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

[ThomasHobbes]

I agree there is a vernacular meaning of "justice" that equates it with vengeance. That is not the dictionary meaning, however, and not the meaning intended when I said the purpose of a criminal justice system is to secure justice for the victims of crime.

Then much ado about nothing, we are in complete agreement.

The issue was "getting justice for the victim". If we look at the definition of justice, then it is hard to equate with ANY process in place.
just behaviour or treatment.

"a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people"
synonyms: fairness, justness, fair play, fair-mindedness, equity, equitableness, even-handedness, egalitarianism, impartiality, impartialness, lack of bias, objectivity, neutrality, disinterestedness, lack of prejudice, open-mindedness, non-partisanship"

What victims seem to want is to hurt the perpetrator as they have been hurt. This is vengeance, and since they consider this vengeance AS justice, we can only conclude that "getting justice for the victim" is a classic case of euphemism. Justice is the means to vengeance in this case.

I prefer to talk plain. Vengeance is what we have been talking about all along. The victims are no impartial, they have an obvious bias to punish the perp. The court is the conduit for that vengeance.

[ThomasHobbes]

Gates basically did **** all. Teams of underpaid people, tax evasion technicians, victims chained to crap software and crashing operating systems tearing their hair out, all paid through the nose to this parasite.

Ah . . . so people he was paying --- his employees --- paid him? That is the Newspeak definition of "stealing," I suppose? If you hire a plumber to fix a leak, pay him what he agreed to accept, are you "stealing" from him too?

You'll need to use common words with their ordinary, dictionary meanings if you wish your comments to be taken seriously, TH.

As MS has been 100% dependant on the infrastructure, it would be their moral duty to pay sufficient taxes to build and support that infrastructure. Sadly since the US treasury does not primarily serve the people preferring to serve the individuals of which it comprises, having shares in MS, and being bought be MS through the political lobby the result is that MS has in no way paid its fair share of taxation. So whilst millions of Americans suffer on poverty, poor schooling and a failing infrastructure, MS with the more resources that a medium sized country continues to avoid taxation.
Theft is more subtle than your failing brain is able to allow.

[Steve3007]

What victims seem to want is to hurt the perpetrator as they have been hurt. This is vengeance, and since they consider this vengeance AS justice, we can only conclude that "getting justice for the victim" is a classic case of euphemism. Justice is the means to vengeance in this case.

This is what was referred to as "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". Slightly earlier in the topic I proposed that GE Morton's view of providing restitution - securing for each person what they are due - was essentially that. GE Morton pointed out to me that although "an eye for an eye..." does contain the element of equality, it isn't restitution. Restitution would be paying the optician's or dentist's bills. Then I commented that it's often difficult to decide exactly what constitutes restitution and that dentures, no matter how expensive, are no substitute for real teeth.

Anyway, yes, victims no doubt do want that. GE Morton's point, as I understand it, is that this doesn't alter the fact that justice means securing for each person what they are due. And the purpose of a criminal justice system is to attempt to secure justice, as far as possible, for the victims of crime.

If you don't like that definition of the word "justice", for whatever reason, then I suggest you attach a different label to the concept of "securing for each person what they are due" (say, X) and argue with GE Morton as to whether X ought to be the role of the criminal X system...

The issue was "getting justice for the victim". If we look at the definition of justice, then it is hard to equate with ANY process in place.just behaviour or treatment.

...GE Morton appears to be proposing that, even if X doesn't equate to any system currently in place, it ought to be the goal. Argue about whether that's true, and whether that goal is achievable.

[ThomasHobbes]

What victims seem to want is to hurt the perpetrator as they have been hurt. This is vengeance, and since they consider this vengeance AS justice, we can only conclude that "getting justice for the victim" is a classic case of euphemism. Justice is the means to vengeance in this case.

This is what was referred to as "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". Slightly earlier in the topic I proposed that GE Morton's view of providing restitution - securing for each person what they are due - was essentially that. GE Morton pointed out to me that although "an eye for an eye..." does contain the element of equality, it isn't restitution. Restitution would be paying the optician's or dentist's bills. Then I commented that it's often difficult to decide exactly what constitutes restitution and that dentures, no matter how expensive, are no substitute for real teeth.

Anyway, yes, victims no doubt do want that. GE Morton's point, as I understand it, is that this doesn't alter the fact that justice means securing for each person what they are due. And the purpose of a criminal justice system is to attempt to secure justice, as far as possible, for the victims of crime.

If you don't like that definition of the word "justice", for whatever reason, then I suggest you attach a different label to the concept of "securing for each person what they are due" (say, X) and argue with GE Morton as to whether X ought to be the role of the criminal X system...

