Friday, November 6, 2009
something you said...
So last time we spoke you said something to the effect of prefering a judcial system where a person, for whom it could be proven that the likelihood of offending again was exceedingly small, received no retributive punishment. I think I'm stating that correctly. I wonder then where you stand on the converse; supposing that the liklihood of repeat offence could be proven to be very large, and the offence had large societal impact. Would you prefer punishing them for the rest of their natural life, ending their life quickly, no retributive punishment, changing their brain to make them no longer a danger to society, or something else? Furthermore, how would you rate these possibilities and your own(if you chose) on a moral scale? (as in, list most moral to least moral)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I can only speak to my preference - it is a little silly to ask me to rate a set of options on a moral scale when I don't believe in morality except as a descriptive term referring to ensembles of people. I can try to guess what my, and other, societies might rate each act as a proxy for their morality, but I don't think that is what you want.
If the technology were to exist to allow me to rewire an offender's brain to prevent further unpleasant action, I would always go with that option, provided I was always the one in the position of determining "unpleasantness." If I have to share that responsibility with other members of society, then I would want limitations placed on their ability to modify people's brains, for the sake of preserving my own interests.
My personal preference in the absence of such a possibility is still not punishment but sequestration of offenders in perpetuity, so long as sufficient resources are available to provide for them. A murderer who will murder again may still provide interesting insights on the nature of existence, and I don't see any reason, in the absence of resource pressures and given my preferencces, not to allow him or her to continue to exist. If there are serious resource shortages, then I think I would probably euthanize unreformable criminals, with the same provisos indicated above: if I have to share this power with others, then I would want it to be limited.
As an addendum, I would not make decisions all by myself about these issues, if I had the power to do so. I would consult others. No one is capable of always behaving in a way which maximizes one's goals, so it is good to have a second opinion.
Toups,
forgive the delayed response. I asked this question because of the nature of this blog from my point of view is to try to understand what you believe and how and why it is different from what I believe. We've talked before about hell. My beliefs may be summed thusly...
"On the one hand, I would emphatically insist that the fundamental nature of hell is separation from God and his goodness. Second Thessalonians 1:9 refers to it as “exclusion from the face of God.” It is as if God turned his back on non-believers. Just as we only know about God on earth by what he reveals, hell makes a theological statement: only the justice of God is revealed there. That is its fundamental nature."
This is lifted from bible.org. I ventured first to the catholic encyclopedia and was surprised to find out that their reckoning of hell was very similar to things you said recently... surprised not that yours and theirs agreed, but that the catholic reckoning as listed there was so different from my own. My reckoning is is shared by protestants that source only the bible for these points of theology (hence 'bible.org').
Perhaps you can see then why this conversation reminds me of 'hell'. Banishing the unrepentant for eternity from your presence...
or rather "[your] preference...is sequestration of offenders in perpetuity..."
So I suppose the reasoning goes...
Toups has cited hell as reason for being skeptical of Christianity
Toups in his power and mercy would basically send "offenders" to hell
Toups should be skeptical of himself
Toups should be skeptical of citing hell as a reason for being skeptical of Christianity.
Now, I have also gathered that you do not exactly have the basic 'societal norm' since the time of Confucius which is "don't do to others what you would not want them to do to you" Its clear that you would manipulate anothers brain but would not want others to do that to you. Since you refute basic morality I nothing but a sense of self preservation to appeal to to suggest that you adopt the notion of limiting your own power to limit anothers.
I think you are making a few assumptions about my claims which are unwarranted. For instance, you take "sequestration" to mean "banishment from my presence," but that would not really be my preference. By sequestration, I meant to suggest that they be curtailed only insofar as their negative behavior was concerned, if at all possible. For instance, an alcoholic may not need to be confined spatially, as long as he is prevented from acquiring alcohol, or maybe even as long as he is prevented from operating heavy machinery while intoxicated. This is explicitly mentioned in my original response when I say that "A murderer who will murder again may still provide interesting insights on the nature of existence," meaning that I keep such a person alive explicitly to have at least intellectual congress with him or her. In other words, I think capital punishment is a waste of resources, usually.
In addition, your analogy to hell is confusing because it only makes sense as an argument if I already accept your proposition that the cosmos described by Christianity is a sensible one. My "problem" with hell really only functions in the context of pretending Christianity is true for the purposes of seeing if it is self consistent. My preferences, as described here, are located in another rhetorical universe. If we assume some kind of Judeo-Christian flavored moral calculus, then arguably my position is more "moral" than God's, because I preserve life and withhold punishment unless there is a reason to do otherwise, but I think we both agree that this partial assumption of worldview is ridiculous.
I want to emphasize that I don't think my views are cosmically "justified," I just explained my preferences, which are formed out of some rational thinking and some irrational aspects of my being.
Post a Comment