| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Discourser" |
| Date: |
12 Aug 2004 02:53:09 AM |
| Object: |
10-COMMANDMENT BELIEVERS IN SLAVERY |
10-COMMANDMENTS' BELIEVERS IN SLAVERY
"nor his manservant, nor his maidservant . . ."
READ THIS:
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy
neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor
his *****, nor anything that is thy neighbor's."
-- 10th Commandment of the 10 Commandments of Moses in the Bible
___________________________
Atheists and Humanist oppose mental and physical slavery in all of its
forms.
.
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
19 Sep 2004 06:31:30 PM |
|
|
"Liberator Veritatis" <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3g0qk0tvmqr8ep0di7dcalqfsi8udgtgiq@4ax.com...
That is a separate moral assertion that I do disagree with. ... <
Yeah, I took an easy turn there with the vigilante thing. Sorry. Best I
could do on short notice. ("Short" being before I could figure out the
answer).
My point is that it is not wrong to grant Harry the right to burn John's
house down. Or, if it is wrong it is only because Harry deserves MORE
than that. If the only possibility were that Harry could burn John's
house down or do nothing at all, then it would be wrong to deny Harry that
right just because "retribution is always wrong." <
It may still be immoral, and unjustified, for Harry to burn down John's
house for "retribution", even if the only other alternative is to do nothing
at all. Whether the act is morally justified, or not, depends upon the
ultimate outcome of universalizing the means into a general principle that
covers all similar circumstances. (Sorry for the long sentence.)
Circumstances are very important. For example, A) suppose John were cooking
on the grill in his own backyard, and while he was inside getting beer, the
wind blew a newspaper onto the grill, and then onto Harry's house, which
burned down before the fire department arrived. That circumstance is
different from B) John waking up cranky one morning, and, because misery
loves company, sets fire to Harry's house.
In both cases, John bears some responsibility for Harry's loss. In one case
John is negligent, leaving his fire unattended on a windy day. In the other
John is just a *****, setting fires for spite.
Under your theory of reciprocal harms, where "justice" allows Harry to burn
down John's house, both circumstances become identical. The harm to Harry is
identical in both cases, so the penalty to John is also identical. "A house
for a house" does not take circumstances into account. (If you believe it
does, please explain how that works).
A moral and just penalty, on the other hand, must take circumstances into
account. For example, if John destroyed Harry's house unintentionally, then
it is highly unlikely that he will do the same to someone else's house,
especially after his insurance premium gets raised. But the other John, the
one who did it deliberately, poses a threat not only to Harry, but to
everyone else in the neighborhood. So that John is likely to spend a long
time in jail, in addition to whatever restitution he can make to Harry.
A penalty is moral if the principles behind it will reliably produce good
results for everyone. A penalty is just when it fairly restores and fairly
protects valid rights, including the right of the guilty to a fair penalty.
It does have to be reciprocal -- not exactly the same. If you are
speaking figuratively, then that would be "an EYE for an eye" as opposed
to "a NOSE for an eye". But it is clear by now that you do not mean an
eye for an eye when you say this. You use this expression to refer to
vengeance far exceeding what is reciprocal.<
The loss of an eye for the loss of an eye (and a burned down house for a
burned down house) remains your definition of "reciprocal justice" then. So
long as the harms are identical, then you say they are just, regardless of
the motivation. Your complaint about veneance only is that it might exceed
an identical harm (such as two eyes for an eye). Does that remain correct?
If so, then my objection remains the same, "two wrongs don't make a right",
and replicating harms appears to do nothing more than increase the damage.
The only way you can justify "reciprocal harm" is by demonstrating that the
ultimate result of universalizing this will benefit everyone. And this might
be argued from the standpoint that the "eye for an eye" policy is a
deterrent, reducing overall harm by making people more careful about
injuring others. But I believe there are better principles than this.
And, then there is the matter of our justice SYSTEM. It is a crude
instrument, or in other words, it does not establish justice perfectly (or
even well in many cases). ... <
You call it crude because it fails to require an "eye for an eye"? Most
people consider it enlightened for not following ancient barbaric concepts.
For instance, consider a gay man raping a 12 year old boy. What is the
reciprocal treatment? That he be raped by a man, himself? I doubt it ...
<
The rest of the world (except perhaps the most primitive and backward
cultures) also doubts the principle of reciprocal harms will result in
justice, which is why it is abandoned in every situation execept the death
penalty.
You have invented the notion of "justice as correction". Their being
called "correctional facilities" is not some sort of reference to the
particular notion you have presented here. <
They are called "correctional facilities" specifically because it is the
hope of society that the penaly of jail time will be sufficient to correct
the behavior. If it does not succeed, then the 3rd time felon is imprisoned
for life, no longer presumed to be correctible. But most people in prison
are expected to learn something from the punishment. Society is often
disappointed, but this approach also restores a great many misguided people
to responsible citizenship.
... we're talking about victims that deserve our respect and not to be
treated prejudicially to the criminals that have abused them. <
I don't think anyone is suggesting criminals should be treated better than
victims. But the victim does not get to dictate the penalty. There must
always be a rational limit to penalty, and a rape victim will be in no state
of mind to set a rational limit. Even the "eye for an eye" reciprocal harm
limit cannot be rationally justified. And that is why it is almost never
used.
... The point is that if you accept restitution, you must accept
retribution. ... <
The difference between restitution (John must buy Harry a new house) and
retribution (Harry gets to burn down John's house) is one house -- one house
that does not get burned to the ground for no logical reason.
Watch Court TV ... <
I'm sorta hoping that since we've had this conversation, you'll be better
able to understand what the penalties applied by any court, even Court TV,
are intented to accomplish in the real world.
... If restitution was what our justice system was all about, it would be
part of the criminal case. ...<
Well I could go for that. But I think there may be reasons why criminal
charges are processed separately from civil damages. In the case of criminal
behavior, the interest of society as a whole is protected by the penalty. In
the case of civil damages, only the harm to one person is being evaluated.
... The question is whether or not that is what prison is FOR. The
answer is that it clearly is not FOR rehab. It is FOR punishment. <
The only valid moral purpose for punishment is to correct behavior. A life
sentence presumes the behavior may never be corrected enough to allow the
person freedom again. But all other jail time is for a limited period, in
the hope that the person will not commit another crime.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
19 Sep 2004 09:03:49 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 23:31:30 GMT, "Marvin Edwards"
<mbe4talk@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Liberator Veritatis" <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3g0qk0tvmqr8ep0di7dcalqfsi8udgtgiq@4ax.com...
That is a separate moral assertion that I do disagree with. ... <
Yeah, I took an easy turn there with the vigilante thing. Sorry. Best I
could do on short notice. ("Short" being before I could figure out the
answer).
Well, that is a point we disagree on too. I do not think that
vigilantism is immoral. I certainly see why it is by its nature
illegal, but those are separate issues.
My point is that it is not wrong to grant Harry the right to burn John's
house down. Or, if it is wrong it is only because Harry deserves MORE
than that. If the only possibility were that Harry could burn John's
house down or do nothing at all, then it would be wrong to deny Harry that
right just because "retribution is always wrong." <
It may still be immoral, and unjustified, for Harry to burn down John's
house for "retribution", even if the only other alternative is to do nothing
at all. Whether the act is morally justified, or not, depends upon the
ultimate outcome of universalizing the means into a general principle that
covers all similar circumstances. (Sorry for the long sentence.)
