Grames Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 I don't accept that a government can be moral or immoral. Governments are beyond judgement? They transcend mere mortal considerations such as good and evil? Ah, no and no. Your hierarchy is breaking down between ethics and politics, because everything discovered about morality applies to government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freestyle Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Governments are beyond judgement? They transcend mere mortal considerations such as good and evil? Ah, no and no. Your hierarchy is breaking down between ethics and politics, because everything discovered about morality applies to government. I don't think my hierarchy is breaking down, I am just focused on the action and choice inherent in morality. Yes, you can make value judgments about particular forms of governments. I just think that there are distinctions that should be made between man (who makes choices and takes action via his free will) and an interdependent system of laws which are the construct of moral or immoral individuals. Would you say your family is moral or immoral? If so, what exactly are you saying? Must it not always be reduced down to the individuals and their specific choices and actions? I do understand that one might say, "that is an evil government," or even contemplate a potentially "moral government". I suppose that I just view that as improperly focusing only on standards as opposed to a more complete unification of standards, choice and actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 As an aside, I find it rather in congruent how some Objectivists are for abortion, but against the death penalty. It makes no logical sense that one would be in favor of killing the unborn, yet be hesitant in putting to death a murderer. It makes very logical sense when you take into account the differences in the principles involved and the relative context. The only context you seem to be considering is that both actions have one element in common without considering several other elements that are not in common. This is aside from how poorly you have misconstrued the two different issues as Jake has addressed. If you want a better explanation of why the two are not the same you should start a thread that compares the two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 I do understand that one might say, "that is an evil government," That is a moral evaluation of that government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lasse K. Lien Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 For the government, if its constitution allows for capital punishment then it is fine. If the constitution prohibits it, then it is not. - How is the constitution relevant? Either option A is better, or option B is better - all depending on the context (what judicial system they have, in which cases will capitol punishment be implemented, etc). Both options can not be equally optimal. And whether the constitution says so or not is not relevant when it comes to what is the better option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWEarl Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 I am having a difficult time finding out the Objectivist position on the Death Penalty on the internet. Could someone clarify for me if the death penalty would be allowed in an Objectivist society, and why? Could someone clarify if it is moral and why? At what point does a person deserve the death penalty over life imprisonment without parole (which is, debatebly, worse, because they must live the rest of their life without freedom, etc. and then meet the same fate in the end). Thanks I can't tell you what the Objectivist position is but I will say that it is immoral to execute the innocent. As the innocent are sometimes convicted, I cannot condone the death penalty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer Posted December 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 I can't tell you what the Objectivist position is but I will say that it is immoral to execute the innocent. As the innocent are sometimes convicted, I cannot condone the death penalty. From a look about the internet, this seems to be the conclusion by the Objectivist school of philosophy, and I believe by Ms. Rand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrocktor Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 (edited) I find this argument at odds with Objectivist Epistemology. Can you not know someone is guilty then? The mere possibility of being wrong (i.e. you imagine you could be wrong) trumps the actual evidence that you are right? I can see where a rigorous standard of proof would be required, but I do not see an objective argument against the death penalty from a philosophical standpoint. As a mental exercise, assume that science figures out how to cure aging. Human life becomes unbounded (we are not immortal, but we have no "expiration date"). What punishment is enough for a murderer in that scenario? 300 years in prison? 