What a lovely bunch of statists we have here (hi Steophan!)

[k9bfriender]

@madsircool

Justice is situational. The Holocaust we can all agree was unjust because it was mass murder. During the same time frame, British and American scientists and engineers developed a perfect cocktail of bombs that would maximize death and destruction in German and Japanese cities. Mass murder. We rightfully revile Nazis. Yet our own societies get a pass on mass murder.

You do not see any difference between genocide and reacting to a belligerent power? If we had attacked germany and/or japan without provocation, your argument would be relevant. As Germany and Japan were actively trying to conquer all those around them, fighting back is self defense. The point of war of that sort is to degrade the enemies ability, through infrastructure, personnel, and moral, to perpetuate war.

Even at the time, the targeting of civilian targets was controversial, and there were many who were against it. There wa not a monolithic mortality of the west that said that killing civilians was okay morally, there were hard choices to be made in order to protect civilians in other countries from being killed by the belligerents.

We all agree that rape is wrong. Academic studies in Germany discovered that 1/3 of ALL German women in the path of the advancing Red Army were raped…and a sizeable number of Polish women. Were there any consequences for this brutality? Do we study this in our history/ethics classes? No…because the Soviets were on our side and its an inconvenient truth.

No, it’s because the western powers had very little power over what happened to soviet soldiers. There were discussions of bringing up the atrocities committed by soviet troops, but in order to punish them, we’d have to go to war with the Soviet Union. The morality of the soviet union allowing their soldiers to go unpunished is certainly questionable, but that is also one of the many reasons that the west and the soviet union parted way after WWII, we didn’t like their morals.

Morality is part of the social contract and contracts get renegotiated over time.

This is true, and the question is is do we want to improve the social contract, or let it devolve. To believe that morality is entirely neutral, and that one can only be judged by the morals that one subscribes to is nihilism.

We can have an academic philosophical debate about the intersections of morality and nihilism, of authoritarianism vs anarchy, but that is a deliberate side track from the discussion that we are trying to have, “What morals should we be subscribing to, to increase the chances of living in a fair and peaceful society?”

[Steophan]

@k9bfriender

To believe that morality is entirely neutral, and that one can only be judged by the morals that one subscribes to is nihilism.

That’s not what anyone is saying. I’m saying that one can only judge by your own morals, which means it’s pretty much impossible to judge or own morality as anything but correct.

Also important is that the only judgements that happen are those by people - the universe itself is silent on morality, and there are no higher beings that judge us, at least not in any way that affects us.

[Steophan]

@wolfpup

If that’s what you got out of your study of Kant, it was wrong.

From the second sentence of what I linked, obviously none of which you read: “Kant characterized the CI as an objective, rationally necessary and unconditional principle …”. If you still don’t get it, go to Section 4 to understand the meaning of “categorical”.

The point is, Kant was wrong, and I briefly summarized why. Due to the inherent conflict between imperatives, none can be categorical.

Kant simply tried, and failed, to justify religious morality in a superficially non-religious way.

[k9bfriender]

@Steophan

That’s not what anyone is saying. I’m saying that one can only judge by your own morals, which means it’s pretty much impossible to judge or own morality as anything but correct.

I have about three different responses, depending on what that “or” in “judge or own morality” actually was supposed to be, could you clarify? “Our”, Your", or actually “or”?

Also important is that the only judgements that happen are those by people - the universe itself is silent on morality, and there are no higher beings that judge us, at least not in any way that affects us.

I am fully aware of that, and that is utterly irrelevant.

[Steophan]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Then I don’t rightfully give a shit about whatever abstract concept you’re referring to when you say “justice”. I’ll have to come up with some other word, I guess.

That’s your problem in a nutshell, you don’t care what words mean, you use them incorrectly - or at best, colloquially or idiosyncratically - and then, even when it’s explained to you how more educated people are using them, you still try to understand what they’re saying based on your false definitions of the words they use.

“Justice” is an abstract concept, and one you obviously struggle with. What you want, and what you have incorrectly described as “justice”, is “vengeance”.

Make no mistake, in the Nuremberg trials and other de-Nazification processes, many laws or strongly held principles were bent if not fully broken, the most obvious one being not making things retroactively illegal. That was because of a desire for vengeance - and one that is, by current Western morality, a pretty much uniquely acceptable desire for vengeance to act on. That it was cloaked in the mantle of justice doesn’t change its true form. Which is fine, we’ve decided that it’s moral. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good thing to hide the truth of what happened.

