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 ---->
>
>
