Subject: RE: Mr. Devine's comments
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: The Transnational Radical Party List
I WILL TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO MR. DORRY'S RESPONSES
MR. DORRY'S RESPONSES ARE IN CAPS, mine are in lower case.
Mr. Dorry-
COHERENCE THEORY OPERATES BY ADVANCING A CONSISTENT
SET OF PROPOSITIONS ABOUT AN IDEA OR PHENOMENON WITH THE GOAL OF
EXPLAINING IT AS THOROUGHLY AND/OR PERSUASIVELY AS POSSIBLE. TO
SUGGEST THAT COHERENTISTS OPERATE BY TAPPING INTO DOMINANT SOCIETAL
VALUES, HOWEVER, IS INCORRECT. INDEED, IT IS POSSIBLE TO CONSTRUCT
A COHERENCE (AND COHERENT) THEORY ABOUT WHY, SAY, HITLER WAS A GOOD
MAN. SURELY ANY ARGUMENT THAT WOULD ADVANCE SUCH A THESIS WOULD NOT
BE TAPPING INTO ANY "DOMINANT" SOCIETAL VALUES. IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE
(AND ITS DONE ALL THE TIME) TO CONSTRUCT A COHERENCE THEORY ABOUT
THINGS WHICH LIE COMPLETELY OUTSIDE THE MORAL REALM. (ANYWAY, YOUR
COMMENT SUGGESTS THAT I THINK THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH
HEGEMONY....IF YOU READ THE REMARK CAREFULLY, YOU'D UNDERSTAND THAT
IT IS POST MODERN BOURGEOIS LIBERAL HEGEMONY I HAVE A PROBLEM
WITH).
If it is possible to construct a coherence theory of Hitler's goodness, what
, praytell, is the value of such an argument in the moral realm? It seems
that the "persuasive" part of your argument is simply it's adherence to a
predominant mentality.
(on reasonableness as a social construct:)
I SIMPLY DONT HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO SAY ALL I WANT TO SAY ABOUT THIS,
BUT LET ME JUST SAY A COUPLE OF THINGS: 1. IF WE STOP BELIEVING IN
THE POWER OF HUMAN RATIONALITY TO ERECT SATISFACTORY STANDARDS OF
REASONABLENESS, WHAT CAN WE BE LEFT WITH? 2. CAN YOU MORE FULLY
EXPLAIN YOURSELF?
Perhaps it is best that I revert to an example. In ancient Japan if a man
dishonored himself, the only reasonable response was suicide. This is
certianly unreasonable by today's standards. Today you are put in a
hospital if you attempt suicide. (this is merely an illustration.... I
don't care to argue about the morality of suicide on this list.) What, then,
are we left with? Very good question, Mr. Dorry. I think the only recourse
is to have a system that is constantly in self review, making checks on it's
own progress and correcting percieved problems accordingly (this is suposedly
the way the United States governement was to work). All we have is
human rationality, but I do not put blind faith in dominant ideas as dictating
the best course of action... only the easiest.
(What is convincing to me is how well your theories map reality:)
MY, MY, MY...I DIDNT THINK I'D EVER FIND A PLATONIST ON A LIST LIKE
THIS! MR. DEVINE, WHOSE REALITY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT HERE? THINK
FOR A MOMENT: IS THERE JUST ONE? WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU MEAN WHEN YOU
INVOKE THE NOTION OF "REALITY"? DOESN'T THE DP DEBATE, LIKE ANY
DEBATE, FLOW FROM HIGHLY VALUED, BUT ENORMOUSLY DIFFERING FIRST
PRINCIPLES, MORAL MAXIMS, ETC THAT ARE PREDICATED ON NOTHING MORE
THAN FIRMLY HELD BELIEFS? AT SOME POINT IN THIS DEBATE, WE WILL
DISCUSS THE DP WITH INTELLIGENT, THOUGHTFUL, CONCERNED PEOPLE WHO
BELIEVE DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE: 1. THE STATE HAS NO RIGHT TO TAKE
THE LIFE OF A PERSON; 2. THE STATE HAS A RIGHT TO TAKE THE LIFE OF
A PERSON; 3. DP IS JUST; 4. DP IS UNJUST, ETC., ETC... THERE IS NO
WAY (AS FAR AS I CAN TELL) TO PERSUADE PEOPLE OTHERWISE ON SUCH
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES. WHAT ONE HOPES IS THAT ONE OF A CITIZENS
FIRST PRINCIPLES SHOULD BE: LET'S MAKE SOCIETY AS JUST AS POSSIBLE.
