|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 6, 2020 20:04:15 GMT
This brings to mind the example of the old M'naghten defence in English law that Where we can see the law at least assumes that there are times (most times in fact since the defence was only used now and again) when some one knowingly commits wrong. The "not guilty [only] by reason of insanity" idea would appear to contradict Socrates' idea. Of course one can argue that one must, by definition, be mad not to follow moral laws, but that is not something that would carry much weight in court and beg a whole host of other questions. I believe the law strays beyond its abilities in judging mens rea. I believe it should constrain itself to judging actus reus. It should leave the rest to a god. Since elsewhere you are currently insisting that god is a code of ethics then, as the defence from insanity is part of the legal code, we can assume God knows all about it.
|
|
|
Post by dividavi on Jun 6, 2020 23:33:45 GMT
Socrates was mostly correct, but not entirely. Yes, there exist those who feel that they are entitled to those things belonging to others due to unfortunate circumstances or historical injustices. They might later claim in court that they had an abusive childhood or a bad marriage that drove them to commit criminal acts; it's not really their fault.
Cleveland area bank robber Eddie Watkins (tagged "Fast Eddie") had scorn for criminals who used that argument, mainly women in his opinion. He had a conversation with Dick Feagler (WKYC-TV, Channel 3 in Cleveland) at the Mansfield State Reformatory. From my recollection Watkins said something like this:I was sitting at a bar one night in Columbus and I had a conversation with another customer. He too had spent time at Mansfield State Reformatory. He had written many fraudulent checks and had initially been sent to Lebanon Correctional Institute, a minimum security facility. He promptly escaped, got recaptured, and was relocated to Mansfield, a maximum security facility.
In the course of our conversation I asked him where he had gone wrong in his life, what mistakes he had made. He immediately answered, "I should have hired a better lawyer." He took reponsibility for his actions. He knew he had done wrong in committing the crime and in his selection of attorneys.
The third case was several years later and reported in the Akron Beacon Journal. A young black men (aged 19 or 20) had been convicted of killing another black man in the course of a drug sale gone awry. Another hearing was required to determine if he should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment. The defense attorney introduced evidence of a horrific father and his terrible abuse of the defendant. The lawyer claimed that the father had raped and beaten family members in front of other family members and had performed other depraved acts on his wife and children.
The defendant stood up and said, "My father's not like that. He didn't do any of those things. I don't care if they do give me the [Electric] chair." The defendant knew right from wrong yet he followed an evil path. He got sentenced to life as I recall.
|
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Jun 12, 2020 4:45:40 GMT
Supporters of abortion are knowingly doing evil.
Cue the predictable "but they aren't people" "we support choice" "just a clump of cells" "it's her body you bastard" responses. ::yawn::
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 12, 2020 5:03:36 GMT
Supporters of abortion are knowingly doing evil. Cue the predictable "but they aren't people" "we support choice" "just a clump of cells" "it's her body you bastard" responses. ::yawn:: Said by me in response to Sailor Jay( and his ilk if hypocritical GodBotherers) saying that women who become pregnant should adopt out their babies.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jun 12, 2020 12:09:08 GMT
I'm saving this strumpet's life by CUTTING OUT THE BAD! MWAHAHAHA!!!!
I KNOW NO BETTER! MWAAHAHAHAHAHAA
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Jun 12, 2020 16:15:00 GMT
yes.
but get groups of them together and all manner of evil is possible.
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Jun 12, 2020 16:17:52 GMT
and let us not leave out nations that vaporize innocent children in their quest for petro-dollars.
(always a moral high ground favorite within the military industrial communities)
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 14, 2020 19:10:15 GMT
Let's see what brother Satan has to say about it. ...Oh boy
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,695
Likes: 1,331
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 14, 2020 19:42:27 GMT
Supporters of abortion are knowingly doing evil. Cue the predictable "but they aren't people" "we support choice" "just a clump of cells" "it's her body you bastard" responses. ::yawn:: That doesn't refute what Socrates is saying though. Putting aside for the time being that I don't agree with you on abortion, suppose you are right that abortion is evil. Then Socrates would say those who support abortion either mistakenly think it is not evil (perhaps because they give greater moral weight to a woman's choice regarding her body than the life of a foetus), or they know it's evil but foolishly think they should not care about doing good. So supporters of abortion could be said to be doing evil unknowingly because their support is based on a lack of knowledge either as to what the good is or as to the worth of that good.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 14, 2020 21:32:32 GMT
Supporters of abortion are knowingly doing evil. Cue the predictable "but they aren't people" "we support choice" "just a clump of cells" "it's her body you bastard" responses. ::yawn:: That doesn't refute what Socrates is saying though. Putting aside for the time being that I don't agree with you on abortion, suppose you are right that abortion is evil. Then Socrates would say those who support abortion either mistakenly think it is not evil (perhaps because they give greater moral weight to a woman's choice regarding her body than the life of a foetus), or they know it's evil but foolishly think they should not care about doing good. So supporters of abortion could be said to be doing evil unknowingly because their support is based on a lack of knowledge either as to what the good is or as to the worth of that good. I think you may have confused Blade's little tiny single functioning brain cell.
