 |
| |
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
They're the samething. You both refer to anti-social personality disorder if you really wish to be semantic about it.
|
There are different levels of that... fairly benign (to others), though no less painful mental disorders, psychopathy is knowing what you do to be wrong and sociopathy is not.
Azazel can, on purely consequential grounds, make the case for it... just as he might want to make the case for eugenics and the suppression of "bad views". However, a society, indeed any group of people, are not run by consequence alone, utilitarianism is, upon close examination, more of a psychological theory (an extension of egoism) than a political theorum... ultimately since it fails to account for numerous aspects of human nature it would fail upon widespread application.... as is the case here. In other words, what a society does in order to be successful is not purely done to directly benefit that society, considering a reciprocal relationship with all individuals, as well as the consistency required therein is needed to prevent collapse, either anarchy or totality.
Azazel will also surely note that there is a very fine line between safety and stupidity, and the knock on effects from the denial of individual responsibility for their actions.
I won't even bother touching on the numerous ethical concerns of a gain in safety from the execution of individuals whose characteristics would compromise that safety. Put simply, execution is going far too far imo, and we need to examine whether creating a wholly "safe" society is a desireable outcome anyway! Azazel seems to be taking it as an unspoken assumption.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:23
|
|
quote:
ust as he might want to make the case for eugenics and the suppression of "bad views". |
You know, I hear that anti-utilitarian argument a thousand times, and I've never seen anyone hold their ground...
quote:
In other words, what a society does in order to be successful is not purely done to directly benefit that society, considering a reciprocal relationship with all individuals, as well as the consistency required therein is needed to prevent collapse, either anarchy or totality.
|
Since when ethical theories are about what societies do, and not about what societies SHOULD do?
quote:
Azazel will also surely note that there is a very fine line between safety and stupidity, and the knock on effects from the denial of individual responsibility for their actions. |
I hardly the one denying the one denying personal responsibility, it's the anti "death-to-psychopaths" argument ("they can't help it, that's who they are!" ). However, I do claim that appeal to personal responsibility, which is basically reprogramming on the basis of negative stimuli, is impossible in this case, because whatever it is, compassion isn't part of their brain design ( that's the point of the disorder)
quote:
These kids, however, have pissed me off. I can rant and reason all I want but I'm a human being at the end of the day not the sum of the parts of my logical calculus, and if I ever met them in person I would tear out their jugulars |
I have no problem with you saying it, as long as you admit it's a flaw.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
You know, I hear that anti-utilitarian argument a thousand times, and I've never seen anyone hold their ground...
|
Try me.
quote:
Since when ethical theories are about what societies do, and not about what societies SHOULD do?
|
But when you try to impliment an unrealistic "should" into a real world situation, you may well end up with disaster despite the best of intentions. The utilitarian thing to do in that context is to limit utilitarianism!  . And do you not think that considerations of human nature have implications in the realm of prescription?
quote:
"they can't help it, that's who they are!"
|
Can a society, or any external (to the sociopathic beholder) body determine what they are to the certain degree required to hold such a conviction, and thus deny their existence for ones own (and not their) interests, upon that basis? There is a logical barrier present there... the is-ought, or Hume gap.
quote:
because whatever it is, compassion isn't part of their brain design ( that's the point of the disorder)
|
You state it as though it were a fact, but can you be certain of any logical barrier present that would cause it to be incurable? Is the fact that it is incurable reason enough to execute, baring in mind other measures can be taken to protect the public, if you really must?
Nonetheless, would you claim that the sociopath is not responsible for their actions?
quote:
I have no problem with you saying it, as long as you admit it's a flaw.
|
I will not do so. I do not run my life upon the basis of philosophy, for me it is an art, and intellectual machination, not a religion nor a personal moral code as such. It is a part of me, but not the part of me, and deterministically, I will react differently in each individual situation.
If someone comes up to me on the street, punching and screaming at me, am I going to a) ramble on about why the Mill Limit would prevent me from hitting him and how he should stand down and desist due to the consequences of his actions and the flawed intentions he has.... or b) play football with his testicles?
I have emotions, I act upon them... we humans don't have just a head, we have a heart too and as humans we act upon both. Whether one belongs in a philosophy paper or a government has no contextual relevance to other situations.
quote:
Of course I judge my opinion superior to his. That's why I hold my opinion, and not his. His flaw, though is not about his opinion, but his admittance that he would not act according to his his own reasoning, and ethical hypothesis, and hurt him.
|
It's not a flaw. I act upon my own psychology and while my philosophy in some respects may be reflective of it, it is not entirely indicative of it. Or would you argue that ones psychological state of mind and artistic conceptual structures have to be aligned perfectly, or at least intended that way?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
A good point  . I would say that we could all have our own philosophy in our minds, our perfect goal for ourselves, our perfect opinions etc, but to model our lives upon that is ridiculous... we're healthiest when head and heart are in balance, not when one has dominion over the other. That's why I regard philosophy as an art, not a usable science. |
Why of course, we can have no punishment for these youths because Whaleboy and his liberal crew have defined all morality as being relative. From the youths point of view, the treatment of the dog was morally correct. People like Whaleboy, who may disagree, must respect the morals of the youths who, after all, needed a football.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Why of course. You should have tried to understand the dog's anti-social behavior and attempted to correct his bad behavior by rewarding good behavior. Resorting to instant punishment of anti-social behavior never works. We know this from liberals, do we not, who have stripped society of punishment in favor of understanding.
|
Well technically anti-social is a term only applicable to those capable of functioning within that given society, not as either a product or something unrelated of it, like a pet for example, which operates according to its will, not of society, so to say it is anti-social is ridiculous. Furthermore, the question of punishment or negative reinforcement to sociological ends cannot surely apply to such a creature.
quote:
Why of course, we can have no punishment for these youths because Whaleboy and his liberal crew have defined all morality as being relative. From the youths point of view, the treatment of the dog was morally correct. People like Whaleboy, who may disagree, must respect the morals of the youths who, after all, needed a football.
|
A strawman, a society has rules to function, relativism still applies but within those rules, within that context, I merely go for consistency atop that. In an unloaded, neutral, hypothetical context all behaviour is relative, but no such context exists in society, so they should be punished and corrected logically, and emotionally for me I'd go much further.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-09-2004 20:40
|