500? Life in prison for eternity (or until an accident or random ailment claims him)? In that scenario, only death seems to be punishment proportionate to the crime. Back to the real world, as it is today, that insight shows us that sentencing a murderer to "life", or 60 years, is actually an implicit death penalty (the person is expected to die and not ever rejoin society). We are just counting on aging to do the dirty work. If you discover a man is innocent of the crime he was convicted in his youth of and release him at the age of 85 - that is really not much better than a wrongful execution (unless prison is a glorified hotel - which it should not be). Edited December 3, 2009 by mrocktor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 Can you not know someone is guilty then?You can. Jack Ruby, Nidal Hassan, Sirhan Sirhan and others are known to be guilty.The mere possibility of being wrong (i.e. you imagine you could be wrong) trumps the actual evidence that you are right?No, because imagination is not a source of knowledge. Recall the discussion of certainty in OPAR ch. 5. Automatic gainsaying does not constitute counter-evidence. Reasons grounded in perception and its derivatives do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrocktor Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 You can. (...) imagination is not a source of knowledge (...) I agree. Why is the "death penalty would be appropriate but the risk of convicting an innocent makes it unacceptable" argument given credit as an Objectivist stance then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 I agree. Why is the "death penalty would be appropriate but the risk of convicting an innocent makes it unacceptable" argument given credit as an Objectivist stance then?I would consider it to be a correct statement of reality and the Objectivist stance in the context of contemporary legal epistemology. In the current legal system, conviction of innocents is not just an arbitrary conjecture, it's an established fact. Until that problem is resolved, the death penalty is in fact a huge injustice and moral obscenity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Wolf Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 I am really, really not sure about the death penalty. You can always kill a wrongly accused victim. No matter how much more advanced our forensics get, there's always that one chance that we can get it wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 I am really, really not sure about the death penalty. You can always kill a wrongly accused victim. No matter how much more advanced our forensics get, there's always that one chance that we can get it wrong Can you define "one chance" in mathematical terms? (one is a number, so you are in fact appealing to math, you should define your terms) Is it a 1% probability? 0.1% probablity? 0.01% probablility? And how do you calculate it? What I'm getting at is that you're wrong, there isn't always a possibility that we're wrong, there are cases in which we're right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 I am really, really not sure about the death penalty. You can always kill a wrongly accused victim. No matter how much more advanced our forensics get, there's always that one chance that we can get it wrongLet's make this non-hypothetical. Can you tell me what the forensic issue could be in determining whether Nidal Hasan committed 12 murders? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 I am really, really not sure about the death penalty. You can always kill a wrongly accused victim. No matter how much more advanced our forensics get, there's always that one chance that we can get it wrong That is prior commitment to philosophical skepticism even before examining the particulars of any case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrocktor Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 I would consider it to be a correct statement of reality and the Objectivist stance in the context of contemporary legal epistemology. Thank you. Context is everything. What would have to change, in your opinion, to make a death penalty moral and viable? I find "beyond reasonable doubt" rational, in principle - the devil is what people consider "reasonable doubt" of course. As things stand I would think that the current philosophical skepticism would tend to lead to letting guilty people off the hook and not convicting innocents, thus my curiosity about your take on the matter. That is prior commitment to philosophical skepticism even before examining the particulars of any case. This is exactly what I was talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 I find "beyond reasonable doubt" rational, in principle - the devil is what people consider "reasonable doubt" of course.This is a complex issue, from a practical perspective. I believe that the philosophical matter is very simple -- you must be certain that the accused did the deed. Empirically, it is well-established that the prevailing US jury instructions on burden of proof fail to communicate what must be communicated. Here is a sample of the problem. In Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39 (1990), the trial court instructed that: [A reasonable doubt] is one that is founded upon a real tangible substantial basis and not upon mere caprice and conjecture. It must be such doubt as would give rise to a grave uncertainty, raised in your mind by reasons of the unsatisfactory character of the evidence or lack thereof. A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt. It is an actual substantial doubt. It is a doubt that a reasonable man can seriously entertain. What is required is not an absolute or mathematical certainty, but a moral certainty. This is way wrong (as was determined on appeal) -- it requires establishing grave and substantial doubt. It simply misstates the burden of proof, imposing an unconstitutional affirmative burden on the defense. The must successful approach states the burden of proof (BOP) in terms of the state's obligation to prove something. That specifically refers to a doubt grounded in a concrete, unanswered fact. Thus arbitrary and imaginary claims to not constitute "doubt"; but if there is weak evidence (real i.e. unrefuted evidence) that constitutes support for a claim of an alibi, then there is a concrete unanswered fact that constitutes "doubt". A serious problem with current instructions is that they lead jurors to believe that once the prosecution has advanced some incredibly weak claim, it is the duty of the defense to refute that claim. I think one reason this happens is that jurors are told to make a decision between "guilty" and "not guilty". The problem is how people are likely to interpret that two-way choice. If the alternative