The fundamental difference between justice and revenge is emotion. Justice is neutral, it is applied through a procedure that doesn’t feel. Revenge is the opposite, it’s done because you feel bad, and think that someone else suffering will make you feel better. And that’s what you’ve been doing throughout these threads - saying people should suffer not because it’s the just punishment for what they’ve done, but because you are appalled and their suffering would make you feel better.

Basically, you have no more idea of justice than a three year old, so it’s no wonder you can’t grasp an abstract concept.

[Steophan]

@k9bfriender

I have about three different responses, depending on what that “or” in “judge or own morality” actually was supposed to be, could you clarify? “Our”, Your", or actually “or”?

Our. “Your” would work as well, but I’m not attempting to exclude myself.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Steophan

That’s your problem in a nutshell, you don’t care what words mean, you use them incorrectly - or at best, colloquially or idiosyncratically - and then, even when it’s explained to you how more educated people are using them, you still try to understand what they’re saying based on your false definitions of the words they use.

You remind me of the fundies who think that morality is “whatever god says”, and then wonder why atheists don’t agree with them that they are fundamentally without morality.

[wolfpup]

@Steophan

The point is, Kant was wrong, and I briefly summarized why. Due to the inherent conflict between imperatives, none can be categorical.

Kant simply tried, and failed, to justify religious morality in a superficially non-religious way.

So you claim that, in your opinion, the man generally regarded as one of the greatest contributors to the advancement of deontological ethics was “wrong”. And the reason you give is totally asinine, so I think I’ll stick with Kant and not some random poster on the Internet. There are multiple formulations of the categorical imperative, and they have no “inherent conflicts”. There are potentially conflicting real-world interpretations of these formulations, a fact that Kant freely acknowledged, but that doesn’t change their logical integrity.

And to suggest that there is anything even remotely related to “religion” in any of the formulations of the categorical imperative is flat-out total idiocy at a level that I can’t even express. In its attempt to create a purely logical framework for morality, it’s the exact opposite of faith-based laws.

@Steophan

Basically, you have no more idea of justice than a three year old, so it’s no wonder you can’t grasp an abstract concept.

Was not directed to me, but I can’t help but note that this piece of excrement comes from the same source that informed us, in the originally cited thread on killings of innocent citizens by police, that “justice” in any given case is whatever the hell the jury happens to decide. :rolleyes: Which demonstrates a level of stupidity so severe that I think it should permanently bar you from trying to lecture to anyone about what justice actually is.

[k9bfriender]

@Steophan

That’s not what anyone is saying. I’m saying that one can only judge by your own morals, which means it’s pretty much impossible to judge or own morality as anything but correct.

That is assuming that “we” have a morality upon which we agree. And that is the entire point. We do not. You have a morality that is very different and distinct to mine. Just as not all residents of germany in 1938 were morally in favor of genocide you and I and the guy down the street all have different ideals. Our society has a moral code as well, which is informally identified as kind of the average of all of our morals, and I very well can criticize that, if it differs from my own.

Obviously, my moral code is the superior thing by which I judge all others. I cannot judge my own, as any criticism I have of it requires me to modify it into a superior form immediately. I cannot have that effect on society’s moral code. It only gets modified when enough people start criticising it.

What you are saying is that we cannot criticize the morals of the society that we live in. That a german citizen in 1938 could not judge the pogroms that were starting up.

@Steophan

That’s your problem in a nutshell, you don’t care what words mean, you use them incorrectly - or at best, colloquially or idiosyncratically - and then, even when it’s explained to you how more educated people are using them, you still try to understand what they’re saying based on your false definitions of the words they use.

“Justice” is an abstract concept, and one you obviously struggle with. What you want, and what you have incorrectly described as “justice”, is “vengeance”.

Make no mistake, in the Nuremberg trials and other de-Nazification processes, many laws or strongly held principles were bent if not fully broken, the most obvious one being not making things retroactively illegal. That was because of a desire for vengeance - and one that is, by current Western morality, a pretty much uniquely acceptable desire for vengeance to act on. That it was cloaked in the mantle of justice doesn’t change its true form. Which is fine, we’ve decided that it’s moral. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good thing to hide the truth of what happened.

The fundamental difference between justice and revenge is emotion. Justice is neutral, it is applied through a procedure that doesn’t feel. Revenge is the opposite, it’s done because you feel bad, and think that someone else suffering will make you feel better. And that’s what you’ve been doing throughout these threads - saying people should suffer not because it’s the just punishment for what they’ve done, but because you are appalled and their suffering would make you feel better.

Basically, you have no more idea of justice than a three year old, so it’s no wonder you can’t grasp an abstract concept.

