George - 17 August 2007 10:35 PM

Vengeance and punishment have (or shouldn’t have) nothing to do with justice. People are sent to jail to be corrected and hopefully re-educated.

Well, if we fail in reeducate them (there is a lot of anecdotal evidence to support it, but I don’t know any formal study), at least we had had them off the street for a couple of years.

Yes, George and Barto have it exactly. The problem with retributive justice is that the suffering it inflicts is gratuitous. As you say, Mr. O., the contemporary idea of justice does involve retribution. I would argue that this is a mistake, and serves no meaningful purpose.

mckenzievmd - 18 August 2007 12:04 AM

Yes, George and Barto have it exactly. The problem with retributive justice is that the suffering it inflicts is gratuitous. As you say, Mr. O., the contemporary idea of justice does involve retribution. I would argue that this is a mistake, and serves no meaningful purpose.

Especially when current cognitive neuroscience is taken into account as regards “free will.”

The problem with retributive justice is that the suffering it inflicts is gratuitous.

Again, lex talionis advocates that punishment fit the crime.

How is that gratuituous?

Vengeance and punishment have (or shouldn’t have) nothing to do with justice.

We’ll just have to disagree, since this is a normative stand-off.

“Should have” is, in this case, subjective opinion.

Unless of course, you have factual evidence to support your claim.

It was predominantly the philosophy of the Greeks on which today’s western society was built.

This is an inaccurate over-simplification, and I think you mean “political system” rather than “society.”
The idea of a Democratic Republic obviously had roots in Plato, and no one is denying that.

There are other factors to consider in terms of politics and law:  Hammurabi, Locke, Hobbes, English common law, Napoleonic Code, deism, English Bill of Rights, Cromwell and the Puritan revolution, etc. etc. etc.

When talking of American society, the history is even more fragmented and complex.  You have to consider many different cultures and religious influences, geography and economics, just for starters.  Society is not a static subject, it has been dynamic malleable from its inception. 

American society was definitely NOT based “predominantly on Greek philosophy.”

That said, I don’t want to stray too far from the topic at hand.
If you wish to debate American History elsewhere, I feel quite comfortable doing so.

Just a slight OT quibble here:

Mr_Obsidian - 18 August 2007 08:07 AM

The idea of a Democratic Republic obviously had roots in Plato, and no one is denying that.

The idea of a democratic republic goes back to the greek city states, Athens in particular. But not to Plato. Plato was very leery of democracy. He had seen how the tyranny of the majority had turned against, condemned and eventually killed his beloved teacher Socrates. Plato’s aim in the Republic was not to set up a democracy. Much the reverse: it was to argue against democracy, in preference for a sort of oligarchy of the wise.

Mr_Obsidian - 18 August 2007 08:07 AM

There are other factors to consider in terms of politics and law:  Hammurabi, Locke, Hobbes, English common law, Napoleonic Code, deism, English Bill of Rights, Cromwell and the Puritan revolution, etc. etc. etc.

When talking of American society, the history is even more fragmented and complex.  You have to consider many different cultures and religious influences, geography and economics, just for starters.  Society is not a static subject, it has been dynamic malleable from its inception.

Right. Today’s society and its legal system are the result of all the things (and others) you’ve listed above. What are then these “Judeo-Christian morals” for which you’re blaming the failure of our legal system?

dougsmith - 18 August 2007 09:24 AM

Just a slight OT quibble here:

Mr_Obsidian - 18 August 2007 08:07 AM

The idea of a Democratic Republic obviously had roots in Plato, and no one is denying that.

The idea of a democratic republic goes back to the greek city states, Athens in particular. But not to Plato. Plato was very leery of democracy. He had seen how the tyranny of the majority had turned against, condemned and eventually killed his beloved teacher Socrates. Plato’s aim in the Republic was not to set up a democracy. Much the reverse: it was to argue against democracy, in preference for a sort of oligarchy of the wise.

My statement should have read “the American Democratic Republic obviously had roots in Plato…”

I understand Plato’s argument, and his ideas were indeed essential in helping to frame the US constitution.
Many of the American forefathers also had preference for “a sort of oligarchy of the wise” and Plato’s concepts of justice and the “ideal state” were largely influential.

I can see how it looked as if I were stating that the Democratic Republic system was an invention of Plato’s.
Thank you for pointing that out,  it needed clarification.

Right. Today’s society and its legal system are the result of all the things (and others) you’ve listed above. What are then these “Judeo-Christian morals” for which you’re blaming the failure of our legal system?

I don’t have enough time to offer a considered reply right now—I am celebrating my birthday this weekend. 

Please keep your point in mind until Mon. or Tues., at which time I can offer you a proper response.

Thanks!

Mr_Obsidian - 17 August 2007 09:49 PM

mckenzievmd - 17 August 2007 09:28 PM

It sounds like you are saying that the purpose of vengeance is the pleasure derived from it

Well, if we are to be honest, isn’t that what justice truly is about?