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Jun 14, 2020 22:55:52 GMT
It's the one thing Socrates got wrong. I've known plenty of people who do evil for the sake of just sadistic evil. Some will claim "greed" or other motives for their sadism, but it never fits. "It's the one thing Socrates got wrong." Well that and the fact that he hated democracy There are loads of things wrong with democracy. It's just that other forms of government happen to have more things wrong with them. A couple of quotes that spring to mind (both often incorrectly ascribed to Churchill as so often happens):
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 14, 2020 23:21:47 GMT
No man knowingly does evil"- Socrates How else can evil be done if not knowingly?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 15, 2020 0:49:03 GMT
No man knowingly does evil"- Socrates How else can evil be done if not knowingly? Evil in other people's eyes and not your own?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 15, 2020 0:52:15 GMT
No man knowingly does evil"- Socrates How else can evil be done if not knowingly? Let's say some crazy religious parents refuse to take their sick kid to a doctor and rely on "healing through prayer" and end up killing their child in the process. Would you consider that evil? Obviously the parents didn't, they thought they were doing the right thing.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 15, 2020 1:40:24 GMT
How else can evil be done if not knowingly? Evil in other people's eyes and not your own? In any context.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 15, 2020 1:41:20 GMT
How else can evil be done if not knowingly? Let's say some crazy religious parents refuse to take their sick kid to a doctor and rely on "healing through prayer" and end up killing their child in the process. Would you consider that evil? Obviously the parents didn't, they thought they were doing the right thing. I would consider that stupid. Maybe evil needs to be defined.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 15, 2020 1:50:05 GMT
Let's say some crazy religious parents refuse to take their sick kid to a doctor and rely on "healing through prayer" and end up killing their child in the process. Would you consider that evil? Obviously the parents didn't, they thought they were doing the right thing. I would consider that stupid. Maybe evil needs to be defined. OK how about another example, let's say there's a serial killer that brutally murders a bunch of people. On the face of it that seems "evil", but let's say he was captured and it turned it out he had a brain tumor and once he had it removed his psychopathic behvaior and thoughts went away. Would you consider that an example of someone not knowingly doing evil?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 15, 2020 2:02:03 GMT
I would consider that stupid. Maybe evil needs to be defined. OK how about another example, let's say there's a serial killer that brutally murders a bunch of people. On the face of it that seems "evil", but let's say he was captured and it turned it out he had a brain tumor and once he had it removed his psychopathic behvaior and thoughts went away. Would you consider that an example of someone not knowingly doing evil? There are many scenarios in which the absence of a clear definition of evil muddies the waters. If I say evil is the act of intentionally causing harm for no reason other than to cause harm, would you agree?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 15, 2020 2:32:07 GMT
Evil in other people's eyes and not your own? In any context. OK. Let me spell this out. On the RFS Board we constantly discuss whether there is an 'objective' morality. Those of the theist variety mistakenly believe that there is ( God's Law in the Bible { though in the OT he killed heaps himself} 10 commandment Moses etc etc etc) Those with a more intellectual and historically knowledgeable view realise that man's morality, since the time of tribalism, through evolving societal rules and laws, is only as good as the current morals rules and mores of the day and the society they exist in. Hence it is inevitably possible that in one society ( or even within a society) that people can be unaware that their actions are 'evil ( whatever that means) and that their actions may be evil in the eyes of others and not in their own. Hence they would be unaware...so yes 'context. I am certain that Mayan native who did human sacrifice thought that they were appeasing their Gods and not doing anything wrong that we, in our society would call 'murder'.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 15, 2020 2:48:24 GMT
OK. Let me spell this out. On the RFS Board we constantly discuss whether there is an 'objective' morality. Those of the theist variety mistakenly believe that there is ( God's Law in the Bible { though in the OT he killed heaps himself} 10 commandment Moses etc etc etc) Those with a more intellectual and historically knowledgeable view realise that man's morality, since the time of tribalism, through evolving societal rules and laws, is only as good as the current morals rules and mores of the day and the society they exist in. Hence it is inevitably possible that in one society ( or even within a society) that people can be unaware that their actions are 'evil ( whatever that means) and that their actions may be evil in the eyes of others and not in their own. Hence they would be unaware...so yes 'context. I am certain that Mayan native who did human sacrifice thought that they were appeasing their Gods and not doing anything wrong that we, in our society would call 'murder'. I'm not a fan of colored statements. You know, like "mistakenly believe" and "those with a more intellectual and historically knowledgeable view." Lucky for you, however, I am not influenced by slanted descriptors; I just gloss over them. That said, does the "forgive them for they know not what they do" thing apply here? Or is it still "evil" regardless?
|
|