you not do something you know to be evil simply because it is the lesser evil? If you showed me a compelling need to execute someone I would kill them myself, but that doesn't make the action good, it makes it necessary, and begs for a better solution. What bothers me is not that you imprison or kill people, but that you've somehow come around to the idea that doing that is a good thing. That making people suffer somehow improves the world, that suffering is the object of justice, not a side effect of attempts to produce it. Locking people in shithole prisons just so that they can suffer is not justice, it doesn't repay the wrongs they've done, it doesn't inspire them to do less wrong in the future, and it doesn't deter them from doing wrong in the first place. Crime is not an entirely rational decision, so expecting criminals to be rational actors is foolish, and your response to rational deterrents not working very well should not be to increase the amount of pain inflicted. Incarceration can keep someone from committing crimes for the duration of the sentence, if done correctly. It has utility in that respect, but just throwing a bunch of criminals together for years at a time and letting them do whatever isn't a sensible way to do that. You lock someone up because you need time to figure out why they did what they did, and what, if anything, they need in order to stop them doing it again. A large dose of pain is not likely to be the prescription for any problem. You teach nothing with mindless pain.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:These are also components of the justice system, though? Like, already. They are. For minor offences. There is a view that people who have done wrong above a certain threshold should just suffer for it, though. wateroverfire posted:poor victimized criminals See this? This right here? You're not actually arguing about people. You're arguing about these two teams, "Criminals" and "Society," and Criminals are the bad guys and Society are the good guys. And because you have a childish view of how justice works, you think that when a bad guy does a bad thing, they need to have an equal amount of bad stuff happen to them in order to balance the books. You think that closure only really comes from the bad guys suffering, because you see them as being fundamentally different from the good guys. Those "poor victimised criminals" are human beings, normal rational human beings, who have done things which our society has decided are wrong. Some of them are simply desperate enough to do what they do. Others see the state as being a malevolent force. Most, however, are simply people whose position in life is far less cushy than yours. You clearly see them as a subhuman animal with an inherent "desire to do whatever to whoever," which must be checked through blunt instruments which cause suffering, because you clearly believe they lack the capability to understand that what they are doing is societally destructive. Like yelling at a dog or spraying water at a cat. What is your opinion on the ongoing problem of rape in prisons?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:What does "shown compassion" mean? *moves arms like Klaus Nomi* Gosh, who could ever know that? What a complicated question!
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
We could have compassion for them, but why bother? I don't really see any benefit in it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Congrats on feeling morally superior from your naive perspective of extreme privilege, I guess? It's great that you are safe and secure enough to take a poo poo on society without any consciousness of how, yes, things you're not comfortable with are actually required in order to preserve that for you and not vestigal barbarism we've somehow outgrown. You realize that most of the industrialized world has abolished the death penalty, right? If you're going to argue that abolition is for naive babies who don't Know What It Takes to protect society like Very Serious People do, you're going to have to show that's actually the case.  Whoa ho ho there, almost all of Europe, you've taken a poo poo all over your society. Maybe you should be more like Saudi Arabia, Iran and, North Korea! What, specifically, are these bad things that Europeans and Canadians have to "check their privilege" about, and can you show a correlation between them and states that have abolished the death penalty? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:We could have compassion for them, but why bother? I don't really see any benefit in it. Well let me ask you this, what is the benefit in punishing them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:Well let me ask you this, what is the benefit in punishing them? It is just, and makes people happy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:It is just, and makes people happy. gently caress you Tezzor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:It is just, and makes people happy. What's just about it? And it certainly doesn't make EVERYone happy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Somfin posted:See this? This right here? You're not actually arguing about people. You're arguing about these two teams, "Criminals" and "Society," and Criminals are the bad guys and Society are the good guys. And because you have a childish view of how justice works, you think that when a bad guy does a bad thing, they need to have an equal amount of bad stuff happen to them in order to balance the books. You think that closure only really comes from the bad guys suffering, because you see them as being fundamentally different from the good guys. When a person transgresses against their community they need to be reconciled with the community, and