Spano

RationalCop, I'm curious, exactly what sort of value (in the Objectivist sense) could revenge be to someone? Provided the criminal is locked away in solitary confinement for life, to avoid him killing other inmates, what additional value could be added to one's life by seeing this man die? The emotional and psychological appeal is obvious, but how is his death of real value to you(or any individual)? A "full" deterrent, if you will, is the case in which the existence of a law prevents all crimes which it prohibits. Any law that is less than 100% successful is only partially successful at deterring crime. So, in a society with capital punishment, it would be fair to say that each case of murder is one in which the criminal failed to a) think about CP deterring him or plan on getting caught, and so even though he knew about the law, he ignored it. We both agree that crimes occur every day in the face of laws, each case of which is an instance of the partial failure of law as a deterrent. Also, it would seem that crimes are averted every day by the partial success of law as a deterrent. I'm not weighing these two against each other, but instead noting that to support CP as a deterrent is to weigh the loss of innocent life against a number of deterred crimes, which is unacceptable.

How can killing a criminal reclaim any lost value? It is my understanding that the role of the government is to protect individuals' existing values, not somehow reclaim those stolen by a criminal. I can't see how revenge, while it may ease the pain of loss, has any real value, since killing the criminal accomplishes nothing in addition to imprisoning him for life. If the end sought is the protection of individual rights, and we have two equally capable means of achieving it, i.e. life imprisonment or capital punishment, why choose the the means that potentially takes the life of an innocent individual? As far as capital punishment's value as a deterrent, I think it would be fair to say that every criminal act in history, and therefore every murder, was unsuccessfully deterred (obviously). Since capital punishment has existed alongside these criminal acts, it is therefore at best only a partial deterrent. The question then becomes, how can the marginal success of capital punishment as a a deterrent possibly justify the potential of sending an innocent man to death, keeping in mind that a perfectly acceptable alternative is available? (By perfectly acceptable I assume it accomplishes the goal of preventing further rights violations by the criminal, which is the only thing you can do after the fact of the initial crime.)

I think one possible example of evidence of reason and conceptualization would have to be self-improvement. It was touched on with the monkey example. If monkeys had a conceptual faculty, they would be able to see the effect of the sweet stick and apply it to a larger scale, an ant-farming operation if you will. In general, if lower animals had a conceptual faculty, they would modify their behavior over time. From what I know about biology, humans are the only beings that have radically changed species-wide behavior patterns over time. Even as I wrote the last paragraph, I thought of an example that could be used against me. The aborginals of Australia have had a continuous existence there for between 40,000 - 60,000 years. Yet, there is no evidence that their behavior changed much at all during that entire span of time. Even up to colonisation by Europeans, they never developed agriculture at all, and only the most basic and rudimentary tools. I will have to think about this some more, but at any rate, it does seem to cast doubt on the possibility of recognizing the conceptual faculty by purely empirical methods.

My question has to do with where to draw the line between an individual's right to self defense and their potential as a threat to others. I want to discuss two situations, pertaining to arming of individuals and nations. 1. Many proponents of gun control(which I am not) present an argument against gun ownership on the grounds that possession of a weapon consitutes a potential threat to other individuals, and so try to invoke the security of the society against the individual. While this argument smacks of collectivsm and is has other problems, its strength lies in the fact that an irrational individual with a gun constitutes a real threat to others. 2. It seems that some(correct me if I am wrong) Objectivists here advocate attacking other nations wholly or at least partly on the basis of their possession of weapons of mass destruction. This seems to be at least somewhat analagous to the anti-gun position of deeming those nations potential threats, which of course they are. However, it would be inconsistent then to have WMD ourselves(the US). My question then, is this. There is obviously some conflict between the right to self defense and mutual suspicion on the part of both individuals and nations. Does potential irrationality undermine the right to bear arms (and WMDs)? Would it not be inconsistent for the US to attack another nation purely on the fact of possession of said weapons? Disclaimer: Before anyone accusses me of being anti-American or anything of the sort, note that I am asking this question to gain more understanding of Objectivism, not start a debate on current events.