Circumstances are very important. For example, A) suppose John were cooking
on the grill in his own backyard, and while he was inside getting beer, the
wind blew a newspaper onto the grill, and then onto Harry's house, which
burned down before the fire department arrived. That circumstance is
different from B) John waking up cranky one morning, and, because misery
loves company, sets fire to Harry's house.
In both cases, John bears some responsibility for Harry's loss. In one case
John is negligent, leaving his fire unattended on a windy day. In the other
John is just a *****, setting fires for spite.
Under your theory of reciprocal harms, where "justice" allows Harry to burn
down John's house, both circumstances become identical.
Now -- they must both receive reciprocal *treatment* -- they must be
treated equally. In the former case, Harry deliberately burning
John's house is quite different, as you say, than John having some
culpability for Harry's house getting burned down. So, from the
standpoint of reciprocity, Harry would be allowed to negligently
barbeque or something like that -- just like John did. (Actually,
Harry is entitled to more than that, but you get the idea....)
And besides, the question is whether or not retribution is always
wrong not whether or not you can find a case where retribution might
be problematic. You are not applying what is called "the principle of
charity" to the idea of retribution. You should try to figure out the
strongest defense of it you can and rebut that rather than trying to
find fault with it. Doing the latter doesn't really prove anything
except that it might not be all there is to justice (which I never
said it was).
The harm to Harry is
identical in both cases, so the penalty to John is also identical. "A house
for a house" does not take circumstances into account. (If you believe it
does, please explain how that works).
Well it is true that Harry lost his house, but it is dubitable that
John is entirely responsible for that loss. To the extent that he is,
Harry would be justified to act reciprocally to John.
A moral and just penalty, on the other hand, must take circumstances into
account. For example, if John destroyed Harry's house unintentionally, then
it is highly unlikely that he will do the same to someone else's house,
especially after his insurance premium gets raised. But the other John, the
one who did it deliberately, poses a threat not only to Harry, but to
everyone else in the neighborhood. So that John is likely to spend a long
time in jail, in addition to whatever restitution he can make to Harry.
You are correct, it should account for all the relevant facts (taking
circumstances into account). That is why you must be able to
attribute the outcome to John in the first place. Certainly if John
had nothing to do with Harry's house burning down, then you cannot
just blame him anyway and burn his house down. If John and 4 other
people burn Harry's house down, then they should all share in the
restitution equally not each pay a full house of restitution. Or, if
one of them does, then the other owe him a quarter of a house.
A penalty is moral if the principles behind it will reliably produce good
results for everyone. A penalty is just when it fairly restores and fairly
protects valid rights, including the right of the guilty to a fair penalty.
I think the problem of punishments fitting crimes is handled better
than you imagine with the concept of retribution. If it is an eye for
an eye, then theoretically you would have to distinguish between
malintent and negligence since treating one like the other would not
be an eye for an eye in the case of negligence.
It does have to be reciprocal -- not exactly the same. If you are
speaking figuratively, then that would be "an EYE for an eye" as opposed
to "a NOSE for an eye". But it is clear by now that you do not mean an
eye for an eye when you say this. You use this expression to refer to
vengeance far exceeding what is reciprocal.<
The loss of an eye for the loss of an eye (and a burned down house for a
burned down house) remains your definition of "reciprocal justice" then. So
long as the harms are identical, then you say they are just, regardless of
the motivation. Your complaint about veneance only is that it might exceed
an identical harm (such as two eyes for an eye). Does that remain correct?
If so, then my objection remains the same, "two wrongs don't make a right",
and replicating harms appears to do nothing more than increase the damage.
The only way you can justify "reciprocal harm" is by demonstrating that the
ultimate result of universalizing this will benefit everyone. And this might
be argued from the standpoint that the "eye for an eye" policy is a
deterrent, reducing overall harm by making people more careful about
injuring others. But I believe there are better principles than this.
Again, if lightning strikes Harry's house then he certainly isn't
justified in burning John's down so that John receives reciprocal
harm. It is reciprocal *treatment*. Only to the extent that the
outcome is actually attributable to John can Harry take retribution.
(But, again, this is a case where Harry would normally prefer
restitution and would be entitled to it, so I'm not sure why we are
keeping on this example. Even if it turned out that you proved that
retribution would be wrong in some scenario like this, you wouldn't
even be addressing the cases where retribution is asked for let alone
the interesting cases of retribution.)
And, then there is the matter of our justice SYSTEM. It is a crude
instrument, or in other words, it does not establish justice perfectly (or
even well in many cases). ... <
You call it crude because it fails to require an "eye for an eye"? Most
people consider it enlightened for not following ancient barbaric concepts.
No, I call it crude because it is. The law is a crude instrument.
Any lawyer will tell you that. It does not make finer distinctions
between criminals and crimes and it doesn't do the truly appropriate
thing most of the time. Instead it just comes up with uniform
sentences, treating crimes in very different circumstances the same.
For instance, consider a gay man raping a 12 year old boy. What is the
reciprocal treatment? That he be raped by a man, himself? I doubt it ...
<
The rest of the world (except perhaps the most primitive and backward
cultures) also doubts the principle of reciprocal harms will result in
justice, which is why it is abandoned in every situation execept the death
penalty.
That is completely false. Most of the time in America, it is the
driving force behind the sentencing.
You have invented the notion of "justice as correction". Their being
called "correctional facilities" is not some sort of reference to the
particular notion you have presented here. <
They are called "correctional facilities" specifically because it is the
hope of society that the penaly of jail time will be sufficient to correct
the behavior. If it does not succeed, then the 3rd time felon is imprisoned
for life, no longer presumed to be correctible. But most people in prison
are expected to learn something from the punishment. Society is often
disappointed, but this approach also restores a great many misguided people
to responsible citizenship.
"Correctional facilities" is nothing more than a euphemism. They are
to punish the guilty. Again, just watch court tv.
... we're talking about victims that deserve our respect and not to be
treated prejudicially to the criminals that have abused them. <
I don't think anyone is suggesting criminals should be treated better than
victims. But the victim does not get to dictate the penalty. There must
always be a rational limit to penalty, and a rape victim will be in no state
of mind to set a rational limit. Even the "eye for an eye" reciprocal harm
limit cannot be rationally justified. And that is why it is almost never
used.
What do you mean the "eye for an eye" cannot be justified? Of course
it can. But, of course, I do not mean literally -- it must be
reciprocal. The victim is entitled to treat her rapist the very same
as he treated her if she wishes. Obviously that doesn't mean she gets
to rape him since she wants nothing of the sort. That would mean that
she gets to do something else to the rapist that is as equally a
violation and harmful to him as his rape of her was to her.
... The point is that if you accept restitution, you must accept
retribution. ... <
The difference between restitution (John must buy Harry a new house) and
retribution (Harry gets to burn down John's house) is one house -- one house
that does not get burned to the ground for no logical reason.
If Harry would be entitled to burn his own house down, then he would
be entitled to burn down the house John would give him before he
actually receives it.
Watch Court TV ... <
I'm sorta hoping that since we've had this conversation, you'll be better
able to understand what the penalties applied by any court, even Court TV,
are intented to accomplish in the real world.
Watch Court TV.
... If restitution was what our justice system was all about, it would be
part of the criminal case. ...<
Well I could go for that. But I think there may be reasons why criminal
charges are processed separately from civil damages. In the case of criminal
behavior, the interest of society as a whole is protected by the penalty. In
the case of civil damages, only the harm to one person is being evaluated.
... The question is whether or not that is what prison is FOR. The
answer is that it clearly is not FOR rehab. It is FOR punishment. <
The only valid moral purpose for punishment is to correct behavior. A life
sentence presumes the behavior may never be corrected enough to allow the
person freedom again. But all other jail time is for a limited period, in
the hope that the person will not commit another crime.
