Hope you rot in hell!!!!!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You said in effect that being legal is the same as being moral.

No, I said that laws are legislated morality, which is different. While the state grants all rights, there can exist other morality which says there are other rights. They can say it all they want, but that doesn't mean those other rights exist, at least in that society.

This is just relativism, which I am surprised to see coming from an avowed tory.

I might as well say that I'm not killing people because the Toronto Mac User Group wants me to kill people.

The Toronto Mac User Group doesn't have the power in society. So try again yourself.

But if the Toronto MUG (or any other group) seized power it would and that would be OK according to your theory. So try again.

But what if the moral code of society prohibits trying to change it?

Then it is 'wrong' to try to change the code AT THAT TIME. It is never wrong to actually change the moral code, because when you change it then you are validated. Trying to change and actually changing are two different things.

Then what if the moral code says its wrong to change it ever?

there is no non-arbitrary mechanism for doing so.

And your point? What is the non-arbitrary mechanism for deterrance? Why should a rapist get 10 instead of 15? How do we know that 10 would deter just as good?

We find out by trial and error. That is by looking at the evidence.

I thought that was obvious. Deterrence is based on empirical fact.

"Oppress" is a moral word. If it's impossible for the state to do moral wrong, then by definition it is impossible for it to oppress its citizens.

Not for an outsider. Because their societies have their own defintion of what is a moral wrong or right and they can critcize other societies. However, even though they can do so, doesn't mean they are correct... unless they have the power to do something about it.

That's just relativism. In which case you can't really argue with anyone else, since you admit your own sense of rightness carries no weight. You should join Whaleboy's club.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is just relativism, which I am surprised to see coming from an avowed tory.

You haven't been paying attention to my posts lately. I'm a moral relativist, fyi.

But if the Toronto MUG (or any other group) seized power it would and that would be OK according to your theory.

Yep. It'd then be the state. Why should I try again then?

Then what if the moral code says its wrong to change it ever?

If it changes then it is proven wrong isn't it? Still doesn't change anything.

We find out by trial and error. That is by looking at the evidence.

I thought that was obvious. Deterrence is based on empirical fact.

Actually it really isn't. The weights are very arbitrary and have been. Empirical fact doesn't really play into it.

[Kuciwalker]

This is just relativism

It took you that long to figure it out?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Wezil
One gruesome public execution should about finish the argument.

Public executions rarely tick off the public. Some would even make a party out of it.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker

This is just relativism

It took you that long to figure it out?

Well, a conservative moral relativist is not something you find every day.

It still doesn't solve his explanatory problems though.

[Fake Boris]

Imran, your posts are making my day. Thank you for relieving me of the burden of Aristotle's metaphysics.

Let's sort through some of your statements and examine their coherency, will ya?

Was the Nuremberg trial unfair because the convincted had acted on behalf of the state?

Except for those who actually ran the state (Goering, Tirpitz, etc), yes. I always thought it was wrong that the judges of the state were found guilty of simply doing their jobs (and being in a Civil Law country, they didn't make any of the law).

Then it is 'wrong' to try to change the code AT THAT TIME. It is never wrong to actually change the moral code, because when you change it then you are validated. Trying to change and actually changing are two different things.

Interesting. Isn't 'non-retroactivity' a guiding principle of law? If you can change the law and apply the changes to past events in order to punish the guilty, then you are obviously destroying the idea that the law is always right at a given time. What does this imply?

-that a legislation must believe to be eternally valid if it is to affect events that occurred outside of its grasp, in which case it isn't relativist anymore. In other words, you can sociologically study the law from a relativist perspective, but proactively applying its principles can only be internally incoherent.
If only you believe that having the power to force a law is what defines (and SHOULD) law and morality, you are making an universal statement that you need to justify rationally.

-if it is recognizing its relativity, then it must recognize its non-retroactivity, and that would be another universal statement requiring a coherent justification. Put otherwise, if you believe your ethics to be purely relative, then you can't justify applying it by force to others-and thus, the following becomes false:

unless they have the power to do something about it.

BTW, dead persons and/or sunk battleships are not eligible for trial. Aflfred von Tirpitz died in 1930.

Now, let's have fun with what you said about the USSR.

That doesn't mean that people won't try to do wrong to change it, but it still is wrong to do so in that society. Like the USSR. It was wrong to try to change the code of society, but once a moral code was changed than the attempt to change that aspect was ok.

So, the only way to become right is by being wrong?

How can you even use the words right and wrong, if they are to be different from context to context?

Now, let's say I'm posting this from planet Mars. What's the social context that will determine if my position, or my actions, are right or wrong? Yes, the only 'social context' will be that created by my own conscience.

Now, please explain the process by which the appearance of other humans- even a single one- would change this. If single individuals can create whatever context they wish, how is it that 'society' can come in at any moment and claim back the monopoly of its definition?

A believes proposition Y to be right. B believes proposition Z to be right. Both propositions are opposed and mutually exclusive.

A is living on Mars, B on Venus. B comes to Mars and forces Z on A's mind. How is it that A can't force Y on B anymore? Because two individuals make a society? Because the State exists somewhere in Plato's world of Ideas, and that it has more 'being' than individual minds?

I'd add thousands upon thousands of objections, but since I've got some serious stuff to study, I'll let Agathon do the dirty work this time. You are overwhelmingly wrong.

