Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Right wing conservatives are evil? Well, I have evidence that they are.
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 16 of 302 (195398)
03-30-2005 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Silent H
03-30-2005 5:11 AM


Not to go too far off topic...
I'm still carrying a lantern looking for an actual relativist at EvC
How would you tell?
Also, are you looking for somebody who is a relativist in action (i.e. unconscious, non-logical, "gut"), or somebody who is a relativist in thought (conscious, logical, "head")?
Relativist in action is tough. Dalai Lama is probably your best best? I wonder if he posts here... Anyway. Finding somebody who is a relativist in thought doesn't seem SO hard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 03-30-2005 5:11 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Silent H, posted 03-30-2005 10:28 AM Ben! has replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 40 of 302 (195640)
03-31-2005 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Silent H
03-30-2005 10:28 AM


A person who relies on their "gut" and so simply wings it, is not a relativist at all. They are amoralist in action, and usually ad hoc sophists in reasoning their motives afterward.


People however may be intuitive, or have a moral system which does not rely on moral dictates (event proscribed right/wrong). That is a bit different.
I don't get the difference between "being intuitive" and "relying on your gut." Seems to me to be exactly the same thing. Can you suggest another thread to take this to, or a previous post to read?
By the way, I do plan on providing value to you some day. So far, just a lot of questions haha. I'm still halfway done on a post to you about free will and responsibility for one's actions. That's way down the road though brotha.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Silent H, posted 03-30-2005 10:28 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Silent H, posted 03-31-2005 4:21 AM Ben! has not replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 242 of 302 (198243)
04-11-2005 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Rrhain
04-11-2005 4:40 AM


Rrhain,
I agree with your point that we cannot guarantee death of only guilty people when imposing the death penalty. With that said, I have a question and a comment. Comment first.
In post 239, Phatboy writes:
Rrhain writes:
It isn't as if we are forced to administer the death penalty. There is imprisonment. What, therefore, is the possible justification for execution when we know that there will always be the chance that there is somebody who has been convicted but is actually innocent? Why skip to the end?
it costs too darn much to keep these people in prison for 70+ years ... Just zap em!
If we had unlimited funds, I would agree that there may be useful alternatives to the death penalty. But as Phatboy "eloquently" hints at, we have limited funds. If you use the money to imprison people for life, you simply pull those funds away from somewhere else.
Of course, there's no guarantee what programs those funds come from, so it's hard to judge the situation. But I don't think it's right to judge the practical matters of the death penalty vs. life imprisonment without addressing exactly these funding issues. If the redirected funds cause the death of more people than the number of innocent people who die on death row, then the alternative solution would be a failure.
In post 240, contracycle writes:
Are we not the richest society that ever lived? Do we not produce more food every year than our species can consume? Do we not waste vast quantitites of wealth and productive power on mere entertinament, mere travel, mere toys? What price human life for the richest human beings who have ever walked the earth? You need to get your moral priorities right.
I agree 100% with contra's statement, but not with his/her implied conclusion (that we should keep people imprisoned for life). We should be doing what we can to support those with basic needs (food, shelter, basic education). To spend so much money to save the life of a single person being killed for a crime he/she did not commit is absurd when so many people die "innocently" from disease, malnutrition, etc. (or even from "innocently" contracting diseases; use the money for education and research).
I don't know enough about the current leadership of our government to know what programs are most likely to be cut, but my gut tells me that military operations are deemed "necessary," while education, research, foreign aid are still treated more "optionally" and thus more likely to get budget cuts.
...
Next, here's a question about your logical argument. I don't understand how you can go from one premise to the next here, so I'd appreciate if you could explicate your thinking process on why this is OK.
In post 213, Rrhain writes:
Of 24 people on death row in Illinois, 13 were INNOCENT.
How do we know they were innocent in the end? They were released from jail.
and then follows up in
Since release from jail doesn't just happen but only comes after an investigation that indicates the person should not be in jail (...), I had assumed that it was obvious that their release from jail was indicative of just such an investigation which showed them to be innocent.
(bold mine)
Now, as far as I can understand, the same problem holds here--you cannot actually know that somebody is innocent with 100% accuracy. It's possible that some of these people were released yet guilty. There's no "perfect" system here either.
I guess your argument would be that the situation is correctable, because those people are still available to be punished (locked up for life); so it's not comparable to the death penalty (where you 'jump to the end').
But I'm not so sure. If you release somebody who is actually guilty, it's possible that they may kill. If that happens, then by releasing somebody, you've essentially executed an innocent person. If your logic is that we cannot spare even one innocent life, then, since the system for release is not 100% and it may result in the loss of innocent lives, that we should not do it.
My conclusion would be that a criminal justice system is flawed, whether it comes to conviction or failure to do so. There is no system where every innocent person is protected 100%; convicting and killing innocent people, as well as letting the guilty go free, and subsequently kill, are both real issues. Thus, demanding a system to avoid the death of innocent people is simply one that cannot be met.
I'd appreciate your comments.
Thanks!
Ben

http://www.npb-cnlc.gc.ca/reports/pr101001_e.htm
Top 9 Pro Death Penalty Arguments

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Rrhain, posted 04-11-2005 4:40 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by contracycle, posted 04-11-2005 8:45 AM Ben! has replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 266 of 302 (198429)
04-12-2005 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by contracycle
04-11-2005 8:45 AM


Contra,
Overall, I think I agree with your post, and appreciated your tone. Here's some comments from points of disagreement:
With huge billion-upon-billion turnover in advertising alone, it is absurd to say "we cannot afford it". Of course you could afford it, if you wanted to. You have to decide whether you value human life or not.
I value human life, but I don't know a good way to go about addressing the problems. I would appreciate your thoughts on a process of giving to others that "makes sense" for all parties in this thread.
Also, most of these are straw men: the state is unlikely to spend on malnutrition of it is worried about the "moral hazard" of capitalist charity. Similarly, health-care reserach: if that is to be driven by private investment, then that is also not an appropriate spending option for the governmental costs incurred by inarceration.
Then use the money to reduce the budget deficit, or cut taxes, or in education. I agree that having the state do things is "heavy-handed," but I think the "heavy hand" is already there. As far as I know, there's a budget for education, for foreign affairs, for domestic welfare, government funding for research (e.g. NIH). So re-allocating funds doesn't seem like much extra "heavy-handed-ness."
Furthermore, appealing to the prospect that we might release someone who is guilty who "goes on to kill again" is blackmail.
I wasn't trying to say that we should keep guilty people when they should be released on a technicality. I was trying to say that the process of judging encarcerated people to be innocent or guilty is just as flawed and faulty as the process of initially judging unencarcerated people to be innocent or guilty. Thus, it's possible to INCORRECTLY release guilty people, becasue due to new information / evidence, those who judge wrongly come to believe that the encarcerated person is innocent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by contracycle, posted 04-11-2005 8:45 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by contracycle, posted 04-12-2005 5:23 AM Ben! has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024