Well, that may be your attitude towards it, but most people feel
differently. And the justice system is based on that, not what you
think should be, but quite literally how everyone else *feels*. And,
they seek retribution.
--
Liberator Veritatis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
19 Sep 2004 11:50:23 PM |
|
|
"Liberator Veritatis" <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:lvcsk0h31hl1hdrm2257cndfngd5qf3vjn@4ax.com...
Well, that is a point we disagree on too. I do not think that vigilantism
is immoral. I certainly see why it is by its nature illegal, but those
are separate issues. <
Any means which, by their nature, will likely increase harm and do no good,
are at least "less moral" than alternative which do no harm, and must less
moral than an alternative which accomplishes good without unecessary harm.
Now -- they must both receive reciprocal *treatment* -- they must be
treated equally. In the former case, Harry deliberately burning John's
house is quite different, as you say, than John having some culpability
for Harry's house getting burned down. So, from the standpoint of
reciprocity, Harry would be allowed to negligently barbeque or something
like that -- just like John did. (Actually, Harry is entitled to more
than that, but you get the idea....) <
Yeah. I get the idea. And this whole reciprocal treatment business just
keeps getting funnier. Now Harry must obtain justice by barbecuing. Are you
still serious or is this some kinda joke?
You are not applying what is called "the principle of charity" to the idea
of retribution. You should try to figure out the strongest defense of it
you can and rebut that rather than trying to find fault with it. <
Now you want me to prove your case for you? You are joking!
... Certainly if John had nothing to do with Harry's house burning down,
then you cannot just blame him anyway ... <
But, of course, John was responsible for Harry's house catching fire in both
case. So you're pretty much stuck here with the silly notion of Harry having
the right to barbecue in his backyard with newspaper near the fire until the
wind... etc.
I think the problem of punishments fitting crimes is handled better than
you imagine with the concept of retribution. ... <
How interesting. I think I'm going to get off the thread at this stop, since
you appear to have run out of steam.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
21 Sep 2004 12:00:37 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 04:50:23 GMT, "Marvin Edwards"
<mbe4talk@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Liberator Veritatis" <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:lvcsk0h31hl1hdrm2257cndfngd5qf3vjn@4ax.com...
Well, that is a point we disagree on too. I do not think that vigilantism
is immoral. I certainly see why it is by its nature illegal, but those
are separate issues. <
Any means which, by their nature, will likely increase harm and do no good,
are at least "less moral" than alternative which do no harm, and must less
moral than an alternative which accomplishes good without unecessary harm.
That has nothing to do with morality. What you are talking about is
limited to just personal value.
Now -- they must both receive reciprocal *treatment* -- they must be
treated equally. In the former case, Harry deliberately burning John's
house is quite different, as you say, than John having some culpability
for Harry's house getting burned down. So, from the standpoint of
reciprocity, Harry would be allowed to negligently barbeque or something
like that -- just like John did. (Actually, Harry is entitled to more
than that, but you get the idea....) <
Yeah. I get the idea. And this whole reciprocal treatment business just
keeps getting funnier. Now Harry must obtain justice by barbecuing. Are you
still serious or is this some kinda joke?
Perhaps you have forgotten what you are doing here. You are
supposedly showing how retribution is always wrong. In the case of
negligence leading to Harry's misfortune, the actually permitted
extent of retaliation is much less than if it was deliberate malice.
Just in general with regard to this issue, as I said "Harry is
entitled to much more than that...."
You are not applying what is called "the principle of charity" to the idea
of retribution. You should try to figure out the strongest defense of it
you can and rebut that rather than trying to find fault with it. <
Now you want me to prove your case for you? You are joking!
I WANT you to stop rebutting it with fallacious arguments. Coming up
with a case where retribution isn't even an issue as an example of how
retribution is ALWAYS wrong is as clearly fallacious as it gets. You
are not only not proving your conclusion, you aren't really showing
ANYTHING about retribution when you pick cases where most people opt
for something else. Most of why retribution even seems odd in such a
case IS because the victim would normally desire something else,
namely restitution.
"The Principle of Charity", by the way, is a long standing concept in
the history of philosophy and ideas. It is discussed, for instance,
in the Cambridge Department of Philosophy's Undergraduate Handbook:
http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/u_grads/u_handbook.pdf
"If you think that you have identified the argument, but it is
flagrantly invalid, then think again. Perhaps you have misunderstood
something. Many readers apply a principle of hostility to
philosophical texts, thinking that it is obvious that there must be a
serious mistake somewhere, all one need do is identify it. A better
tactic is to apply a principle of charity instead. If the argument
seems flawed try to think of ways in which it can be repaired. The
task here is not one of literal interpretation of the text, but of
constructing the strongest line of thought available from the text.
This is where some of the best, and most creative, philosophical work
is to be done."
... Certainly if John had nothing to do with Harry's house burning down,
then you cannot just blame him anyway ... <
But, of course, John was responsible for Harry's house catching fire in both
case. So you're pretty much stuck here with the silly notion of Harry having
the right to barbecue in his backyard with newspaper near the fire until the
wind... etc.
No, John was not equally responsible in both cases -- that is the
point. The reason it is absurd to punish John the same in either case
is precisely BECAUSE the outcome cannot be attributed to him the same
way in each scenario. What Harry is entitled to do is something
comparable to what John did which was primarily barbeque -- not burn a
house down. And that is MY point -- the reciprocal treatment of John
is not the same in either scenario.
I think the problem of punishments fitting crimes is handled better than
you imagine with the concept of retribution. ... <
How interesting. I think I'm going to get off the thread at this stop, since
you appear to have run out of steam.
Oh please. If you think that you've "got me" with this ridiculous
response, then go right ahead and get out now! I think YOU'RE the one
running out of steam.
The bottom line was articulated almost a century ago by G. E. Moore,
building on what David Hume said more than two centuries ago. You are
committing the so called "Naturalistic Fallacy" which is refuted by
Moore's Open Question Argument. For any notion of "good", it is
possible to ask "Why is that 'good'?" Now, we might all agree that it
is good, but there must still be a reason why. But, you can never say
why without referencing some further thing that is "good". In other
words, you will always have something like "X is good because Y is
good." However many steps you go through, you end up with something
at the end of the string you are claiming is good without argument.
Moore concluded from this that we directly experience morality in our
minds through a moral intuition that is the true basis of all our
notions of what is good. But, in any case, all attempts to define
"good" the way you are by using such things as real needs and
observing that we require certain things to survive and so on will
always be doomed to failure because it is subject to the open question
argument consisting of asking why THOSE things are "good".
So just as David Hume said 100 years or more before that, you will
never be able to link facts with values:
"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have
always remark'd,that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary
way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes
observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surpriz'd
to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is,
and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an
ought , or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is,
however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not,
expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it
shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason
should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new
relation can be a deduction from others which are entirely different
from it . . . ."
--
Liberator Veritatis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
21 Sep 2004 06:41:53 AM |
|
|
"Liberator Veritatis" <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:is8vk0lufsrchctmsvid94f9i71sd2t2i2@4ax.com...
Any means which, by their nature, will likely increase harm and do no
good, are at least "less moral" than alternative which do no harm, and
must less moral than an alternative which accomplishes good without
unecessary harm. <<
That has nothing to do with morality. <
Unfortunately you have nothing to offer in its place. You have a few
principles which you put forth as moral and I think its fine that you have
some nice principles. But you cannot explain why those principles are
considered "moral". I can.