I see a desire for equitable treatment of citizens and of police as more of a desire for justice than that of vengence. It is unjust that a person can go to jail on nothing but a cop’s say so, but a cop can get off with killing someone under some pretty suspicious circumstances and get off. Retribution is part of the reason for having a justice system in the first place. Punishing those who break the social contract isn’t just to make the victims feel better, it is to heal society, to allow society to know that it does not tolerate evil in it’s midst, and to serve as an example to others, to deter them from similar actions.

The family members of those slain by police calling for various extrajudicial punishments on the cop, the police force, or the city in general are those seeking vengeance, and it is understandable, and is why we have a justice system. For when justice is not done, then vengence is all you have left.

[Steophan]

@k9bfriender

What you are saying is that we cannot criticize the morals of the society that we live in. That a german citizen in 1938 could not judge the pogroms that were starting up.

No, I’m not. I’m saying that such criticism doesn’t come from a position of superiority, as there’s no objective morality. And, as you rightly say, only amounts to anything if a large segment of society shares it, at which point the morality of the society will change, as will laws, or at least the interpretation and enforcement of them.

It is unjust that a person can go to jail on nothing but a cop’s say so, but a cop can get off with killing someone under some pretty suspicious circumstances and get off.

Unless there’s a very good reason to believe the cop. no-one should go to jail based solely on their word. In either case, we need far more than suspicious circumstances, we need proof, otherwise they should get off.

Saying one group of people are being treated badly (no matter how large that group) is not justification (according to my morality) to treat another group equally badly, in the name of fairness. If something needs changing, raise up the other group.

That is why I consider people to be calling for vengeance against cops. Because they want them to be treated in ways they would (or should) consider unacceptable for others to be treated.

@k9bfriender

For when justice is not done, then vengence is all you have left.

I guess that’s where we disagree, then. An eye for an eye, and the whole world is blind.

We rely on having a justice system to prevent that, and people who want to damage that system - even for reasons that appear noble - are ultimately wanting something that will cause great harm to a great many people.

[k9bfriender]

@Steophan

No, I’m not. I’m saying that such criticism doesn’t come from a position of superiority, as there’s no objective morality. And, as you rightly say, only amounts to anything if a large segment of society shares it, at which point the morality of the society will change, as will laws, or at least the interpretation and enforcement of them.

By definition, I believe my morals to be superior, for if I did not believe that, then I would change them to a set that were.

The point is, in criticising the morality expressed by our society is in fact to change it, to convince a large segment of society that the moral code that I follow is superior to the one that they do, and get them to change to a new one.

If yours is different to mine, and you feel that your code should be what is followed, then you are welcome to make that argument as well, to try to convince society that following your beliefs of right and wrong will lead to your vision of a more perfect world.

Unless there’s a very good reason to believe the cop. no-one should go to jail based solely on their word. In either case, we need far more than suspicious circumstances, we need proof, otherwise they should get off.

But that’s the state we are in. People go to jail every day based on absolutely nothing more than the testimony of an officer, even officers who have been proven to have perjured themselves in the past.

Saying one group of people are being treated badly (no matter how large that group) is not justification (according to my morality) to treat another group equally badly, in the name of fairness. If something needs changing, raise up the other group.

I am actually talking about somewhere in the middle. I think that it is both too easy to convict an innocent person, and it is too easy for a cop to get off on something. I do not agree with the idea that we should be giving the level of benefit of the doubt that we give to cops to civilians, as to be honest, it would be way too easy to get away with murder. I think the other group should be raised, but not to the level that cops are at now. That level needs to be lowered.

And I have said, a few times, that the best first step I can see in this is to no longer have local prosecutors doing the prosecution of police. They cannot do their jobs fairly. They cannot treat a cop the same way they would treat a civilian. They are human.

That is why I consider people to be calling for vengeance against cops. Because they want them to be treated in ways they would (or should) consider unacceptable for others to be treated.

So, my two solutions are to decrease the credibility of police testimony, so that on a he said/he said situation, there should be enough reasonable doubt to acquit the defendant, and to ensure that cops receive the same level of zealous prosecution that a civilian would.

Which of those do you consider to be “calling for vengeance”?

I guess that’s where we disagree, then. An eye for an eye, and the whole world is blind.

I am not sure that we do disagree, or at least, I really hope that you misunderstood. My point was that if people do not feel that they have been fairly treated, if people feel that the system is against them, if people feel that justice will not be done, then they will turn to extra-judicial remedies to restore their sense of fairness in the world. That’s just human nature. I do not condone, nor even really condemn it, it’s just the way we are. And not just human nature, animals get upset when they perceive an unfairness as well.

