Just how many innocent people is it acceptable to execute?

[luchog]

I'd argue that what you call "irrational relativism" exactly what you laud - a system based on objective rationality.

Could you rephrase this for clarification, I was unable to parse is in any way that makes sense.

Your analysis is flawed because it depends on moral absolutes - the last sentence where you say, "Whatever is happening is right, whatever is not happening is wrong." You've suddenly abandoned relativity there. You don't mention who is evaluating the right and the wrong.

I am not abandoning relativism (relativity is the wrong word); I deny the validity of relativism. And my analysis is not flawed; you are simply evading it by denying the existence of absolutes. This is just the ususal Post-Modernist intellectual dishonesty and kowtowing to irrationality; evading an argument by denying the ability to argue. Absolutes exist, to say otherwise is profoundly ignorant; but your insistence on focusing on moral absolutes is a straw man, since those are not the absolutes being discussed here. To deny any absolutes is to say that "Anything is permissible"; and to create a whimsical society based on the might of the group rather than any rational principles.

This is incorrect. What it cannot do is take a morally universal stance. It very well takes a stance - relative to the observer/moral agent.

This is more Po-Mo doublespeak. A relative stance is not a stance, it is simply a statement of situational preference dressed up in complex language. It's not argument, it's evasion. The pseudo-intellectual's thought-terminating cliche'.

Again you are eliding into moral absolutes here. If you ask the person in Scandinavia, you can find out what their moral judgement is, and since you've said the circumstances are popular, it is likely they will judge things to be fine. But this doesn't compel me to agree with them, does it?

Evasion. You're not agreeing or disagreeing, you're simply hand-waving everything as preference, and denying the ability to make any judgement at all. Again, all you have is ochlocracy.

This error is repeated over and over. The idea that moral relativism is supposed to produce moral absolutes. It is an incorrect notion in the same way that Relativity can never produce a universal clock - the theory forbids it.

Straw man and false analogy.

They are equally valid relative to the person who holds them, yes. Unless, perhaps you suspect that expressions of morality that disagree with your own are disingenuous? That could be, I have no way to tell. My moral sense seems authentic to me, but I could be insane or something.

Congratulations; you've just equated mass murder/"ethnic cleansing" and female genital mutilation with, say, humanitarian disaster relief and civil rights. Since each is based on situational morals and ethics that are equally valid to a particular time, place, and social group. Again, morally and intellectually bankrupt post-modernist nonsense.

Again, valid to whom? On JREF we judge things one way while things are judged a different what in a different population. Moral relativity explains this quite well.

If by "moral relativity" you mean "human irrationality". On JREF, we judge things based on an objective, rational standard (or at least, we try to; not being entirely rational, we don't always succeed as well as we'd like).

And again, you say, "the clear and obvious advantages of reason" when some of the population may see those, not as advantages, but corruptions. If it were as clear and obvious as you say, wouldn't we all be singing the same happy tune?

Because people are not inherently rational. People are a variable mix of the rational and irrational. The clear and obvious advantages of reason are useful predictive value; not making people feel better about themselves and their choices. It's preferred because it creates an environment where all people are welcome to whatever they believe as long as they don't cause tangible harm to others.

I find that most objections to moral relativism are based on "not getting the right answer" without noticing the theory says there is no right answer. In other words, there's a demand to produce the very thing the concept denies exists.

More straw men. The objection has consistently been not that relativism doesn't produce the "right" answers; but that it cannot, by its very nature, produce any answers. All it can produce is irrational and ephemeral statements of personal preference. It cannot make effective predictions. Again, the entire point of rationality is to produce effective and useful predictions about the world we observe. Relativism, and post-modernism in general, cannot do this in any meaningful way, and indeed, is premised on the belief that such predictions are not possible. As such, they are little more than mental masturbation.

Polling the population doesn't produce an objective or universal moral standard, it merely produces agreement. Since we already agree we will bow to the will of the majority (mostly), it leverages this previous agreement to extract others. Labeling this the "right" answer incorrect, other than saying it's the mathematically correct answer at the time.

Again, more doublespeak. And the interesting thing about mathematics, is that it's predictable, it always produces the same answer with the same inputs. It is foundational and absolute.

Finally, who has the onus of proof here? I think it is those who believe in moral absolutes. Let's see them. If I cannot be shown a moral absolute and evidence for why it fits the bill, I must remain an atheist and claim they do not exist.