What you are talking about is limited to just personal value. <
And I've shown you that there are things we call "good" which are not
subjective, but objectively "good", because they are essential to life.
Perhaps you have forgotten what you are doing here. You are supposedly
showing how retribution is always wrong. ...<
What I've shown you is that retribution is generally no longer considered a
good thing. And I've explained why: because there are more effective ways of
achieving the same good result with less harm.
In the case of negligence leading to Harry's misfortune, the actually
permitted extent of retaliation is much less than if it was deliberate
malice.<
And you have recognized the flaw in your proposition that "retribution is
always just", such that you no longer (I hope) insist upon "an eye for an
eye".
You are not applying what is called "the principle of charity" to the
idea of retribution. You should try to figure out the strongest defense
of it you can and rebut that rather than trying to find fault with it.
<<<
Now you want me to prove your case for you? You are joking!<<
I WANT you to stop rebutting it with fallacious arguments.<
But my argument is clearly not fallacious, because it has demonstrated that
retribution is a mistaken view of justice, in a clear, unambiguous way.
"The Principle of Charity", by the way, is a long standing concept in the
history of philosophy and ideas. It is discussed, for instance, in the
Cambridge Department of Philosophy's Undergraduate Handbook:
http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/u_grads/u_handbook.pdf <
Thanks for the link. But I do not take homework assignments. Nor should it
be necessary to master accademic philosophy to arrive at the correct answer
to problems of morality. And if accademic philosophy leads people to thing
that it is always just for Harry to take "an eye for an eye", then I would
recommend that it be avoided by people seeking an understanding of morality.
"If you think that you have identified the argument, but it is flagrantly
invalid, then think again. Perhaps you have misunderstood something." <
On the other hand, you would be good to take that advice. If you merely use
accademic philosphy to throw around to protect yourself from actually
hearing something or actually thinking, then that is not so good. I'm not
impressed by atheists who have been schooled in these academic concepts but
who use them simply to insult others. (Not that you're doing that)
... The reason it is absurd to punish John the same in either case is
precisely BECAUSE the outcome cannot be attributed to him the same way in
each scenario. <
The reason it is absurd to punish John the same way, whether he purposely
burned down Harry's house or accidentally caused it to burn down, is that it
takes less penalty to correct John's behavior if John already appreciates
the harm and would never purposefully inflict it. The point of justice is to
set things right, to protect the rights of others whose house's are
jeopardized by John's behavior.
... The bottom line was articulated almost a century ago by G. E. Moore,
building on what David Hume said more than two centuries ago. You are
committing the so called "Naturalistic Fallacy" which is refuted by
Moore's Open Question Argument. ...<
LOL! ("naturalistic fallacy")
For any notion of "good", it is possible to ask "Why is that 'good'?"... <
Totally ignoring that I've actually been able to explain that! Like I
said...
... Moore concluded from this that we directly experience morality in our
minds through a moral intuition that is the true basis of all our notions
of what is good. ...<
Next time you see Moore, explain it to him this way, the "intuition" arises
from our experience as living beings. Life implies need. And life (judging
from ourselves) experiences the satisfaction of real needs as a "good thing"
(pre-verbally of course). That is the source of the concept of "good".
But, in any case, all attempts to define "good" the way you are by using
such things as real needs and observing that we require certain things to
survive and so on will always be doomed to failure because it is subject
to the open question argument consisting of asking why THOSE things are
"good". <
Which leaves you in a logical loop, unable to make any meaningful statement
regarding "good". A philosophical approach which results in the loss of all
meaning, reducing any concept to uselessness, must be considered falacious.
If you don't find that in your books, I suggest you update them.
"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have
always remark'd,that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way
of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God ... <
You may also share my definition of "good" (which does not require a God)
with Mr. Hume.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
21 Sep 2004 09:41:15 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:41:53 GMT, "Marvin Edwards"
<mbe4talk@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Liberator Veritatis" <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:is8vk0lufsrchctmsvid94f9i71sd2t2i2@4ax.com...
Any means which, by their nature, will likely increase harm and do no
good, are at least "less moral" than alternative which do no harm, and
must less moral than an alternative which accomplishes good without
unecessary harm. <<
That has nothing to do with morality. <
Unfortunately you have nothing to offer in its place. You have a few
principles which you put forth as moral and I think its fine that you have
some nice principles. But you cannot explain why those principles are
considered "moral". I can.
Now, you cannot. But *I* can. Your rendition of what morality is all
about bears no resemblance to actual moral dilemmas. Mine does.
What you are talking about is limited to just personal value. <
And I've shown you that there are things we call "good" which are not
subjective, but objectively "good", because they are essential to life.
Their being essential to life doesn't make them objectively good.
Moore: why is *life*, then, "good"?
Perhaps you have forgotten what you are doing here. You are supposedly
showing how retribution is always wrong. ...<
What I've shown you is that retribution is generally no longer considered a
good thing. And I've explained why: because there are more effective ways of
achieving the same good result with less harm.
No, you have presented a straw man, and by the way, your trivializing
serious adult issues by calling the desire for retribution childish is
what is childish. Most people simply do not think that retribution is
childish. That is just a self aggrandizing school marm slander.
In the case of negligence leading to Harry's misfortune, the actually
permitted extent of retaliation is much less than if it was deliberate
malice.<
And you have recognized the flaw in your proposition that "retribution is
always just", such that you no longer (I hope) insist upon "an eye for an
eye".
Nope. You keep talking as though I have back pedaled on something.
All that has happened is you have misrepresented retribution and, for
that matter, what the expression "an eye for an eye" means.
You are not applying what is called "the principle of charity" to the
idea of retribution. You should try to figure out the strongest defense
of it you can and rebut that rather than trying to find fault with it.
<<<
Now you want me to prove your case for you? You are joking!<<
I WANT you to stop rebutting it with fallacious arguments.<
But my argument is clearly not fallacious, because it has demonstrated that
retribution is a mistaken view of justice, in a clear, unambiguous way.
It most certainly is not. You are clearly creating a straw man since
you are bringing up a case in which retribution isn't even normally
sought after to try to show that retribution is always wrong.
"The Principle of Charity", by the way, is a long standing concept in the
history of philosophy and ideas. It is discussed, for instance, in the
Cambridge Department of Philosophy's Undergraduate Handbook:
http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/u_grads/u_handbook.pdf <
Thanks for the link. But I do not take homework assignments.
I provided the link so that you can confirm the quote that followed
it.
Nor should it
be necessary to master accademic philosophy to arrive at the correct answer
to problems of morality.
Wrong. You certainly can do some philosophy without being a
philosopher, just like you can do some math without being a
mathematician. But, if you want to understand things that no one else
does, then you probably have to be as good as any mathematician to do
it in math and as good as any philosopher if it is moral philosophy
you are interested in. Otherwise, you would have to defer to the
experts, wouldn't you?
And if accademic philosophy leads people to thing
that it is always just for Harry to take "an eye for an eye", then I would
recommend that it be avoided by people seeking an understanding of morality.
It IS always just and you have not even come close to demonstrating
otherwise. You really haven't even shown why it is "bad".
"If you think that you have identified the argument, but it is flagrantly
invalid, then think again. Perhaps you have misunderstood something." <
On the other hand, you would be good to take that advice. If you merely use
accademic philosphy to throw around to protect yourself from actually
hearing something or actually thinking, then that is not so good. I'm not
impressed by atheists who have been schooled in these academic concepts but
who use them simply to insult others. (Not that you're doing that)
Okay. :o)
... The reason it is absurd to punish John the same in either case is
precisely BECAUSE the outcome cannot be attributed to him the same way in
each scenario. <
The reason it is absurd to punish John the same way, whether he purposely
burned down Harry's house or accidentally caused it to burn down, is that it
takes less penalty to correct John's behavior if John already appreciates
the harm and would never purposefully inflict it. The point of justice is to
set things right, to protect the rights of others whose house's are
jeopardized by John's behavior.
