blatham wrote:Well, it's a bit difficult to imagine what moral issues you might acknowledge, given that you seem to hold capital punishment and state/community policies to be empty of moral issues.
Sorry blatham, but I don't feel the need to prepare for you a list of all issues which I believe to have a mooring in morality. If, in the constricted sphere of your imagination, you find it difficult to believe I acknowledge morality, so be it.
I have laid out why I believe the institutionalization of Capital Punishment doesn't have a moral component. I see no point in repeating myself.
blatham wrote:Futher, its a bit tough to figure how you are going to ground your notions on morality. You acknowledge (to Edgar) that intent is somehow relevant to whether punishment ought to follow some act, but it's unclear why you would think so. Lovely examples, by the way.
The subject of discussion is not how I think. I'm flattered that you seek to understand the workings of my mind, but you digress from the topic, and I have no intention of following you.
blatham wrote:
Sure. Moral absolutes seem a tad infantile to me, unless stipulated in a particular manner, eg UNNECESSARY cruelty.
This presumes that what you believe to be unnecessary is absolute. So a moral absolute that adheres to blatham's definitions is not infantile.
baltham wrote:You repeat that 'retribution' is moral, and absence of retribution is immoral. You also describe retribution as 'logical', which I take it you find identical to 'balanced' in this context. Retribution = logical = balanced = moral.
Good for you! You've discovered the equation.
blatham wrote:One gets the clear notion that you feel justice would be most properly, and most morally, meted out by a computer.
By "one," I assume you mean you.
Properly programmed, yes a machine intelligence could do a fine job in meting out justice.
blatham wrote: So, both a fifteen year old, born with fetal alcohol syndrome, and with no prior criminal behavior kills a man in circumstances which are unclear, and a fellow of 38 with priors for armed robbery, rape, and assault who murders a 7-11 clerk ought to get executed on the same sunny afternoon?
Not at all. If you read what I wrote for other than points with which you might take issue, you would realize the the very issue of "intent" which you have acknowledged, but have, apparently, failed to comprehend comes into play with your hypothetical.
If the facts are so unclear as to be able to establish a reasonably certain understanding of why the 15 year old killed the man, his own death cannot be determined to be appropriate retribution.
Likewise the "bad guy" who kills the 7-11 clerk. Your scenario identifies him as a bad guy, but doesn't offer an explanation as to why he killed the clerk.
For your benefit, I will repeat once more: Irrespective of why these two killed their victims, neither should be executed by The State on a sunny or even rainy afternoon. The families of the victims cannot be allowed to kill them in retribution whether or not such punishment can be deemed just. While one or both might actually deserve death, there is not a proper mechanism through which to deliver their just punishment.
The morally correct action is not always feasible.
blatham wrote: Help me out. The grandstands are high and far away, and those pennants you are waving so enthusiastically appear teensie from here.
It's funny how that tends to happen when one resides in the grandstands.
A good reason to come on down from self elevated heights.