You're also inordinately focused on the idea of denying moral absolutes; when again, that's a straw man. What we're focusing on is the idea of a rational approach to the subject. The only "absolutes" here are the value of reason, and the value of human life.

Your focus on straw men ignore that the predominant arguments against capital punishment depend greatly on rational evaluation; not on emotionalism or irrational moralism (though some irrational arguments have been put forward, they are far from the majority). In fact, arguing against moral absolutes has been the focus.

Moral absolutes say that justice must be done, even if an injustice is done in a small minority of cases; based on an idiosyncratic view of justice. Reason rejects that argument as irrational and unhelpful. It is not predictive.

The rational argument against capital punishment is based on three factors: deterrence, cost, and observable error rate; as they relate to the purpose of capital punishment. Moral imperatives such as a vague and shifting notion of "punishment" or revenge are discarded as in useless for the purpose. Without those, what is the purpose? To remove a dangerous person from society, and prevent them from causing tangible harm to others, that is, causing the deaths of other persons; and preserving the rights of all who respect the rights of others. Then it must be determined what other alternatives are available; and how effective capital punishment is by comparison. As has been noted, capital punishment comes up short by all objective measures; and therefore the only arguments in favour that persist have consistently been moral ones, not rational ones.

 

[marplots]

Could you rephrase this for clarification, I was unable to parse is in any way that makes sense.

I wrote: "I'd argue that what you call "irrational relativism" exactly what you laud - a system based on objective rationality."

I believe you were referring to moral relativism (the stance I'm taking) as "irrational relativism" in contrast to a system based on objective rationality. Here I'm asserting that moral relativism is more objective and rational than the alternative, which I supposed you supported.

If you ask me whether an action is morally correct, I can observe directly, intimately, my own sense and reaction to the matter. I can then use this to inform, rationally, the proper course of action. However, other moral systems fail me because I cannot observe, directly the moral judgements of others. I can be told, or look at something written down as a moral principle, but I do not have the direct and undeniable access I only have with my own mind.

I am not abandoning relativism (relativity is the wrong word); I deny the validity of relativism. And my analysis is not flawed; you are simply evading it by denying the existence of absolutes.

Yes, I was trying to show how moral relativism can and does operate to give us the answers we require. Certainly you may deny it, but in doing so, you ought to be able to show those absolutes you are espousing. Your denial of moral relativism doesn't prove anything about moral absolutism.

This is just the usual Post-Modernist intellectual dishonesty and kowtowing to irrationality; evading an argument by denying the ability to argue. Absolutes exist, to say otherwise is profoundly ignorant; but your insistence on focusing on moral absolutes is a straw man, since those are not the absolutes being discussed here.

Certainly absolutes exist, just not moral absolutes. But if we weren't discussing moral relativism vs. absolutism, I am at a loss why you might object to polling the population when deciding whether to allow execution.

To deny any absolutes is to say that "Anything is permissible"; and to create a whimsical society based on the might of the group rather than any rational principles.

The two are not at odds. Certainly the might of the group can be just the rational principle required. But you are mistaken in thinking that "anything is permissible." Clearly, as an individual, I will have a moral code which guides my actions and frames what I believe to be permissible and not. In fact, I assume you also have such a code. Our argument is only whether I should adopt your code or you adopt mine, or both of us look to some other authoritative source and adopt that.

This is more Po-Mo doublespeak. A relative stance is not a stance, it is simply a statement of situational preference dressed up in complex language. It's not argument, it's evasion. The pseudo-intellectual's thought-terminating cliche'.

A relative stance is certainly a stance. I stand still here, where I type this, while another may be sitting still in a car traveling a hundred miles an hour down the motorway. Each of us is entitled to say we are still, relative to the context we are in. These are stances, and valid, as much as you might like to say otherwise.

Evasion. You're not agreeing or disagreeing, you're simply hand-waving everything as preference, and denying the ability to make any judgement at all. Again, all you have is ochlocracy.

Again, judgements can and are made all the time. If you ask me whether I think a thing is morally correct or incorrect, I have no trouble answering. What is missing is the insistence that my moral judgements are ultimate, eternally true, or universal. I am not required to be God or have all the answers. I am capable of change and mistake.