 

This is precisely the kind of garbage I was talking about.

Remember, this guy has been telling us that Satanism is about “justice.” Then he goes and lets it slip that the pleasure of vengeance is his brand of justice!

What a Freudian slip!

Could you imagine any other perverse way of showing your true colors (other than Kevins comments about black people and his “lowly view of humanity”)?

truthaddict - 20 August 2007 04:57 PM

Mr_Obsidian - 17 August 2007 09:49 PM

mckenzievmd - 17 August 2007 09:28 PM

It sounds like you are saying that the purpose of vengeance is the pleasure derived from it

Well, if we are to be honest, isn’t that what justice truly is about?

 

This is precisely the kind of garbage I was talking about.

Remember, this guy has been telling us that Satanism is about “justice.” Then he goes and lets it slip that the pleasure of vengeance is his brand of justice!

What a Freudian slip!

Could you imagine any other perverse way of showing your true colors (other than Kevins comments about black people and his “lowly view of humanity”)?

It’s no Freudian slip, the pleasure of seeing a criminal suffer is what retributive justice is all about! Satanism IS indeed about Justice, just not YOUR view of justice.

The fact is, Lex Talionis hold human life to be of greater value than our current system does now. You and others here may think it’s Barbarous, but I would disagree, I think the muddle-headed views on crime and punishment we have now - and worse, where we’re headed, are far more dangerous, inhumane and barbarous than a solid system of retributive Justice.

Based on comments so far, it seems that people equate retributive justice with vendettas and the too literal interperetation of the phrase “an eye for an eye”.

Gandhi stated, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and the whole world would soon be blind and toothless.” But this itself is a fallacy, and pretty simplistic and all too literal interpretation of a code of law that HAS worked in the past.

Truthaddict - you’re really not following along very well, and you’re awful quick to see scandal and to call names. Your comments add nothing but “drama” to the discussion, and for that they are of negative value.

The “Christian” curruption of Talionic Justice is when their god “said” “Vengeance is mine”. He took that privilege away from humans and kept it to himself. You and others want the god you don’t believe in to keep that privilege.

Our culture is giving more and more dignity to the wrong-doer and short changing the actual victim of his offenses.

Lex Talionis is concerned with setting the right compensation, not blind revenge. Our society says you might get $50,000 from an insurance company if you lose and eye, but $3.5 million if you spill hot coffee on yourself at McDonalds.

Truthaddict, you are so SHOCKED and DISMAYED that the word “pleasure” was used, but what else should he have said. When your eye is plucked out by another, you feel pain, you suffer. You want to no longer feel pain, and the person responsible should be held accountable. He should pay for causing you to suffer and OPTIMALLY, you should be restored to a state of pleasure by the retribution.

Not “oh, sorry about your eye, but hey, I’ve got to spend time in jail watching TV and working out for a little while” - who does that benefit?

You’re really hung up on that “lowly view of humanity” statement, that’s funny. Why not talk up what I said about Asians?

And what the hell happened to the following:

truthaddict - 14 August 2007 03:36 PM

im a him and thanks for the slack.

kevin, im done arguing, too. good luck with your Satanism.

“Eye for an eye” is not barbarous, but rather primitive. Just like there are still people being born with a tale or a face full of hair, or those who would still prefer to walk around with a sword. I thought you were wicked, and than vulgar. But you’re probably neither. You are just different.

Kevin,

thanks for quoting me. its nice to know you read it. but in my previous comment - the one you were just referring to - i was not arguing with you or your Satanist-buddy. I didnt even directly address you or mr absurdian. it is clear that i was simply making a statement about the character of the “satanists” by pointing to their own comments. there was nothing in it that was argumentative; just a statement. im sorry if you dont like being called out.

but since we are quoting each other for the effort to show the other one as a contradicting hypocrite:

KevinISlaughter - 16 August 2007 05:18 PM

Last response to “truthaddict”, ever.

eat crow…

Guys, let’s try to dial the rhetoric down a couple of notches. It’s clear to all of us that you don’t see eye to eye on a lot, but better to focus on arguments (or leave things be) rather than bait one another.

okey dokey. im not only done arguing with, but talking to them. and ANYONE can quote me on it!

mckenzievmd - 18 August 2007 12:04 AM

Yes, George and Barto have it exactly. The problem with retributive justice is that the suffering it inflicts is gratuitous. As you say, Mr. O., the contemporary idea of justice does involve retribution. I would argue that this is a mistake, and serves no meaningful purpose.

I don’t think that is entirely true.

Retribution is based on the idea the person deserves to suffer, to be payed back for what he has done i.e “just deserts”

The justification for this belief is free will, usually incompatibilist but compatibilists do seem to end up in a similar place, often.

I think the belief that there is a justification for inflicting the suffering, acts to intensify and lengthen the duration of the desire and make it more likely that we will act upon the desire.

Stephen