The issue was "getting justice for the victim". If we look at the definition of justice, then it is hard to equate with ANY process in place.just behaviour or treatment.

...GE Morton appears to be proposing that, even if X doesn't equate to any system currently in place, it ought to be the goal. Argue about whether that's true, and whether that goal is achievable.

I do not much care for most of what Morton (Dowey Jnr) says.

[Steve3007]

I do not much care for most of what Morton (Dowey Jnr) says.

Then why talk to him?

[ThomasHobbes]

I do not much care for most of what Morton (Dowey Jnr) says.

Then why talk to him?

Because I do not much care for much of what he thinks.

[Steve3007]

OK. Fair enough. Does that mean creating arguments to oppose his arguments?

[ThomasHobbes]

OK. Fair enough. Does that mean creating arguments to oppose his arguments?

When the question is a moral one the matter of arguments never leads to proof. It is a matter of opinion; opinions that reflect upon the humanity of the individual.
I can only express my opinion about the nature of the penal system and point out where it is failing society.
It is as valid an opinion that all crimes above petty theft ought to be met with the death penalty. I think otherwise. All I can do is point out what would be the adverse consequences of such a regime.
The Morton's of this world with their casual violence and intransigent lack of human understanding should always be met with resistance lest we descend once again into tyranny.

[Steve3007]

When the question is a moral one the matter of arguments never leads to proof. It is a matter of opinion; opinions that reflect upon the humanity of the individual.

I don't entirely agree. That is only true if there is a fundamental disagreement about core values. But often, I observe that questions which appear to be about apparently irreconcilable core values are actually more about the best methods for achieving agreed goals.

All I can do is point out what would be the adverse consequences of such a regime.

And here you appear to agree with me. You can argue with someone who disagrees with you - an ostensibly moral disagreement - but actually be arguing about what the consequences would be of a given course of action. If you think you can point out to your opponent "adverse consequences" then you must think that, to at least some extent, he shares your values. And you're seeking to persuade him that the course of action you propose is (factually) more suited to realising those values than the course of action he proposes.

[Steve3007]

The Morton's of this world with their casual violence and intransigent lack of human understanding should always be met with resistance lest we descend once again into tyranny.

If that really is true, then I don't think an effective form of resistance is simply to insult and mock. If it's possible to make an argument against the arguments of your opponent, then I think it's best to attempt to make that argument. If it's really not possible to make any argument, that indicates that there are, deep down, no shared values. In that case, the only option is to fight!

But, as I said, it seems to me that the second possibility is rarely the case. Personally I disagree with much of what GE Morton says, but I respect the fact that he's willing to defend it with coherent arguments. He's one of those posters who doesn't go in much for jokey comments, mockery or insults. Perhaps that makes him seem cold and analytical. Personally I like a few jokey comments. But that doesn't mean I assume that people who don't are cold or lack humanity. I don't know anything about their personal moral behaviour, or personality, and wouldn't want to guess. I just assume that they don't see this forum as a place to display it and would rather stick to debate. Fair enough. It takes all sorts.

[Belindi]

GE Morton wrote:

I prefer to think there are no uncaused events, even subatomic ones. I agree with Einstein ("God does not play dice with the universe"). I may well be wrong about that, but I'm willing to concede that human behavior is ultimately deterministic, that interests are the causal results of an enormously complex interaction of hundreds or even thousands of genetic and environmental variables --- so complex that they will never be unraveled for any person. And as with subatomic events, some true randomness may be involved as well. But until they are unraveled sufficiently to predict at least some of Alfie's behavior with 100% reliability, one cannot say that X is the cause of those behaviors.

My view of human nature includes that the default human nature is capable of learning; not only learning stimulus and response as we train pet dogs, but also learning concepts such as the moral precept of cooperation with others including that we can learn to empathise with others. Many criminals have failed to empathise with their victims.True, some brain damaged individuals cannot learn to sympathise or empathise, but I daresay most criminals are not brain damaged.

Besides common sympathy for another sentient being, there is also the moral concept of duty. This concept can be learned so that in effect a criminal might learn that he has a duty to the society of others who sustain him in the necessities of his life.

These two moral concepts are at least two thousand years old and are available to all adequately socialised persons in free societies.

Humans' capability to learn moral concepts means that criminals can be taught. Prisons should be places of learning not revenge.

[GE Morton]

When the question is a moral one the matter of arguments never leads to proof. It is a matter of opinion; opinions that reflect upon the humanity of the individual.

I don't entirely agree. That is only true if there is a fundamental disagreement about core values. But often, I observe that questions which appear to be about apparently irreconcilable core values are actually more about the best methods for achieving agreed goals.