Congratulations; you've just equated mass murder/"ethnic cleansing" and female genital mutilation with, say, humanitarian disaster relief and civil rights. Since each is based on situational morals and ethics that are equally valid to a particular time, place, and social group. Again, morally and intellectually bankrupt post-modernist nonsense.

This again is incorrect. You are claiming the idea that in some sense, if someone thinks an action morally correct, I have to accept that it is morally correct. But I operate within the limits of my own skull - this is the power of the relative moral position. On what basis, other than your own sense of right and wrong - that same moral sense we all have - are you claiming the moral high ground? I certainly don't have to think genital mutilation is right because someone, somewhere, thinks their God wants it done. In fact, this attitude of snipping tissue has its roots in religious moral codes - absolutist codes. As far as I can see, moral absolutes only allow someone to be absolutely wrong, because they are not free to change their mind.

More straw men. The objection has consistently been not that relativism doesn't produce the "right" answers; but that it cannot, by its very nature, produce any answers.

This is false. It can theoretically produce as many answers as there are moral agents with sufficient imagination to conceive of them. Just as the question, "Where are you now?" has many answers, equally valid and correct relative to the answerer.

All it can produce is irrational and ephemeral statements of personal preference.

You are corrupting the idea of a moral sense if you think we are so capricious. I produce moral judgements in exactly the same way as I produce rational statements - they are a product of my mind. Insofar as I am rationally consistent, I can be morally so. To say they are mere personal preferences is to think we control, overtly, our own moral sense. I do not find this so. In fact, I find I am incapable of thinking (say, for the next three minutes) that killing my dog is morally justified because God hates dogs. I couldn't do it even if you offered me a million dollars to do so.

It cannot make effective predictions. Again, the entire point of rationality is to produce effective and useful predictions about the world we observe. Relativism, and post-modernism in general, cannot do this in any meaningful way, and indeed, is premised on the belief that such predictions are not possible. As such, they are little more than mental masturbation.

I do not understand your meaning here. A moral sense is input to rational analysis, not an output. Although, I would like to see how you might make it so.

You're also inordinately focused on the idea of denying moral absolutes; when again, that's a straw man. What we're focusing on is the idea of a rational approach to the subject. The only "absolutes" here are the value of reason, and the value of human life.

My rational approach to the subject was a method (polling) of acquiring an evaluation of moral sensibilities across a population - the population subject to the death penalty (or not). The value of human life is in the mix, but it too is a moral judgement: Does someone who takes a life deserve death as a consequence?

Your focus on straw men ignore that the predominant arguments against capital punishment depend greatly on rational evaluation; not on emotionalism or irrational moralism (though some irrational arguments have been put forward, they are far from the majority). In fact, arguing against moral absolutes has been the focus.

Yes. I believe the question, "Just how many innocent people is it acceptable to execute?" has a moral element, bound up in the word "acceptable."

Moral absolutes say that justice must be done, even if an injustice is done in a small minority of cases; based on an idiosyncratic view of justice. Reason rejects that argument as irrational and unhelpful. It is not predictive.

The rational argument against capital punishment is based on three factors: deterrence, cost, and observable error rate; as they relate to the purpose of capital punishment. Moral imperatives such as a vague and shifting notion of "punishment" or revenge are discarded as in useless for the purpose. Without those, what is the purpose? To remove a dangerous person from society, and prevent them from causing tangible harm to others, that is, causing the deaths of other persons; and preserving the rights of all who respect the rights of others. Then it must be determined what other alternatives are available; and how effective capital punishment is by comparison. As has been noted, capital punishment comes up short by all objective measures; and therefore the only arguments in favour that persist have consistently been moral ones, not rational ones.

You say it's rational and poo-poo a moral basis, but you are using a moral judgement about harm to inform the argument. It is just as valid to say that preventing harm isn't the purpose at all. The purpose can clearly be justice. And if you find "justice" amorphous, then so to can "harm" be. One cannot escape value judgements simply by claiming the robes of rational analysis. Harm to whom? Whose harm is greater, the physical harm of dying or the emotional harm of having a loved one killed?

I can very well claim that the purpose of capital punishment is to remove, permanently, a defective member from the human race. I can make it predictive by saying the death penalty accomplishes this purpose without compromise. Further, I can put the onus of personal choice on the guilty, arguing that they knew they might be subject to the death penalty before acting. Everything that follows is the direct, logical consequence of their actions. Direct, foreseeable, and predictable. But, although I have framed this in a logical way, the death penalty might still be wrong.