were between "proven guilty" and "not proven guilty", there would be fewer convictions in questionable cases. As it is, instructions don't clearly tell jurors that "if you are not completely certain, vote 'not guilty'". An example of an empirical finding on this point, about 30% of jurors polled in Wyoming agree that when the state gives some evidence of guilt, the defense must then persuade the jury of his innocence. (This is false, w.r.t. what the BOP instruction is supposed to have jurors thinking). The Federal Judicial Center instructions address this, more satisfactorily, with the recommended instruction "A reasonable doubt may arise from the evidence itself or from a lack of evidence". There are various empirical studies that show that this kind of instruction plus a re-statement of what the state must do -- leave the juror "firmly convinced" -- substantially reduces the percentage of improper convictions. There are some important linguistic effects pertaining to the expression "beyond a reasonable doubt", which has become common in jury instructions. The noun "doubt" can refer to the mental state of having a certain propositional attitude, or it can refer to a piece of evidence against a proposition. If you use "reasonable doubt" as a mass noun, it refers to a mental state, and if you use "reasonable doubt" as a count noun, then it refers to pieces of evidence. The current expression "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" treats "doubt" as a count noun, which means that, if you think you have "a reasonable doubt" you must ask "what are they" (the pieces of evidence), which means that the defense must provide doubts. Now finally, here is why every juror should be forced to read OPAR ch. 5. Recall that the strongest mental state is that you are certain, that the evidence is sufficient to prove the conclusion, and that there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. You could also disbelieve, because there is very strong evidence showing that the proposition is actually false -- thus "be certain that it is not the case". In the middle but towards the certainty end, you could strongly suspect that a proposition is true. Even earlier on the Peikovian evidentiary scale, towards the disbelief end, you may have some evidence indicating that the claim is true but more evidence that it is false, so you doubt the claim. As you can see, "doubt" is a fairly active state of disbelief. But this is the wrong end of the scale for a juror to be on. It is not the burden of the defense to so totally overcome the arguments of the prosecution that the juror does beyond saying "The prosecution's claim is only weakly possible, in fact the claim is arbitrary". By demanding the creation of "doubt", the defense is put in the position of having to prove the falsity of the prosecution claim. So the focus should be on requiring the prosecution to provide actual evidence of guilt to the point that the juror is certain that the claim is true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nanite1018 Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 A serious problem with current instructions is that they lead jurors to believe that once the prosecution has advanced some incredibly weak claim, it is the duty of the defense to refute that claim. I think one reason this happens is that jurors are told to make a decision between "guilty" and "not guilty". The problem is how people are likely to interpret that two-way choice. If the alternative were between "proven guilty" and "not proven guilty", there would be fewer convictions in questionable cases. As it is, instructions don't clearly tell jurors that "if you are not completely certain, vote 'not guilty'". An example of an empirical finding on this point, about 30% of jurors polled in Wyoming agree that when the state gives some evidence of guilt, the defense must then persuade the jury of his innocence. (This is false, w.r.t. what the BOP instruction is supposed to have jurors thinking). This is why I like the Scottish Verdict, i.e. "not proved." They have "guilty", "not proved", and "not guilty," where both "not proved" and "not guilty" are acquittals, but "not proved" is when guilt was not proven but there was substantial evidence for it. Some apparently call it "not guilty, but don't do it again." Haha. I think having all three options makes the most sense. Legally, you get off scot-free, but there is a stigma attached to it. Much like the situation with OJ Simpson's trial from the early 90s, he had a massive stigma placed on him; "not proven" is essentially the same sort of thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mixon Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 (edited) Before studying Objectivism, my argument against capital punishment went something like this. A man wrongfully imprisoned may be set free, a man wrongfully accused cannot be resurrected. I question how justice is better served by using capital punishment over life imprisonment. I see only an increased risk of committing irrepairable injustice if the man convicted and put to death is innocent. The push for capital punishment seems driven more by an emotional desire for vengence than reason. What if you are absolutely certain he is guilty? Can you be absolutely certain he is guilty? What is the standard of absolute certainty? Eyewitness accounts? Video footage? DNA evidence? Edited December 6, 2009 by Mixon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 Before studying Objectivism, my argument against capital punishment went something like this. A man wrongfully imprisoned may be set free, a man wrongfully accused cannot be resurrected. I question how justice is better served by using capital punishment over life imprisonment. I see only an increased risk of committing irrepairable injustice if the man convicted and put to death is innocent. The push for capital punishment seems driven more by an emotional desire for vengence than reason. I don't know what the push for capital punishment is driven by, in general. I'm in favor of it because I consider death to be a greater punishment (and therefor deterrent), than life in prison. I would back up that opinion with a list containing any number of things a person can do, during a life spent in prison, which are of value to him, as well as with the low percentage of people who choose suicide when they experience prison. Do you have anything to counter my argument, or do you intend to instead just go for an ad hominem, and speculate that I'm emotional and irrational? What if you are absolutely certain he is guilty? Can you be absolutely certain he is guilty? What is the standard of absolute certainty? Eyewitness accounts? Video footage? DNA evidence? 