|
Mandy Thompson posted:I've been on a philosophy kick as of late, but being the massive nerd that I am I've been reading the Blackwell pop culture and philosophy books. One of the recent ones I have read was “Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy.” They aren't so much saying that pop culture is philosophical, but rather that they are using examples from pop culture. Indeed you are a massive nerd, OP. But it's not your fault just the inevitable consequence of all the factors leading up to your nerditry at this point. Also, nothing wrong with being a nerd. =) Mandy Thompson posted:So in the first essay they discuss the nature of evil and free will. The use an example of a creature of pure evil, cooked up in the abyss, an abomination of flesh, and wings, and horns, set to terrorize the planes. But this creature is intelligent also, it has a mind, it has thoughts, it has feeling. It is also evil by definition. And generally speaking, being evil in this world sucks. For such a creature, wouldn’t it be the case that it is MORE deserving of pity because it undeniably had no choice on whether or not to be evil. I think the author has it wrong, though. The Demon knows it's evil, knows it's doing evil things, and is totes ok with it. Is enjoying it, in fact, usually right up until it encounters consequences in the form of the player characters. If it hypothetically were given a choice whether to be evil or not it would choose to keep being evil at any point before it became clear the PCs were going to successfully harvest it for XP. From what perspective could we pity it that wouldn't just be masturbating to the appreciation of our own virtuous moral reletavism? The demon doesn't give a gently caress what else it could have been. Many of the people we supposedly should pity don't give a gently caress either. They're contentedy (if not happily, maybe) acting according to their natures right up until they catch consequences. Your pity is something you do because emotional wanking is fun sometimes. There's no particular reason to treat them inhumanely but IMO no reasons for warm feelings about them either.
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
forbidden lesbian posted:you're right arglebuckle, human life has no inherent value. So why haven't you killed yourself yet? Life has subjective value rather than inherent value. From your POV your life is priceless. From someone else's point of view your life is worth a half off coupon for a value meal. From a societal point of view your life is worth the result of a complex net present value calculation that would probably depress you. Effectronica posted:Couldn't you just have chopped these two paragraphs down to "pity is masturbation"? Omit needless words, man. Nah. Some people are probably deserving of pity. It's just mostly masturbation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Okay, so you're trying another tactic, but you're demanding other people do all the work for you. Why don't you propose some qualitative values for a human life, and then we can go from there. 0. $100,000,000. $100,000,000 Pesos. IDK it's probably a continuum but there you go. Go to Ask / Tell and ask an actuary what a human life is worth. Prepare to be really depressed by the questions they ask you and the answer they give. You might want to lie about your particulars to avoid becoming suicidal. The idea that a human life has a finite value, in certain contexts, isn't even controversial. It's a necessary component, for instance, of government planning for everything from traffic intersections to environmental rules to food safety regulations and etc.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yeah but why apply the logic of governments to yourself, like some kind of...cape-wearing dictator who decides the value of everyone's life... Sure, purely for the feels yeah the life of every special unique snowflake is precious and irreplacable and etc and nothing bad should happen to anyone ever even people who manifestly do not believe the lives of others have any value and demonstrate that by doing terrible things. Because we're all different and different is special and something something justice. I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I said qualitative. What would a qualitative value of human life be and why would that be important?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Okay. I grab a mass-murderer, provide you with incontrovertible evidence of their crimes, an affidavit that guarantees you will face no repercussions for any actions you take, tie the murderer to a chair, and give you a crowbar. Do you beat them to death, or not? IDK. Is she hot? That would influence my calculation. Maybe if you identified a particular mass murderer from history...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:They do gain by seeing them publically held to account and socially held to account. That is something to consider: that if you are overly compassionate towards a criminal--not in terms of not torturing them, but in terms of saying "He's not really to blame for what he did"--then that does actually harm the victim and/or their friends. I agree! Effectronica posted:Well, I was figuring that, since ArgyleBargain III used "qualitative" in a sentence, that he knew what it meant. I made a mistake in doing so. In any case, you haven't really addressed the problem that you can't pay the actuarial average, or an actuarial computation of the victim's value, to avoid prison time for murder. If that was the actual value of a human life, you'd think this would be part of the legal system. There's also the issue of where this leads us when all's said and done, but- Hmmm. It's almost like murder is a crime against the state and there's a separate civil obligation that, yeah, is going to involve compensating survivors for the loss of value of their loved one. Effectronica posted:Oh, goody, you dodged it~ I bash his/her/it's/xir's head in and escape from the stupid hypothetical.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:That's not what I said. You're making inferences, but you're too stupid to do so, and should stop. When people say "human life has value", they are not talking about any concrete person's life. They are talking about an abstract entity that stands for human lives in general. So basically it's some meaningless masturbatory bullshit and whenever poo poo gets remotely real and there are choices to be made things are totally different?