Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

This topic is about the January 2023 Philosophy Book of the Month, Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise by John K Danenbarger

Entanglement – Quantum And Otherwise is a dark and guilt-ridden comment on the human condition disguised as a literary crime fiction novel, suggestive of Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, but more concise and less boring.

(John K Danenbarger)

...certain crimes are justifiable if they are committed in order to remove obstacles to the higher goals of 'extraordinary' men.

(Crime and Punishment - Wikipidea)


Can we justify crimes if the ultimate aim was extraordinary? Will a crime be a 'non-crime' if it was used to exert justice?

[alana]

There's this acceptance of crimes which are done to protect ourselves or someone and even something. Private Defence is a way people remove themselves from liability in courts.

[Kamizan]

You quote Dostoyevski but don’t seem to be aware that Crime and Punishment, and Notes from the Underground, are both attacks on the utilitarian thought which makes this question appear rationally plausible, but which is actually monstrous, as the monstrous behaviour of the Underground Man and Raskolnikov demonstrate.

[Baby Augustine]

I think you refer to what is treated in Sophocles play Antigone
Creon issued a law that would prevent their brother from getting a proper burial, and anyone who does bury the body will be stoned to death. Antigone, who feels she must bury her dead brother under Divine law, decides to bury him without Ismene's help.

[GE Morton]

Can we justify crimes if the ultimate aim was extraordinary? Will a crime be a 'non-crime' if it was used to exert justice?

Well, first, what counts as "extraordinary"? Secondly, acts which would be criminal when not justified, i.e., killing a person in self-defense, are not crimes.

[Pattern-chaser]

...certain crimes are justifiable if they are committed in order to remove obstacles to the higher goals of 'extraordinary' men.

(Crime and Punishment - Wikipidea)


Can we justify crimes if the ultimate aim was extraordinary? Will a crime be a 'non-crime' if it was used to exert justice?

In my opinion — and I think it must be a mere opinion, as I see this as a moral question —

IF ((Action = NOT(UnJust) AND (HarmDoneByAction = NONE)) THEN (Action IS_NOT_A Crime).

Obviously, this is dependent on what we understand by "just" or "unjust" (and how we see 'harm')...

[Moreno]

Can we justify crimes if the ultimate aim was extraordinary? Will a crime be a 'non-crime' if it was used to exert justice?

I don't think it needs to even be extrodinary. A little kid runs out in the street. So, you run out after, jaywalking (which is a minor crime) and pull the kid off the street.

You can argue this in court (my first example never making it to court) and it would be a necessity defense.

Helping runaway slaves looks peachy in hindsight (and to many at the time).

There can be cases where some think it was wrong despite the intentions. And others think it was justified.

Dostoyevsky was not argument that Raskolnikov's actions were justified, though the quote was.

[Sculptor1]

There was a case in the British News about 35 years ago.

A couple of men were on trial because they had sprung a guy out of gaol. Clearly assisting a prison break is illegal.
The judge completely acquitted them on the grounds that the man they freed was later found innocent of the crime he was incarcerated for.

There crime was justified on grounds of truth. Sorry cant find he details.

The case of the Tolpuddle Martyrs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolpuddle ... sentencing
1834.
6 men who had formed a union were transported to Australia for "swearing an illegal oath" to join a Friendly Society in protest refusing to accept a pay cut from 10s to 7s per week.
They spent 3 plus years at hard labour on the other side of the world. Yet after mass protests and 800k (an incredible figure for the time) signatures were eventually pardoned and returned to England.

Where there are unjust laws there are justifiable crimes.

[Unique]

When we talk about justifiable crimes, I think there is something as justifiable crimes. When an action is taken on the grounds of self-defense to protect oneself against dangers, even if such actions are crimes, I think to a point it is justifiable.

[Pattern-chaser]

When we talk about justifiable crimes, I think there is something as justifiable crimes. When an action is taken on the grounds of self-defense to protect oneself against dangers, even if such actions are crimes, I think to a point it is justifiable.

I think this is just a matter of how we use the word. I would say that if an action is justifiable, it isn't a crime. But I see the point you're making, and the way you are using "crime", and I agree with what you're saying.

[Sushan]

There's this acceptance of crimes which are done to protect ourselves or someone and even something. Private Defence is a way people remove themselves from liability in courts.

I agree with you. But the resistance that was exerted should have been proportionate to the threat. You cannot kill a man who hit you with his weak bare hands and say that was for self-defence. This 'self-defence' thing should be thoroughly examined before coming to a conclusion.

[Sushan]

You quote Dostoyevski but don’t seem to be aware that Crime and Punishment, and Notes from the Underground, are both attacks on the utilitarian thought which makes this question appear rationally plausible, but which is actually monstrous, as the monstrous behaviour of the Underground Man and Raskolnikov demonstrate.

When the socio-political background of the author is considered, what you mentioned has a great value. And thank you for pointing that out. But I saw the punishment being an imprisonment for several years for a murder just because the murderer confessed. So what has to be taken from that part? Is it to say that one can be forgiven if that one was honest?

[Sushan]

I think you refer to what is treated in Sophocles play Antigone
Creon issued a law that would prevent their brother from getting a proper burial, and anyone who does bury the body will be stoned to death. Antigone, who feels she must bury her dead brother under Divine law, decides to bury him without Ismene's help.

Thank you for mentioning the play. It is quite a controversial as well as confusing story. Antigone was deemed guilty by a rule that was made by a king, a human being. When we look at her crime (as the play says) it has done no harm to the society or herself. So it is questionable whether it is a actual crime. Seemingly the king had some selfish thoughts when he made that rule.

[Sushan]

Can we justify crimes if the ultimate aim was extraordinary? Will a crime be a 'non-crime' if it was used to exert justice?

Well, first, what counts as "extraordinary"? Secondly, acts which would be criminal when not justified, i.e., killing a person in self-defense, are not crimes.

If someone decides to time travel and kill Hitler, the act would be an extraordinary one. But no one will know that it is extraordinary since the world will never know the harm that the victim ccould have done. Ultimately it will end up as just another murder. And if I go further deep in this dilemma that I made, if the killer was a person who caught in the holocaust, then his/her action would have been an act of self-defence

[Sushan]

...certain crimes are justifiable if they are committed in order to remove obstacles to the higher goals of 'extraordinary' men.

(Crime and Punishment - Wikipidea)


Can we justify crimes if the ultimate aim was extraordinary? Will a crime be a 'non-crime' if it was used to exert justice?

In my opinion — and I think it must be a mere opinion, as I see this as a moral question —

IF ((Action = NOT(UnJust) AND (HarmDoneByAction = NONE)) THEN (Action IS_NOT_A Crime).

Obviously, this is dependent on what we understand by "just" or "unjust" (and how we see 'harm')...

Seems like you are a computer programmer.

Let's take a robbery as an example. The victim is being harmed and the act is unjust. So the victim gets the right to go to courts seeking justice.

Let's take an incident in which a beggar is being killed by someone. The beggar had no family and no one else was harmed by the action. Whether the action was just or unjust remains as a question. But the state will file a case and look for the murderer since the action is taken as an act against the government.

Law and legal jurisdiction is very much complex and confusing.