Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

Hey man, I'm all for examining things.

But...

That argument says that all of Hitlers actions were legitimate!

lololololololololololololololz

Goodwin's law aside, I hope the reduction to absurdity demonstrates how "legitimate" and "rationalized" aren't the same.  I am unaware of serious thinkers who would say that religious persecution is just.

Code Zero, care to tell us what is the legitimate argument?

[codezero]

I was just being a smart alec, you know I side with pallazo pretty much. The legitimate reason of saving souls is interchangable with lives.

[mainiac]

I was just being a smart alec, you know I side with pallazo pretty much. The legitimate reason of saving souls is interchangable with lives.

Well, clearly we've got different notions of legitimate.

Your notion of legitimate, I can't object to however, it's perfectly legitimate.  But I do tend to prefer a more stringent definition (see hitler reference.)

[Cthulhu]

[Aqizzar]

What took you so damn long Cthulhu?

[mainiac]

What took you so damn long Cthulhu?

I would like to note that I think this argument has pretty much winded down.  We've eliminated eliminated the points of contention and come down to a pretty simple explanation for our differing views.  He holds that we should be cynical towards motivations in all cases and thus we do not need to be worried about what the subtext of a statement says about the morality of the subjects motivations.  I maintain that subtext about motivation is essential to the words meaning and thus ignoring the subtext is drawing a false comparison.  While he can see me as making an arbitrary distinction and I can see him as losing sight of truth by blurring the lines, our positions are pretty clearly laid out and reasonable at this point.

So uh, the fight you're expecting is kinda over at this point.

Unless Il Palazzo wants to delve into the existance of morality.

[Psyco Jelly]

What's this? An intelligent discussion? TERRORISM!

[Captain Hat]

What's this? An intelligent discussion? TERRORISM!

[Aqizzar]

Captain Hat: Best Movie Scene Ever.

I would like to note that I think this argument has pretty much winded down.  We've eliminated eliminated the points of contention and come down to a pretty simple explanation for our differing views.  He holds that we should be cynical towards motivations in all cases and thus we do not need to be worried about what the subtext of a statement says about the morality of the subjects motivations.  I maintain that subtext about motivation is essential to the words meaning and thus ignoring the subtext is drawing a false comparison.  While he can see me as making an arbitrary distinction and I can see him as losing sight of truth by blurring the lines, our positions are pretty clearly laid out and reasonable at this point.

So uh, the fight you're expecting is kinda over at this point.

...Well, I've been trying to keep up on your argument - the subject of imprisonment and rationality of seizure is rather important to me, as I'm pursuing a career in criminal justice.  Likewise, I've studied argumentative method quite a bit, and both of you are pretty worrying in that regard.

Anyway, at the risk of starting this up again, I'll give you my take.  I'm just going to ignore any analogy of Guantanamo to the Spanish Inquisition, because I think both of you were putting yourselves too close to the argument over your perceptions of meaning.  This just about imprisoning "terrorists".

Moral reasoning or theoretical risk must be ignored when deciding to imprison or hold someone, not out of cynicism, but out of recognition of fallibility.  The whole point of written law is to try to establish what is "right" and "wrong" according to the best consensus on practical threat of a person's actions.  Legal action, including forcible arrest, must only ever be undertaken when there is obvious cause, not possible cause or belief of moral righteousness.  Punishment must likewise follow exactly the written rules for the situation and crimes, where guilt can be definitively proven.

There is no threat, no matter how great, that nullifies those laws, at any time, or under circumstances.  If we can act outside those laws, then they are not laws at all.  The whole reason we have them if to avoid questions of morality, for no matter how certain any one person may be, there will always be disagreement, most certainly of all by the accused, and morality is by nature undefinable.

Seizure of people and punishment thereof must only be undertaken for definitive reasons, and nothing less - we must, as a humane society, always err on the side of innocent intent.  But, will bad people slip through this net and do evil things to good people?  Yes.  That is the price of freedom - not the willingness to give up rights for any particular person, but the understanding that any particular person may be harmed, because someone with evil intent could not be legally stopped in time.

[mainiac]

Very fine summery of why we should never consider ourselves above the law in the matter of criminal justice.

