Ramstin: I predicted you'd send a post like this sooner or later. It reveals quite clearly that
your reasons for promoting harsh punishments are psychological rather than
philosophical. The desire for revenge is clear in your language. You may have a
philosophical rationalization (a good reason rather than the real reason) but your post
reveals your true colors.
Or, I'm wrong and you'll eagerly participate in a much more productive discussion: how to
prevent murder and rape using naturalistic principles. Much more relevant to our
philosophy, much broader in its impact on people's lives, but not as interesting to the
person mainly out to inflict suffering and looking for legal ways to do that.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "ramstin" <ramstin@...> wrote:
> Let's say it is raining out and you are driving 15 miles per hour
> above the speed limit and then you hydroplane, crash, and kill a
> pedestrian. Was it your fault it was raining or that a puddle formed
> where it did. No, but you had what would be considered proximate
> control of the speed of the car which if drove at the speed limit
> would have gave you more control of the car. If it was shown that
> the drivers speed was a factor in the crash then they need to pay
> restitution to the family who's relative he has killed.
> If because of a manufacturer defect the car crashes and kills
> someone, and I am driving at the speed limit and am being safe, then
> blame goes to the manufacturer for the death not me.Situation one
> proximite control, situation two no control.
> If a person is so deranged that they rape and murder(regardless if
> it is their will to do so) 3 people they either need 1. Their balls
> cut off and sent to do forced labor 2. 2.Stay heavily medicated and
> in prison(inhumane and a waste of money and resources) 3. If they
> are deranged enough then they need to be put down.
> --- In email@example.com,
> stephenlawr0001@ wrote:
> > In a message dated 31/10/2006 16:06:25 GMT Standard Time,
> > writes:
> > Hi Ramstin
> > If you do have this "Proximate control" then a person can be held
> > accountable for what they do.
> > It would be good to break the circularity of this debate.
> > Of course I think in doing so it will show that you are wrong
> about this but
> > of course it may not, it may show that we are.
> > the other benefit is that we could move on and see where else
> this leads.
> > We can hold people accountable, whether they do or do not have
> > control, I'll just call it control, of their actions.
> > Whether it is best to do so or not is another matter.
> > It seems to me that the important point for now is whether people
> > accountable for their actions or are responsible for their actions.
> > I see nothing about the nature of control to suggest they are.
> > So if people are in control of their actions it does not
> necessarily follow
> > that they are accountable or responsible for their actions.
> > You have stated that this does follow but have not given any
> reason why this
> > is the case.
> > The challenge to you is to show why?
> > I'll say why I don't think it does follow.
> > Firstly I'll attempt to define free will.
> > As I have said before we use the term free will like this "You
> have free
> > will therefore you are responsible for your actions and you
> deserve punishment"
> > (we tend to focus on punishment but it could equally be
> > Now, what definition of free will fits in the sentence to make it
> > sense. If we can find something then that is an accurate
> definition of free will.
> > if free will does not exist it may be impossible to define it but
> here is my
> > best attempt.
> > Free will is the power to do other than what you do.
> > I can control my actions without this power, so controlling my
> actions does
> > not make me accountable or responsible for them.
> > Why am I wrong? what is your counter argument?
> > Best
> > Stephen