FROM THERE, WE CAN ARGUE THAT THE DP HELPS DO THAT (OR DOESNT DO
THAT)...AND DRAW OUR CONCLUSIONS AFTER RATIONAL DEBATE. BUT I'M
INTERESTED IN HEARING MORE ABOUT THIS NOTION OF MAPPING REALITY.
When I said map reality I was referring to your assertions about the
effectiveness of DP. I don't believe that it can be implemented effectively
without a grave cost to my freedom and yours. I don't believe murderers are
concerned with the long term consequences of thier actions, by and large. I
don't belive that DP has anything to do with justice, but it has everything to
do with revenge. I don't believe DP will reduce violence in our society
because it is legitimizing violence in our society. We should be more
concerned with removing violence from our society. Fighting fire with fire
just causes more fire.
(on the killing of innocents as an unprovable maxim:)
NO, IT EXISTS WITHIN THE LAW. I CAN POINT YOU TO HUNDREDS OF
STATUTES IF YOU DONT BELIEVE ME. I'M NOT BEING SARCASTIC; MY POINT
IS SIMPLE. IF THOSE STAUTES WERE REPEALED, AND IT WAS NO LONGER
AGAINST THE LAW TO MURDER, SOCIETY WOULD BE THROWN INTO ANARCHY.
ONLY CHRISTIANS AND KANTIANS BELIEVE RIGHT AND WRONG EXIST OUTSIDE
THE LAW.
Well, I am not a Kantian, or a Christian for that matter. (Speaking of
Kant, weren't you the one who introduced "moral maxims" into the debate?
hmmmm...) While I'm at it, I am no Platonist either. Are you suggesting that
we will all go out and kill and maim if there is no law? Is that your
intention Mr. Dorry? I certianly don't plan on it, and I hope most people
would agree. If all you can do is follow laws then why make any decisions for
yourself? Implicit here is our society's childishness, that we need a strong
central government to say "no no, that's wrong" othwerwise we are helpless. If
this is your own self image, then I could understand. If you don't plan to
kill and rape, Mr. Dorry, what makes you think everyone else does? Do YOU need
a government to tell you right and wrong? If so, I feel sorry for you.
When is the last time you restrained yourself from doing an illegal
act just because it was illegal?
EVERYDAY, AS DO YOU AND EVERYONE READING THIS LIST.
The only cases I have ever consulted the law was in matters I do not see as
belonging in the legal domain. If I need to cunsult the law, chances are I
feel that particular law is illegitimate.
NO, THE ANSWER IS ALL THE TIME. WE ARE FREQUENTLY IN SITUATIONS
THAT CALL FOR US TO COMPARE AND WEIGH THE ADVANTAGES OF ILLEGAL
ACTION WITH THE CORRESPONDING PENALTIES. IF WE SIMPLY INVOKED OUR
CONSCIENCES TO DECIDE FOR US, THEN POOR WOULD STEAL FROM RICH
CONSTANTLY, AND THE VIGILANTISM RATE WOULD BE ASTRONOMICAL.
Instead, the rich get to steal from the poor. Lovely.
What is the justice system but sanctified vigilantism?
Up to this point we have been dealing with conflicts between the moral universe
and the legal universe. While I maintain that there is a meaningful difference
between the two, it is naive of us to treat them as autonomous entities. (this
would truly be a Platonic outlook) Certianly the law has an effect on my moral
decisions, but only insofar as it is an articulation of dominant moral values
that are doubtlessly implanted in my brain.
People generally act by thier own moral principles irregardless of
the law.
IRREGARDLESS IS NOT A WORD, AND NOW YOU ARE MAPPING A VERY
DISTORTED REALITY, MR DEVINE.
Since you are so stuck on consulting athority, I consulted "The American
Heritage Dictionary": 'irregardless: adv., nonstandard; Regardless. '
Gosh, it says "nonstandard", it must be wrong.