Gitmo was definitely a case of unlawful imprisonment (habeus corpus being the most flagrant violation).  I believe the lack of legal oversight is even worse then the fact that innocent men were imprisoned.  Mistakes happen.  But we can't tolerate the institutionalization of those mistakes.  That strikes at the legitimacy of justice itself.  To have had Gitmo ever exist is a stain upon American justice.

I'd question the universality of your argument for obedience to the law however.  While we must certainly be aware of our own human tendency to wrongfully judge, I'm skeptical of an absolute stance.  Look at the history of hate crimes in the US for example.  While we now have laws in place to target hate crimes, for a long period there were none.  Thus to fight hate crimes, many people often resorted to what was cruel and unusual punishment under the existing laws, by giving a case special attention because it was a hate crime.  And more generally, it would be quite naive to think that judges and juries don't change the severity of their sentences based on crimes outside the trials scope.  While we should usually strive for justice to be blind, we must recognize the fact that she is not entirely undiscerning.

[Aqizzar]

I know that my absolutist stance on respect for the law completely fails to recognize when the law itself is tyrannical, or in any way inhibits recourse against misuse of law.  It's a very Americanist view, taking into account the stated aim of American legal philosophy that the accused should have recourse not just against the accuser, but the law itself.  Which might actually take my view beyond the American definition entirely.  But hey, that's why I'm running for office.

For someone stuck under a legal system where recourse or attempts to change the system are themselves illegal, obviously my previous arguments don't apply.  Viva la Revolucion.

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

You're running for office?  What office?

[Jackrabbit]

Oh god, I was wrong. You were all sensible

I apologize

[mainiac]

You were all sensible

Truly frightening?

[Il Palazzo]

Spoiler: mainiac, you're wrong! Raaaaghh!!!! (click to show/hide)

That argument says that all of Hitlers actions were legitimate!
lololololololololololololololz

No. And I did not claim all of inquisition's actions to be legit, quite on a contratry. However, the underlying reason for detention of heretics was legit.
As for mr. Adolf H., waging a war is regulated by international laws, and as much as you can hate all the pain it caused, as long as every side kept to those laws, it was legitimate. Now, stuff like extermination of civilians had no basis in any law, therefore, it was illegitimate.
See, there you go again - you take the illegitimate part of some entity's actions and call everything else associated with said entity illegitimate(illegitimate, illegitimate... my high school teacher would smack me on the head). If anyhing, it shows how your judgement is tainted with emotional approach.

Spoiler: mainiac, you're right! Raaaaghh!!! (click to show/hide)

He holds that we should be cynical towards motivations in all cases and thus we do not need to be worried about what the subtext of a statement says about the morality of the subjects motivations.  I maintain that subtext about motivation is essential to the words meaning and thus ignoring the subtext is drawing a false comparison.  While he can see me as making an arbitrary distinction and I can see him as losing sight of truth by blurring the lines, our positions are pretty clearly laid out and reasonable at this point.

Pretty much true, however I'd(of course) say that it's you losing sight of truth, but then, it's what the discussion is about.

Spoiler: morality (click to show/hide)

Unless Il Palazzo wants to delve into the existance of morality.

Il Palazzo might want to do this, however, maybe it'd be better to start another thread?
...or not?
And what do you want to discuss anyway? As far as I understand, we both agree that there is something that can be called 'morality'. Unless you want to argue that there exist some Ideal Moral Code, that can be proven or disproven just as much the existence of God.

Spoiler: Me so happy that people agree with me, and I agree with them (click to show/hide)

Seizure of people and punishment thereof must only be undertaken for definitive reasons, and nothing less - we must, as a humane society, always err on the side of innocent intent.  But, will bad people slip through this net and do evil things to good people?  Yes.  That is the price of freedom - not the willingness to give up rights for any particular person, but the understanding that any particular person may be harmed, because someone with evil intent could not be legally stopped in time.

Everything in that post was just about right.
As for the case of laws being harmful to the society, described in your next post  - Consider that while such laws exist and you decide to go against them to, say, protect yourself, or your family(or whatever else reason), you're still an outlaw, and your actions are ilegitimate. However should there be enough discontented people rebelling against them(e.g. French Revolution) to overthrow the old government and estabilish new law system, then(after it's achieved) you and your pals are no longer outlaws. This system is good in the sense that it's self regulating - you need a general consensus that there is something wrong with the way things work to facilitate change, which prevents every malcontent to stop obeying every unconvenient regulation.