[Whoha]

I read the 1st three pages so someone forgive me if no one has posted the story:

This guy has 12 previous convictions, and was aquitted from a kidnapping charge(he was "holding her down to prevent her from running into traffic" or some such nonsense),he was supposed to be in Jail because he violated parole but a judge decided that that was no reason to put him in jail,he grabbed this girl, walked off with her, killed her, and dumped her body.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you can change the law and apply the changes to past events in order to punish the guilty, then you are obviously destroying the idea that the law is always right at a given time.

Those who have the power to force the law can decide that, yes, it indeed applies retroactively. They can decide the law was wrong because they now have the power. However, you get it wrong... the law IS RIGHT at the given time. Why? Did you see Nuremberg trials during the Holocaust or after the war? If the law wasn't right at that given time, then why wasn't the trial done then?

if you believe your ethics to be purely relative, then you can't justify applying it by force to others

Why not? If their ethics are equal to mine, then why can't I subserve their ethics to my equally valid one? Now if their ethics were better, then I couldn't, but if they are equal then it doesn't matter as much.

You forget there are two versions of relativity. One that says every one is equal so no one can impose on anyone, and the other which says every one is equal so conquering another ethical system is no big deal.

the only way to become right is by being wrong

In certain societies, yes. You are wrong in that society, but if your change takes root, then you are deemed to be right.

If single individuals can create whatever context they wish, how is it that 'society' can come in at any moment and claim back the monopoly of its definition

Because society has the monopoly from the beginning. Individuals can have their own context, but the combination of them (in a democratic society) or the context of the ruler (in other societies.. then again the individual is technically the ruler in democratic societies) defines what the societal context, which takes precedence is.

You are overwhelmingly wrong.

Only to utter nincompoops such as yourself .

[Fake Boris]

You are actually repeating your stance without providing the arguments at its root. But I like you anyway.

BTW, you have not answered one of my previous question: don't you think that the extreme nature of the DP, and its widely unproven (EDIT: not 'disproven') deterrence effect, combined with the low crime rates of countries not using it (not proven to be causal but still worth interpreting material), can justify at least a moratory so that independant studies can unveil the truth?

Indeed, in such a conservative place as the American mockracy, the truth can be politically expensive.

[Imran Siddiqui]

don't you think that the extreme nature of the DP, and its widely unproven (EDIT: not 'disproven') deterrence effect, combined with the low crime rates of countries not using it (not proven to be causal but still worth interpreting material), can justify at least a moratory so that independant studies can unveil the truth?

I don't see the point. What 'truth' are we 'unveiling'? And do you think we should do this for other things? Should we put a moritoriam on violent movies until independant studies can 'unveil the truth' about how it effect society?

And I'm sorry, but even if it is 'proven' that the DP actually increases crime, I'd still be for killing Charles Manson, Jeffery Dahmer, and their ilk.

[embalmer42]

Wezil - so would you force people to watch the execution then? If so, would everyone have to watch or just those of voting age? If not, would airing an execution really change the public mood?

[DinoDoc]

What kind of an idiot bumps a thread so long dead?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And I'm sorry, but even if it is 'proven' that the DP actually increases crime, I'd still be for killing Charles Manson, Jeffery Dahmer, and their ilk.

Now that's just plain immoral. If it's proven that the DP ultimately hurts innocent people in its effect, then the only justification of it is simply vengeance. That's not only morally reprehensible, it's perversion of the intent of our criminal justice system.

[Docfeelgood]

How bout we nail their scrotum to a stump and push them over backwards?

[Kuciwalker]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Agathon
What's wrong with it is that there is no rational justification for it. All the attempts to justify it rely on crypto-religious beliefs or on mere emotionalism.[/q]

Why not? Are you submitting to Ayn Rand's belief that it is "rational" to act in one's self-interest?

People say that if a person freely chooses to kill someone else, that this somehow entitles other people to kill him. What I want to know is why I should believe this?

Why not? Plus, it doesn't matter if you believe it, if we happen to have the guns

Of course revenge is a completely natural human emotion, as are love and anger; but the mere having of this emotion does not justify acting on it. If it did, then merely feeling lust would legitimate rape, but it doesn't.

So? We happen to think revenge is a justified one

Retributivists talk about "the balance of justice" or, as Imran did "Atonement" (itself a religious concept). The idea is that the punishment somehow makes up or corrects for an imbalance in the natural order which was caused by the criminal act. But what does this mean? There just is no natural balance or order of natural justice - these things are metaphysical fictions, or as I claimed earlier crypto-religious beliefs.

Agreed.

The best account I have seen is that by acting in the way he does, the criminal is in effect saying that it is alright for anyone to act this way, and so others can do the same to him by applying his own standard. But the immediate objection is that these people by harming the criminal put themselves in the same situation and open themselves up to retributive action. Imran tried to get out of this by claiming that the State has a special status which exempts it from this regress of responsibility, but he could provide no justification for that belief.

There's a very simple justification: the State is, by definition, an organization with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Therefore, by definition, the state can legitimately kill someone.

And this shows them up for what they are - they are not champions of victims rights, they are only interested in punishing people. This is a barbaric and pre-civilized attitude based on nothing more than a desire to wreak cruel vengeance upon others, rather than being serious about crime.

Why is it "barbaric" and "pre-civilized"? It seems to have been the dominant feeling in most, probably ALL civilizations to date!