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Okay, so killing people is not actually a crime, it's only when the state doesn't like it that it becomes a crime. This is how things ought to work, in your view. The only good framework. I answered your question with all the forthright seriousness it deserved. You should probably stop commenting on other peoples' mental health btw.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You're the guy who wrote that bad things should happen to bad people, and then refuses to go along to the natural conclusion of that belief. You're also the guy who insists that, contrary to what the vast majority of people believe, the general rule is that killing is legally neutral and only certain types of killing are criminal in nature, rather than killing being generally illegal and only legal in specific cases. You're also the person who thinks that anything which cannot be valued in terms of numbers, and indeed, in terms of money, is valueless. Dude get back on your meds, seriously.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Those are all things you have said in this thread, carefully rephrased to make them
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You said that murder was a crime against the state, and not a crime against a person. This implies that killing is generally legal and only specific instances that the state deems harmful are illegal. What do they give to schizophrenics? You need that bro.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:If possessing some basic moral principles in the face of an extreme and outrageous scenario makes me autistic, then an autist I shall be I suppose. Where in those basic moral principles is your outrage for the victim? The need for retribution? Those are also basic human things. Somfin posted:Is Tsutomu Miyazaki no longer human, in your eyes? He's a human responsible for horrible things that warrant retribution of whatever culturally-appropriate sort.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2015 13:22
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:Strictly speaking we're not suppose to sentence people at all unless they are thoroughly proven though, even if its for shoplifting or burglary. In a strongly deterministic universe it seems pointless to talk about ethics. By the same logic that determines they couldn't have acted any differently their suffering is inevitable and therefore morally neutral.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
[quote="Somfin" post="443061975"] I don't think there is a need for retribution, though. There is certainly a desire for it. Lord knows I've had terrible, visceral fantasies about harming the people who made my girlfriend's childhood a living hell. But what good would it do? What positive impact can there be from retribution? Once we burn off that initial rush of adrenaline, what is left but a void? Would it not be better to see someone who has done terrible things rehabilitated and restored to a place in the community? [/b]/quote] I think it's hopelessly naive to imagine that everyone who has done terrible things is merely sick (some are, and that's different) and wants to be, or even can be, rehabilitated. It can be argued that they were shaped by their circumstances but at the end of the day, shaped they were, and they became people who chose to do the things that they did. But beyond that - being restored to the community requires that a person atone for the wrong they've committed. How would you suggest that occur without a degree of suffering? Escalation doesn't seem necessary as a condition for retribution being one goal of a system of justice. It's one of the goals of our system right this moment and has been since we had such a system and we haven't descended into torturing prisoners to death, botched executions notwithstanding. But rehabilitation isn't enough. The victims and society need closure. To deny that is unnatural. One might convince oneself it's better to go without if one feels powerless to bring about that outcome, because few things feel worse than being powerless, but that's merely a coping mechanism.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:I certainly would prefer to live in a world with less suffering overall. If goodness forbid I went mad and committed a serious crime, or just made a mistake and committed a minor one, I would want to be treated with dignity at the very least. There but for the grace of God go all of us. Perhaps. The idea of punishment isn't incompatible with dignity or compassion, so you could take your lumps without being devalued as a human being. Mandy Thompson posted:Well, not so fast. No we don't really choose, but in having this conversation, which is the result of determinism, we could form a policy that reduces suffering. We could! Or we couldn't! If we can't choose in any meaningful sense than it's about the same, isn't it? We're no morally better or worse, no more or less culpable for the outcomes of our policy, no matter which way we go. But if we can choose than so can the hypothetical transgressors and that presents a problem because it means they too have to be held to account for their actions, and not only us.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Amazing. Two appeals to nature, like loving clockwork. It does help, though, heart to heart! It is beneficial. It's only when we feel powerless that we convince ourselves it isn't. Somfin posted:wateroverfire: Your argument hinges on the idea of 'closure,' and for some reason you set that up as antithetical to compassion. Why do we need closure? Why is that a need and not a want? And could not "and then she turned her life around" not be better closure than "and then we threw her in a box for ten years of her life?" First, I don't think I set up closure as antithetical to compassion. We can have compassion even as we punish - the two things are not mutually exclusive. Somfin posted:And could not "and then she turned her life around" not be better closure than "and then we threw her in a box for ten years of her life?" "She paid the price for her actions, then turned her life around" would be better closure. The idea is that to be reintegrated into the community after a transgression requires atonement, which requires suffering. That suffering doesn't have to be jail, or execution, or etc. Ideally it would be genuine remorse. In feeling that, and in making restitution, the transgressor would essentially become a different person and could be accepted into the community free of their transgression.