All your exercise does is take a previous moral judgement and dress it up in rational clothes to make it palatable.

 

[luchog]

If you ask me whether an action is morally correct, I can observe directly, intimately, my own sense and reaction to the matter. I can then use this to inform, rationally, the proper course of action. However, other moral systems fail me because I cannot observe, directly the moral judgements of others. I can be told, or look at something written down as a moral principle, but I do not have the direct and undeniable access I only have with my own mind.

Emphasis added.

I'm not going to bother addressing the rest of the post; since this is the core problem right here, and is typical post-modernist doublespeak gibberish. What you are claiming is "rational' is about as far from rational as you can get. Personal feelings are pretty much the definition of irrational; and to magnify that by adding the personal feelings of dozens, or hundreds, or thousands more does not make it any more rational.

By your argument, religion is inherently rational, because it's based entirely on personal "sense and reaction"; and skepticism is irrational because it de-emphasizes personal experience. That is so far from right that it's not even wrong, it's just sheer nonsense.

For a principle to be rational, it has to be testable, falsifiable, reproducible, and independent of individual interpretation. Your "moral principle" does not fit any of those criteria. Not only is not testable or falsifiable; relativism explicitly denies even the possibility of falsifiability. It is the very definition of irrational.

You claim that my position is irrational, yet I have explicitly provided the criteria on which it is based, and how it can be falsified. The only axiomatic value judgement made is "Individual human life is valuable"; because without that axiom, there can be no basis for any sort of judgement. All you have are personal anecdotes and feelings, you have not provided any evidence to refute my position; only that you "feel" that I'm wrong and you're right. There is nothing even remotely rational about that. It's personal preference, and there are few things more idiosyncratic, whimsical, and irrational than personal preference.

 

[marplots]

Emphasis added.

I'm not going to bother addressing the rest of the post; since this is the core problem right here, and is typical post-modernist doublespeak gibberish. What you are claiming is "rational' is about as far from rational as you can get. Personal feelings are pretty much the definition of irrational; and to magnify that by adding the personal feelings of dozens, or hundreds, or thousands more does not make it any more rational.

By your argument, religion is inherently rational, because it's based entirely on personal "sense and reaction"; and skepticism is irrational because it de-emphasizes personal experience. That is so far from right that it's not even wrong, it's just sheer nonsense.

For a principle to be rational, it has to be testable, falsifiable, reproducible, and independent of individual interpretation. Your "moral principle" does not fit any of those criteria. Not only is not testable or falsifiable; relativism explicitly denies even the possibility of falsifiability. It is the very definition of irrational.

We aren't at odds. Really. Any rational system has to have input. That input isn't rational all by itself. You can call it a-rational, irrational or simply an observation - it's all the same thing.

So yes, it is based on personal sense and reaction, as much as any observation about the world is. And, as any observation about my own moral sense is. You can't really say an observation is rational all by itself. It's a tree. I see a tree. The rational bit only comes afterward.

You claim that my position is irrational, yet I have explicitly provided the criteria on which it is based, and how it can be falsified.

The system is rational, but the criteria are not.

The only axiomatic value judgement made is "Individual human life is valuable"; because without that axiom, there can be no basis for any sort of judgement.

Indeed. That's the a-rational bit you need to get the ball rolling. But then, you add more when you express ranked value. Not only is human life valuable, but valuable in a special way, unlike "money is valuable" for example. These are the expressions of pre-rational moral sentiment. They are the input to the system. We are saying the same thing.

We can say that human life is valuable and still have executions. All we need to do is say the penalty to paid for the crime requires the highest value it is possible for a person to pay - the sacrifice of the remainder of their life. This is a perfectly rational outcome with a slightly different input: the idea that something is "owed" to society when a crime is committed. Revenge is certainly motivated by just such a calculation.

All you have are personal anecdotes and feelings, you have not provided any evidence to refute my position; only that you "feel" that I'm wrong and you're right. There is nothing even remotely rational about that. It's personal preference, and there are few things more idiosyncratic, whimsical, and irrational than personal preference.

I'm sorry, I thought you were expressing a personal preference for rational schemata? I don't think you are wrong, just denying something that would be apparent with a little bit of introspection. Your analysis stops short.