part of that process is suffering - either genuine repentence or some punishment imposed by the community or more likely both. That isn't a childish view of how justice works. That is literally how justice works. What makes you think we could just do away with that? That view seems naive to me. Somfin posted:Those "poor victimised criminals" are human beings, normal rational human beings, who have done things which our society has decided are wrong. Some of them are simply desperate enough to do what they do. Others see the state as being a malevolent force. Most, however, are simply people whose position in life is far less cushy than yours. You clearly see them as a subhuman animal with an inherent "desire to do whatever to whoever," which must be checked through blunt instruments which cause suffering, because you clearly believe they lack the capability to understand that what they are doing is societally destructive. Like yelling at a dog or spraying water at a cat. Wow, dude. You might want to look into the charactures you've created of your debate partners and otherwise introspect about why you need to project bad motives onto people who merely disagree with you. Humans do all kinds of horrific things to one another. Sometimes it's for gain, sometimes it's out of expediency, sometimes it's just for lulz. Many people, who are still human and why the gently caress would you think otherwise, know but do care that their actions are societally destructive. Or they rationalize away the consequences because blah blah I needed the money or blah blah gently caress that rich guy or hey she didn't SAY no...exactly...while she was roofied. Do you think if only those people were educated about the social harm they were doing they'd feel remorseful and stop doing harm? If so why do you think that? Somfin posted:What is your opinion on the ongoing problem of rape in prisons? People should not get raped and especially not in state custody. That's pretty hosed up. Prison itself, the separation from society, is punishment enough. It doesn't have to be extra horrible or inhumane. While serving their punishment prisoners should have access to counciling, drug rehab, training, and etc so that they can return to society better prepared than they left it. Punishment and rehabilitation - ie return to society - are both goals of the justice system and one isn't more important than the other.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 13:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You realize that most of the industrialized world has abolished the death penalty, right? If you're going to argue that abolition is for naive babies who don't Know What It Takes to protect society like Very Serious People do, you're going to have to show that's actually the case. IDK dude. We're not arguing about the death penalty so I'm going to punt on this one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 13:20
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Amazing. Two appeals to nature, like loving clockwork. I don't really have an opinion on the larger question, but: That kind of double standard is 'natural' enough that knowing about them won't make you stop applying them, and when the tendency was discovered in psychology, it was called the fundamental attribution bias (or error) for decades. I don't think it's been called that since cross-cultural studies indicated it was more complex than it seemed in western populations, but that people use different processes for judging their own actions and those of others, whether they want to or not? That remains an entirely uncontroversial thing to say. That's obviously orthogonal to whether it is beneficial or socially efficient, but on the other hand, there is no reason to believe that beneficence and social efficiency has anything do with whether it happens, either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 14:02
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:What's just about it? And it certainly doesn't make EVERYone happy. People who do bad things are made to suffer for them. It certainly doesn't make everybody happy directly, but it does give indirect happiness get the indirect pleasure of feeling morally superior about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Repeat offender violent rapists and pedophiles are probably okay to have the death penalty for. Broken violent beings with impure thought. Cannot will not change. Who can defend them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
I don't think you have to even have to reference structures like ethics and morality when it comes to this issue. You should have a basic level of empathy for other people no matter what messed up stuff they've done purely because it's better for you than hubris, hatred, anger, and indifference. Treating other people as inhuman or beneath contempt is an utterly toxic attitude that can affect your social life, emotional security, and life outlook in huge and terrible ways. Have you ever met a person who seemed bound and determined to be spiteful and miserable no matter what happens? It's not pretty. Especially if they are older and have already been doing it a while, since at that point they are often in a nearly inescapable cognitive rut and have run off everyone that ever gave half a poo poo or more about them. The human mind is a self-reinforcing machine and reinforcing hatred or indifference toward your fellow humans has personal as well as societal drawbacks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 14:23 |
|
|
That sounds fine and all and then you realise its actually rapists we are talking about. No matter of morality talk is gonna change that they're human garbage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 21:53
|
|