I wouldn’t have done it. But then again if I were king of the US there would be much that I’d change. But I’m not king and don’t rule by fiat. Since we say we care about process and law then in a society where nominally we can change the process and law somewhat democratically then that’s the method we should employ.
I remember some hate directed my way because I was against judicial decree for same sex marriage. Supposedly that made me homophobic. No. Not at all. It’s just that in a complex society process matters, otherwise when the apparatus of power is in the hands of one who doesn’t share your set of values the unconstrained tools you celebrated can be used against you.
This also explains in part the seemingly paradoxical embrace of the Orange One by the evangelicals. It’s fascinating.
This presupposes that those who are elected democratically behave like intelligent adults and not spoiled toddlers who throw a tantrum when they don’t Get Their Way. You’d be surprised how fast the process breaks down when this assumption falls into the shredder.
What “unconstrained tools”? A lightning bolt was not thrown from Mt. Olympus to strike down Teh Evil Anti-LGBTs. It was a court case that went through The Process that you so proudly hail.
Yeah, courts overruling democratic majorities when dealing with social issues has made the courts and judicial fiat the ultimate political prize. 8 years of Trump worth it to you?
But the constant refrain from the right is that we do not live in a democracy. So why is that only important sometimes?
Also, can you enlighten me as to what democratic majorities were overruled? Gay marriage? When did the USA as a whole vote on that? I don’t recall casting my vote in that referendum.
The courts’ role in enforcing Constitutional principles does sometimes entail overruling democratic majorities. That’s what the Constitution and courts are for, among other things. Why bother having laws if they’re always up for a vote? That’s middle-school Civics class stuff. But, someone who doesn’t believe in a general system of morality that guides it shouldn’t be expected to recognize the importance of placing basic principles beyond the reach of democratic majorities, or of simply recognizing humans to be humans.
Will Trump’s child abuse and other intentional cruelties swing the election, per the OP? There probably aren’t many undecideds left to sway either way, but it, as part of the mass of indefensibility he has associated with us, may discourage a few of the less-committed deplorables.
No one in here is saying they don’t believe in morality. People are stating that sets of moral principles are not universally shared and that moral principles aren’t really provable.
They don’t have to be *universally *shared, just *generally *shared, and they are. Exceptions do exist and can be found in this thread, but that doesn’t mean they have to be respected - even if they *can *be articulated, which those in this thread have not been.
And how would a principle be “provable”? Derived from something even more fundamental? What would that be - a metaprinciple of some kind?
Murder is wrong - generally shared
Stealing is wrong - generally shared
assault is wrong - generally shared
Many many things are morally generally agreed upon. This is the basis of civilization.
I can’t even really figure out what the hell you are talking about. It sounds like you’re saying that there is nothing that is generally agreed to be morally wrong. That can’t possibly be what you are saying, can it?
Because “Sending a mentally ill person off to die painfully and alone in a foreign country as punishment for petty misdemeanors is wrong” = apparently not generally shared.
No. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying if you are going to argue from base principles you have to assume that they are actually shared.
Let’s look at history. Religions typically come with a moral code. One could naively think that 2 Christians would share the same moral code. The religious wars between different interpretations of the same set of moral principles would be evidence to the contrary.
Even something as simple as the economic value of a human life has tremendous implications for policy based on the assumed value.
Sounds like a recipe for not being able to ever agree on anything or pass any laws at all. What is the avenue to get around this issue so that society can function and properly govern itself?
Historically, it has been “might makes right”, and so you impose your will by physical aggression.
More recently, it has been democracy, where we take a poll of the general morals of the populace, and make laws based on that.
Currently, it is sliding into fascism run by the minority. We will probably end up back at feudalism, as that seems to be the most stable form of government.
If such an assumption is flawed in the particular case, then refute it.
Some moral precepts may certainly be reasonably assumed to be shared within a society, particularly if those precepts form the stated moral bases for many of that society’s laws. It’s up to those who are responding to a moral argument based on such assumptions to refute the cited precepts or show how the elements being presented as immoral do not in fact breach them.
And, in fact, if the moral arguments are weak, contradictory or based on flawed assumptions, this sort of refutation is trivially easy. It’s difficult not to conclude that those who find moral arguments “unpersuasive” are concerned at some level with avoiding the emotional dissonance their proper consideration would bring, with the appeal to rhetorical principle the most reasonable rationalization.
Refute what? That people have different sets of morals? It’s sort of self-evident.
Look at the different religions, political parties, and behaviors that make up the world. There no sense even debating that point further.
But the question came from is it immoral to send a person to die for a minor crime.
You don’t know if that person is going to die. Is a person’s complete life the responsibility of the USA’s? I’d say no. I’d say you are responsible for most of your own life.
Is the USA responsible for all of the mentally ill within its borders? I’d say no. That’s far too large of an economic burden. Is there room for dramatic improvement? Yes. We have the resources for some improvement but we don’t have unlimited resources and since we are constrained by scarcity we have to prioritize how those resources are spent. As a society we have decided that mental health is not going to get more than the military as an example.
Does the US have the right to deport troublesome people? Yes it does.
Should it? I believe yes it should.
Tradeoffs in policy that cost human life occur continuously. Even something as simple as setting a speed limit on the highway comes at the cost of lives. Is 5 MPH more speed over a 30 mile stretch worth 1.2 lives per year? Someone thought so.
These calculations are never linear and they always have dismissed 2nd and higher order effects. For example, if you criminalize prostitution you empower pimps. If you criminalize alcohol you get the gangsters of the Prohibition. If you make 3 strike laws the norm you fill up prisons with petty crooks and dope smokers.
So a misdemeanor by one person may have a negligible effect on society in isolation does not have negligible effect on society if the signal is sent that the state ignores misdemeanors. Speaking of which, that is why turning a blind eye to crimes committed by favored politicians is so corrosive. It sends a signal to society that the concept of law does not matter.
To conclude, yes I think it was a terrible thing when that person got shipped to Iraq and dies. But terrible things occur constantly just as a function of human existence and the state cannot be held liable for every bad outcome of destiny. That’s the tragedy of the human condition. Bad things are destined to happen.
Now we should work to mitigate bad outcomes. But every human institution and system is going to have some flaws. So while it’s easy to say “oh my! that was terrible”, and it was. It’s hard to say what the solution should be that doesn’t cause bigger problems down the road.
Problem is when the ones executing the laws are hellbent into interpreting them in the most cruel ways and then trying to make the laws even more so, it is a sadly predictable thing when they are touched by the worst angels of their nature.
It isn’t really a debate, but an effort to make it clear (to readers if not supporters) just what the pro-concentration-camp position is really based upon.