*_ash_* Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 I disagree they created the demand, but that's for tomorrow as the forum is about to close. Just in time it was too You don't agree that demand was created thousands of years ago, or you don't agree that users create demand now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Your ludicrous hypothetical one was exactly that. In a discussion of the morality of degrees of lawful punishment of an individual for an offence committed random lotteries of innocents have no place. It's a strawman. On the planet such barbarity only exists by law in North Korea and it is utterly horendous and that regime does need removing without regard for sovereignty but for the rest of the world it's not relevant. You are missing the point of using the hypothetical example. It is not there to suggest that the death penalty is barbaric (even though I think it is), it is there to show that everybody has a moral line to draw somewhere. The fact that everyone draws that line somewhere is in direct contradiction to Jeffrey's apparent position on the absolutism of law ie. - that drug smugglers deserve whatever punishment a state deems fit and that legal systems should be simply accepted in total without question. (I'm still not sure he actually thinks that as he hasn't answered my questions yet.) It is perfectly relevant to the discussion I am attempting to have with Jeffrey. I am not saying that the ludicrous scenario I presented in any way reflects the same kind of thinking that agrees with the death penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 You are missing the point of using the hypothetical example. It is not there to suggest that the death penalty is barbaric (even though I think it is), it is there to show that everybody has a moral line to draw somewhere. The fact that everyone draws that line somewhere is in direct contradiction to Jeffrey's apparent position on the absolutism of law ie. - that drug smugglers deserve whatever punishment a state deems fit and that legal systems should be simply accepted in total without question. It is perfectly relevant to the discussion I am attempting to have with Jeffrey. I am not saying that the ludicrous scenario I presented in any way reflects the same kind of thinking that agrees with the death penalty. I disagree because your example went beyond what even North Korea do. Had you suggested the most prolonged torture for the guilty individual you would have a point, adding a random lottery of innocents made your point mute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 I disagree because your example went beyond what even North Korea do. Had you suggested the most prolonged torture for the guilty individual you would have a point, adding a random lottery of innocents made your point mute. Why did it? The whole point of the scenario was to raise the question of how far would a regime have to go in its sentencing of drug smugglers before Jeffrey/anyone felt it went beyond acceptable? Therefore, so long as the hypothetical scenario was extreme to the point of absurdity the point was made. Splitting hairs about degrees of that absurdity is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Why did it? The whole point of the scenario was to raise the question of how far would a regime have to go in its sentencing of drug smugglers before Jeffrey/anyone felt it went beyond acceptable? Therefore, so long as the hypothetical scenario was extreme to the point of absurdity, splitting hairs about degrees of that absurdity is irrelevant. We are discussing a linear concept. What is a crime and what the punishment for someone who commits the crime should be. A lottery of known innocents does not fit into that discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 We are discussing a linear concept. What is a crime and what the punishment for someone who commits the crime should be. A lottery of known innocents does not fit into that discussion. Ok Andy, I've explained several times now the exact purpose of the question I put to Jeffrey. I'm not sure if you are missing the point or are just digging your heels in, either way, let's agree to differ and wait for Jeffrey's response shall we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Ok Andy, I've explained several times now the exact purpose of the question I put to Jeffrey. I'm not sure if you are missing the point or are just digging your heels in, either way, let's agree to differ and wait for Jeffrey's response shall we? The point you made is essence would you be prepared for your innocent child to be randomly killed for the sins of another. Clearly nobody would, so it's a strawman argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 The point you made is essence would you be prepared for your innocent child to be randomly killed for the sins of another. Clearly nobody would, so it's a strawman argument. It really isn't, you are, indeed, missing the point. The point was, in response to Jeffrey saying (amongst other things) that one has to take a legal system as it is, asking does that include where it also may go, no matter how extreme? Or would there be a point where he/you/anybody drew a moral line in the sand and stopped taking the system as it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 It really isn't, you are, indeed, missing the point. The point was, in response to Jeffrey saying one has to take a legal system as it is, does that include where it also may go, no matter how extreme? It's self evident that a "legal system" that kills the innocent knowingly is not a legal system. A legal system deals in the punishment of the guilty only. What they are guilty of is arguable. What their sentence is is arguable. That only the guilty can be punished is not. Hence strawman argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 It's self evident that a "legal system" that kills the innocent knowingly is not a legal system. A legal system deals in the punishment of the guilty only. What they are guilty of is arguable. What their sentence is is arguable. That only the guilty can be punished is not. Hence strawman argument. No it's not, at all. It is self-evident that it would not be a moral, just and civilised legal system, that I agree with. It would clearly be a corrupt legal system and those who opposed it would have to make a moral choice to do so - hence the whole point of the question. Once again - the point is that somewhere between the death penalty and the ludicrous punishment I described Jeffrey would (I imagine) draw a moral line and stop just accepting the legal system as is. Therefore, what he said was inexact. No strawman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.