1. If you are certain that he's guilty, then your argument (about the irreversibility of the penalty) doesn't apply, and you have provided no reason against the death penalty (except for the speculation on people's feelings, which is not a valid argument). 2. Yes. 3. Reason. On a sidenote, your argument, if that argument is that one cannot be absolutely certain, is an obvious contradiction: You cannot hold the statement "One cannot be absolutely certain." to be a true statement. After all, it is a statement that expresses your absolute certainty about the non-existence of absolute certainty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 What if you are absolutely certain he is guilty?Have you read OPAR ch. 5? If so, re-read it, and notice that Peikoff does not frame the question in terms of subjective emotion, he frames it in terms of a conclusion being (objectively) certain. He answers your questions, in fact you don't even have to read the whole chapter. Read from p. 171 onwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mixon Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 I don't know what the push for capital punishment is driven by, in general. I'm in favor of it because I consider death to be a greater punishment (and therefor deterrent), than life in prison. I would back up that opinion with a list containing any number of things a person can do, during a life spent in prison, which are of value to him, as well as with the low percentage of people who choose suicide when they experience prison. Do you have anything to counter my argument, or do you intend to instead just go for an ad hominem, and speculate that I'm emotional and irrational? 1. If you are certain that he's guilty, then your argument (about the irreversibility of the penalty) doesn't apply, and you have provided no reason against the death penalty (except for the speculation on people's feelings, which is not a valid argument). 2. Yes. 3. Reason. On a sidenote, your argument, if that argument is that one cannot be absolutely certain, is an obvious contradiction: You cannot hold the statement "One cannot be absolutely certain." to be a true statement. After all, it is a statement that expresses your absolute certainty about the non-existence of absolute certainty. The statement "One cannot be absolutely certain" is indeed a meaningless contradiction without putting in the context of "what." We can be absolutely certain of the nature of gravity or the boiling point of water under given conditions because they are repeatable. Reason allows us to observe natural phenomenon and repeat experiments. Reason does not allow me to look into the past and observe a crime with that same degree of absolute certainty. You can be reasonable certain of past events based on evidence, but is that a sufficent standard for executing a convicted criminal? I don't doubt that execution is a greater deterrent than imprisonment, but that does not alter the injustice of sacrificing even one innocent wrongly convicted man to get at the guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mixon Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 Have you read OPAR ch. 5? If so, re-read it, and notice that Peikoff does not frame the question in terms of subjective emotion, he frames it in terms of a conclusion being (objectively) certain. He answers your questions, in fact you don't even have to read the whole chapter. Read from p. 171 onwards. What is OPAR? I'm currently reading "For the New Intellectual" and von Mises "Human Action." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 What is OPAR? I'm currently reading "For the New Intellectual" and von Mises "Human Action." Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, by Leonard Peikoff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 The statement "One cannot be absolutely certain" is indeed a meaningless contradiction without putting in the context of "what." We can be absolutely certain of the nature of gravity or the boiling point of water under given conditions because they are repeatable. Reason allows us to observe natural phenomenon and repeat experiments. Reason does not allow me to look into the past and observe a crime with that same degree of absolute certainty. I disagree with you that repetition takes the concept of certainty out of context, and makes it absolute. You can be certain for X when the evidence for it is conclusive. That conclusive evidence can consist of video footage, DNA evidence etc., or even repetition coupled with other evidence (not repetition alone, of course). Reason does not allow me to look into the past and observe a crime with that same degree of absolute certainty. My original claim of a contradiction stands. This time, your claim is not that one cannot be certain in general, it's that given a context of a crime A, one cannot be certain of anything except by repeating an experiment enough times, in that context of the crime A. That's a conclusion about that context, that you arrived at without repeating the experiment, in that same context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.