Well, you assert this, but is it true? That is the question. I,
obviously, dispute it. Justice is about equal treatment nothing less
but nothing more. Things like the public good or the "best good for
everyone" are based entirely on subjective personal values.
... The bottom line was articulated almost a century ago by G. E. Moore,
building on what David Hume said more than two centuries ago. You are
committing the so called "Naturalistic Fallacy" which is refuted by
Moore's Open Question Argument. ...<
LOL! ("naturalistic fallacy")
That's what he calls it. Now, before you laugh out loud, remember the
Cambridge Department of Philosophy's Handbook. G. E. Moore is a giant
in the history of ideas. You should probably take him a bit more
seriously than that.
For any notion of "good", it is possible to ask "Why is that 'good'?"... <
Totally ignoring that I've actually been able to explain that! Like I
said...
You haven't. Why is life "good"? Let's just say for the sake of
argument that we all agree that it is (which not everyone does), there
still must be a reason why. What is it? It is certainly not because
I have to be alive to ask the question. The answer to that question
is true regardless if anyone asks it or even if anyone is alive to ask
it.
... Moore concluded from this that we directly experience morality in our
minds through a moral intuition that is the true basis of all our notions
of what is good. ...<
Next time you see Moore, explain it to him this way, the "intuition" arises
from our experience as living beings. Life implies need. And life (judging
from ourselves) experiences the satisfaction of real needs as a "good thing"
(pre-verbally of course). That is the source of the concept of "good".
That is a psychological explanation for why we tend to personally
value certain things. That is not a metaethical explanation of what
good means.
But, in any case, all attempts to define "good" the way you are by using
such things as real needs and observing that we require certain things to
survive and so on will always be doomed to failure because it is subject
to the open question argument consisting of asking why THOSE things are
"good". <
Which leaves you in a logical loop, unable to make any meaningful statement
regarding "good".
That's right. You are in a loop unable to make any meaningful
statement regarding "good".
A philosophical approach which results in the loss of all
meaning, reducing any concept to uselessness, must be considered falacious.
If you don't find that in your books, I suggest you update them.
I agree.
"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have
always remark'd,that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way
of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God ... <
You may also share my definition of "good" (which does not require a God)
with Mr. Hume.
"...,or makes observations concerning human affairs..."
which is precisely what you ARE doing. And while you seem convinced
that the fact that "real needs" are required for life makes them
intrinsically good, it just isn't so. It just makes them something
that most people will personally value.
You have failed, sir, to bridge the is/ought gap. My apologies...
--
Liberator Veritatis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
22 Sep 2004 06:44:32 AM |
|
|
"Liberator Veritatis" <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:25o1l09jfqejte6bn647vmg1iis1kkefhe@4ax.com...
... Mine does. ...<
'Fraid not. You have no definition of "morality". You assert, for example,
that "co-possible liberty" is morality, but have no explanation as to why it
should be called "morality".
Moore: why is *life*, then, "good"? <
We call something "good" if it meets a real need that we have as
individuals, as a society, or as a species. This need to live is built into
our DNA along with the rest of our needs, for air, water, food, shelter,
etc.
... you have presented a straw man, and by the way, your trivializing
serious adult issues ... <
Booooring.
... you are bringing up a case in which retribution isn't even normally
sought after to try to show that retribution is always wrong. ... <
The point is that "an eye for an eye", which you seem to hang onto as the
true meaning of retribution, is not considered a "just" penalty as evidenced
by the fact that it is no longer used today, except in the case of the death
penalty. Any moral or ethical philosophy that embraces such a primitive and
childish form of "justice" should be suspect of being neither moral nor
ethical.
... But, if you want to understand things that no one else does ... <
I just want to correctly understand some very simple things, like, what is
it we are trying to accomplish with morality and ethics. And the simple (and
correct) answer is that we are trying to do good, and trying to make the
world better for everyone.
I'm not communicating any great mystery here. But I am challenging the weird
statements I've heard here, that "good" is "meaningless", or even
"undefinable". And I'm certainly challenge the proposition that "an eye for
an eye" in any way represents a "just" prescription for dealing with someone
accidentally putting out someone else's eye.
... then you probably have to be as good as any mathematician to do it in
math and as good as any philosopher if it is moral philosophy you are
interested in. Otherwise, you would have to defer to the experts, wouldn't
you? <
And I'll bet there's a fallacy named for the "defer to the experts" fallacy,
isn't there.
It IS always just and you have not even come close to demonstrating
otherwise. You really haven't even shown why it is "bad". <
And yet you continue to claim that "an eye for an eye" is always just. Once
more, with feeling, "two wrongs do not make a right"! Your concept of
justice is flawed. And if it is not your concept, but from one of your
philosopher "experts", then they are wrong, and if it is from God almighty,
then He is wrong. Justice is required to server morality. Morality requires
that moral principles must improve good and/or reduce harm. Therefore, if
there are two principles that may be applied to a situation, the one that
produces more good and/or less harm ought to be chosen. And if restitution,
detention, and correction effectively deal with the harm, then retribution
must be abandoned.
... Justice is about equal treatment nothing less but nothing more. ... <
No, it is not. The scales balance rights, not treatment.
That's what he calls it. Now, before you laugh out loud, remember the
Cambridge Department of Philosophy's Handbook. G. E. Moore is a giant in
the history of ideas. You should probably take him a bit more seriously
than that. <
Well, since he seems to agree with me as to where our conception of good
comes from, perhaps I should. But you probably need to read him first.
Next time you see Moore, explain it to him this way, the "intuition"
arises from our experience as living beings. Life implies need. And life
(judging from ourselves) experiences the satisfaction of real needs as a
"good thing" (pre-verbally of course). That is the source of the concept
of "good". <<
That is a psychological explanation for why we tend to personally value
certain things. <
And you think "intuition" has nothing to do with psychology? (My major by
the way)
That is not a metaethical explanation of what good means.<
The definition, as I've repeatedly stated it is this: Something is "good" if
it meets a real need that we have as individuals, society, or species.
You are in a loop unable to make any meaningful statement regarding
"good". <
Apparently not. Yet you keep asserting I am. Whatzup with that?
... And while you seem convinced that the fact that "real needs" are
required for life makes them intrinsically good, it just isn't so. It
just makes them something that most people will personally value. <
And you keep calling universal and objective needs of life (air, water,
food, and shelter) "personal values", as if they were matters of individual
preference, that some desire and others could do without. What are you
thinking when you do that?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobs Boyfriend" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
14 Sep 2004 10:48:05 PM |
|
|
In article <6a3fk0the7c7bog4q8r7i25ca85m8c3f0r@4ax.com>,
Liberator Veritatis <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:34:19 GMT, "Marvin Edwards"
<mbe4talk@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Liberator Veritatis" <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:r3mck0111n4vbavob9csb5ogpesv023mie@4ax.com...
On the contrary, taking morality to be about some simple harm/good
dichotomy is the unsophisticated childlike response to moral issues ... <
Odd, but it seems to provide a logically consistent view, and one which is
less prone to errors of judgement, such as your position that retribution is
somehow a good thing.
Your view has already made an error in judgment. Retribution IS a
good thing to the victim and a bad thing to the one that victimized
them.
