Kay
Apprentice
Texas Bluebonnets
Posts: 109
|
Post by Kay on May 18, 2010 20:31:18 GMT -5
Dear Jim, once again you simply dodge the logical fallacy of your position. Let me briefly recap. If an action is free it has no cause or motive. As such, it is purely random or capricious. If human behaviour WERE the result of free choice it would be wholly capricious, random and irrational. As such, it WOULD fulfil the McNaghten Rules definition. If it HAS a cause or a motive it CANNOT be a FREELY CHOSEN action. As such, it was an act that arose from externally determined circumstances and for which therefore the agent CANNOT be held responsible! If you believe in free will, punishment is irrational. If you don't believe in free will, it's also irrational. Whichever way you look at it, punishment is irrational and indefensible! Sorry about your luck! Okay, I'm confused, surely you're not saying that we should never punish?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on May 19, 2010 13:10:10 GMT -5
Dear Jim, once again you simply dodge the logical fallacy of your position. Let me briefly recap. If an action is free it has no cause or motive. As such, it is purely random or capricious. If human behaviour WERE the result of free choice it would be wholly capricious, random and irrational. As such, it WOULD fulfil the McNaghten Rules definition. If it HAS a cause or a motive it CANNOT be a FREELY CHOSEN action. As such, it was an act that arose from externally determined circumstances and for which therefore the agent CANNOT be held responsible! If you believe in free will, punishment is irrational. If you don't believe in free will, it's also irrational. Whichever way you look at it, punishment is irrational and indefensible! Sorry about your luck! Okay, I'm confused, surely you're not saying that we should never punish? mike don't believe it any more than you do, but, he's into obscure logic, which is illogic in reality, and copenhagen physics, which by definition is irrational
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on May 19, 2010 13:13:56 GMT -5
Dear Jim, once again you simply dodge the logical fallacy of your position. Let me briefly recap. If an action is free it has no cause or motive. As such, it is purely random or capricious. If human behaviour WERE the result of free choice it would be wholly capricious, random and irrational. As such, it WOULD fulfil the McNaghten Rules definition. If it HAS a cause or a motive it CANNOT be a FREELY CHOSEN action. As such, it was an act that arose from externally determined circumstances and for which therefore the agent CANNOT be held responsible! If you believe in free will, punishment is irrational. If you don't believe in free will, it's also irrational. Whichever way you look at it, punishment is irrational and indefensible! Sorry about your luck! no my man, when you start from a false premise, which you do here, everything derived from that premise is false. obviously, there is NO outside influence that controls the actions of any individual, under ANY circumstance. even fighting as self preservation does not count. every individual CHOOSES how he will react in any given circumstance. that's just the way it is in the real world
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on May 19, 2010 13:15:48 GMT -5
fairly decent try, but of course, it don't get off the ground. of course EVERYONE, with the sole exception being the clinicly insane, by the mcnaughten definition, is a totally free moral agent, and solely responsibilbe for absolutely every act that they ever do. that's just reality. by the way, i have never stated that, as a rule, ANYONE is born inherently evil. there certainly are those who demonstrate that they were, such as thompson and venables, but, that is not the norm. it is the individual, and no one or no thing but the individual, who makes the conscious, and voluntary choice, to be worthless. at any rate, obviously the actions of a criminal are irrational and capricious, although seldom random. of course, this is relevant to absolutely nothing whatsoever. it remains, in EVERY instance, a choice that the individual made. the notion that punishment for making that choice is irrational and capricious is prima facie absurd. of course, if the punishment is geared toward the imbecilic notion of preventing crime rather than punishing for crime already committed, you have a case, since that punishment is irrational by definition. Thompson and Venables born evil? I don't think so, jumbo. Have you checked out their families and how they were raised? as i recall, their childhood could have been better, but max nix. they did know that torturing and murdering jamie bulger was wrong, and make the voluntary, conscious choice to do it.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on May 19, 2010 13:26:10 GMT -5
Thompson and Venables born evil? I don't think so, jumbo. Have you checked out their families and how they were raised? as i recall, their childhood could have been better, but max nix. they did know that torturing and murdering jamie bulger was wrong, and make the voluntary, conscious choice to do it. Well, knowing right from wrong is not an indicator of being born evil. You could say they were brought up in an atmosphere of relative evil. I'd say its nurture - or lack of - in this case.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on May 19, 2010 14:08:35 GMT -5
as i recall, their childhood could have been better, but max nix. they did know that torturing and murdering jamie bulger was wrong, and make the voluntary, conscious choice to do it. Well, knowing right from wrong is not an indicator of being born evil. You could say they were brought up in an atmosphere of relative evil. I'd say its nurture - or lack of - in this case. that's possible. however, how many kids grow up in worse conditions, but don't torture and murder other children, or commit any crimes at all for that matter? if just one did, that would mean that the environment was totally irrelevant, and played no part
|
|
|
Post by beth on May 21, 2010 19:09:31 GMT -5
Are you talking about economic conditions? Because, sometimes the eco-conditions can be fine - even excellent - while the mental/emotional abuse can be toxic. Not trying to make excuses, just saying children do not think, act or react the same way adults would in similar situations.
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on May 21, 2010 20:35:09 GMT -5
I find any attempt to read 'morality' into issues of torture and killing rather bizarre since 'morality' and 'justice' even after (even more so after) acceptance of religions that said these behaviours are wrong in absolute, have always been, and still are, to justify them in the name of a loving god.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2010 20:41:36 GMT -5
Listen for what it is worth I was physically, mentally and emotionally abused as a child and I didn't turn into a murderer, rapist or violent sociopath (though at times I may unpack my heart with words!)
My wife, by contrast, had loving parents and yet she ran off the rails and committed a number of crimes.
The sad reality is that there is no particular way of knowing how a child will turn out.
That only comes with experience of life.
It still remains the case that children may not be judged by the law using the same standards that we would apply to adults.
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on May 21, 2010 21:58:25 GMT -5
Dear Jim, once again you simply dodge the logical fallacy of your position. Let me briefly recap. If an action is free it has no cause or motive. As such, it is purely random or capricious. If human behaviour WERE the result of free choice it would be wholly capricious, random and irrational. As such, it WOULD fulfil the McNaghten Rules definition. If it HAS a cause or a motive it CANNOT be a FREELY CHOSEN action. As such, it was an act that arose from externally determined circumstances and for which therefore the agent CANNOT be held responsible! If you believe in free will, punishment is irrational. If you don't believe in free will, it's also irrational. Whichever way you look at it, punishment is irrational and indefensible! Sorry about your luck! Okay, I'm confused, surely you're not saying that we should never punish? I'm pretty sure Mike said he does not believe in punishment, but in 'street justice' instead.
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on May 21, 2010 22:00:44 GMT -5
Um, Jumbo, you like the idea of sending teenagers (who haven't killed, nor raped, to prison for the rest of their lives? ..... if so, why?
|
|