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Alternatively, it may be considered healthier to recognize that for a great many wrongs, there is absolutely nothing one can do to atone for them, or to meaningfully give back what was taken. To demand a measure of misery from the one responsible is not going to give you back what you have lost, it is arbitrary, you don't need it and asking for it will do you no good. It's worth considering that your ancestors are mostly people who didn't think letting poo poo slide was the healthier way to go, when they could do something about it, and as a result of that they secured a world now guarded for you by other people who are most definitely not willing to let poo poo slide in which you can serenely philosophize about cultivating a sanitary mind.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This doesn't follow. Whether determinism is true or not, we can still say things about what courses of actions lead to what outcomes. "Not touching a hot stove will prevent you from feeling pain." "Accepting/rejecting retributive justice will lead to less suffering." You don't necessarily need to make a moral judgment about people to talk about how to encourage or discourage certain behaviors. We don't generally say a toddler is moral or immoral for trying to stick a fork in an electrical outlet, but we still take steps to discourage them from doing it all the same. Even if we accept determinism and believe that people aren't morally culpable for their actions, it's still meaningful to talk about the external incentives that can discourage criminal actions. If people aren't morally culpable for their actions then that includes us, as architects of whatever hypothetical policy. It doesn't matter if we reduce suffering or not. It doesn't even make sense to talk about reducing suffering as a morally praiseworthy thing to do. If people are merely biological machines then we are also merely biological machines, it stands to reason.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:My ancestors thought a lot of stupid things, and my peers continue to think many of them. Appealing to tradition is a very lax argument. It's an appeal to widen your perspective. You have the privilege of honing your moral purity because other people are very specifically willing to be bloody minded on your behalf. We live in a state of nature you don't have to experience because others have done it for you, and are doing it for you right now.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well okay, but any current policy can be defended on those same grounds: you have the privilege of honing your moral purity because other people are willing to X on your behalf. You don't have to experience the consequences of not-X because others are doing X for you and are doing X right now. I wouldn't say "any policy" (or thing, I guess, since we're not talking about a policy here) but yeah it does apply to quite a few things people get self righteous about. It's a call to check your privilege, if you will. Somfin posted:I'm gonna confess something to you, right here and now. I have no loving idea what you mean by this. Could you explain it, in terms of overall social benefit, without using the words 'powerless' or 'natural?' I don't know what you mean by "overall social benefit". The idea is simply that when a person is faced with a situation where they desire a thing but think they can't achieve it, or are unwilling to do what it takes to achieve it, one way that person can cope is by convincing herself she didn't want it to begin with. Or that it wouldn't help in the end. Or that they're a bigger person for not achieving that thing. Etc. Somfin posted:"Ideally it would be genuine remorse." That's a very compelling concept. I agree with this- I agree that grief and remorse can cause far more non-physical suffering to a person than can be physically inflicted on them. "She paid the price", however, is a problem. Who determines "the price"? Is "the price" different if she admits guilt? To whom does she pay "the price"? Different cultures come up with different answers but in general we collectively figure out the rules. In U.S. culture there is a legal code that sets out the parameters. It's not perfect but it works better than a lot of alternatives. Somfin posted:The main problem that I have with the current system is it takes suffering as an acceptable currency for the price. You can buy off transgressions simply by being in state-regulated pain for a while. You generally don't have much choice in the matter. You're can't buy your way out by volunteering some time. That time is exacted from you for the wrong you committed in a process that is both punative and retributory. Somfin posted:Restitution, making amends to wronged parties, public service and public labour, taking measures to improve one's situation so that desperation does not lead to another transgression- these are wildly preferable to the current system of simple suffering-as-payment. These are also components of the justice system, though? Like, already.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I oppose neither death nor incarceration as a means of crime prevention, but I will still argue that anyone who thinks that that they are good things, because they can't think of a better option, is a long way gone from a position of genuine care for human happiness. Congrats on feeling morally superior from your naive perspective of extreme privilege, I guess? It's great that you are safe and secure enough to take a poo poo on society without any consciousness of how, yes, things you're not comfortable with are actually required in order to preserve that for you and not vestigal barbarism we've somehow outgrown. edit: Or to engage in a different way - what are you arguing, exactly? In your world where society is not making poor victimized criminals suffer what is checking their desire to do whatever to whoever? How are the wrongs done to their victims addressed? Are we to do more or less what we do now just, somehow, more humanely? wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Mar 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Somfin posted:See this? This right here? You're not actually arguing about people. You're arguing about these two teams, "Criminals" and "Society," and Criminals are the bad guys and Society are the good guys. And because you have a childish view of how justice works, you think that when a bad guy does a bad thing, they need to have an equal amount of bad stuff happen to them in order to balance the books. You think that closure only really comes from the bad guys suffering, because you see them as being fundamentally different