Thank you for speaking on others' behalf. However, could you be more
specific? For example, should I be mugged on my way to work tomorrow,
what what would be retribution and how would it be a good thing for me?
... There is probably a lot more reasoned defense for retribution in the
history of ideas than the relatively modern idea of rehabilitation, for
instance. <
Okay. Let's hear it.
How could I possibly repeat thousands of years of voluminous rebuttals
and arguments right here? I've already posed the basic argument: as a
matter of reciprocity, if person A has committed an unjust act against
person B, then B has the right to commit a reciprocal action to A's
since otherwise you have to treat A preferentially to B.
... your concept of morality doesn't really seem to talk about the issues
that we call moral in a moral fashion. Instead you are really just
talking about yours and others personal preferences. <
Sorry that you continue to miss the point on that. Morality is about
acheiving good and avoiding harm, not just for ourselves but for everyone
else as well.
How would your asserting this again state some sort of point? This is
your assertion, not a point you have made to defend it.
Good is not a matter of personal preference, it is not about
our wants and desires, but rather about meeting real needs. So neither good
nor morality is about simple "personal preference".
Again, this is not a defense of such a view, but just a further
articulation of *what* you believe. And, I've already criticized this
distinction. While I do think you would have to have some sort of
limit to what a person's "good" can consist of (morally speaking), the
one you are making is ultimately arbitrary.
Meeting our own real
needs in a way that is consistent with everyone else meeting their real
needs is not always simple.
Well, now that IS the point: "...in a way that is CONSISTENT...."
This little proviso of yours is what morality is actually all about --
the consistency of our actions to meet our own needs and even more
generally than that our own ends of any sort. The actual MORAL issue
is going to have only to do with this issue of consistency.
And knowing the objective does not automatically
provide the answers. But not knowing the objective can certainly lead to a
lot of solutions which are off target. Retribution and vengeance are
certainly off target.
They certainly are not. That is simply your preference, not a matter
of making people achieving their ends consistent with everyone else
doing the same. Retribution is just "ugly" to you so you act like it
is actually immoral. Denying people their right to retribution just
because you don't like it and find it *personally* repulsive is no
different that persecuting homosexuals for their choice of partners or
prohibiting certain types of literature just because you do not like
the subject matter.
But, I'm still waiting to hear you stop claiming
retribution is just, from an a priori stance, and explain why you would
thing retribution is a good and moral thing.
This entire discussion is a priori. I think what you mean is that you
are waiting for me to stop claiming that retribution is just without
any defense of that claim. I have defended it: it is a matter of
reciprocal treatment. Specifically what I am claiming is that YOU (or
anyone for that matter) do not have the right to PREVENT retribution.
So, since we do not allow victims to take the law into their own
hands, we now have incurred the obligation to them to meet out their
retribution as appropriate.
So for instance, if someone comes along and rapes a woman, then she
has the right to exact all sorts of retribution against her assailant.
Some of what she would personally want to do to him is probably wrong
which is why we do not allow people to dream up and carry out their
own punishments. But, a lot of what she would want to do to him is
probably justified such as slap him and spit in his face and kick him
in the nuts. In the end, the law being the crude instrument that it
is, we come up with a uniform punishment for rape that at least in
part punishes the rapist to a fair extent of retribution for their
victim.
--
Liberator Veritatis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
15 Sep 2004 08:50:49 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:48:05 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> wrote:
In article <6a3fk0the7c7bog4q8r7i25ca85m8c3f0r@4ax.com>,
Liberator Veritatis <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:34:19 GMT, "Marvin Edwards"
<mbe4talk@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Liberator Veritatis" <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:r3mck0111n4vbavob9csb5ogpesv023mie@4ax.com...
On the contrary, taking morality to be about some simple harm/good
dichotomy is the unsophisticated childlike response to moral issues ... <
Odd, but it seems to provide a logically consistent view, and one which is
less prone to errors of judgement, such as your position that retribution is
somehow a good thing.
Your view has already made an error in judgment. Retribution IS a
good thing to the victim and a bad thing to the one that victimized
them.
Thank you for speaking on others' behalf. However, could you be more
specific? For example, should I be mugged on my way to work tomorrow,
what what would be retribution and how would it be a good thing for me?
While you may not wish to take retribution, it is a simple fact that
most people do. It is a simple fact of human nature. The moral
question is whether or not they are entitled to. Now, in your little
kindergarten world of working and playing well with others, that may
just seem totally unacceptable to you, but I suggest, then, that you
leave these important issues to the adults.
-snip-
--
Liberator Veritatis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobs Boyfriend" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
15 Sep 2004 11:16:17 PM |
|
|
In article <34shk053hr9r9bvoom08esfs52lnitloq3@4ax.com>,
Liberator Veritatis <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:48:05 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> wrote:
In article <6a3fk0the7c7bog4q8r7i25ca85m8c3f0r@4ax.com>,
Liberator Veritatis <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:34:19 GMT, "Marvin Edwards"
<mbe4talk@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Liberator Veritatis" <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote in
message
news:r3mck0111n4vbavob9csb5ogpesv023mie@4ax.com...
On the contrary, taking morality to be about some simple harm/good
dichotomy is the unsophisticated childlike response to moral issues ...
<
Odd, but it seems to provide a logically consistent view, and one which
is
less prone to errors of judgement, such as your position that retribution
is
somehow a good thing.
Your view has already made an error in judgment. Retribution IS a
good thing to the victim and a bad thing to the one that victimized
them.
Thank you for speaking on others' behalf. However, could you be more
specific? For example, should I be mugged on my way to work tomorrow,
what what would be retribution and how would it be a good thing for me?
While you may not wish to take retribution, it is a simple fact that
most people do. It is a simple fact of human nature. The moral
question is whether or not they are entitled to. Now, in your little
kindergarten world of working and playing well with others, that may
just seem totally unacceptable to you, but I suggest, then, that you
leave these important issues to the adults.
Thank you, first for being patronizing and second, for making an
assertion for which you have not explained. You stated retribution was a
good thing, yet you seem unwilling to clarify how.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
16 Sep 2004 10:08:19 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 04:16:17 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> wrote:
In article <34shk053hr9r9bvoom08esfs52lnitloq3@4ax.com>,
Liberator Veritatis <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:48:05 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> wrote:
In article <6a3fk0the7c7bog4q8r7i25ca85m8c3f0r@4ax.com>,
Liberator Veritatis <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:34:19 GMT, "Marvin Edwards"
<mbe4talk@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Liberator Veritatis" <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote in
message
news:r3mck0111n4vbavob9csb5ogpesv023mie@4ax.com...
On the contrary, taking morality to be about some simple harm/good
dichotomy is the unsophisticated childlike response to moral issues ...
<
Odd, but it seems to provide a logically consistent view, and one which
is
less prone to errors of judgement, such as your position that retribution
is
somehow a good thing.
Your view has already made an error in judgment. Retribution IS a
good thing to the victim and a bad thing to the one that victimized
them.
Thank you for speaking on others' behalf. However, could you be more
specific? For example, should I be mugged on my way to work tomorrow,
what what would be retribution and how would it be a good thing for me?
While you may not wish to take retribution, it is a simple fact that
most people do. It is a simple fact of human nature. The moral
question is whether or not they are entitled to. Now, in your little
kindergarten world of working and playing well with others, that may
just seem totally unacceptable to you, but I suggest, then, that you
leave these important issues to the adults.
Thank you, first for being patronizing and second, for making an
assertion for which you have not explained. You stated retribution was a
good thing, yet you seem unwilling to clarify how.