 

[luchog]

We aren't at odds. Really. Any rational system has to have input. That input isn't rational all by itself. You can call it a-rational, irrational or simply an observation - it's all the same thing.

More po-mo doublespeak. Irrational axioms result in an irrational conclusion, regardless of whatever twisted logic you use in the meantime.

We can say that human life is valuable and still have executions. All we need to do is say the penalty to paid for the crime requires the highest value it is possible for a person to pay - the sacrifice of the remainder of their life. This is a perfectly rational outcome with a slightly different input: the idea that something is "owed" to society when a crime is committed. Revenge is certainly motivated by just such a calculation.

We say human life is valuable because we are evolutionarily programmed to. Without that value, there is no reason for any social conventions, and particularly no reason to have a system of criminal justice, because there is no basis for determining criminality.

What other objective measure do you have to base one on?

Except that when the "input" is irrational garbage, you're not going to get a rational "output", only rationalizing output.

The rational approach is to say that, we are programmed to value human life. Therefore, how do we deal with that programming in the context of a greater society? The rational answer would be to equate to all the same level of value, and when they prove themselves incapable of allowing others the same value as themselves, to remove them from a position where they could cause tangible harm to others. Anything more than that is irrational, either personal whim or religion. The predictive value of such a position is that one can then observe the effects, and gauge any necessary adjustments to how they best achieve the desired outcome; determining principles that we refer to as "rights". Following from that, one can say that the right to life depends on an individual's respect for the life of another. If you take someone's life without cause, your right to life is forfeit and you can be penalized with the taking of your life; because you have demonstrated yourself a clear and present danger to the lives of others. That's a perfectly rational response.

However, a rational response also requires weighing human falliability as a confounding factor. There is a risk that the wrong person could be executed, resulting in an injustice equal to the original murder. Perfect justice is not possible; so one has to weigh the possibility of committing further injustice vs achieving the desired goal. What Can achieve the desired goal be achieved without capital punishment? The hypothesis is that an equivalent penalty is available that would reduce the risk of injustice -- life imprisonment. That this is a suitable substitute for capital punishment is a testable and falsifiable claim. Does it achieve the desired goal as well as capital punishment? Yes. Is it free of potentially causing an injustice? No. Is the potential injustice as bad as capital punishment? Also no. Therefore, it's a better penalty than capital punishment.

All you are doing is abstracting personal whim and religion, rationalizing that since you have personal whims or religion, any decision you make regarding them is rational. That's patently ridiculous. Garbage In, Garbage Out. Once you've started placing anything other than human life at the top of the value ladder; you've left the realm of the rational, and entered the realm of religion.

Revenge is hardly motivated by any such calculation. It's a purely emotional response motivated by fear and greed; typically dressed in the trappings of religion.

I'm sorry, I thought you were expressing a personal preference for rational schemata? I don't think you are wrong, just denying something that would be apparent with a little bit of introspection. Your analysis stops short.

Aaaaaand, more gibberish.

 

[marplots]

I clipped a sentence from one part and a couple from the end to make a point.

1) We say human life is valuable because we are evolutionarily programmed to.
(much snipped here)
2) It's [revenge] a purely emotional response motivated by fear and greed; typically dressed in the trappings of religion.

It seems to me you are arguing for an evolutionary basis when the outcome is desirable and poo-pooing it when it isn't so attractive.

Are we not instructed that many of our most base urges (rape, murder, domination of others) have a basis in evolution that hasn't moved fast enough to meet the needs of many people jammed into tribes and societies?

I do not think evolution will provide an answer to the conundrum.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

We say human life is valuable because we are evolutionarily programmed to.

I don't think you can assume that as a given.

At most we may be evolutionarily programed to defend our family/tribe, but even that seems to take second place to things like mating and food/possessions.

History is pretty clear on this topic. Today's move toward tolerance and concern for others is a relatively modern development.

Without that value, there is no reason for any social conventions, and particularly no reason to have a system of criminal justice, because there is no basis for determining criminality.

<snip>

Exactly. But it doesn't follow that there is no reason for any social conventions, only that they will be predicated on different standards than you are assuming. Same with criminal justice. It hasn't been all that long since since some humans were defined as less valuable than others by legal statute. (It's even in our own U.S. Constitution. Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3)

It could be argued that we are still fighting that battle.