TH appears to subscribe to a non-cognitivist view of ethics, perhaps the the emotivist view:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/

https://moralphilosophy.info/metaethics ... ressivism/

Many propositions asserting moral principles or judgments indeed express nothing more than the speaker's unfounded and uninformed opinion, likely derived from his emotional responses to morally problematic scenarios.

I am a moral cognitivist. I think moral theories can be, and ought to be, as sound and rationally defensible as theories in any other field, and that moral judgments and principles have truth values which can be determined analytically or empirically.

A moral theory is a theory for generating rules governing interactions between agents in a moral field (a social setting). Like all theories it proceeds from one or more axioms expressing the aims of the theory, which are assumed to be true without proof, and from which subordinate theorems --- principles and rules --- can be logically derived. It also stipulates certain features of "human nature" and the moral field, which it takes to be either self-evident or empirically verifiable. In principle the rules generated can be tested empirically to see whether or not they further the aims of the theory declared in the axioms.

A sound moral theory does not depend upon anyone's values. Rather, it assumes that everyone values certain things, and that agents differ in what they value and the values they assign to different things. The theory is indifferent to values, and to the various interests and goals of agents; it is concerned only with the means agents employ to attain those goals or realize those values.

[GE Morton]

My view of human nature includes that the default human nature is capable of learning; not only learning stimulus and response as we train pet dogs, but also learning concepts such as the moral precept of cooperation with others including that we can learn to empathise with others.

Well, I certainly agree that all humans (with some familiar exceptions) are capable of learning. They are all also capable of rejecting teaching, especially if it is contrary to beliefs they have internalized or threatens habits or lifestyles they find satisfying. But I know of no method for "teaching" empathy. Empathy is an emotional response to others' suffering, and like all emotional responses, it is non-rational and "instinctive." It is also, for most people, narrowly focused, to embrace one's kin, fellow tribesmen, or others with whom one has formed personal bonds. Christians, among others, have been trying to "teach" empathy for two millennia ("love thy neighbor as thyself") with no notable success.*

Many criminals have failed to empathise with their victims.

That is true. But many other people --- most, I would venture --- do not empathize with strangers either, yet do not commit crimes. And even criminals display empathy --- for persons with whom they have bonds or can identify.

Besides common sympathy for another sentient being, there is also the moral concept of duty. This concept can be learned so that in effect a criminal might learn that he has a duty to the society of others who sustain him in the necessities of his life.

Criminals can indeed learn, including moral principles. And a few do, with or without any formal "rehabilitation" process. But most, alas, do not.

* People can become more --- or less --- empathetic over time, with no intervention, due to maturation, personal experiences, or some internal neural process not understood, just as people who, say, ignored classical music in their youth can come to enjoy it later in life. But there is no evidence that they can be "taught" empathy (that I know of).

[GE Morton]

Sadly since the US treasury does not primarily serve the people preferring to serve the individuals of which it comprises, having shares in MS, and being bought be MS through the political lobby the result is that MS has in no way paid its fair share of taxation. So whilst millions of Americans suffer on poverty, poor schooling and a failing infrastructure, MS with the more resources that a medium sized country continues to avoid taxation.
Theft is more subtle than your failing brain is able to allow.

I suspect we have rather different notions as to what constitutes a "fair share" of taxes. In my view a fair share is one proportional to the value of government services one receives. I.e., you pay for what you get, just as with all other goods and services. No taxpayer has any a priori duty to relieve someone else's poverty or educate someone else's kids.

[Burning ghost]

Sadly since the US treasury does not primarily serve the people preferring to serve the individuals of which it comprises, having shares in MS, and being bought be MS through the political lobby the result is that MS has in no way paid its fair share of taxation. So whilst millions of Americans suffer on poverty, poor schooling and a failing infrastructure, MS with the more resources that a medium sized country continues to avoid taxation.
Theft is more subtle than your failing brain is able to allow.

I suspect we have rather different notions as to what constitutes a "fair share" of taxes. In my view a fair share is one proportional to the value of government services one receives. I.e., you pay for what you get, just as with all other goods and services. No taxpayer has any a priori duty to relieve someone else's poverty or educate someone else's kids.

That’s a pretty convincing defense. On the other hand I do think having free health care for all is something that we should all pay for regardless of whether or not we use it. I also think free education is essential too. I can perfectly understand opting for private healthcare or private schooling, but I don’t see this as being a complete justification of not paying taxes because I don’t think anyone, under any circumstances, should be denied public healthcare or education just because they previously went private.

I do also understand that if you pay 10% and earn say $1000 the difference of 10% when earning $1,000,000 is astronomical and hardly comparable with one perso paying $100 and the other paying $100,000. When it comes to being fair this doesn’t seem to balance out well.