"Thank you for speaking on others' behalf," on the other hand is very
well-mannered and not patronizing at all. I am not unwilling to
clarify at all -- might I suggest that YOU are the one posting in the
middle of a thread. Perhaps you should read the rest of it to see
what I mean by that.
Specifically, you can read the posts where someone else brings up a
case where most people would be interested in restitution as if it
showed that retribution is always bad and never justified. In the
case of theft, most people would rather have restitution, but would be
ENTITLED TO retribution if that was the only available option. Also,
as I say many times in this thread, retribution being just is by
definition always "morally good". And, in case you would like to
know, I also say why one might be interested in this, the moral good,
based on personal desires. In particular, it is a simple desire of
most victims to exact retribution where appropriate.
--
Liberator Veritatis
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
15 Sep 2004 01:23:29 PM |
|
|
In message <6a3fk0the7c7bog4q8r7i25ca85m8c3f0r@4ax.com>, Liberator
Veritatis <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> writes
This entire discussion is a priori. I think what you mean is that you
are waiting for me to stop claiming that retribution is just without
any defense of that claim. I have defended it: it is a matter of
reciprocal treatment. Specifically what I am claiming is that YOU (or
anyone for that matter) do not have the right to PREVENT retribution.
So, since we do not allow victims to take the law into their own hands,
we now have incurred the obligation to them to meet out their
retribution as appropriate.
So for instance, if someone comes along and rapes a woman, then she has
the right to exact all sorts of retribution against her assailant. Some
of what she would personally want to do to him is probably wrong which
is why we do not allow people to dream up and carry out their own
punishments. But, a lot of what she would want to do to him is
probably justified such as slap him and spit in his face and kick him
in the nuts. In the end, the law being the crude instrument that it
is, we come up with a uniform punishment for rape that at least in part
punishes the rapist to a fair extent of retribution for their victim.
Retribution means, in the words of the Bible, an eye for an eye.
We have, thankfully, evolved beyond that. (Although clearly my "we" is
not global.)
Justice is not about retribution. It is about punishment, and,
hopefully, correction. There are moves in the direction of replacing or
supplementing custodial sentences by socially useful work programmes,
and also meetings between criminal and victim. I would not claim that
these have yet proved their value, but it is clear that custodial
sentences are very costly, and there is little sign that they are at all
remedial in the great majority of cases.
--
ralph
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
15 Sep 2004 09:16:01 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:23:29 +0100, ralph
<ralph@eddlewood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <6a3fk0the7c7bog4q8r7i25ca85m8c3f0r@4ax.com>, Liberator
Veritatis <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> writes
This entire discussion is a priori. I think what you mean is that you
are waiting for me to stop claiming that retribution is just without
any defense of that claim. I have defended it: it is a matter of
reciprocal treatment. Specifically what I am claiming is that YOU (or
anyone for that matter) do not have the right to PREVENT retribution.
So, since we do not allow victims to take the law into their own hands,
we now have incurred the obligation to them to meet out their
retribution as appropriate.
So for instance, if someone comes along and rapes a woman, then she has
the right to exact all sorts of retribution against her assailant. Some
of what she would personally want to do to him is probably wrong which
is why we do not allow people to dream up and carry out their own
punishments. But, a lot of what she would want to do to him is
probably justified such as slap him and spit in his face and kick him
in the nuts. In the end, the law being the crude instrument that it
is, we come up with a uniform punishment for rape that at least in part
punishes the rapist to a fair extent of retribution for their victim.
Retribution means, in the words of the Bible, an eye for an eye.
We have, thankfully, evolved beyond that. (Although clearly my "we" is
not global.)
You really are completely ignorant of what you are talking about. Do
you know that our justice system is, in fact, a "retributive justice
system"? Your characterization of "retribution" is what is stupid and
unevolved.
Justice is not about retribution. It is about punishment
I think this statement stands on its own. If you think punishment
isn't retributive, then you're really just making ***** up here.
, and,
hopefully, correction. There are moves in the direction of replacing or
supplementing custodial sentences by socially useful work programmes,
and also meetings between criminal and victim. I would not claim that
these have yet proved their value, but it is clear that custodial
sentences are very costly, and there is little sign that they are at all
remedial in the great majority of cases.
Yes, people often talk about replacing our RETRIBUTIVE justice system
with a rehabilitative one. And, they quite frequently make absurd
characterizations of what constitutes "retribution". Retribution is
supposed to be distinct from simply "revenge" and certainly completely
disjoint from "unwarranted vengeance". Talking about "retribution" as
if it were DEFINED to be "unwarranted vengeance" demonstrates a
thoroughly childish lack of understanding of or exposure to this whole
issue.
Ironically, "an eye for an eye" was intended to prevent unwarranted
vengeance, saying that one is only entitled to go as far as the wrong
that was done to them and no further. It was not supposed to say if
someone takes your eye, then you are duty bound to take theirs as you
all seem to ridiculously construe it to. Beyond that, it is the
"corrective" aspects of punishment that are the barbaric and draconian
backward punishments. For instance, cutting a thieves hands off for
petty theft is NOT retributive but CORRECTIVE. It is designed to stop
thievery at all costs -- not simply treat the thief reciprocally as
mere RETRIBUTION is supposed to do.
You don't even have to know the origin of these words and how they are
even linguistically related to one another. Just THINK for crying out
loud what they must mean. You are clearly and deliberately
misconstruing the term "retribution". You HAVE to be -- this word is
*specifically* designed to distinguish between just any sort of
revenge specifically including extreme vengeance and simple reciprocal
treatment. And, I certainly have quite explicitly and specifically
referred to RECIPROCITY. All of you consistently try to construe
something that is clearly and even explicitly NOT reciprocal in some
pretentious and condescending "more enlightened than thou" fashion.
--
Liberator Veritatis
.
|
|
|
| User: "ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
16 Sep 2004 01:14:26 PM |
|
|
In message <ubshk05mulmbg9nl45sdu0v61n536vlsrd@4ax.com>, Liberator
Veritatis <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> writes
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:23:29 +0100, ralph
<ralph@eddlewood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <6a3fk0the7c7bog4q8r7i25ca85m8c3f0r@4ax.com>, Liberator
Veritatis <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> writes
This entire discussion is a priori. I think what you mean is that you
are waiting for me to stop claiming that retribution is just without
any defense of that claim. I have defended it: it is a matter of
reciprocal treatment. Specifically what I am claiming is that YOU (or
anyone for that matter) do not have the right to PREVENT retribution.
So, since we do not allow victims to take the law into their own hands,
we now have incurred the obligation to them to meet out their
retribution as appropriate.
So for instance, if someone comes along and rapes a woman, then she has
the right to exact all sorts of retribution against her assailant. Some
of what she would personally want to do to him is probably wrong which
is why we do not allow people to dream up and carry out their own
punishments. But, a lot of what she would want to do to him is
probably justified such as slap him and spit in his face and kick him
in the nuts. In the end, the law being the crude instrument that it
is, we come up with a uniform punishment for rape that at least in part
punishes the rapist to a fair extent of retribution for their victim.
Retribution means, in the words of the Bible, an eye for an eye.
We have, thankfully, evolved beyond that. (Although clearly my "we" is
not global.)
You really are completely ignorant of what you are talking about. Do
you know that our justice system is, in fact, a "retributive justice
system"? Your characterization of "retribution" is what is stupid and
unevolved.
Justice is not about retribution. It is about punishment
I think this statement stands on its own. If you think punishment
isn't retributive, then you're really just making ***** up here.
