[mike777]

Winstonm, on Feb 23 2008, 01:23 PM, said:

Quote

I might define following absolute moral facts is good and not following them evil

But, Mike, how do you know what are these absolute moral facts? .... Who holds these moral truths -how are they known?

See my previous post, I explained this.

IF you believe that no facts by virtue of which one is more correct than any other fair enough. If you believe there are no moral facts which can confirm absolute moral judgement, ok but you need to argue that.

I will rephrase though granted this is really a summary.

Objectivist:
Under the appropriate circumstances, our exposure to the evidence alone is capable of explaining why we believe what we believe.

Constuctivism:
It is never possible to explain why we believe what we believe soley on the basis of our exposure to the relevant evidence; our contingent needs and interest must also be invoked.

There are books and books written on both sides.

As for whether to believe in Capital Punishment as moral or good or evil or whatever word you think is best, you can pick the logic you prefer to use.

However I think it is tough to say retribution or its synonyms are rejected by mass of society or culture. If posters have evidence I have not seen it.
I grant a few governments have outlawed capital punishment but even the why is not clear in this forum.

[finally17]

sceptic, on Feb 23 2008, 01:37 PM, said:

Quote

It doesn't seem like an emotional rant to me. It's a very valid question with a very valid example. But since we already have, at least in the US, life imprisonment with no possibility of parole," I don't understand why that's not an acceptable alternative when your problem is: "we must make sure this perpetrator doesn't do this again."

The reason I think it is not acceptable, is it does not seem to work, I can assure you if sending someone to jail worked, I would not feel a need to want the death penalty

There's a lot of other stuff to wade through and I'll get to it eventually, but what's your standard for "work" if "life imprisonment with no possibility of parole" doesn't work? We put a guy in jail for the rest of his life, no one else is killed, how is this not successful?

[mike777]

As I said in my previous post I think there are four possible reasons someone might say it is moral:
1) There is evil in the world, I believe it is moral to use capital punishment to stop/overcome evil
2) Deterence is important, capital punishment is a deterence.
3) Justice is important, capital punishment ok to carry out justice
4) Retribution is important, capital punishment is retribution.

Perhaps others can come up with more reasons.

In any case I think if you are in favor of capital punishment you need to believe one of these reasons is true or factual.

Of course if you think all of these reasons are not true or factual...then ....

I think saying I am just against killing then, what genes or group of genes is it ok to kill/harm and why? It seems some say it ok to kill/harm some genes because I say so.

[jdonn]

mike777, on Feb 23 2008, 05:38 PM, said:

In any case I think if you are in favor of capital punishment you need to believe one of these reasons is true or factual.

But, as I've tried to emphasize, you also would need to believe:

- Someone is able to 'accurately' and 'fairly' in some way decide who receives it.
- That same someone has the right to make that decision.
- Someone has the right to carry out the act.

It is my objection on at least some level to all of these points that fuels my opposition, regardless of what I may think of your list of reasons.

[mike777]

jdonn, on Feb 23 2008, 05:44 PM, said:

mike777, on Feb 23 2008, 05:38 PM, said:

In any case I think if you are in favor of capital punishment you need to believe one of these reasons is true or factual.

But, as I've tried to emphasize, you also would need to believe:

- Someone is able to 'accurately' and 'fairly' in some way decide who receives it.
- That same someone has the right to make that decision.
- Someone has the right to carry out the act.

It is my objection on at least some level to all of these points that fuels my opposition, regardless of what I may think of your list of reasons.

I agree, where do these or for that matter any rights on "punishment" come from. Wherever that is where we need to go there to justify capital punishment.

Where does fair or accurate judgement on "punishment" comes from...we need to go there to justify capital punishment.

If no one has rights or they are just made up, fair enough.
If no one has fair or accurate judgement or it is just made up, fair enough.

You in fact seem to argue that point 3 cannot be true or factual in the case of capital punishment, fair enough.

I think your argument is covered in point 3 though. "Justice" If you believe there are facts or evidence to justify point 3 then I think your concerns are covered, in fact must be covered, otherwise no Justice or a miscarriage of justice occurs.

[jdonn]

mike777, on Feb 23 2008, 05:52 PM, said:

I think your argument is covered in point 3 though. "Justice" If you believe there are facts or evidence to justify point 3 then I think your concerns are covered, in fact must be covered, otherwise no Justice or a miscarriage of justice occurs.

That's a reasonable sounding argument but I disagree. To me what you just said is equivalant to claiming that "person X does not deserve to be alive" is the same as "we have the right to kill person X", when really they are not at all the same thing.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Feb 23 2008, 09:11 AM, said:

Quote

maybe it's been unclear in this and all other threads i've posted in, but i judge myself harsher than i judge ted bundy...