The instances where the law is a deterrence are not the most
horrible violent
crimes.
LET'S NOT DISCUSS WHAT IS OR IS NOT A DETERRENT FOR NOW, BECAUSE
I'VE ALREADY CONCEDED THAT CURRENT DP LEGISLATION AROUND THE
COUNTRY IS IMPOTENT. RATHER, LET'S DISCUSS HOW DP MIGHT BE
EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENTED.
What I am asserting is that a reasonable person may not kill due to a
threat of death, but it is precisely because reason is social construct that DP
will not deter violent criminals. Killing is not a reasonable act. If you
stop to say " Gosh, they could kill me for this", you probably aren't very
serious about killing to begin with. An act of violence is not a reasonable
act, and to think that reason will sway someone in a murderous state is naive.
Your plan for CP requires that punishment be swift and
certian.
WITHOUT IGNORING DUE PROCESS. BUT DUE PROCESS MEANS DIFFERENT
THINGS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE...
This is the only way CP could work, but at what cost?
THE COST WOULD BE: A SAFER SOCIETY, LESS TAXES, MORE MONEY FOR
SOCIAL PROGRAMS TO ELEVATE THE STATUS OF THOSE WHO MIGHT OTHERWISE
TURN TO CRIME, MORE FAITH IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM....
The appeals process is a right I am unwilling to part with, it is a
fundamental part of a fair legal
system.
I'M NOT SUGGESTING SUMMARY EXECUTIONS ON THE STREET, MR DEVINE! BY
THE WAY, I THOUGHT YOU SAID THAT THINGS LIKE "REASONABLENESS" AND
"FAIRNESS" ARE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS. TSK, TSK, YOU'RE COMPROMISING
YOUR PLATONIC IDEALS.
Required CP for certian crimes will likely create a bureaucratic
push to implement it swiftly, which would further sacrifice
accuracy and fairness.
THIS IS MERE NONSENSE, MR DEVINE. THE ONLY FACTORS THAT COUNT FOR
ACCURACY AND FAIRNESS IN A TRIAL IS THE ABILITY AND DEDICATION OF
THE LAWYERS AND JUDGES INVOLVED. EFFECTIVE DP LEGISLATION WOULD NOT
ALTER THE TRIAL PROCESS, NOR THE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS THAT
ACCOMPANY IT (AND THERE ARE MANY). WHAT IT MIGHT DO IS DETER
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, WHICH WOULD LIGHTEN COURT DOCKETS AND ALLOW FOR
TRIALS TO BE EVEN MORE THOROUGH, ACCURATE AND FAIR.
Talk about nonsense Mr. Dorry. If the only factors that count for fairness and
accuracy are the ability and dedication of the lawyers then what is the point
of the judicial system? Are you implying that it is the MORAL character of the
lawyers which guides them, and not the law? Or do you contend that the only
factor is thier dedication to the law? Either way, I disagree. If thier
dedication is all that counts toward fairness, then am I to suppose the laws
and procedures they are dedicated to are irrelevant? This cannot be so,
otherwise any legal system with dedicated players is fair. Obviously what they
are dedicated to is a vital factor. If the justice system is dedicated to
upholding the law, they would be decicated to putting the criminal to death.
This is the bureaucratic push I mentioned, and is evident in all bureaucracy.
Any bureaucracy that believes in it's goals will push for them, by thier own
volition and as a form of self preservation. After all, an agency's
ability to meet it's goals is a major factor in it's survival. What I am afraid
of is a system that kills as a goal. Bureaucratic goals, such as the
eradication of drugs, manifests itself not only in one system, but across the
spectrum of govenment. Killing is not a goal I wish to introduce into the
system.
Furthermore, I just don't believe that DP could be effective and still afford
for due process.
Just as a note on fairness, the justice system is not colorblind and probably
won't be for a long time. The enourmously biased manner in which DP is (and
will be) handed out to minorities. I'd be happy to entertain ideas on how to
remove bias from tyhe system overall, not just in DP cases. However, we are
playing with peoples lives, and discrimination in the system is too prevalent
for me to feel good about doling out death.