, and,
hopefully, correction. There are moves in the direction of replacing or
supplementing custodial sentences by socially useful work programmes,
and also meetings between criminal and victim. I would not claim that
these have yet proved their value, but it is clear that custodial
sentences are very costly, and there is little sign that they are at all
remedial in the great majority of cases.
Yes, people often talk about replacing our RETRIBUTIVE justice system
with a rehabilitative one. And, they quite frequently make absurd
characterizations of what constitutes "retribution". Retribution is
supposed to be distinct from simply "revenge" and certainly completely
disjoint from "unwarranted vengeance". Talking about "retribution" as
if it were DEFINED to be "unwarranted vengeance" demonstrates a
thoroughly childish lack of understanding of or exposure to this whole
issue.
Ironically, "an eye for an eye" was intended to prevent unwarranted
vengeance, saying that one is only entitled to go as far as the wrong
that was done to them and no further. It was not supposed to say if
someone takes your eye, then you are duty bound to take theirs as you
all seem to ridiculously construe it to. Beyond that, it is the
"corrective" aspects of punishment that are the barbaric and draconian
backward punishments. For instance, cutting a thieves hands off for
petty theft is NOT retributive but CORRECTIVE. It is designed to stop
thievery at all costs -- not simply treat the thief reciprocally as
mere RETRIBUTION is supposed to do.
You don't even have to know the origin of these words and how they are
even linguistically related to one another. Just THINK for crying out
loud what they must mean. You are clearly and deliberately
misconstruing the term "retribution". You HAVE to be -- this word is
*specifically* designed to distinguish between just any sort of
revenge specifically including extreme vengeance and simple reciprocal
treatment. And, I certainly have quite explicitly and specifically
referred to RECIPROCITY. All of you consistently try to construe
something that is clearly and even explicitly NOT reciprocal in some
pretentious and condescending "more enlightened than thou" fashion.
As long as you know that you're right and the rest of the world is
wrong, why worry?
--
ralph
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
16 Sep 2004 10:10:24 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:14:26 +0100, ralph
<ralph@eddlewood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
-snip-
As long as you know that you're right and the rest of the world is
wrong, why worry?
I'm not worried about being wrong. I'm worried about people like you
making laws based on not only wrong but absurd and ridiculously poorly
informed views on the matter.
--
Liberator Veritatis
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobs Boyfriend" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
12 Sep 2004 12:49:56 PM |
|
|
In article <8s19k0l94a6aj0pu1nknmgcjiharhd8rb6@4ax.com>,
Liberator Veritatis <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 13:45:48 GMT, "Marvin Edwards"
<mbe4talk@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Liberator Veritatis" <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:2om7k0tv6j3da3rqdng4orl3ko3jgi2b0p@4ax.com...
No, justice is simply the reciprocal treatment of individuals by one
another. <
Justice cannot be merely retribution and still be moral. But at this point
we seem to be merely saying "yes it is" "no it isn't" "yes it is" ... So
thanks for the conversation and perhaps we'll do this again sometime.
I did not say that justice was merely about retribution. I said it is
about reciprocity. Or more precisely, without reciprocity, there can
be no justice. Your stance that retribution is always wrong is quite
predictable, but if you take such a position, you must abandon any
normal concept of justice.
This sounds reminiscent of "do unto others". Given the rate of
recidivism, I would argue that the application or administration of
justice is somewhat flawed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
13 Sep 2004 09:33:25 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 17:49:56 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> wrote:
In article <8s19k0l94a6aj0pu1nknmgcjiharhd8rb6@4ax.com>,
Liberator Veritatis <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 13:45:48 GMT, "Marvin Edwards"
<mbe4talk@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Liberator Veritatis" <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:2om7k0tv6j3da3rqdng4orl3ko3jgi2b0p@4ax.com...
No, justice is simply the reciprocal treatment of individuals by one
another. <
Justice cannot be merely retribution and still be moral. But at this point
we seem to be merely saying "yes it is" "no it isn't" "yes it is" ... So
thanks for the conversation and perhaps we'll do this again sometime.
I did not say that justice was merely about retribution. I said it is
about reciprocity. Or more precisely, without reciprocity, there can
be no justice. Your stance that retribution is always wrong is quite
predictable, but if you take such a position, you must abandon any
normal concept of justice.
This sounds reminiscent of "do unto others". Given the rate of
recidivism, I would argue that the application or administration of
justice is somewhat flawed.
Like I said, it has absolutely nothing to do with rehabilitation. It
is about reciprocal action taken on behalf of victims against those
that unjustly abuse them. We outlaw vigilantism, so then we incur the
obligation to act on behalf of the victims.
--
Liberator Veritatis
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
10 Sep 2004 10:25:09 AM |
|
|
In talk.philosophy.humanism Liberator Veritatis <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote:
If the thief steals your car sells it and buys himself a laptop with
the money, then it would not be unjust for you to destroy his laptop.
It certainly is immoral for you to do so. Justice has to go through a
third party.
--
Ron
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
12 Sep 2004 12:13:32 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:25:09 -0000, Ron Peterson <ron@shell.core.com>
wrote:
In talk.philosophy.humanism Liberator Veritatis <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote:
If the thief steals your car sells it and buys himself a laptop with
the money, then it would not be unjust for you to destroy his laptop.
It certainly is immoral for you to do so. Justice has to go through a
third party.
That's ridiculous. There is absolutely no reason why justice must go
through a third party. So, you are saying that if a third party did
it, then that would be just? But, if I do it, then it isn't?
--
Liberator Veritatis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
12 Sep 2004 04:25:21 PM |
|
|
In talk.philosophy.humanism Liberator Veritatis <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:25:09 -0000, Ron Peterson <ron@shell.core.com>
wrote:
It certainly is immoral for you to do so. Justice has to go through a
third party.
That's ridiculous. There is absolutely no reason why justice must go
through a third party. So, you are saying that if a third party did
it, then that would be just? But, if I do it, then it isn't?
I wasn't saying that if a third party did so that it would be just. I am
saying that if you as an 'injured' party attempt to harm another that
you aren't following a requirement for justice.
--
Ron
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
13 Sep 2004 09:31:20 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:25:21 -0000, Ron Peterson <ron@shell.core.com>
wrote:
In talk.philosophy.humanism Liberator Veritatis <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:25:09 -0000, Ron Peterson <ron@shell.core.com>
wrote:
It certainly is immoral for you to do so. Justice has to go through a
third party.
That's ridiculous. There is absolutely no reason why justice must go
through a third party. So, you are saying that if a third party did
it, then that would be just? But, if I do it, then it isn't?
I wasn't saying that if a third party did so that it would be just. I am
saying that if you as an 'injured' party attempt to harm another that
you aren't following a requirement for justice.
Why is that? Third party judgment is absolutely not at all relevant
to the issue of justice. Assuming that a course of action is just,
then how would the fact that you take it as an injured party make it
unjust? I can certainly see why we would *outlaw* vigilantism, but
that has absolutely no bearing on whether some particular case of it
was just or not.
--
Liberator Veritatis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
14 Sep 2004 10:39:38 AM |
|
|
In talk.philosophy.humanism Liberator Veritatis <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:25:21 -0000, Ron Peterson <ron@shell.core.com>
wrote:
In talk.philosophy.humanism Liberator Veritatis <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:25:09 -0000, Ron Peterson <ron@shell.core.com>
wrote:
It certainly is immoral for you to do so. Justice has to go through a
third party.
That's ridiculous. There is absolutely no reason why justice must go
through a third party. So, you are saying that if a third party did
it, then that would be | | | | | |