We rely on having a justice system to prevent that, and people who want to damage that system - even for reasons that appear noble - are ultimately wanting something that will cause great harm to a great many people.

I do not see anyone in these threads wanting to damage the justice system. I see people in this thread pointing out the flaws in our already damaged justice system.

[Hocus_Pocus]

@Steophan

Unless there’s a very good reason to believe the cop. no-one should go to jail based solely on their word.

So we should no longer consider the training & experience of police officers?

Should we no longer allow doctors to operate on people unless they get the input of plumbers & mechanics since there have been cases of malpractice?

[k9bfriender]

@Hocus_Pocus

So we should no longer consider the training & experience of police officers?

Sure, as long as we consider all of their experience in total. If they have good marks on their training, and no poor marks in their experience, then their word is as good as a civilians.

As we give the benefit of the doubt to officers who have previously perjured themselves, I am not sure what experience you are talking about.

Should we no longer allow doctors to operate on people unless they get the input of plumbers & mechanics since there have been cases of malpractice?

Interesting non-sequitur, but in the case that you were trying to make some sort of analogy…

Two things, the difference in training between a doctor and a plumber is a bit more than that between a cop and a civilian. In the one case, you are relying on a decade of schooling, along with constant reinforcement of new knowledge. A plumber has no way of having the same knowledge base as a doctor.

In the other case, you are relying on honesty. A plumber or mechanic does not need to have any special training to be honest.

Overall, your analogy is absolutely terrible, does not address the subject on any relevant or even irrelevant points.

Finally, the only way to make your analogy work at all is if doctor would occasionally get scared, and kill their patients in response.

[Steophan]

@Hocus_Pocus

So we should no longer consider the training & experience of police officers?

We should consider it then, having done so, realise that no amount of training or experience can make their recollection infallible, and require corroboration before conviction. That they gave the training and experience is why we should pretty much always start an investigation based on a cop’s claim, not that it should be the whole of the investigation.

Should we no longer allow doctors to operate on people unless they get the input of plumbers & mechanics since there have been cases of malpractice?

Only if operating on cyborgs.

[Hocus_Pocus]

@Steophan

We should consider it then, having done so, realise that no amount of training or experience can make their recollection infallible, and require corroboration before conviction.

And that’s the defense attorney’s job to make sure during voir dire that no one who believes cops are perfect is on the jury. The one criminal case I sat on during jury duty I was asked exactly that.

That they gave the training and experience is why we should pretty much always start an investigation based on a cop’s claim, not that it should be the whole of the investigation.

So what if an officer observes a drug transaction? Do you only want the suspect arrested if others saw the exact same thing & came to the same conclusion?

[Steophan]

@Hocus_Pocus

So what if an officer observes a drug transaction? Do you only want the suspect arrested if others saw the exact same thing & came to the same conclusion?

That, an analysis of the substance to prove its illegal, and proof that money actually changed hands would be a start. The officer’s observation is enough to start an investigation, nothing more.

This makes it hard to convict people. That’s a good thing.

[Hocus_Pocus]

@Steophan

proof that money actually changed hands would be a start.

And how would that be proven. Do you think drug dealers are fine with being filmed?

This makes it hard to convict people. That’s a good thing.

It already is difficult to convict people. It’s called assumption of innocence & burden of proof.

What you’re proposing is what would be known as unreasonably difficult to convict.

[Steophan]

If you can’t prove that drugs were sold, you can’t convict someone for selling them.

That’s one reason drug dealers are often convicted of possession with intent to distribute, as its far easier to prove that they possess more than they could personally use than it is to prove they actually sold it.

[Hocus_Pocus]

@Steophan

If you can’t prove that drugs were sold, you can’t convict someone for selling them.

So because YOU can’t tell that it’s a drug deal, it’s not a drug deal?

If you instituted such a policy the local community would be ready to string you up for unleashing the roaches among them!

[Steophan]

@Hocus_Pocus

So because YOU can’t tell that it’s a drug deal, it’s not a drug deal?

No. If the generic “you”, as represented by the legal system, can’t prove that it’s a drug deal, then they can’t convict someone for dealing drugs.

If you instituted such a policy the local community would be ready to string you up for unleashing the roaches among them!

I’m talking about people, not roaches. Accused but unproven drug dealers are not vermin, and should not be exterminated.

I mean, neither are proven ones, and the ridiculous prohibition on drugs is causing more harm to society than the drugs themselves ever could, but that’s a two separate issues.