DP PROVIDES: IMPOSSIBILITY OF ESCAPE OR PAROLE, SENSE OF
JUSTICE FOR VICTIM(S)' FRIENDS/FAMILY, ETC., HEIGHTENED GENERAL
DETERRENCE BY PLAYING ON CRIMINAL'S FEAR OF DEATH
(In many cases life sentences can be less expensive because of
the enourmous cost of those vital CP appeals.):
THIS IS AN ARGUMENT FOR LOWERING THE COST OF JUSTICE, NOT
ABOLISHING THE DP.
Then stop shouting about how DP will lower the cost of justice, MR. Dorry.
What I was attempting to dispute was your own assertion about the financial
benefits of DP, which, quite frankly, do not exist. DP proceedings will
inherently be more expensive than any other because of the stakes involved.
This may be even more true if DP is mandatory for some crimes. A mandatory
life sentence (WITHOUT PAROLE, that is) is less expensive. Furthermore
if the family and friends sense of "justice" is a thirst more more violence,
then this is not a thirst I care to quench.
More generally I don't believe that a government has the
right to kill anyone.
WHAT RIGHT DOES A GOVT HAVE TO DO ANYTHING? TO TAX PEOPLE? TO
CONFINE CRIMINALS? THE ANSWER IS: THE GOVT HAS RIGHTS WE CONFER TO
IT AS A PEOPLE. IF WE CONFER ON IT THE RIGHT TO KILL, THEN IT MAY
DO SO.
As a people? Are we a people? You and I certianly are not part of a people.
There is no general will. The best we can do is make laws that protect all of
the citizens --including those we have decided are morally reprehensible. A
life sentence w/o parole (in your slick, efficient new jails) will protect
us from dangerous individuals. Escape is a negligible danger, and I am rather
unconcerned with vengance. No one person, and no one collective of persons
such as a government, has the right to kill.
Frankly I am afraid of a government that thinks it has control
over the life and death of it's citizens.
THEN BE AFRAID, BECAUSE GOVT ALWAYS HAD THAT POWER AND ALWAYS
WILL.
I have no response to this, Mr. Dorry. You speak volumes.
BUT IF 51% OF THE PEOPLE IN THE STATE OR COUNTRY (LETS SAY) VOTE
FOR DP, HOW COULD IT NOT BE A GOVT OF AND FOR THE PEOPLE? ARE YOU
AGAINST MAJORITY RULE? WHAT PRINCIPLE WOULD YOU PUT IN ITS PLACE?
ISNT IT TRUE THAT THOSE WHO OPPOSE THE DP ARE IN THE STARK MINORITY
AND REALLY DONT REPRESENT ANYONE BUT THEMSELVES? LISTEN TO THE
NEWS, MR DEVINE, EXAMINE THE POLLS. IT IS TRUE.
Yes, I may be in a minority. I am in a minority that still believes that the
right to life is fundamental, and should be preserved. There are, and always
should be immutable principles for a government, that which is untouchable even
by the masses. I believe that my right to be alive is one.
I also don't care to send the message to our children or the world
that violence is a legitmate way to solve problems.
I DONT CARE TO SEND THAT MESSAGE EITHER, MR DEVINE, SO DO NOT TRY
TO TAKE SOME MORAL HIGH GROUND IN THIS DEBATE. BUT IF ALL WE ARE
LEFT WITH IS VIOLENCE, THEN VIOLENCE IT MUST BE. OF COURSE, ANOTHER
NAME FOR VIOLENCE IS SOMETIMES JUSTICE. (AS A PLATONIST, YOU SHOULD
BE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT WORD..)
I always thought the point of a moral debate was to reach a higher moral
ground. Violence it must be? Rather than ridding ourselves of violence you
seem quite happy to let the cycle continue. Obvously you have no hopes for
positive social change, if the best we can do is rename violence as justice,
morals as laws, and be happy with it.
I am actually quite unconfortable with the word justice because, as
you correctly point out, it implies some Platonic existence. But, as you
demonstrated in the previos sentence, it is a word that is tossed around with
utter carelessness and can be changed at the drop of a hat. I prefer to
stick to meaningful principles, such as my right to life. I never gave this
right up, it belongs to me, and me only. You and your leviathan can try to
sieze it from me, but I will never, ever let you take it.
Sincerely,
John Devine
<---- End Included Message ---->