We can never change the fact that we are humans, therefore imperfect. What is the reason to judge yourself for being what you are?

ok, i misspoke... i don't judge bundy at all... i judge (by that i mean that i try to understand rightly) myself so that i can see my need for salvation... if i don't so judge myself, God will do it for me

Quote

Absolutism creates a standard against which you judge yourself and everyone else, and it is the basis of conflict, both inner conflict and outward conflict.

i'm not clear on this... absolutism in what sense? and as i said, i misspoke re: bundy or anyone else (except myself)

Trinidad, on Feb 23 2008, 11:10 AM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 22 2008, 01:17 PM, said:

do you believe in good and evil?

Only evil people do...

Seriously, good and evil are religious terms. Most western, non-religious people believe in good and bad behavior and most of these people are well aware of the fact that what they themselves see as good or bad behavior, might not be viewed the same by someone else.

If you support that point of view, it is quite obvious that there is no universal good and evil. But if you are religious, then your spiritual leader will have told you that there is good and evil and that might settle it.

Rik

if there is no evil there is no good... if there is no good there is no God

jdonn, on Feb 23 2008, 04:46 PM, said:

TimG, on Feb 23 2008, 04:44 PM, said:

kenberg, on Feb 23 2008, 03:51 PM, said:

"heinous" is a good word. I like it.

MW online give "hatefully or shockingly evil " as the definition of heinous. It doesn't seem a good choice if the objective is to remove evil from the equation.

My impression is 'heinous' is being used to describe an act whereas the usage of 'evil' that we are trying to remove describes the nature of a person.

and i think that sums it up nicely

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on Feb 23 2008, 11:10 AM, said:

Seriously, good and evil are religious terms.

No, they're not.

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on Feb 23 2008, 12:56 PM, said:

Surely banishment is punishment enough and serves the goal of society.

Certainly. But... to where will you banish them?

[finally17]

blackshoe, on Feb 23 2008, 07:52 PM, said:

Trinidad, on Feb 23 2008, 11:10 AM, said:

Seriously, good and evil are religious terms.

No, they're not.

If all of human behavior is explainable with science, as Winston very clearly tried to argue, then yeah, they pretty much are. They require something "extra-scientific," at the very least the belief that humanity or the soul are some sort of emergent property.

These are pretty religious in nature.

[mikeh]

finally17, on Feb 23 2008, 08:12 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Feb 23 2008, 07:52 PM, said:

Trinidad, on Feb 23 2008, 11:10 AM, said:

Seriously, good and evil are religious terms.

No, they're not.

If all of human behavior is explainable with science, as Winston very clearly tried to argue, then yeah, they pretty much are. They require something "extra-scientific," at the very least the belief that humanity or the soul are some sort of emergent property.

These are pretty religious in nature.

an emergent property is not an independent entity: it is a characteristic of the underlying physical process, and disappears when the physical process is nullified or disturbed to a degree that interrupts the expression of the emergent property. That is why it is nonsense to argue that consciousness, which may well be and probably is (on what little I know) an emergent property, is the equivalent of or must give rise to a 'soul'

[mike777]

jdonn, on Feb 23 2008, 07:09 PM, said:

mike777, on Feb 23 2008, 05:52 PM, said:

I think your argument is covered in point 3 though. "Justice" If you believe there are facts or evidence to justify point 3 then I think your concerns are covered, in fact must be covered, otherwise no Justice or a miscarriage of justice occurs.

That's a reasonable sounding argument but I disagree. To me what you just said is equivalant to claiming that "person X does not deserve to be alive" is the same as "we have the right to kill person X", when really they are not at all the same thing.

No I was quite explicit in what I said and it was nothing what you invent.
I said if you..you believe that capital punishment is demanded by Justice and that Justice is served than you may be for capital punishment.

If you think there is no Justice in Capital punishment then no problem.

You keep talking about rights....well If you believe the central government has that moral right you believe it. Where these rights come from you can tell us. Where the judgement for punishment or the right to punish comes, you can tell us.

If no such moral right or moral judgement exists then no problem...you disagree with point 3. No Justice.

[Winstonm]

Quote

ok, i misspoke... i don't judge bundy at all... i judge (by that i mean that i try to understand rightly) myself so that i can see my need for salvation... if i don't so judge myself, God will do it for me

i'm not clear on this... absolutism in what sense? and as i said, i misspoke re: bundy or anyone else (except myself)

From my perspective, I believe it impossible to not judge others if you judge yourself against an absolute, universal right and wrong.

But how can right and wrong be universal if it is not universally known and understood? I use Ted Bundy as an example simply because I have read a lot about him - and I am convinced that he was intelligent enough to understand an abstract right and wrong, but only in the sense that wrong actions were punished and right actions were not - right and wrong were human-created penalties.

There was no remorse felt because to his self there was no moral wrong done - the only wrong was in capture and punishment. His actions were neither right nor wrong morally because within him those concepts did not exist.

Is that evil? Is that a violation of universal, absolute right and wrong? Or is it better understood as simply a tragic human flaw?

Quote

if there is no evil there is no good... if there is no good there is no God

IMO, this is flawed logically

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on Feb 23 2008, 07:55 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 23 2008, 12:56 PM, said:

Surely banishment is punishment enough and serves the goal of society.