from the good guys. When a person transgresses against their community they need to be reconciled with the community, and part of that process is suffering - either genuine repentence or some punishment imposed by the community or more likely both. That isn't a childish view of how justice works. That is literally how justice works. What makes you think we could just do away with that? That view seems naive to me. Somfin posted:Those "poor victimised criminals" are human beings, normal rational human beings, who have done things which our society has decided are wrong. Some of them are simply desperate enough to do what they do. Others see the state as being a malevolent force. Most, however, are simply people whose position in life is far less cushy than yours. You clearly see them as a subhuman animal with an inherent "desire to do whatever to whoever," which must be checked through blunt instruments which cause suffering, because you clearly believe they lack the capability to understand that what they are doing is societally destructive. Like yelling at a dog or spraying water at a cat. Wow, dude. You might want to look into the charactures you've created of your debate partners and otherwise introspect about why you need to project bad motives onto people who merely disagree with you. Humans do all kinds of horrific things to one another. Sometimes it's for gain, sometimes it's out of expediency, sometimes it's just for lulz. Many people, who are still human and why the gently caress would you think otherwise, know but do care that their actions are societally destructive. Or they rationalize away the consequences because blah blah I needed the money or blah blah gently caress that rich guy or hey she didn't SAY no...exactly...while she was roofied. Do you think if only those people were educated about the social harm they were doing they'd feel remorseful and stop doing harm? If so why do you think that? Somfin posted:What is your opinion on the ongoing problem of rape in prisons? People should not get raped and especially not in state custody. That's pretty hosed up. Prison itself, the separation from society, is punishment enough. It doesn't have to be extra horrible or inhumane. While serving their punishment prisoners should have access to counciling, drug rehab, training, and etc so that they can return to society better prepared than they left it. Punishment and rehabilitation - ie return to society - are both goals of the justice system and one isn't more important than the other.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 13:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You realize that most of the industrialized world has abolished the death penalty, right? If you're going to argue that abolition is for naive babies who don't Know What It Takes to protect society like Very Serious People do, you're going to have to show that's actually the case. IDK dude. We're not arguing about the death penalty so I'm going to punt on this one.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 13:20
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Why? It's a theme that occurs in a broad range of cultures from primative hunter-gatherer to the modern SJW tumblerites. I literally cannot think of any examples of a culture that doesn't incorporate it somehow. Can you? IDK dude why do you think it's NOT necessary besides asserting that "we could totally not do it, or something, amirite?" Somfin posted:I think that in most cases, people do crime because they are driven to by forces basically outside their control. Universal urges like hunger and fear. Unusual urges- desire for children, for example- that have not been properly dealt with and have become obsessions or worse. Societal urges that are not properly mediated and become cancerous and warped in the mind. Most people know when they've done wrong. There needs to be a better solution for people with these issues for these people than "Bottle it up until it explodes and then hope I get away with it." It seems like you're unwilling to hold anyone accountable for what they do and that seems really weird to me. Many people will experience fear or hunger. Only a few will use them as an excuse to do something terrible. And many of those that do won't be particularly afraid, or hungry, or horny, or subject to whatever other IRRESISTABLE URGE you feel they couldn't possibly deal with in any other way. They know when they've done wrong and they don't care or believe they're justified in their choices. Somfin posted:But what about the suffering? I know that you said separation was enough, but given that part of the process is 'suffering,' wouldn't more suffering hasten the process of them being able to pay their way past this 'suffering paywall' you've set up between criminals and society? You pay the price decided by society. More than that is unnecessary and cruel. We don't sentence people to prison rape, though perhaps in some ways it'd be more humane if we did that in lieu of incarceration.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
Somfin posted:I suppose, to flesh out my question, I could have written "Why are we using that process rather than one which doesn't have an arbitrary mandatory pain threshold?" What process would you suggest? If someone, for instance, murders someone, what do we do? And why is that just?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Jesus poo poo you're ignorant. Here's a tidbit for you: In plenty of societies transgressions are primarily dealt with through some form of restitution, usually of a monetary kind, rather than inflicting suffering on the transgressor. Hell, to pick an well-known example, even a society as brutal and warlike as the Old Norse society, you first tried to solve a transgression through the payment of weregild. It was only after that failed that you took up arms, and even then it wasn't because the transgressor deserved to suffer but because not getting restitution would tarnish your honour. Weregild closed the matter through financial suffering, which, hey, if society wants to do that is I guess fine. The old norse didn't say "hey bro we understand you had some urges so welcome back into the fold with love and unity" did they? No they did not. Also the vikings did some pretty hosed up poo poo quite outside the bounds of their system of justice so idk I think I'm probably not literally more barbaric than they were. They might also refuse to accept your weregild and come after your rear end anyway, so there's also that. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 15:52
|
|