Certainly. But... to where will you banish them?

I was thinking prison could be a form of banishment - Guantenemo comes to mind.

[mike777]

I happen to believe good and evil has a religious basis but I think you can argue as I tried in my previous post that if you believe in an absolute Moral fact that can be accepted through objectivitity than that behavior is good and going against it is defines evil.



Again if you believe there are no absolute moral facts that can be proved by our exposure to the evidence alone and everything is relative than that is another discussion.

As I said Richard Rorty or Allan Gibbard and alot of very smart people would agree with you. Perhaps even Wittgenstein would also.

Not to put words into any posters post but I think some posters have never seen evidence of any absolute Moral fact that they believe in regardess of society or their culture, just based soley on the evidence.
I am not trying to convert unbelievers.

If nothing is objectively justified, but only justified relative to this or that epistemic system, you got a discussion.

[mike777]

"But how can right and wrong be universal if it is not universally known and understood?"

You make an excellent point. To rephrase your point, all such judgements are doomed to falsehood because there are no absolute facts about justification.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Feb 23 2008, 11:36 PM, said:

"But how can right and wrong be universal if it is not universally known and understood?"

You make an excellent point. To rephrase your point, all such judgements are doomed to falsehood because there are no absolute facts about justification.

That would be a good translation.

Absolute facts do not allow relative justifications. I would think that a God would have the wisdom to individualize justifications rather than be a slave to an absolute fact - absolutes would require a sociopath and non-sociopath to be judged against the same standard.

[onoway]

This series of posts frankly bewilders me. I used to be against capital punishment for the very reason that mistakes ARE made. Also, one (to me, thoroughly evil man who had kidnapped, tortured and murdered a number of children) was given not only a life sentence but a lot of money by the government which allowed them to put him away for the rest of his life, when otherwise they did not have sufficient evidence to convict..he apparently wanted to provide for his family and it also allowed frantic parents to have closure as to what had happened to their children. If there had been capital punishment I think it would have made no difference as the police did not have enough evidence to convict even without it.

However...when semen from a father is found in the torn vagina of a 6 month old baby girl...or almost any of the examples given above..to me that person has given up the right to be called human. I know of animals which eat their young, but none which brutalize other members of their own species for personal enjoyment and gratification. There is no question as to guilt, and that is crucial to me to the discussion as to whether or not capital punishment should be considered.

The person who suggested that anyone who thinks capital punishment must also be in favor of torture etc. is insulting . I cannot imagine anything more repugnant as then indeed you are lowering yourself to the very lowest level of humanity, if indeed you can still claim to the term, imo. However, examp;es such as have been given should not be allowed the right to be a societal burden ...we have others in society who are needy and who are not being looked after. When the hungry, the old, the crippled, the children, the mentally, physically and emotionally infirm who do NOT commit horrific crimes are all being taken care of, then put the resources left over into trying to rehabilitate these people. Until then, I think when there is NO question re their guilt, to put them in jail for the rest of their lives is stealing resources from people who are suffering and imo much more deserving of society's help than people who DELIBERATELY act in such extremely antisocial ways.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Feb 24 2008, 12:15 AM, said:

mike777, on Feb 23 2008, 11:36 PM, said:

"But how can right and wrong be universal if it is not universally known and understood?"

You make an excellent point. To rephrase your point, all such judgements are doomed to falsehood because there are no absolute facts about justification.

That would be a good translation.

Absolute facts do not allow relative justifications. I would think that a God would have the wisdom to individualize justifications rather than be a slave to an absolute fact - absolutes would require a sociopath and non-sociopath to be judged against the same standard.

Of course in many books you can find the "traditional refutation" of your argument as complete nonsense.

You can look up the more complete refutation but in simple form it says it must be nonsense for it would itself have to be either objectively justified or only justified relative to this or that particular epistemic system. But it cannot be objectively justified, since in that case it would be false if true. And it can't be justified only relative to the relativist's epistemic system, since in that case it is just a report of what he finds is agreeable to say.

On the other hand I do think there are other, stronger logical arguments that favor your theory that continue the discussion so...

I only bring up all this stuff since some posters seem to argue against capital punishment based on a social construction of knowledge.

I am trying to see both sides of the discussion, not just one.

If you just want to say one group of genes killing another group is bad, ok.

[mike777]

"Until then, I think when there is NO question re their guilt, to put them in jail for the rest of their lives is stealing resources from people who are suffering and imo much more deserving of society's help than people who DELIBERATELY act in such extremely antisocial way"

This just seems to be a repeat of my point 3. You believe if there is enough evidence of Justice then you believe Justice makes capital punishment acceptable. Justice for the dead, Justice for the family, Justice for society and Justice for the poor and suffering and of course Justice for the accused.

Of course in the USA there is no such legal test such as "no question of guilt" In fact I think there is always "some question". We only need a much lesser legal test kill people.


In any case to argue kill her because we can use the money we save for the poor, suffering people worldwide touches a nerve in some and none in others.